[BatmansMom]

I thought the strict constructionist arguments fell apart when the dissent quoted the Constitution which says even if a president is impeached, they “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7

I don't see how any interpretation of this text could imply that the president is immune from criminal prosecution. It clearly says a president is not immune from criminal penalties, how could they write this while also considering the president immune for offical acts?

[awb]

Here’s the whole clause:

> Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

So I think the intended process is that congress must impeach and convict first, and then after that they are subject to criminal prosecution.

So I’m guessing that the Federal government or US State can’t unilaterally prosecute the President for an official act if they haven’t been impeached.