Perhaps I misunderstanding something. I thought the question that the court was trying to decide is if the president could be prosecuted for crimes he committed while in office, after his term ends.
Yeah they are making it extra muddy by trying to conflate the 2. But the conflation between in-office / out-of-office as well as part of his duties/ nothing to do with his duties.
Isn’t that besides the point?
The question is if
hea president should be legally not-allowed to order the hit, but be immune from prosecution if he did order it anyway.Perhaps I misunderstanding something. I thought the question that the court was trying to decide is if the president could be prosecuted for crimes he committed while in office, after his term ends.
Yeah they are making it extra muddy by trying to conflate the 2. But the conflation between in-office / out-of-office as well as part of his duties/ nothing to do with his duties.