I don't think the above clip captures exactly what I've heard on CNN which I would loosely paraphrase as "If anything I do as President can be subsequently subject to prosecution, I have no incentive to act: analysis/paralysis." He uses as an example Obama's drone strikes: maybe the one that killed a wedding party overseas. [I have to respond to Trump's blatant hypocrisy here: "[D]rone strikes can only occur legally in designated areas of operation. Under Obama, these included Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Trump expanded these areas to include Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Libya.... when aggregating the findings from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism for strike data from 2016-2018 in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, it can be determined that, at a minimum, around 150 civilians were killed." Obama's strikes over 8 years allegedly resulted in 400-800 civilian deaths. Trump didn't want reports on civilian casualties. This is the same guy who ran on an America First platform and is currently claiming credit for "no new wars".]
Strictly speaking, from a Constitutional point of view, there is no such thing as Presidential immunity. Like abortion, it appears nowhere in the Constitution. Federal legislators, except for limited exceptions like treason, do enjoy immunity by Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 (this is part of the design of the balace of power; imagine, for instance, if Trump could have his political opposition arrested). In fact, it is very clear that the Founders specifically did NOT exempt Presidents from prosecution. Consider this excerpt from Aticle 1 Section 3 Clause 7 discussing impeachment:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
That is, conviction in a Senate trial only provides a limited number of sanctions, but the President can also be prosecuted separately with other, additional sanctions prescrbed by law. This implies in context equality under the law: the President is not exempt from prosecution by virtue of his (former) position. I don't think that you can argue that the right to prosecute is contingent on Senate conviction or that it is arbitrarily restricted to charges of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors.
In fact, as I have previously written, this was precisely the point behind why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. Nixon's resignation preempted a final House impeachment vote and subsequent Senate trial. Ford's pardon was unpopular and likely was a factor in Ford's 1976 reelection loss.
This doesn't mean that the Supreme Court hasn't allowed some claims (primarily civil vs. criminal) of Presidential immunity, particularly within the scope of official duties. But Trump routinely asserted sweeping powers and duties beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. There is zero basis, for instance, in Trump's unconstiutional attempts to reverse 2020 election losses in Georgia and elsewhere, his pressure to have Pence not recognize official electoral college results from key states, etc., fell within his official duties as POTUS. These were self-serving actions to work around the Twelfth Amendment (Pence) or constitutionally protected authority and responsibility of the states to conduct elections, and I would argue violated his oath of office.
I don't have problems with Trump as POTUS worrying about prosecution of his criminal misconduct. The whole purpose of laws and criminal sanctions is to deter bad behavior. Trump's argument that after being acquitted in a POLITICAL trial means a subsequent CRIMINAL trial constitues double jeopardy is absurd. (Among other things, the impeachment charge was different, not to mention impeachment sanctions. Note also a number of Republican senators did not join the conviction majority on the grounds Trump was no longer POTUS.) Now why did SCOTUS take up the case instead of simply letting stand the appeals court unanimous rejection of Trump's claim of blanket immunity? I'm not a lawyer, but some suggest the case is consequential enough to merit a SCOTUS sign-off or perhaps a nuanced, tighter spin. I haven't seen anyone argue that the appeals decision was wrong. The reader is welcome to search on his own; I will typically look at the libertarian-leaning Volokh Conspiracy for input and here is a search on their "Presidential Immunity" posts.
