@janbb Go back and read the decision. Don’t trust to media bias…read the decision. The SCOTUS specifically did not identify what was and wasn’t an official act. They gave guidance to the lower courts that, when they are faced with cases like this, they can go to for helping make decisions as to whether it is a valid case or not.
From the syllabus of the case (pg. 3) they write this:
” The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view.””
In other words, they aren’t saying Trump did or didn’t do anything wrong. They are saying the courts didn’t bother to see if anything alleged fell under his duties or not and so the SCOTUS shouldn’t be the ones to make that initial determination.
I’ll be honest, the opinion is 118 pages long. I have not read it all yet. Still plowing through. But the citations they gave show they considered the lawful and unlawful actions of a POTUS. Example: When Paula Jones was suing Bill Clinton for Sexual Assault, from when he was governor of Arkansas. Bill tried claiming presidential immunity since he was POTUS by that time. The court rejected that claim noting that while he had absolute immunity for actions taken as part of his presidential duties, he did not have any immunity for actions taken that fell outside his normal duties. In this case, the crime was done before he was POTUS so he isn’t allowed to hide behind the presidential immunity. Likewise Richard Nixon tried claiming presidential immunity when they were trying to get his secret tapes and other communications. Since the actions involved with the request were of things that obviously fell outside his presidential duties, that was denied, though they did note that presidential communications had a presumption of immunity normally. Both of these cases had the courts looking at the actions taken to see if they fell within the field of presidential duties or not.
And fear not…all this is well within the bounds of the Constitution…they tied it back to that over and over again. However bringing bogus charges against a political rival and ignoring the rights and laws surrounding that rival are right in line with Fascism.