The illegitimate Republican Supreme Court has ruled (pdf) on convicted felon Malignant Loser's claim of absolute presidential immunity. As widely anticipated, the Republicans- in- robes allowed for "presumptive immunity" for broadly defined (by a President) "official" acts while in office. It punts back to Judge Chutkan the determination of what acts outlined in the Special Counsel's indictment were "official" or "unofficial," while essentially hamstringing the determination of such acts:
"Certain allegations--such as those involving Trump's discussions with the Acting Attorney General--are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President's official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations--such as those involving Trump's interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public--present more difficult questions." [snip]
"... On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial..." (our emphasis)
So, mission accomplished, and then some. The Malignant Loser gets even more than what he may have expected, but most of all, a delay (at the very least) in his election interference trial. Now, we wait to see if Special Counsel Smith can conduct a mini- trial laying out permissible evidence of the Malignant Loser's involvement in the fake electors scheme, and his pressuring of State officials to "find" votes for him.
More analysis at SCOTUSblog.
UPDATE: As one might expect, corrupt crackpot Justice Clarence Thomas goes far afield in his concurrence, questioning the legitimacy of the Special Counsel.
UPDATE II: Justice Sotomayor summarizes the effect of the Republicans- in- robes holding at the beginning of her dissent (p. 68):
"Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent."
"Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. [snip]
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." (our emphasis)
More commentary later in our Tweets/ Xeets of the Day.
