Thread by @whignewtons

SCOTUS created 3 buckets:
--core presidential action like pardon power (absolutely immune)

--purely private conduct (indict all you want)

--all other official acts are immune UNLESS govt can show they arent intruding on authority of potus (quasi balancing test)

This is bad for Trump. He was always going to get the DOJ-related charge tossed out. Thinking about replacing your AG is not indictable...otherwise, we'd look into every POTUS motive for every removal. What about mixed motives? Political motives? It's a mess.

But other charges look gtg. Example, ACB: "POTUS has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power."

Pressuring Mike Pence is a closer call, but even there the Chief provides the road map. "Despite the VP’s expansive role of advising and assisting the President, the VP’s Article I responsibility of 'presiding over the Senate' is 'not an ‘executive branch’ function.'"

But what about Sotomayor's parade of horribles about bribery for pardons and Seal Team 6 assassinations.? This is the weird thing. The Court didn't need to include the absolute immunity bucket. The balancing test would necessarily have meant immunity for core functions.

One wonders whether a pardon-for-money scheme would simply fall into Bucket 3 when the rubber hits the road? Sure, its a pardon (core) but prosecuting a bribe for an official act doesn't intrude on pardon power? Unclear.

The point is: DONT ELECT WOULD BE TYRANTS OR CRIMINALS!