"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

snip

The gist of it is that FISA didn't and doesn't limit a President's
authority to act timely.
I haven't heard any compelling or authoritative argument that even sitting
President's are imune from oversight.
It's a transparency thing as well Ed.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it would be good
for the country, and I doubt if you could get a conviction. If I understand
you accurately, you think it would be good, and you're not as concerned
about getting a conviction as you are about having a trial.

I see it as divisive, at just the wrong time. And I don't think you'd be
able to avoid having it look like political retribution, to many US citizens
as well as to the rest of the world. The fine points are not going to be
nearly as visible as are the facts that it's a constitutional argument and
that we're willing to imprison those with whom we don't agree about
constitutional interpretations. It isn't as if they were simply enriching
themselves or arresting members of the opposition. If anything, proposing it
as "justice" will breed a lot of cynicism and resentment within the US
itself.

The Constitution has provided for these things while they're occurring, by
means of impeachment and trial. Congress had that opportunity but didn't act
upon it. Now it's done, and the political process will undo as much of it as
possible. To hold criminal trials after the fact is iffy.

--
Ed Huntress