If you are going to break a 250-year precedent of never prosecuting former presidents, it better be over something pretty damn serious.
Why?
Cause it will begin a huge tit for tat response with soon every president and governor going to prison
Riddle me this. Then why haven't Republicans been doing this anyway? There has been deep-seated unspeakable visceral venomous hatred for clinton, then obama, and now Biden that touches the most basic passionate basis of Republicans lives, especially the activists face. If you think for one instance that Republican restraint was be out of the goodness of their hearts rather than the fact that the ugly reality is that Prosecuting someone for a crime, even in the most bum rural red counties against a disliked liberal politician, is actually rather difficult. There is nothing whatsoever to trigger a republican response here because weaponizing the courts and going after their political enemies is already been their modus operandi for 30 years. If you truly believe this is going to move the needle then you're being even more clueless than usual.
If you truly believe that a president shouldn't be prosecuted because then political enemies will try to prosecute them somewhere, then surely you feel that way about all elected officials. You don't think for a second local political races and rivalries can be every bit as bitter and hate failed as those in National politics? What on Earth would stop a district attorney who defeated an incumbent whom they personally and professionally and politically despised and drumming up charges against them? It's absolutely no different weather you're talking about a County district attorney in rural Texas versus the presidency. Now, try to respond to that line of logic without something along lines of Mitt Romney agrees with you and so does the prime minister of belgium.
1. The reason they did not do it is cause they were afraid of a tit for tat response as well
2. Also I never said they should be granted full immunity as I believe stuff like Jan 6th, Nixon sabotaging Vietnam peace talks were stuff that should be prosecuted.
It is why I also said I support an expeditated appeals process to either the highest state court or SCOTUS depending on what is a federal or state crime to deal with this as well
There are many who said that the impeachment of Bill Clinton following on the report from Ken Starr (Chamber) was in response to the Democrats would have been impeachment (and conviction) of Richard Nixon, even though most Republicans in Congress weren't in Congress at that time (at least, I don't think they were, this was over 20 years later.)
There may even have been some who argued that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats unwillingness to impeach George W Bush for lying the U.S into war was to end this 'tit for tat.' But, if that claim has been made, I think the evidence for that is very weak. The reality is, for all of Pelosi's extraordinary abilities as Speaker she isn't perfect (nobody is) and she's made it clear many times that she also favors the privileges of the wealthy and powerful (her trying to keep it legal for Congress people to essentially engage in insider trading is one example of that.)
When Pelosi said before the first impeachment of Trump that it was 'the last thing she wanted to do' she was definitely telling the truth. So, I don't think this goes any deeper than that.
Finally, of course, even with W. Bush lying the U.S into war, there has always been an uncomfortableness with holding Presidents accountable for their actions as President, which is one thing that OSR has been arguing, and which I can somewhat appreciate.
In this case, impeaching W. Bush over this would have shown that many members of Congress (both the House and Senate) took W Bush at his word and never read the actual reports (Bob Graham did and voted against the Iraq war but he was limited in what he could say was in the reports, at least publicly.)
I also previously mentioned how during the Nixon impeachment hearings in the House, they voted against impeaching Nixon on the bombings of Laos and Cambodia, which though illegal under international law, were also clearly done by Nixon in his actions as President/Commander in Chief.
Interestingly they also voted against impeaching Nixon for misusing the Army Corps of Engineers who built for Nixon a swimming pool for Nixon at his 'alternative' White House in Loma Linda California to 'enable the Secret Service to better protect Nixon.'
So, I think there is little evidence that Democrats and Republicans want to avoid a 'tit for tat' but I certainly think there is some kind of mutual protection racket. Of course, given that prosecutors and courts are independent of this (except for especially the Republican Supreme Court) to the degree that the politicians are unable to write laws that fully protect themselves, the prosecutors are still able to go after them, as we see with Trump here.