>>>I strongly disagree - and provide a link to the whole article below.
>
>Unlike you, I've actually read that and challenge you (again) to provide the complete unclipped statement you say means POTUS cannot be indicted, period.
>
>>>..but are you interested in WHY this guy was magically added to the list? Why would Trump do that? Why add THIS guy? hmmmmm....
>
>Do I want to participate in a conspiracy theory because you say he was "magically" added to the list, why, hmmmmmmm? No thanks. I'm more interested in whether he's the sort of legalist the Republic needs to save itself.

Do you want to hear from the witnesses or just ignore evidence? Do you want to find out whether he's lied in these hearings?

>>>Note that he advocates for a congressional statute that would exempt the president from civil suits while in office, as well as immunizing him from criminal investigation and prosecution.
>
>Which clearly is at odds with your insistence that he thinks POTUS already is immune. Are we getting somewhere?
>
>>> He also talks about the prospect of a criminal trial of a sitting president, saying it would "cripple the federal government".
>
>Which it would. But he refers to a sitting president, meaning the objections retreat once s/he leaves office. Or s/he can be impeached. Which I agree is what Kavanaugh did say in his opinion- which matches both mainstream Justice Dept opinions on the matter and is not the extreme viewpoint you alleged.

I think I agree with you here on this for the most part - however this is something that has not been tested in the courts. Justice dept opinions are trumped by supreme court rulings. There is also the thinking that no one, even the president, is above the law.

So - this hasn't been tested by the courts - Trump is in hot water via Muller - and we know Kavanaugh's views. Kavanaugh gets added to the list after Muller. It's not rocket science lol.
And really if you think about it if your sitting president can be indited for crimes you've got a constitutional crisis happening already.