The writing is on the wall and many Americans can't see it.

[Beastly Boy]

82. The clause refers explicitly to all crimes and it explicitly excepts cases of impeachment from that

clause. It is pretty clear from the language of the clause that impeachments are not subject to a criminal trial by jury.

But I am beginning to see your point: what if the crime in question is a petty crime or misdemeanor not subject to impeachment? And what if the subject of impeachment never comes up in Congress while the president remains in office?

In these two exceptions, the process becomes wide open and untested. To begin with, Congress can claim, depending on circumstances, conflict of interests or violation of separations of powers even before any grand jury is seated or impeachment proceedings are announced. if Congress doesn't but announces their intent to impeach for identical charges, at any time before the verdict is reached in court, it is highly likely that the outcome will be the same: the court will have to yield jurisdiction to Congress. This will not preclude the federal prosecutors from investigating the case, but it will likely prevent the courts from seating a grand jury or reaching a verdict.

Petty crimes and misdemeanors are usually adjudicated on a state level, and wouldn't involve federal prosecutors. In this case , it would be up to individual states to seek an indictment or not, as long as the crime in question occurred on the territory of that state.

And, of course, nothing (except a presidential pardon) precludes federal prosecutors from indicting a former president.

So I must concede, indicting a sitting president is conceivable, however unlikely and fruitless, with SCOTUS eventually getting involved. In practical terms, however, I don't see it amounting to anything more than a difference without distinction.