Immunity only applies to LEGAL acts of the office holder.
Probably a very wide latitude on the office rules.
Prosecuting the prior leader is third world stuff.
Well, if the acts are obviously legal, immunity isn't needed, is it?
Immunity is needed regarding acts that were legal from one side's perspective, but that the other side seeks to portray as illegal. Immunity takes that dispute off the table in order to avoid every new administration throwing the prior administration in prison.