First, let me mention this - the confusion over Absolute and Limited Immunity is a pet peeve of mine.  They are completely different animals and for all of my LE career and beyond, and even back to my college days, it has irritated me that so many people just don't understand the difference between the two and how each is applied.

For all of my career, liberals and progressives have attacked LE limited immunity because mostly of not knowing the difference and thinking absolute means the same as limited and they certainly do not.  People see the word "immunity" and lose about all common sense.

To receive limited immunity, typically, one is basically okay if what they have done is strictly within the limits of their LEGALLY OFFICIAL duties, or if what they did was done under good faith.

Absolute Immunity is just what it states. 

Absolute Immunity for "official" acts means just that - it does not wholly mean acts carried out as an official are all protected with absolute immunity.  In other words, if you carry out your official duties LEGALLY, you will most likely be protected by "limited immunity."  IT IS NOT Absolute Immunity like so many are today declaring.

From what I understand and have read, Trump has been provided only with absolute immunity for his legally sanctioned official acts. Trying to overthrow the US Capitol is NOT an official act. Neither is inciting a crowd to do so.  Nor is stealing Top Secret documents.

One thing so many are missing is that, if the research is done, most likely every single US President has committed some sort of legal act that would need Limited Immunity for protection.

For example, if a President did not have immunity from official acts, most likely every one of them, at some time or another, could have been criminally prosecuted by some outrageous court or prosecutor.

To illustrate, Bill Clinton could have been indicated for Waco; Shrub Bush for his response to Katrina or aspects of the Iraq War.  Or, can anyone not believe that if a far-right prosecutor was in the jurisdiction of Ruby Ridge when that happened there might have been an indictment of the President that sent in the FBI? 

Or, even a President that instituted a policy in good faith (like the push for a COVID vaccination that went south) that resulted in horrible circumstances. 

I have not read the decision, but even RAW STORY is reporting this correctly.  Twitter is a mess of misconceptions, as so many other liberal-friendly sites (and it does irritate me that these professional pundits are mistaken - one of them even a popular Nation writer).

Now here is the funny part to me: if one actually thinks of it, this decision in a way would seem to give a green light to a president that is dealing with another American that is keen to overthrow the government, so in a way, the US SUP Ct gave Biden a way to further deal with a person like Trump and if articulated correctly, it could even be legal and protected by "limited immunity."

One other irritating thing about this ruling is that it appears all of the charges will be sent back to the original judge to decide which Trump criminal acts are protected and which ones won't AND then, it will most likely be taken back up to the US Sup Ct by Trump' attorneys, delaying cases even further.

Still, though, people need to educate themselves about the difference, because what is being reported and interpreted by many is incorrect.