Pwnallthethings: I think they maybe can, but they'd have to really really try hard to force it (e.g. if Biden asks his friend Tom Friedman to burn down the courthouse where Hunter is on trial maybe you get there, but you really have to lean in hard to find examples)

Would this ruling mean that if Nixon argued that Watergate was within the outer perimeter, he'd have have had done nothing wrong?

Folks overfocus on the "what if drone strike opponent" question, but it seems to me the more relevant one is "what if President asks CIA to bug opponent's headquarters". Which normal people would correctly identify as a criminal action, and which, as I read this ruling, would be an official act.

I think based on the logic of this case, not only would he be able to argue it, he'd be right, and he could not be prosecuted for it

I think it means presidents as a matter of law cannot commit obstruction of justice Droit c'est moi?

I think they maybe can, but they'd have to really really try hard to force it (e.g. if Biden asks his friend Tom Friedman to burn down the courthouse where Hunter is on trial maybe you get there, but you really have to lean in hard to find examples)

And even then, there'd be presumptive immunity with a threshold of "absolutely no threat of prying into the domain of the executive ever" to permit piercing the veil.

Post