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.
No. One might argue that "person acting for or on behalf of the United States" includes the President, even if he is not an officer or employee, but *helpless shrug*
"Because of his immense responsibilities under Article II, the President cannot fairly be said to be merely a 'person' in the dictionary sense of the word, nor can he perform official acts as a 'person' rather than as the officeholder..." - SCOTUS 2026, probably
