> Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
It clears the way for Presidents from either party to carry out abuses they wouldn't have dared consider otherwise. All they'll need to do is find or make an angle that qualifies it as an official act.
> All they'll need to do is find or make an angle...
that's not anything new though, Obama's drone strikes weren't ordered until his lawyers felt they had a very good defense for him in case he was charged with assassinating US citizens without due process.
The majority specifies some ways this may apply that very much make all kinds of things directly shielded by this ruling, and indirectly shields more by restricting the use of evidence that has to do with official acts.
The way they’ve set this up, the people involved have a lot to do with it. It sure looks like the President can now openly discuss corruption like selling secrets or pardons with e.g. relevant cabinet members, and none of that can be prosecuted, nor can it be evidence presented in a prosecution of crimes.
The wording is definitely not clear enough in that section, however I don't think this is the intended reading (and I'm hoping we get clarification on this) -- the pardon would be an official act, but according to footnote 3 the sale of the pardon and discussions about that would not be included in the bar on evidence of the official act, because they're not considered part of that official act. It seems (with the footnotes considered) to be a very narrow interpretation of "official act," which does seem to contradict the plain reading. Very annoying.
Let's imagine that a president decides to, say, stop aiding Ukraine, and in exchange, Putin promises said president a couple billion dollars.
Stopping aid to Ukraine is definitely an official act, which, on its own, is within their powers. Trading said official action for the billion dollars is what is fraudulent, but if I am understanding the Roberts opinion correctly, it cannot be prosecuted, because the motives of the president should not be used as part of the ruling of immunity. So... free bribery, as long as said president pays their taxes.
> Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
> With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
Chilling words.