Andrew: Eh maybe not exactly but a similar idea. Like you can't have a special prosecutor ask him questions in private about an official act and then prosecute him in an unofficial act trial for his answers. That would encourage him to not answer the questions about his official act.

***SCOTUS rules 6–3 that Trump is immune from prosecution for "official acts" during his presidency. NOTE: This does not sink Trump's prosecution altogether, because as Justice Barrett noted during argument, Trump is being prosecuted for many *unofficial* acts www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23p...

Sotomayor: "Today’s decision ... makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."

Uh, Roberts appears to say that you can't even use *evidence* related to a president's official acts when you're prosecuting him for unofficial acts?

Hmmm, the majority opinion says, in response to criticism, that *of course* you can point to the president's official public acts in a trial; you just can't "admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself." (Sotomayor calls this "nonsensical")

Isn't that functionally just executive privilege?

Eh maybe not exactly but a similar idea. Like you can't have a special prosecutor ask him questions in private about an official act and then prosecute him in an unofficial act trial for his answers. That would encourage him to not answer the questions about his official act.

Post