Speaking as a semanticist, it's wild to me that they are phrasing it in terms of whether an *act* is characterized as "official", when what they seem to actually be talking about is whether there exists a *description* of the act that can be characterized as "official".
That's another way of putting it. But the idea is in the ballpark.
To be honest, I thought they took the case to squash the idea of absolute immunity and articulate a qualified immunity for the presidency; maybe codify the DoJ memo and say a sitting president couldn't be charged with a crime. /1
But alas, they rummaged around in Warren Burger's old desk and dug out core functions to open up a can of worms. And they're the only ones with a hook.
Now they can just make it up as they go along. /2x
