"Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
You forced me to not actually read the dissent but to CTRL+F "immune,", because I couldn't believe a person/demigod serving in such an incredibly honorable and powerful position would ever write a rant with the same word 4 times in a row.
But if it's outside his constitutional authority, yes, he can be charged. That's what all the pearl-clutchers seem to be ignoring. Yes, Trump can be charged. He doesn't have immunity for election interference (outside the scope of his office). He doesn't have immunity for keeping and mishandling classified documents, and especially for trying to hide them (outside the scope of his role once out of office).
And what do you want? The Supreme Court laid down some general principles. Do you want them to judge how those principles apply to all the cases, when the lower courts haven't judged what the facts are yet? Why do you want that?
Look, I get as impatient as the next person at this slow-motion case, and I worry about November coming. But the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be a fact-finding court. Don't expect them to be.