This is the very essence of the difference that should exist between a President and a King. From Federalist 69:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.
The failure of the Republican party to support this kind of check on Presidential power is why we’re having this crisis now.
You don’t understand (or maybe you do but aren’t saying it). The Nixon scandal is what started the modern shitshow as we know it. Nixon’s supporters would be royally pissed that there was no specific media apparatus to fully support Nixon and his shit. They would go on to fight to repeal the fairness doctrine and to start Fox News and the modern propaganda media as we know it.
BTW, a few years ago (during Trump’s first administration or a bit after) they even SAID ‘when the president does it , it isn’t not illegal’ or some slight word difference as a way of signalling their ultimate victory in trying to do what they wanted to have happened during Nixon’s scandals.