They absolutely can question intent. They just can’t use an “official act” as evidence of intent. They can use all the “unofficial acts” they want to demonstrate intent. And, once they decide that the bribe was an unofficial act, the door is opened to use it for intent as well.
Take conspiracy for example. The elements of conspiracy are:
Two or more people agreed to commit a crime
All conspirators had the specific intent to commit the crime
At least one of the conspirators committed an overt act
Trump conspires with false electors to rig the election. Trump’s is immune to charges stemming from his conversation with Pence, but he is not immune to charges of conspiring with false electors. His communication with Pence cannot be considered evidence of intent (#2), But it can be the overt act (#3) of the conspiracy.
You reversed the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the prosecutor - not the accused president - who has to do the proving.
That is presumptively out of bounds for trial. That is a rebuttable presumption.
The court only has to “presume” it was an official act. That presumption is rebuttable. The prosecutor would present an argument that such a bribe was not an “official” act; the judge is free to accept that argument.
Use of the military is delegated to him under article 2, his use of that power cannot be questioned.
The military is strictly limited on what kind of operations it is allowed to perform. The commander and operators of Seal Team 6 would be prosecuted if they obeyed an unlawful order, even if it came from their Commander in Chief. The president does not have the power to order Seal Team 6 to violate the Posse Comitatus act. The President does not have the power to violate his political rival’s right to due process. A prosecutor can argue that such an egregious order falls well outside the scope of the office, and constitutes an “unofficial act”. The courts are free to rule accordingly.
The dissents are reading far more into the majority opinion than is actually there. I suggest you read the majority opinion a little more closely.
When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune
In all three of those cases, the question as to whether those actions are required or permitted under the law is put to a judge, and that judge is free to rule that they are not. The trial judge is free to rule that they are “unofficial” acts, and deny that immunity.
This ruling is terrible for Trump.
If he were legitimately convinced that the electoral college process was improper, it is his duty to pressure Pence not to certify. He can’t be criminally charged simply for pressuring Pence not to certify.
However, that same act of pressuring Pence can be considered a component of election fraud. He cannot be charged for merely pressuring Pence, but the act of pressuring Pence can be used as evidence of that wider fraud. The trial court is free to decide that the wider fraud is not an official act.
The immunity the court is talking about means they can’t be charged with murder for sending troops to war. Such an act is not “above the law”. The law specifically authorizes the president to perform such an act.
The legal remedy for a president who improperly sending troops to war is impeachment, not a criminal charge.
The president’s immunity extends only to those acts that he is specifically authorized by law to perform. Those are “official” acts. The acts that Trump is accused of are well outside the scope of his former office. The trial court is going to burn his ass. SCOTUS didn’t save him.
I don’t know why everybody is so upset about this ruling.
The trial court said he didn’t have absolute immunity. He said he did, and appealed. The appeals court said “no, you don’t have absolute immunity” and sent it back to thr trial court. He appealed again. SCOTUS could have reversed the trial court and appelate court. They did not. They upheld the appellate court decision, and said “no, you do not have absolute immunity. You only have immunity for official acts. Shove your appeal up your ass, we’re sending this back to the trial court.”
They ruled against him, folks.
The trial court is free to determine that lying to the VP for purposes of committing election fraud does not constitute an official act. The fact that they remanded the decision to the trial court instead of reversing the trial and appellate court is the “exception” you are looking for.
They denied his appeal. Ok? He claimed absolute immunity, they said “No, you only have immunity for your official acts. We aren’t going to save you here. The trial court is going to burn your ass.”
Talking to the VP about not confirming is protected. Lying to the VP about the reason why he should not confirm is not protected.
Trying to convince the VP to fraudulently say no to the EC count is the crime
Knowingly making a false statement to the VP would, indeed, be a criminal fraud, but the passage you cited does not contemplate such an act.
Trump was trying to get his fake electors counted
That, too, is not contemplated in the passage you cited.
What part of that statement is about attacking Congress or subverting the electoral college?
It is certainly within the president’s and vice president’s responsibilities to determine whether to certify the count. They have to be able to say “no, this should not be certified”.
Saying “no” can still be used as evidence of another crime, it’s just not a crime in and of itself.
Where are you getting that? That question wasn’t put to SCOTUS.
Trump was charged. Trump claimed he had “absolute immunity”, and didn’t have to face charges. Court rules against him in this issue; he appealed. Appellate court ruled against him, sending the case back to the trial court. He appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS said he doesn’t have absolute immunity, and that the limit of his immunity is on his “official acts”. SCOTUS then sent the case back to the trial court. The trial court will have to determine whether his actions were “official” or “unofficial”.
If I wanted your clothes, I wouldn’t have left them at goodwill.
“Disrespectful” would be telling you that you in particular should continue to use windows or mac, and avoid Linux like the plague.
Do you actually want to run an application that doesn’t exist on Linux?
I use a virtual machines for the 2 or 3 times a year I need to use a couple garbage windows-only programs. Usually for configuring some arcane piece of proprietary hardware that people were getting rid of because it is incompatible with everything.
Well, yeah. I mean, help desk deals with users at their moment of peak incompetence. If 1 in 20 users can’t figure out that “Office” is now “Libre office”, help desk is going to be swamped.
The solution is to merge help desk and HR, so that something productive can be done about PEBCAK issues.
No, you don’t. The last state to place the burden of proof on you for defending yourself was Ohio, but they repealed their unconstitutional “Affirmative Defense” requirement in 2019. In every state, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that your actions were not defensive, not yours to prove they were.
Likewise, it is the prosecutor’s burden to prove he was fraudulently “convinced”.