Just thoughts, mind you. 1. Public Official immunity is traditionally limited to civil causes not criminal ones. Nevertheless, Presidents have killed people with dismaying regularity since the founding. 2A. The U.S. constitution states that the federal government may not deprive anyone of his life, liberty or property without due process of law. This should constrain any immunity claims where constitutional protections extend. 2B. In general, constitutional protections do not extend beyond the territory of the United States. Suppose our Supreme Court takes that approach?
Because anyone can sue anyone for anything, presidents (and other officials) need immunity from civil suits for actions within their duties. But that's it. Actions outside their duties should not be protected. Nor should crimes or torts. Trump is not immune.
Well...um. Suppose a President orders a missile attack on a rebel radar station in Yemen and one of the rebels killed is a dual U.S. Yemeni citizen? Should the President be subject to an indictment for homicide? Immunity is unavoidable but drawing a line is hard.
No, I don’t think Trump is immune for his criminal acts in attempting to interfere with the count on Jan. 6. But then, I don't think Geo. W. Bush should be immune from being prosecuted for his illegal, unnecessary, fraudulent, and self serving invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless no law enforcement agency inside the U.S. pursued any such charge. The notion would be seen as absurd.
