Constitution and respect the verdicts of courts. That’s his duty. If he attempts a coup (the legal and factual question in the federal case), because he could not successfully reverse election results in court, there’s no way he has immunity in that instance. I’m going to remain confident of that result in the SC unless and until proven otherwise.

He’s entitled to the presumption of innocence of the things he’s accused of (technically things like allegedly participating in fraudulent transmission of electors), but not to blanket immunity if found guilty of such an assault on democracy. And it’s a question for the courts to answer, not blindly partisan politicos. Seems to me he is perfectly entitled to assert that this was part of his official duties as part of his defense. But if he does not prevail, he’s accountable under the law.

That’s how the constitution works, and nobody is above the law.