Both. I was doing the search because I was thinking "well maybe there was a crime in there somewhere that I missed".
Okay. Well in that case, my (uninformed) take is that both holding the president personally criminally liable for actions of the US government that they authorized, and not holding the president accountable for campaign finance violations they undertook on the path to getting elected, are about equally ridiculous. But it seems that we’re doing the second one.
I'm honestly lost on what you might be alluding to with the "campaign finance violations"; but that is a classic up there with the remarkable rate that whistle-blowers turn out to be guilty of sexual assault nothing-burgers. I expect candidates will routinely violate campaign finance laws and don't see why that is more than a minor problem until someone outlines what the actual issue is in a specific case.
If they're taking millions of dollars from Chinese NGOs that would be a problem. If they filled out a form wrongly and there is no motive involved that isn't interesting. Might be worth a few political points on a slow news day.
Those laws are a poster child for the high risk of selective enforcement leading to political corruption.
I was thinking of The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, but that was a guilty verdict with a discharged sentence and not an immunity ruling, so I guess never mind.