[ceejayoz]

The President is the Commander in Chief; issuing orders to the military is very much an official act.

"But not for this! This would be clearly corrupt!" you may say, but the decision addresses that as well; the President's motive for the "official act" cannot be introduced as evidence!

> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.

[goodluckchuck]

Not intent, but the location and nature of the order. If it’s not in a war zone, not targeting an enemy combatant, etc. that’s not an order that falls within the scope of the core actions of a commander in chief.

[ceejayoz]

Neither is pressuring the Vice President not to certify the election, but they explicitly state it to be an official act. Page 31 of the ruling:

> Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Pre- siding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a consti- tutional and statutory duty of the Vice President.

> The indictment’s allega- tions that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the cer- tification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

They're laying out an extremely permissive standard.

[fallingknife]

It can't be used to distinguish between an official act and an unofficial act. That wouldn't make sense anyway.

Motive can be used to defeat the presumptive immunity for an official act.

[ruds]

But the immunity is only presumptive for acts within the outer perimiter of the president's official responsibility. For core constitutional powers, like giving orders to the military, the immunity is absolute.