However, the Court’s GOP majority did not issue a test for “official” v. “Unofficial” acts so that it can remain the ultimate arbiter of what can or cannot be prosecuted
couple of observations from reading the decision:
1. this is really bad.
2. in practice, the status quo has also been bad, and i'm honestly unsure how much of a departure this is from the status quo. i'm still mad about the lack of accountability for Nixon, George W. Bush etc. ...
in practice, presidents have been enjoying a lot of immunity. This codifies it in a way that's quite alarming in the abstract, but even more alarming in the case considered. The decision references Trump's discussions with Pence about trying to interfere with the EC vote counting as "official"
basically making a coup legal as long as you discuss it with your vice president. moreover, this way of argumentation that ignores obvious context and treats all reasoning like we're in a law school seminar is just straight-up gaslighting.
Wait, what? The Presi-Emperor can do whatever he likes, and we can't even question the motives for why he does it?
(guy doesn't clap hard enough or long enough at a rally)
"Execute him for being a suspected terrorist!"
COURT: "Well, we have to presume the president was keeping the country safe"
Well you see as president I can literally be on the record discussion all the very illegal shit I want to do, but if I do it in an official context and then try to actually do it... you can't actually question my motives... motives for a crime apparently don't matter when you're president.
Another important point: the majority says conduct that is protected (immune) cannot be used as evidence in another prosecution for unprotected conduct.
