Subject: Re: SCOTUS finds immunity for offiical Pres acts
But that is the question. Does it change that?

No it doesn't.

These normally illegal things are not prosecutable as a result of the presidential immunity resulting from this decision. Of course, we won't know for sure until an appropriate case comes up.

We just need a former president who is accused of criminal acts, is indicted for those alleged acts, and goes to court so that the case can eventually wend its way to the Supreme Court.

Okay, let's put it to the test.
Arrest Barack Obama for the premeditated murder of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a US Citizen, with a drone strike on August 26, 2011. You may read about it here

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...

He was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was also born in America, who was also an American citizen, and who was killed by drone two weeks before his son was, along with another American citizen named Samir Khan. Of course, both Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were, at the very least, traitors to their country -- they had both gone to Yemen and taken up with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and al-Awlaki had proven himself an expert inciter of those with murderous designs against America and Americans: the rare man of words who could be said to have a body count. When he was killed, on September 30, 2011, President Obama made a speech about it; a few months later, when the Obama administraton's public-relations campaign about its embrace of what has come to be called "targeted killing" reached its climax in a front-page story in the New York Times that presented the President of the United States as the last word in deciding who lives and who dies, he was quoted as saying that the decision to put Anwar al-Awlaki on the kill list -- and then to kill him -- was "an easy one." But Abdulrahman al-Awlaki wasn't on an American kill list.

Based on your analysis, was Barack Obama justified in killing al-Awlaki?