I guess my question for you if there is a difference between something being legal and something being illegal but those doing it are immune from prosecution.
“Counsel”, and, no, they aren't (there'd be a stronger, but not ironclad because of the reasonableness proviso, case if they were acting under guidance from the Justice Department, and given the Constitutional structure of the government, from the President himself, compared to White House Counsel, due to the general principal that the only case where ignorance of the law is an excuse under criminal law is when the mistake of law results from reasonable reliance on guidance from officials responsible for enforcing the law.)
Request for relevant citation(s).
The way I understand it is that technically the fellow upthread is technically right in the eyes of the law; until a judge rules that something is illegal, it isn't. That's a staple of common law jurisprudence. Judges discover law. It is still possible even after the finding of illegality to continue to perpetuate the activity as well given that the legislature ends up too locked up to successfully convict the President for malfeasance, and there is still no means through which the sitting President's pardon power or executive discretion can be overcome.
And again, the lack of standing issue is also alarming in that... Well, maybe you can see something is clearly wrong, but if the wronged can't file a suit in their own defense, and no one else has standing...
I don't know, I feel like I fell off a wagon after reading that post. There's a vague sense of possible loophole there.
Impeachment. Criminal prosecution by a subsequent administration. Civil prosecution by public authority if the particular illegal act is one for which their is a public cause of action. Failing all that, retaliation by a subsequent, similarly difficult-to-punish President. (The last of which, obviously, is obviously fraught, but it's there...)
Source? As far as I am able to tell, this is false; as in it is not that they are immune from prosecution, but that prosecution has never occurred.
Clearly, if war crimes were ever brought, regardless of the laws, commands, etc - it would have not resulted in being immune from prosecution.
Actually one of the areas they have the most immunity. Bush passed the "American Service-Members' Protection Act," authorizing unlimited use of force/resources to free any US personnel being detained by the ICC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
They don't need immunity from ignorance, they have a blanket immunity.
As for the case you cited, it was a civil suit, therefore ruling only covers civil law, not criminal. That said, does not protect "the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". [1]
All Presidents are fully aware by law their powers are limited, no reasonable official would claim otherwise. No reasonable person or official would claim their actions were legal, hence why they knowingly hid them from FISA & Congress.
[1] Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
The President does not have the power to fire federal prosecutors serving in subsequent administrations. It's true that you've provided the explanation for why (even without the DoJ opinion which currently prohibits filing charges against a sitting President) it is dubious that a President could effectively be held criminally accountable while in office.
After he leaves office, his only protection is relying on political concerns, or an anticipatory pardon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co...
That being, “The President did not have the inherent authority to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress.”
My rewording, “The President [does] not have the inherent authority to [do anything] in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on [them] by Congress.”