I didn't catch this when I first read it but 5-4 pointed out that Roberts is willing to identify specific acts in the indictment that are definitely immune, but no specific acts that are definitely subject to prosecution. Really gives the game away.
It also seems to me that some of the stuff with presumptive immunity could only have that presumption removed by resorting to evidence that’s either excluded by absolute immunity or else also under presumptive immunity, and it becomes a regress.
