If Trump were to personally shoot someone on Fifth Avenue: Not immune. (Probably. Maybe.)
If he were to order the army to massacre thousands on Fifth Avenue: Immune. (Very clearly, under the decision.)
But from a constitutional perspective, the latter is the grave danger to guard against.
It is *precisely* crimes that involve the abuse of official powers and are committed under color of office that a constitutional system needs to restrain.
The fact that Trump is now trying to get out of his NY conviction by arguing that he committed those crimes *as president* shows the absurdity.
It also goes to the absurdity Sotomayor pointed out about not just immunity but inadmissibility. He could give a speech live from the Oval Office openly and unambiguously confessing his guilt and that couldn't even be used as evidence because a presidential speech is an 'official' act.
She points to an absurd footnote in the majority saying maybe you can use publicity about it but first need to pass a bunch of tests that means, no, you would have already shown it wasn’t an official act anyway and so saying you can is moot.
