At 02:11 the August 15, 2023 video CNN's Haberman on the irony of Giuliani’s indictment for racketeering an exchange between CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins and White House correspondent for The New York Times and political analyst for CNN Maggie Haberman goes as follows:
COLLINS: There are so many co-defendants listed in this new indictment, which, I mean, immediately made me think of the concern that he has about the potential for them to do. I mean, there's a lot of opportunities for people to cooperate here.
HABERMAN: There are, and he is aware of that. And it is one of the things that I believe has concerned him about this indictment. Also, the fact that it is in state court, it is not something he could control if he becomes president again, although I think there's an argument as to whether a state case would actually go forward against the sitting president the way this is.
As a matter of practice and profession Haberman chooses words carefully based on rigorous background research, so it's reasonable to assume that "I think there's an argument as to whether a state case would actually go forward against the sitting president" is not strictly a personal opinion but is informed by experts.
But she doesn't elaborate further, so I'd like to ask:
Question: Are there strictly political arguments1 why a US state racketeering case against an individual would not move forward if the individual becomes president?
1Political arguments and (if they exist) relevant political precedents are welcome. Law-based answers should be posted at the companion question about legal arguments in Law SE.