 is so ludicrous on its face, it's hard for me to believe that people who can walk and chew gum actually think that way. It's not what it did at all. All the immunity case did was say that the president, in their official presidential actions, they're immune from prosecution after the presidency. That's all it really said. It stated a doctrine that we always already knew. The president has to be immune in their official presidential actions, or who would do the job?