meanwhile every criminal inciter and terrorist seems to get a get out of jail card, thanks to fat alvin, or some other soros DA, like Matthew Graves

Who gets to decide what is within the authority of the office of president? Especially if the sitting President is the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country?

Well, there’s your problem right there.

To Dems, this is not a problem, it’s a feature.

}}} What effect will the decision have on the conduct and vulnerability of lesser officials, federal, state and local or will there be different standards?

What letter followed their names on the ballot, if elected, and who did they vote for, if not?

Aye, there’s the rub.

CC(TM) will pursue him to the depths of Hell. It’s his soul’s work.

It has detained non violent protesters without trial and put them before tribunals that would be repugnantly unbalanced in any other country

It murdered some protesters and drove others to suicide with their cruelty

First, it only applies for official acts to the outer perimeter of Presidential responsibilities. Thus, instigating and oversight sparking a debate by Congress on the previous elections security and validity (ie, J6) remains definitely within the realm of presidential immunity (cf, oath of office, he’s charged with with the “faithful execution of the law”, something both Biden and Majorkas have clearly violated on immigration.)

Second, Team Trump lawyers contend that if non-official Presidential conduct that may be tortious or criminal, he is still liable after Presidential term of office for prosecution.

Third, while impeachment is the Congress prerogative, it can challenge offensive conduct — criminal or not — subject only to a Senate supermajority vote (or, two-thirds) for conviction and removal from office.

The abject problem with qualified immunity is that holding Trump to this level easily implies that Obama and others like Cabinet members and others at the highest official levels (eg, Senate approved) are also subject to prosecution while in office.

The only remaining fuzzy area is the 25th Amendment, which requires a series of officials to mutually decide on suspending Presidential powers.

As of now, this has only been used twice for medical sedation and recovery from surgical procedures to the President.

Using it for psychological or psychiatric intervention has been much advocated by the histrionic far Left against Trump. I’m betting it will be used in this way, eventually.

The muddled benefit consequences has won out, thus far, resulting in no such use.

At least Smith’s position makes sense strategically, if not legally or logically. If the case has to go back to the judge for a finding of fact about whether Trump’s activities were official, it delays the case until after the election.

I don’t get Trump’s position, though. Either he thinks he’s going to lose on an “official action” analysis and therefore has to take the absolutist position, or it’s a case of Trump being Trump.

Either way – whose idea was it to nominate this guy for president again anyway?