You're not being an ass, but perhaps just technical/literal/precise.

In our history since the Watergate affair in the early 1970s - five decades ago - where a (sitting) President was brought up on criminal charges, there seems to have been a moratorium on the idea of charging our presidents for crimes. It's "not done" as Presidents (and former Presidents) have been socially-culturally deemed "untouchable", at least in my memory. Think they've committed a crime? Get over it, move on, too disruptive to the country, leave sleeping dogs to lie, etc. It's not a legal construct, per se, (or maybe it is?), though now when hauling the Potatus or the Renegade in front of a judge for any number of criminal activities - if the leftist jackals start howling how "You can't do that!!", they'll be met with "You set the precedent; we're just following it.". Our country is more divided than at any time (with the exception of the Civil War era, perhaps). They won't be able to get away with claims that investigating the Renegade is a politically-motivated witch hunt after this.

This has broken a socio-political taboo that, if I had to guess, is going to open the door for charges to be brought against the swamp creatures.

.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/precedent

.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

.

Edit: I was writing my long-winded reply while anon sun_wolf came in with a more succinct reply. (What can I say? I'm verbose).