This also happened before he was a sitting president, so all the stuff about “Bush Iraq war crimes” and “Nixon’s burglary” and similar historical presidential baggage is mostly irrelevant, at least in terms of new precedent.

The social/civil consequences of this sort of criminal indictment before election is enough to kill a presidential campaign and has enough times in history. As it should be.

This is behaviour before/after presidency when the stakes are far lower.

Just to clarify. The King of the UK is above criminal law. The monarch of the UK cannot be arrested or charged with an offence, or be personally involved in criminal proceedings.

That is similar to the immunity given to the sitting US President. What is different is that monarch is not really expected to obey the law either. For example, the Prime Minister was fined for illegally not wearing a seatbelt. If the king didn’t wear a seatbelt, it would not be a big deal - the royal family freely ignore traffic laws (and more serious laws) without consequences. Queen Elizabeth did agree to start paying taxes, but there was never any suggestion that she be compelled to pay taxes, merely that it would be the right thing to do.

The only reason there are any discussions about whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime is because the USA elected an evil administration that was willing to seriously suggest and push that idea.

It is so tragic and disappointing.

Nope. There is a constitutional argument that a sitting president should not get indicted. But for one thing that's not settled law in any form, nor is it based in "sovereign" powers, nor is it even an immunity. The constitution and the oath of office requires him/her to faithfully execute the laws. That means he can't be immune, he can't be above the law... And yes, the US constitution is beyond messed up. It just barely works well enough not to risk switching it up.

In Germany for example we have sort of an "updated" version, with lessons learned. But one thing I actually want changed is that members of parliament have actual real immunity. Not in the practical sense - immunity for individual members has historically always been waived by parliament at the slightest whiff of an investigation. But the example of Trump teaches us that it is a fallacy to trust in the decency of politicians and unwritten rules.