The Presidential Immunity Arguments

The Xtreme Court of the US never ceases to surprise and disappoint these days.
The legal analysis I saw more than once said WE WERE PROVED WRONG WHEN WE SAID TOTAL IMMUNITY WAS OFF THE TABLE.

Here are the basics……. The conservatives on the court entertained it while the likes of Justice Jackson asked what stops the presidents from committing crimes and turning Oval into a “seat of criminality”. They parsed “official” vs “private” acts (what about "criminal" acts dammit??).
One example:
If the president thinks his opponent is corrupt… can he have him assassinated???? “Ah, perhaps” was the basic answer of the defense. Also disturbing is that they DID NOT ADDRESS the case at hand but took it into hypothetical/abstract hell dealing with FUTURE ACTS.
Bottom line
wisdom is that it will be sent back to lower courts to get more clarity on their ruling……
NO MATTER WHAT … RAPIST-trump WINS WITH THE EXPECTED DELAY HE DESIRED by the justices he and Mitch rammed on the court.