1. Story addressed immunity when the POTUS was acting in the discharge of his duties. Fitzgerald was cited in Clinton for the proposition that there is a difference when a POTUS is performing an "official" vs. an "unofficial" act. Immunity attaches to the former not the later.
2. Clearly, private sexual misconduct that was alleged in Clinton & which took place before he was POTUS was "unofficial" and, therefore, did not give rise to a constitutionally-based presidential immunity from civil lawsuit while in office.
3. Similarly, if T engaged in criminal conduct (either before or after becoming POTUS), that conduct was "unofficial." Or in J. Story's words not in "the discharge of his duties" as POTUS. Accordingly, T isn't constitutionally immune from a criminal prosecution while in office.
4. While the only onstitutional means for "removing" a sitting POTUS is impeachment or the 25th Am., indictment (indeed trial & conviction without imprisonment) do not result in "removal" per se. But, like in Clinton, the judge presiding over the prosecution would have to ...
5. ... schedule the criminal court proceedings so as to not result in too much interference with T's presidential duties. This may be difficult. But it's not impossible. Especially when one considers the fact that T spends a significant amount of time at Mar-a-Lago playing golf.
6. Bottom Line: Rotunda was correct: A sitting POTUS is not absolutely immune from criminal prosecution. The biggest obstacle for Mueller & Rosenstein are the OLC memos & the internal policy of the DOJ regarding their binding effect. But the Constitution itself ...
7. ... doesn't provide T with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution while in office. If it did, he would be immune from prosecution for committing murder, rape, or other serious, violent felonies. Also, remember, OLC memos are irrelevant to state criminal prosecution.
8. And T can't attempt a self-pardon for state criminal prosecution. State criminal prosecution while in office would raise first impression constitutional issue that SCOTUS would have to decide. But if T's criminal conduct is serious enough & is established BARD, ...
9. ... the Constitution should not provide absolute immunity from state (or federal) prosecution lest the lessons of the Nixon-Clinton opinions that no one is above the law is mere meaningless rehtoric.
