Protection from obviously fraudulent lawfare to the degree that you'd need evidence so solid that a trial would be unnecessary, not to mention at the risk of sedition charges if you fail (A SET OF STEAK KNIVES)? Absolutely.
OK, but functionally the difference between total immunity and a pre-trial "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is with total immunity the president has to be impeached by congress before trial, whereas with the standard you suggest, one judge can go "yeah, you met the standard, he's guilty." And if you think my second scenario is absurd, this is literally what happened in his New York fraud case.
Immunity? Hell no.
Protection from obviously fraudulent lawfare to the degree that you'd need evidence so solid that a trial would be unnecessary, not to mention at the risk of sedition charges if you fail (A SET OF STEAK KNIVES)? Absolutely.
OK, but functionally the difference between total immunity and a pre-trial "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is with total immunity the president has to be impeached by congress before trial, whereas with the standard you suggest, one judge can go "yeah, you met the standard, he's guilty." And if you think my second scenario is absurd, this is literally what happened in his New York fraud case.
I agree with your take wholeheartedly.
I am also against Trump being prosecuted by Democrat lawfare but what Trump is asking for from the Supreme Court would be a disaster if granted.
The Presidency must not become a dictatorship where you receive full immunity for even actual crimes committed.