[frog in a pot]

The Supreme Court, in 1976, gave her near total immunity, created out of thin air.

You are correct about that and perhaps it is time for our current, hopefully more enlightened SC to review that 1976 holding.

Thanks for the link, I will quote from it:

...experience shows that this immunity enables prosecutors to disregard constitutional rights in order to pursue convictions. 
That is a pretty good argument right there for tossing the doctrine.

1976 decision Imbler v. Pachtman, the Supreme Court created this immunity to serve the “public trust” and ensure “the proper functioning of the criminal justice system".  

The Trump et al case ought to be significant enough to gain the attention of our current SC. The prosecutorial behavior in this instance - mass prosecution of a crime where there is no crime - dramatically does quite the opposite of serving that trust or demonstrating proper functioning.

[frog in a pot]

forgot to add -
Have a nice weekend!

[marktwain]

“Necessity” is the operating excuse of every tyrant.

[noiseman]

it: ...experience shows that this immunity enables prosecutors to disregard constitutional rights in order to pursue convictions.

This should never be the case. Every individual must be held accountable for their own actions, no matter what their position, doubly so when that individual has the power that a prosecutor wields. Our civil litigation system is screwed up because it is too easy in many circumstances to sue anyone for whatever reason, with little to no real consequence for people using litigation merely as harassment. I think some form of a “loser pays” requirement might go a long way toward fixing that problem (though I have no doubt there are unintended consequences that would have to be considered).

Similarly, the criminal justice realm needs to be reformed, too. Somehow, we have to make prosecutors personally liable for frivolous or malicious prosecution without weakening the ability of the good ones to pursue actual criminals. One thing that seems clear from the Trump inquisition is that the grand jury process is way too loose, and has just become a way for a corrupt prosecutor to railroad someone with minimal protections for the accused and minimal process. The ubiquitous “ham sandwich” comment says it all. That should never be the case. To my non-lawyer mind grand juries sound like some alternate universe where normal constitutional protections are minimal and the prosecutor has nearly free rein. That just seems like an absurd arena that is at odds with the rest of how our justice system is supposed to operate (emphasis on “supposed to”).