Though Trump does concede that he could be prosecuted if he were first impeached and convicted.

But when he was impeached the first time (withholding aid, obstructing congress, ignoring subpoenas, attempting to bribe zelensky to announce an investigation into Biden), they voted not to convict with specific intention that he should be tried before a jury…

So congress openly refuses to convict, but Trump says he’s immune from criminal conviction unless congress convicts.

Sounds like this immunity is a fast track to dictatorship.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Trump’s lawyers seek to blur the line between civil lawsuits — the president actually is immune from being sued for official actions taken while in office — and criminal prosecutions.

Under the Supreme Court’s precedents, all government officials, from a rookie beat cop all the way up to the president, enjoy some degree of immunity from federal lawsuits filed by private citizens.

As the Supreme Court held in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

So Trump is seeking an entirely novel form of immunity, one that has never been recognized by any court, and one that would strip away the consequences of violating the criminal law if a president decides to wield his authority like a tyrant.

But he warns that “American democracy is entering a perilous period of extreme polarization — one in which less malfeasant presidents may face frivolous, politicized prosecutions when they leave office.”

There is nothing to be gained by giving the current Supreme Court more time to deliberate over what broad legal framework should apply when a former president is charged with a crime.

The original article contains 1,675 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 87%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!