I highly recommend this video.

As I and others have attempted to explain but apparently not very well or very convincingly, this video makes the following points (here in no particular order...).

While the 40 page ruling devotes CONSIDERABLE prose to outlining scenarios in which this new invented immunity applies, ZERO prose is devoted to any example of "outer perimiter acts" where immunity would NOT apply. That seems very odd and very slanted towards EXPANDING Presidential power while requiring any alternate interpretation that might CONSTRAIN Presidential power to be left to litigating in a future case, incurring more delay at some future critical point in time rather than ensuring everyone (current / future Presidents, Congress, courts, citizens) fully understands the new rules of the game as the court envisions them.

The ruling makes a point of defining three separate buckets of Presidential actions

1) core responsibilities unique to the Presidential role
2) outer perimiter Presidential responsibilties and actions
3) actions outside the responsibility of the Presidency

to maintain an illusion there are areas of conduct where it is still the case that no immunity is granted. However, OUTER PERIMITER actions are defined as anything not "manifestly or palpably beyond his/her authority." But the ruling also states "In dividing offical from unofficial acts, courts may not inquire into the President's motives." So even the HINT that an action taken by a President that ON THE SURFACE as described by the President fits within his official duties was POSSIBLY NOT directed to occur in a manner compatible with the President's legal authority CANNOT BE QUESTIONED OR INVESTIGATED. Again, the words say "MAY NOT INQUIRE..." They don't say inquire all you want and use such evidence in OTHER criminal cases against OTHERS not protected by this immunity. They prohibit investigation into the conduct based on suspicion that an act claimed to be "official" was in fact an illegal use of power because merely QUESTIONING the President's motives would prevent a President from exercising his unique powers vigorously.

Parenthetically, one other thing I found odd about the Court ruling is the number of citations in the opinion about the need for a President to feel at liberty to act with vigor unencumbered by the fear of prosecution for criminal acts which all seem to cite prior Trump relate cases. No other President in our history got to the point of filing formal motions in ANY court that argued the principal that having to ponder the legality of their acts while President would be a hindrance to their power. It's another example of how this court is making up entirely new Constitutional law and legislating from the bench while citing motivations from litigation filed by the current defendant rather than ANY other prior case law established since 1789.

WTH