If my vote does not impart the elected officials of my choosing with unprecedented, extraordinary powers — the power to do crimes, the power to stay in office even when more people vote for them not to stay in office — then what was I even voting for?

Dana Milbank: The GOP response to Trump is one hell of an indictment

Some people are saying that if you break the law, you should have to face the music, whether you’ve been president or not. I think: No! My president should not have to face the music at any time! He is a symbolic figurehead who can face any direction he wants with respect to the music, like the tiny dancer that rotates on top of a child’s music box.

Because make no mistake: It is not Donald Trump being indicted. I know his name is on the paperwork. But that’s actually 74 million people. That’s you. That’s me. That’s a grandfather whittling away at a stick, that’s a veteran, a My Pillow commercial, an American flag, a copy of “Hillbilly Elegy” in an airport bookstore, Marjorie Taylor Greene’s best friend, the Muffin Man, a Navy SEAL, a brother, a sister, the QAnon Shaman, others. That’s who’s being indicted just because a grand jury thought there was evidence that Donald Trump the individual committed maybe 34 counts of fraud. You’re actually indicting America, and we won’t stand for it. In the United States, we believe that some people are above the law, and that Donald Trump is those some people.

Trying to impose law on My President violates the unspoken contract that I thought we were operating under, wherein fellows by the name of Brett and Don and Tripp get to experience the protection of the law but not its sting. He has no business being on the business end of the law. The law is something that when men of his stripe break, they go “whoops” and pay a fine! This allows society to keep functioning efficiently for those whose benefit it is designed.

Arrest him? But, officer, this is a promising lad who could be president again someday.

Henry Olsen: It should be outrageous that Trump’s indictment is not a federal case

Look, I watched “House of Cards,” and I thought it was explicitly stated that the president could do murders if he wanted to badly enough, and it would propel the plot forward. Is that not true in reality? In fairness, the fact that my candidate made a speech about shooting people on Fifth Avenue did not help me become less confused.

I don’t think what I’m saying is unreasonable. You only get to be the president for four years, or eight, or possibly 12 if you do a novel interpretation of the Constitution and serve nonconsecutive terms. But afterward, you have your whole life to live! You should not have to go cold turkey from being able to do a nuclear war to having to cross the street in the crosswalk like the rest of us. Have we taken leave of our senses?

Who are these people who are saying that even the president isn’t above the law? That was my understanding of the job: a person gets to be above the law for four years and then keep on being above the law the rest of his life. I bet these same people who are saying he should not have done white-collar crimes are going to say that he should not be able to do sexual assault, or treason!

Plus, I don’t buy the argument that we need punishments as a deterrent, or people will do more crimes. You really think the thing that stopped Jimmy Carter from doing crimes was the threat of legal action? No. He wouldn’t even hurt a rabbit.

I am not saying that all presidents should get to do crimes. That would be irresponsible and set a bad precedent. Just the presidents I vote for. The ones I don’t vote for were not legitimately elected, and they should all be in jail.