Far from removing restrictions on the actions of a president - ANY President - this decision actually puts on restrictions on the actions of a President that never existed formally in the law before now. The simple fact is that no president has ever been charged with a criminal offense in the entire history of our nation. There was, effectively, complete and total immunity. What the Supreme Court did is to say that for constitutional duties, there is total immunity. Nothing changed there. For acts done while president that are not actually constitutionally required or permitted acts, there is presumptive immunity. That means that somebody can overcome that presumption and prove that they were personal in nature, and thus hold a President criminally liable while in office or afterwards. Thus, the Court clearly stated that certain acts don’t have any immunity at all. Finally, the Court indicated that for clearly personal acts, there was no immunity whatsoever. So if the President picks up an ashtray and smashes somebody over the head with it, he can be charged with criminal assault, and perhaps attempted murder. If the president shoots and kills somebody without any kind of justification, he can be charged and convicted of first-degree murder or manslaughter, and if the President orders some forces under his command to murder Supreme Court justices or political opponents, that is purely personal in nature, it is meant for his own personal benefit in some way or other, and has no immunity attached whatsoever. Weissman is not stupid, far from it (evil and hyper-partisan is another thing altogether), and he knows this quite well - but he chooses to lie like the leader of his party and pretty much every other Democrat, simply to make his/their political opponents look bad and to thus retain power. He is a thoroughly disgusting, despicable and pathetic individual.
I think that all of this was implied by common sense, but since somebody decided to criminally prosecute Trump, this became a case and the Supreme Court was pretty much forced to take on the issue and make a ruling that has an awful lot of common sense in it. These Democrats are barking-at-the-Moon crazy, they are all suffering from an overwhelming infection of TDS. They can’t even think logically anymore.
Excellent summary.
I think that efforts that Trump made to ensure that the election was fair and legal could be said to be official in nature, despite some personal stake in the issue. He has to protect the nation and thus if he has a question about cheating...then as president he must pursue it!
That will be the question...did Trump have the right to question the election results as part of his job to protect election integrity vs the presumption that he was trying to overturn the election. I think if the Trump team plays to that question in court, then the Prosecutors have no case. They can’t prove that Trump did not have that right to question the results officially as president.
No court would grant any real hearings on the issues of possible cheating so thus Trump was stymied.