Jack Smith also just fucked up the prosecution. The Supreme Court was going to find some sort of official acts immunity existed. There is implied official acts immunity for judges in the U.S. And official acts immunity for executives is typical in the developed world. The EU for example has official acts immunity for “officials and servants,” though the scope is fuzzy: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-high-flyers-face-fresh-do....

Jack Smith’s indictment mixed together conduct, like the sitting President consulting with his AG about suspected voter fraud, that clearly would fall within the scope of immunity, with stuff that was clearly not an official act. I don’t know if he was dumb or arrogant, but it was an insane tactical error.

Official immunity is tough and there’s no clear answer. The old canard that “a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich” has a lot of truth to it. As between a potentially criminal, but duly elected President, and a potentially corrupt, and unelected prosecutor, which one is the bigger risk? There’s a strong argument that it’s better to have elections be the final backstop rather than the judgment of unelected prosecutors being able to override voters.