be that acts of war are squarely within the constitutional powers given to the president. so instead, the government is arguing here, and they have to be very nuanced, is saying that look, the absolute immunity that this particular defendant is arguing for does not exist. and they will probably be happy to leave for another day, what extent of immunity implies to a former president after he's out of office. because we all agree there are some things for which a former president must be immune from -- criminal prosecution after he leaves office. the government's position is just, it is not what this president did while he was in office. the former president's argument is essentially, it goes back to a nixon era case which is anything he does with any outer perimeter of presidential axes immune forever. the challenge there is that particular case really only applied to civil liability. it hasn't been extended to criminal responsibility. so the bottom line is, we know
Related Keywords
President , Immunity , Government , Defendant , War , Look , Facts , Powers , Office , Extent , Things , Argument , Prosecution , Position , Isn T The Case , Line , Anything , Case , Responsibility , Challenge , Perimeter , It Hasn T , Liability , Axes Immune Forever ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.