The judge vigorously shook that big old DOJ/OLC tree that a sitting president cannot be indicted or prosecuted leaving a leafless little sapling. The DOJ/OLC memo is not "backed up by the authority or the courts" and in this case, is "not warranted."

Indeed, the judge noted that there is not one DOJ/OLC memo, but three.  The first two were crafted in regard to the criminal case of Vice President Spiro Agnew, referring to criminal procedure in one case, and criminal procedure in another. The third, was a later update, and specifically referred to indictment/prosecution.

"A major problem with constructing a categorical rule founded upon hypothesizing and extrapolating from an abstract general proposition disembodied from an actual set of facts, is that the entire theoretical structure could collapse when it encounters a real-world application that shakes the underpinnings of the unqualified doctrine.  

to propose as a blanket constitutional principle that a President cannot be subjected to the criminal process presupposes a faulty premise.  Implicit in that pronouncement is the assumption that every crime and every stage of every criminal proceeding, a any time and forum, whether involving only one or many other offenders --is just like every other instance of its kind.  The absolute proposition also presumes uniformity of consequences."  This case is about compliance with a grand jury subpoena.