“It says, in effect, that any President that we really, really need to subject to any other law can be kicked out of office and subjected to that law.”
Um, not quite. It doesn’t say that explicitly, nor does it explicitly declare that the President cannot be prosecuted for a crime. It only specifies a procedure that can be used to remove a president from office. Scholars are divided on the question of presidential immunity. However, the Supreme Court has already established that a president is indeed subject to subpoenas. See the Paula Jones case.
“The issue isn’t the incidental distraction of a bona fide investigation; it’s the intentional distraction of a bogus investigation.”
Hmm… interesting argument. It doesn’t sway me because bogus investigations — that is, investigations pursued for strictly political purposes, such as many of the investigations into Ms. Clinton’s activities, are a well-established mechanism in our political culture. My own position on this is the opposite of yours: that the imperative of maintaining the rule of law demands that we not impede such investigations.
“…if so, I have no problem with an order against his interests.”
OK, so we are in agreement on this point.