Earlier quoted context omitted.
> all men being subject to the law was pretty explicit purpose of the founding of america. I mean, they had a whole revolution about it. I don't think it is a feasible claim. Revolutionaries, by definition it seems to me, believe some men and the enacting of their principles are above the law. A revolutionary is someone who illegally revolts against the current law. And formally recognising presidential immunity isn'…
I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the law to distinguish between official acts taken in an honest attempt to benefit the nation, and those taken to corruptly and brazenly benefit oneself.
And US presidents have a long history of corruptly and brazenly benefiting themselves. Sometimes you see those before-and-after charts showing how much money they make while in office in excess of the official salary. The typical modern US president makes at least 10 of million in office and it isn't from the salary. Nobody likes it, but there is an open question of what exactly can be done about it.