“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump has ‘absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.’ There also is ‘presumptive immunity’ for official acts. But there is no immunity for ‘unofficial acts.'”

As usual, the court is ambiguous, much like the ancient Delphic Oracle. (Was there also a Delphic Ventricle?) When Trump moved classified files to Mar-a-Lago, he was still president, with full authority to move the files wherever he pleased, and also to declassify them as he wished. Now he is under indictment for moving the files.

So was this (1) within his constitutional authority, for which he has absolute immunity; or (2) an official act, for which he has presumptive immunity; or (3) an unofficial act, for which he has no immunity? You see my point. Ambiguous decisions are full-employment programs for lawyers. Don’t hold your breath for definitive answers. It will be a while.

An ethical prosecutor would drop most or all of the anti-Trump cases. But go find one.

Supreme Court victory: Trump has absolute immunity for official acts