While the dipschiff OP is trolling (and will likely just start calling us all racists again), this is an interesting Constitutional question. What did the framers intend? Nothing in the Constitution prevents self-pardoning by the President. Was that intentional, or an oversight? I think it was intentional.
Federalist No. 69 indicates that they intended that impeachment by the House, followed by removal by the Senate, is the primary remedy when a president (or any other impeachable official) misbehaves while in office. This would make sense, as the president, being the head of the executive branch, effectively controls the federal prosecutors, and it keeps in line with the separation of powers/checks and balances doctrine. Impeachment does not prohibit further prosecution, absent a pardon, and pardons are ineffective against impeachment proceedings. There is no way for a president to escape at least some liability for "high crimes and misdemeanors" while in office.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp