[r_sreeram]

The article explains this concern:

> One example not relevant to this case but which came up in arguments was the hypothetical payment of a bribe in return for an ambassadorial appointment.

Under Monday’s decision, a former president could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe, but prosecutors could not mention the official act, the appointment, in their case.

So, imagine:

Prosecution: You took a bribe!

Defense: Bribe? No! It was just a gift.

Prosecution: It preceded the intended action, so it WAS a bribe.

Defense: What action?

Prosecution: Oops.

[kristjansson]

Roberts attempts to address this in the majority opinion:

> JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety.

It seems a little contradictory ("second-guess their propriety"? isn't that the point of a bribery indictment?), but the outline is clear, I think. Prosecutors are restricted from 'probing' the act (asking for records, testimony, etc. from the executive branch) but can use all evidence they otherwise would. The official act can be mentioned. Accepting the bribe is the prohibited, unofficial act for which the president enjoys no immunity from prosecution.

[asdff]

I would hope the law isn't so loose in interpretation where people could get away this easily with this looney tunes legal defense. For example I used to work in a public capacity and we couldn't even take gifts, so I would think the president couldn't just say they were gifted a huge yacht or something for a wink wink nudge nudge, or else it would have been done by now.

[vharuck]

You should read their recent decision in a corruption case. There is a federal law for agents of government bodies or organizations that receive above a certain threshold of federal money, saying they can't accept or solicit bribes or rewards for official acts. The reasoning is federal money shouldn't be squandered on crooked deals.

A mayor gave a large contract to a local business owner who then gave the mayor $13,000 in gifts and "advisory" fees. SCOTUS said that was okay, because the mayor didn't explicitly agree to a "quid pro quo" bribery deal before giving out the contract. They jumped through hoops to avoid the "rewards" part of the law.

So if you get your old public position back, you might be able to reap some SCOTUS-blessed rewards.

[zeroonetwothree]

It’s actually for state actors, not federal. I think it would have been problematic if giving your public school teacher a gift lands them in jail for 15 years.