Again, there's a difference between "the prosecution will probably lose" and "the President is immune from the suit."

--------------------

Agreed. This conversation in the press and probably many forums like this frequently cross two separate issues:

* is it POSSIBLE for me to be CHARGED with a crime (and incur the expenses thereof)
* is it POSSIBLE / LIKELY for me to be CONVICTED of a crime (much higher standard)

If we are trying to shield presumably "good" individuals in elected office from the harm of malicious attempts at PROSECUTION by opponents simply hoping to harass them via judicial means and possibly bankrupt them with legal fees, then explicitly declaring certain types of "official acts" as immune from prosecution serves that purpose.

If we are trying to shield the COUNTRY from the acts of a potentially VERY BAD actor becoming President and using the already vast and ambiguous powers of that office for PERSONAL gain or for exacting harm on enemies, then explicitly NARROWING or REMOVING assumptions of immunity is a wiser course of action.

Perhaps the real philisophical debate to be had involves this question: Who is deserving of a wider margin of error? An individual holding the office of President and their presumption of innocence to the point of not being able to even prosecute them? Or We The People, in our right to assume the person elected to the Presidency will stay so far away from the line between ethical / moral / legal behavior and the other that if someone wants to make the charge, well, that's part of the deal of becoming President?

The founders of this country reflected a great deal of understanding of individual human nature when they devised the set of checks and balances between the branches of the American government. Those levers and knobs provided a proper balance between the immediate responsiveness and more calm, cool-headed thinking required to fend off a wide variety of individual and group corruption in government.

What the founders did NOT fathom when devising these checks and balances is a scenario when a vast portion of the electorate might actively, KNOWINGLY elect someone of such low moral caliber to office AND elect a supporting cast who have been rigging the judiciary for decades with people willing to support the abuse of a "unitary" President with nearly unlimited powers.

It seems 100% certain the USSC will continue backing the consolidation of power within the Presidency with the thought their preferred choice might regain power. It's up to the voters to see the cards on the table and the hands dealt and vote appropriately. No one can say they weren't warned of the consequences.

WTH