This would have been most likely the case one way or another when dealing with these things and for any US President. 

My complaint is the blatant mixing of the two when they are two completely different things and to me, it is no surprise that any criminal charge of any US president would not have eventually led to this.

As I said, for over 30 years, I have been dealing with absolute and limited immunity and this is a very common thing.

Of course, I am not an attorney, and we do have a US Sup Ct that is so unpredictable, however, for all levels of government, courts have had to deal with what is and what is not an official act, or an act conducted under color of law.

Now, if some other legal scholar comes out with some sort of logical opinion based in fact that this ruling would allow any US President to assassinate a rival just for kicks or revenge, then I may modify my comments.  But as it stands with what I have read, this ruling states a president has immunity when it comes to LEGAL official acts.

But from my understanding, Roberts (though untrustworthy) clarified this somewhat.