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...)