Greg Sargent: Fair. Am hoping @kenwhite.bsky.social and @normative.bsky.social can explain what the text even means on its own terms

Right, this is where the action is. Some level of immunity around “core presidential powers” is inherent in the powers themselves (otherwise Congress could revoke or take over presidential powers by ordinary statute)—that’s not the radical part—but none of this other crap flows from that.

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

[email protected] and I get into this in our pod discussion. Trump can order prosecutions of opponents with zero cause and his motive for doing so is irrelevant bsky.app/profile/greg...

Frightening @rickhasen.bsky.social take on SCOTUS ruling and second Trump term: "The opportunity for him to commit crime has been vastly expanded...this opinion does a lot of damage to the rule of law." On the pod, we go deep into how SCOTUS has unshackled Trump: newrepublic.com/article/1833...

Supreme Court Shocker Could Give Trump Terrifying Second-Term Powersnewrepublic.com In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's demand for immunity, a leading legal expert explains why there's deep cause for alarm about what he'll be free to attempt if he wins again.

The question I have, @normative.bsky.social and @kenwhite.bsky.social, is whether this footnote complicates matters a bit.

I don’t think so because so much of the evidence is not public record. Trump threatening Pence or DoJ is not public record.

Right, but in the case of taking a bribe for a pardon or some other favor (cabinet position, policy, etc.), the implication of the footnote is that evidence of the nature of the exchange is usable. What I don't get is how/whether this coexists with prohibition on examining motive.

I.e., the suggestion is that if Trump were on tape saying, "give me $100,000 for X official act," that would be admissible. But examination of motive in carrying out the official act is not? How does this work?

You are assuming 1) they genuinely thought through a comprehensive framework and 2) that it would be applied in good faith to all Presidents of either party. Honestly, there's no basis for believing either of those.

Fair. Am hoping @kenwhite.bsky.social and @normative.bsky.social can explain what the text even means on its own terms

I think the text, taken alone, is a disingenuous statement “you can introduce the historical fact of the vote without any surrounding evidence,” which is irrelevant to the vast majority of scenarios in play here.

Thanks. I'm just puzzled by the idea that it's okay to admit evidence of what the president corruptly demands in exchange for an official act, but it's not okay to inquire into the motive behind an official act.

It’s Calvinball.

I honestly feel like anyone who has real legal training is going to struggle. There is an ingrained habit of searching for the expected legal norms. This test is a trick designed to take up as much of Chutkan's time as possible, specifically by being confusing so Trump can appeal again. It's an FU

Because the reason for all of this is "so Trump can avoid any and all accountability." That's it. There's no fucking reason. There is no fucking logic. There is a scraggly fig leaf covered in horseshit and that is all. Don't overthink it. This isn't law anymore. It's just "shit fascists say" now.

Post