J: so for private acts, no immunity. For official acts, there's immunity. So the line drawing problem we're having with the hypotheticals is being necessitated by that assumption. If official acts didn't get absolute immunity, we wouldn't have to worry about drawing the line. So we're assuming official acts get immunity. Why is it that POTUS would not be required to follow the law when he's performing his official act? We know POTUS has the best lawyers in the world, and when he's making a decision he can consult with them to know if its illegal. So how can we say a POTUS can just do any official act and be immune? What is it about POTUS as opposed to other people with consequential jobs - what about POTUS means he doesn't have to follow the law where other officials do? Sauer: Well Fitzgerald... J: that was civil. Private civil liability. We can see how POTUS is different. But about criminal liability, how does POTUS stand in any different position to follow the law if everyone else has to? Sauer: all the checks: public oversight, impeachment, congressional oversight... J: I'm not sure that's much of a backstop. You're worried about POTUS being chilled. I'm worried about the opposite effect. Knowing there'd be no penalty for committing crime, what would stop turning the oval office into the seat of crime in the country? If the potential for criminal liability were taken off the table, wouldn't that embolden future presidents to commit crimes? Once we say "no criminal liability", I'm worried we have a worse problem than any "chill".
