Biggest News aggregator with 200 million news articles | vimarsana.com
first of all, i couldn't possibly agree with it because my position supported bide many scholars and opposed by other scholars is once a person is out of office he or she is not subject to impeachment, so it couldn't be that down the road a person -- if a president was found to have been in office ordered a hit on a political opponent, that president would then have to be impeached and convicted before it could be prosecuted. it wouldn't be an official act. there's no possible way any conception of immunity could see that within the outer perimeter of an official act. i think he wasn't prepared for the -- >> how do you define official act, though? because i do think that is going to be one of the thorniest issues here. trump is claiming that -- even though i should note that trump later said he was working in his personal capacity as a candidate, but how do you define it? because that is a major issue before this court right now. >> i don't think there's any real definition of it. what the court said in nixon vs. fitzgerald, for example -- >> but that's a civil case. >> that's right.