[everforward]

I read the ruling, and my takeaway is that either a) "official acts" is so overly broad that virtually any action could be done as an "official act", or b) "official acts" is very, very unclear.

E.g. from the court's opinion:

> Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official re- sponsibilities, they engage in official conduct.

It's not a huge leap to infer that the President, as Commander in Chief, is engaging in official conduct any time they ask the army (or its many contractors) to do something.

The only thing the Constitution says is:

> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

There's nothing in there that says they can't be used domestically, or for what purposes the President can control them. There could be some quibbling about what "actual Service" means, but I suspect it becomes recursive to "whatever the president says actual Service is".

The specific reason that everyone is freaking out is this part of the opinion:

> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to ju- dicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose.

I.e. the president's motive is unquestionable, the only question is whether the action was taken via some power granted to the President. If it is, the President has immunity, and the president has _very_ broad powers.

[WillPostForFood]

Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official re- sponsibilities, they engage in official conduct.

This is a misleading partial quotation. In the context of what they were saying, the president has the presumption of immunity, but it is not guaranteed. They specifically remanded the issue of Trump trying to get Pence to break the law to the lower courts to decide whether there was immunity. They did not say there was blanket immunity.

The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of in- trusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

[everforward]

> This is a misleading partial quotation. In the context of what they were saying, the president has the presumption of immunity, but it is not guaranteed. They specifically remanded the issue of Trump trying to get Pence to break the law to the lower courts to decide whether there was immunity. They did not say there was blanket immunity.

Sure, but take a look at what I posted, and then the proceeding sentences:

> Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification pro- ceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presump- tively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

I don't see any reading from that where Trump doesn't have blanket immunity. They stopped just barely short of saying so, with a clear implication of what they believe.

Certifying the vote is an official responsibility of the VP, and Trump was talking about that responsibility. They are not allowed to consider motives, only whether Trump talking to Pence about certification is within his official powers.

I would be very, very surprised if a lower court was able to find that the conduct was not in an official function. There's not a lot of room here once you take out whether the motives align with a presidential function.

[WillPostForFood]

I don't see any reading from that where Trump doesn't have blanket immunity. They stopped just barely short of saying so, with a clear implication of what they believe.

I don't understand, just read the next two paragraphs. They say he doesn't have blanket immunity, and his presumptive immunity can be pierced, and explicitly sent the case back to the lower court to gather facts and decide whether he has immunity in this instance. All three of those points are not blanket immunity.