I don''t believe you. So you telling me he can shoot someone on site, camera's roiling and not be arrested on the spot?
When it comes to the law there can be many different interpretations, but basically...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...e-prosecuted-probably/?utm_term=.61fa4d555c11
"First in 1973 with President Richard M. Nixon, and then again in 2000 with President Bill Clinton, the OLC (The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC))
determined that the indictment or prosecution of a sitting president “would be unconstitutional because it would impermissibly interfere with the President’s ability to carry out his constitutionally assigned functions.” Despite its Nixon-era origins, the theory is not that the president is above the law, but rather that any criminal case must wait until after he or she leaves office.
The issue is one of separation of powers. Although the Constitution sets out a mechanism by which Congress may remove the president — the impeachment process — any attempt to prosecute the commander in chief before he or she leaves office would, in the OLC’s view, constitute an unworkable intrusion into the president’s core responsibilities. Both in 1973 and 2000, the OLC analysis noted that the presidency is unique because the executive branch is ultimately led by a singular figure on call and on the job 24 hours a day, unlike Congress or the judiciary. If one or more members of the legislative or judicial branches are temporarily distracted, others on the job can step in to keep business going.
Not everyone agrees with the OLC’s view of the law. Hofstra law professor Eric Freedman, for instance,
has argued that the office’s interpretation “is inconsistent with the history, structure, and underlying philosophy of our government, at odds with precedent, and unjustified by practical considerations.”