Keeping Americans in Benghazi safe was Hillary Clinton's job. When Americans died they rightfully investigated to see if she could have done things differently and to what extent it was her fault. And while they probably over investigated, it was 100% correct to assess whether she was accountable. 

All I ask is that the same standards be applied to Donald Trump. Once this is over, whether or not his actions endangered American lives should be investigated with the same level of scrutiny. If it is found that his actions did lead to American deaths that could have been avoided, he should be accountable. I'd say, treason charges would be appropriate, but I'm not a legal expert.

If an investigation determined that his actions caused hundreds of thousands of American deaths, that would be an impeachable offense. Getting 67 Senators to vote to convict, however, would be next to impossible unless an awful lot of Senate Republicans grew a backbone and a conscience.

I'm of the opinion that Trump will not be president for much longer. When I talk about charges, I'm not talking about impeachment, I'm talking about criminal charges and civil liability. There may be some immunity that would protect him. Usually there is when it's related to presidential actions, but I'm pretty sure you have to show a rational basis for your actions (which is a really lenient standard), but I don't think it would be impossible to press charges.

I have only slightly more sympathy for them than I do for him. Honestly, if this wasn't highly infectious, I'd just give them all Darwin awards and not give them another thought. Unfortunately, they may, and probably will, spread it to others who are not doing anything to court illness.

It wouldn't be impossible to press charges, but it would be a hell of a legal fight. And if Trump leaves office before January 20th, regardless of the election outcome, Pence becomes the acting President at least until then, and his first action as President will be to pardon Trump, which is what Ford did for Nixon when he became President.  Nixon would almost certainly have been convicted of obstruction of justice had Ford not done pardoned him, and most likely other actors associated with Nixon and Watergate, like Robert Bork, would have also been indicted. It's also interesting to note that the acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt under US law.

I don't think Trump will leave before the 20th, and probably not after. I'm also not sure Pence would pardon him or that he could. I don't think that would be a good look for the Republican party. But maybe he'd be loyal enough. I gotta say, Trump seems like the kind of guy that is tolerated while he's in power. If the election is lost, Pence is probably going down with the ship and may not be apt to help him.

You can apply a pardon for a presumptive case, but it might depend on how likely a charges are to occur. More importantly though, a president can only pardon for federal crimes. If someone were to say bring a charge of negligent manslaughter in New Jersey, that would be a state crime.

Pence would probably pardon him under the excuse that hauling a president of contested popularity into court would create civil unrest. Nixon was still popular among conservatives when he resigned, and Ford thought the country wouldn't hold together too well with the added stress of watching a former president go to trial in federal court. And Trump's base would eat it up.

That said, with regards to your second point, prosecutors in the state of New York would no doubt like to get their claws into Trump. He likely is looking at some heavy charges in New York. But Trump would actually have to be in New York before they could arrest or try him there. Trump would flee to Florida the first chance he got, and I can see DeSantis refusing to extradite him to New York out of pure spite, selling his refusal to Floridians and other conservatives around the country as standing up to the tyranny of an out of control blue state,  and to return favors bestowed upon Florida by Trump (i.e. Trump protecting Florida from offshore drilling while doing everything he can to force his hated California to open its territory to drilling). 

Maybe he can pay his doctor to make another glowing review.

Trump is popular among conservatives, but I think depending on the situation, the republicans might want to change that. Trump went hard to the far right. If Trump loses in a landslide, which doesn't look that unlikely, they will need to pivot back to the center. In that case Trump might be used as a scapegoat. I personally think that if the election goes badly, Trump will become a scapegoat for the whole party. Also, resigning solely for the purpose of getting a pardon is a bit different than Nixon. I'm not sure how that'd go constitutionally. There's also no clear precedent that Trump can't pardon himself. A literalist interpretation of the constitution would imply that he can do so. 

Whether or not Trump would actually agree to this, is questionable. He tends to think himself invincible till it's too late. See Covid.

As for suing him in NY, they'd probably be able to exercise jurisdiction. Trump's going to have to come to NY at some point to deal with some of the other actions and do some other stuff. We're getting pretty theoretical here, but that's an interesting scenario. 

Also, Team Edlegard forver.

Same as the people who say they're voting for Biden solely because they hate Trump and want him out. That's just as irrational. Like you said though, there's not much you can do for anyone who operates this way.

No, it's not the same at all.

On the one hand you're voting for the alternative because you hate a candidate and presumably hate the other less.

On the other hand, you're voting for a candidate because other people hate him, regardless of what you actually think about either candidate.

The first situation is like being at a table with 10 people and being offered a Dr. Pepper or a Sprite. You're dying of thirst and have to drink one. You hate Dr. Pepper, and don't hate Sprite as much, so you choose Sprite.

The second situation is like being at a table with 10 people and being offered a Dr. Pepper or a Sprite. You're dying of thirst and have to drink one. The other 9 people at the table all start yelling about how Dr. Pepper is the most disgusting beverage ever. Because of that you drink the Dr. Pepper regardless of which drink you actually think is better.

The first is rational, the second is not.