Maniac64 posted...
"Just impeach the person doing a military coup" is so stupid.
How exactly is that a solution? You think they won't use the military to shut down the impeachment hearing also?
It got worse. Later, Barrett of all people picked up where Kagan let off and presented the hypothetical (kinda paraphrased because I'm working from memory of listening to the arguments so I'm probably a bit off on the wording):
Barrett: "Using Justice Kagan's example let's say a president orders a military coup. Let's say that, for the sake of argument, he is impeached and convicted for it. Your position is that even then they would not be subject to criminal prosecution unless there was a statue that clearly stated the President could not do so?"
Sauer: "There would need to be a clear statement, yes."
Background: Another thing that Trump's legal team was arguing here was that unless a law explicitly says the President is subject to a criminal law (a "clear statement of Congress") that they can not be prosecuted for it. A law saying "anyone" or "any person" doesn't count - it has to explicitly name the President.