I have read the case, and it does not stand for the proposition you claim. The issue is not alleged "criminal intent" - it is whether or not the action falls within the broad scope of presidential duties.
Obama's claim to immunity would be even stronger than Trump's. At least in Trump's case, you could make the argument that his actions were designed to benefit himself personally by leading to him being declared the winner of the election, and that the President has no role within state elections.
Obama was not on the ballot in the 2016 election, and cannot be alleged to have had the same kind of personal interest. His orders also were given to executive branch employees over whom he had direct control, so it was part of his job duties even if the manner he exercised it is argued to have been corrupt.
It is not a question of his intent, but a question of the role he was performing. Claiming that he had a bad motive will not get around an immunity argument.
Feel free to disagree, but if you're waiting for Obama to get indicted based on those actions, you are going to be disappointed.
Criminal intent nullifies any presidential immunity. I’m not waiting for anything. It’s in the SCOTUS case I referenced, those words and intent. They wrote and decided that. Your argument is with SCOTUS, not me.