But what he did on jan 6, asking people to break the law for him, is not an official act of the presidency, so that would still be prosecutable I would think.
Is it? I mean he was discussing it with his vice president and members of his cabinet.
If a president discusses with his cabinet how to fight a war in a way that is possibly illegal (and then orders it), that is an official act, executing illegal actions, and is immune.
What is the difference between that and preventing the transfer of power to your political opponent?
Especially since now parts of your activity's are "official" and cannot be mentioned in court, and part of your activities are not official which are potentially prosecutable, see Barrett's arguments.
Got to love it when supreme court creates all these exiting new laws.
I would assume an official act is something outlined in their description of their powers like the president appointing someone, and not just every word and action they do while holding the job as president. I wouldn't think him cussing after a shank during golf would be an official act as the POTUS for example, although I'm sure it happened thousands of times during his presidency.
And the court very specifically leaves open the possibility that he's guilty for his actions on January 6th if he was acting in his capacity as a candidate for office.
If it wasn't illegal, then what else is new? Republicans always try and twist the knife and get whatever profit seeking muck they can passed while they hold the reins.
