The Constitution says that in cases of impeachment, "the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." It does not except the president. But what impeachable offenses aren't covered by the new doctrine of immunity?
Barrett's concurrence at least leaves a trial imaginable, but Roberts' controlling majority opinion ends up defining everything one might impeach a president for as either immune from criminal prosecution or impossible to prove because of the new limits on evidence and ban on considering motive.
I'm not saying that the opinion limits impeachment. It doesn't do that.
I'm saying that it renders impossible what the Constitution explicitly contemplates, which is that the same offense would be grounds for impeachment and, subsequently, for a criminal trial.
In 2011, President Obama assassinated US citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman (also a US citizen) with no due process. He has never been held accountable.
