so. i will be deleting all of this eventually. before i go?
considering policy prevailing over the law and doctrine prevailing over the constitution might be a place to start.
there's the obama administration citing policy as preventing them from holding then Presidential hopeful donald from being investigated for his success inciting violence at his hate rallies. there's trump's subsequent administration then instituting a policy to separate migrant children from their families as a "deterrent". apparently another policy has prevented the doj from ever investigating or indicting a President thus preventing their accountability under the law since nixon's administration.
three supreme court cases come to mind: citizens, gamble, and dobbs. in citizens united v. fec our supreme court failed to recognize that the documentary in contention had been funded with non-profit, political money. in gamble v. the united states the supreme court failed to recognize gamble's fifth amendment right to not be held twice in jeopardy by claiming a doctrine describing "separate sovereigns" was somehow relevant. in dobbs v. jackson women's health organization the court simply failed to recognize women as having the right to receive, by consent, medical care.
five of these are potentially felony offenses. obstruction is an easy felony. deprivation of rights under color of authority would also be felonious.
if a President can be impeached by congress for crimes, has no constitutional protection from prosecution, can the President be indicted and charged? how about a supreme court justice? isn't their protection against prosecution the same as ours: simply not breaking the law.
i don't accept the doj's insistence of "independence". their authority devolves from Presidential authority and administration to meet Presidential responsibilities. however, the President is far from being immune to legal recourse and (as any government official) is impeachable in addition to being accountable under the law. pretty certain that the justices of our supreme court accepted much the same with their acceptance of the responsibilities of their employ.
may come back to clean up my writing here. i'm not in any hurry.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=citizens+united+v+fec
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=gamble+v+united+states
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dobbs+v+jackson+womens+health+organization
of those cases citizens united may stand only as acceptable mercy shown by the court in a specific instance and not as an applicable precedent simply because the court failed to recognize (much less argue) the nature of the funds that produced the documentary in question. it's likely not criminal malfeasance (or even malfeasance) for the court to show mercy in a case, just poorly cited if done so to argue for breaking federal election commission regulations and related statutes.