But, but other people who have consequential jobs and who
are required to follow the law make those determinations against
the backdrop of that same kind of risk.
So what is it about the president?
I mean, I've heard you say it's because the president
has to be able to act boldly.
Do, you know, make kind of consequential decisions?
I mean, sure. But again,
there are lots of people who have to make life
and death kinds of decisions,
and yet they still have to follow the law.
And if they don't? They could be sent to prison,
et cetera, et cetera. So I say two things in
response.
Yes, it was from Fitzgerald.
That's the very sort of inference or reasoning at this
court rejected in Fitzgerald.
No, but let me just Fitzgerald was a civil situation
in which the president actually was in a different position
than other people because of the nature of his job,
the high profile nature and the fact that he touches
so many different things.
When you're talking about private civil liability,
you know anybody on the street can sue him.
We could see that the president was sort of different.
Than the ordinary person. When you say should he be
immune from civil liability from anybody who wants to sue
him?
But when we're talking about criminal liability,
I don't understand how the president stands in any different
position with respect to the need to follow the law
as he is doing his job than anyone else.
He he is required to follow the law and there's
no criminal prosecution.
If there's no threat of criminal prosecution,
what prevents the president from just doing whatever he wants?