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.
/4 More powerful, to a trial lawyer, is the prohibition on the use of immune acts as evidence. In almost every other context (save Speech & Debate), you can use things as evidence when you can’t prosecute for them. If I say “this man must die,” that’s usually protected by the First Amendment ….
/5 …but it’s obvious that my statement can be introduced as evidence if I’m accused of murder.
Contrast this type of Presidential immunity. Say Donald Trump, days into his second term, meets with the Department of Justice and demands a way to deport all Muslims, reviling them as subhuman.
/6 Later Trump orders a staff member at Mar-A-Lago to kill a Muslim employee, possibly by serving him the food. Under the Court’s rule, even assuming that ordering Mar-A-Lago to kill people is unofficial conduct (not 100% clear), Trump’s anti-Muslim tirade to the AG would be inadmissible at trial.
/7 Justice Roberts smug and superior dismissal of the dissents’ concerns seems to come to us via time warp from some time that never knew Trump. The danger of lawlessness he poses are manifest — he and his followers brag of them. Only a liar or fool would dismiss them.
/8 At any rate, congratulations to the Federalist Society for an achievement beyond the reach of the British, outside the grasp of bloody civil war, impossible to Nazis and Soviets and terrorists: defeating the American idea.
So can’t Biden now, as an official act, render Trump ineligible to run? Strip him of citizenship? Do anything that will force Republicans, for a change, to waste time in court fighting the very powers they just ‘won’?
Yes, but at the risk of losing huge swaths of voters who are backing Biden because he would never do unlawful acts in the first place. It's the paradox of tolerance but with democracy.
Dark Brandon could set up a Committee for Public Safety and immediately set up scaffolds and start using ox carts aplenty to make the national mall into Place de la Concorde v2.0
But that's only one thing. There's tons of options available that won't be publicized. Have Biden order the CIA (official act) to do something covert about Trump/Thomas/Alito. It MIGHT come out before the election, but regardless is basically unprosecutable.
It wouldn't come out quickly either, since this new ruling means investigation official actions could be considered a criminal act and anyone acting against the president had better be really careful about what questions they ask and to whom.
He could something immensely popular like sanctioning US citizens Alito and Thomas. He can take their vacation homes, reassign their official residents, change their SS protection to regular DOJ
