Imagine if Trump couldn’t be indicted for money laundering until he stepped down.
Let’s turn that around an imagine if he could.
If he could, then the entire system of checks and balances goes out the window. The Courts, the unelected, the appointed for lifetime courts, become the most powerful entity of the three.
That notion makes your “Ukraine” look like a civil libertarian’s paradise.
Why? Well, FIRSTLY, preparing for legal proceedings, at these sorts of stratospheric levels, is a full time job for not just the accused’s lawyers, but the accused themselves. So the President would be spending all his time working with his lawyers preparing his/her defense, not running the country.
(Now, for those of you who believe that Trump not having time to run the country is a feature, not a bug, I would challenge you to think a bit longer into the future than your own noses.)
SECONDLY, because you’ve now turned “bring legal proceedings against any President of the opposite party” into the Book of Political Strategies, you can rest assured that every opposition party, on the day the President of the other party is inagurated, brings legal proceedings of any sort up against him/her. Why? Because even if you lose, you run out the clock and prevent the President from conceiving of policies your party doesn’t like.
Presidents are limited by their waking hours. If you recall, the 9/11 Commission came to the conclusion that US’s response to the Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam bombings was weak, a failure, and incomplete, and in part led up to the events of 9/11 itself. Why, did they find, was our response weak, a failure, and incomplete? Because the President’s attention was divided at the time, preparing for depositions in the Lewinsky matter.
Further, your contention, that not being able to indict a sitting president, means that the President is above the rule of law, is nonsensical. The President remains accountable to the people at all times. If Trump, for example, were actually and credibly accused of money laundering (that’s a bit of a wet dream on your part, but let’s go with it), his support would erode (like Nixon’s did) and the calculus among the GOP politicians changes from “defend the president” to “he’s a liability, let’s dump him”. Leading to impeachment.
The parties don’t care about their President; they care about their next election. Stop attributing to them noble objectives they do not have.
This is banana republic behavior, and you appear to want to bring it to our shores. No thank you.
In short, granting political office holders immunity from prosecution, then relying on their colleagues to remove them would turn America into Russia and render our elections meaningless.
Straw man argument alert. (Throws the penalty flag down.)
Nobody implied that this no-indict concept applied to “political office holders”. This legal theory refers to the PRESIDENT ONLY. So, there’s no chance of us “rendering our elections meaningless”.
So, that renders the rest of your dreadfully puerile and uninformed screed meaningless as well.