RIP American Democracy

[Igel]

31. That's every president.

I'd be more concerned had there been a history of criminal prosecutions of presidents throughout history, a long history of prosecutions that would now be curtailed.

The parallel argument is that if a president is acting with constitutional authority, Congress has no authority to pass laws against it, prosecutors have no grounds for prosecution, and the courts have no authority to pass judgment. Because that would be overruling the constitution. The less clearly constitutional the actions are, the more open to prosecution, so there's a gradient between "nobody can prosecute" and "maybe somebody could."

It's been pointed out that the difference between an assertion of immunity and an assertion of lack of ability for anybody to prosecution or sentence boils down to describing the same situation using different words, except one uses constitutional reasoning and the other doesn't.