So the dissent gets at this, but the majority's holding in the immunity case is that if Trump wants to knock over a liquor store (commit crimes as a private citizen) then we have to be able to prosecute that.
But if he orders the FBI to seize the liquor store, confiscate everything in it, and arrest the clerk (use the immense power of the federal government to commit crimes), he must be immune.
It's completely ass backwards. The danger of a president committing crimes as an individual is nothing compared to him using the government for criminal ends. The very things that we should be most concerned about a corrupt president doing are the things he can't be punished for.
and since he will definitionally only be prosecuted by a future president, and that future president definitionally has access to all clearances and executive privileges and relevant executive branch documents relating to policy, SCOTUS' whole argument that this intrudes on him is just a wet fish
