occurs to me that bribing the president is now /always/ legal, since in every case the only way to distinguish gratuity from bribe is via evidence that could never be admissible
I feel obligated to point out that unlike the state and local bribery statute the Court just ruled on (18 U.S.C. §666), the one for federal officials (18 U.S.C. §201) makes both bribes and gratuities expressly illegal, but I concede the Court may not care when an actual case under 201 arises.
And to prove it's a gratuity, you would still have to show that it was accepted "for or because of any official act performed or to be performed", which could be problematic.
The Menendez case has to do this dance, though at least there it’s in the freakin text.
In the most optimistic scenario under Trump v US, discussions with private citizens on policy are official acts but would somehow defeat “presumptive” immunity.
