@Jaxk I would be interested to hear why you believe that a criminal trial would bring the government to a standstill. Do we not have a Vice President that is supposed to be able to take over the reins at a moments notice? Do we not have both the Legislature and the Courts that would continue to function regardless? Do we not have the ability to replace the “head of state” every four years and if so, how indispensable can such a person be? Four years, three years, two years, one year how much difference would it really make?
I also have a hard time understanding how placing someone on trial will “endanger National Security”. Could you please elaborate?
@zenvelo, the same question as re: the claim of SCOTUS and the disruption of the operation of the country.
@Yellowdog, you state that “The office of president requires that the president be allowed to act in the interest and protection of the nation, its borders, the safety of its citizens, etc etc without having a series of obstructions and detractions at every turn. The functioning of the nation depends on it.” Are you saying that regardless of the actions of the President he (or she) can do no wrong, or rather, that whatever they do, regardless of it, it must be considered as having the interest of the nation at its core and is therefore cannot be prosecuted? It is as if you were saying that the President could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and could not be tried for it until the end of his term because doing so would be detrimental to the functioning of the government. I don’t think this is what you actually mean, but this is how it comes across. I would be very interested to hear your take on it and find out exactly where you would draw the line between prosecutorial actions and non-prosecutorial ones.