There are two elements to the immunity decision that are particularly extreme in a way that many will miss: (1) motive is irrelevant and (2) immune acts are not just excluded from prosecution, they’re excluded from evidence.
/1
/2 Motive being irrelevant means that the President can do a thing for expressly lawless reasons so long as the thing is within the extremely broad range of official acts. So question isn’t “can the President conspire to defraud,” it’s “can the President call a state official about an election.”
/3 The problem is that almost anything can be shoehorned into an official act depending on how you characterize it or the level of generality you use. The Court’s “well of course a President has to use due care that election laws are enforced” hints at this.
Also—and I am definitely speaking as a layman—how does the Court’s declaration of Presidential “immunity” square with the Constitution setting forth the possibility of impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanours”? How can Presidential acts be “crimes” if official acts are immune?
I may be mistaken, but the ruling said it's up to the courts to decide if a President has committed a crime.
So, practically speaking: Trump has full immunity. Biden does not.
