"Litigated" in the sense of some motion practice of lawyers writing stuff and arguing about Immunity, but not "litigated" in the sense of an actual trial. The entire point of immunity is that it is improper to have that matter tried at all.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't think the conservative blogosphere is doing us any favors by characterizing the evidence and facts the way they have. They are clearly spinning matters of intent and judgment as if they are uncontroverted facts.
Nobody ever convinces anyone of anything here, and I understand I'm really swimming upstream on this one in particular. So all I'll say is that when the dust settles from all this, Obama will not end up indicted for any of his actions as President related to this. Even if they find some compliant district court judge, it will never survive appeal.
Whether or not that is "right" or "just" isn't the issue I'm debating. I'm just saying that's what the law actually is.
“Whether or not that is “right” or “just” isn’t the issue I’m debating. I’m just saying that’s what the law actually is.”
That’s exactly what I wanted to know.
I find that very scary no matter who holds the office.
Thanks.
L