@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika First, thank you for saying so, and I do apologize for getting exasperated. I promise that whatever I am doing, I am not arguing in bad faith. I have been in a crisis since last Monday, and my family might well end up emigrating because of this decision. Now let me address your counter. 1/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika In the decision there is actually an argument among the conservatives, between Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts, on just this point. Coney Barrett dissents in part, specifically on the excluding motives part. She uses the example of bribery, quid pro quo. She asks, suppose a President is bribed to pardon. Pardons are within the "conclusive and preclusive" powers of the President. 2/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika So a pardon, per se, can never be a crime. But accepting a bribe to produce one certainly is. It's *quid pro quo*. ACB points out that we might see the *quid* (someone gave the President money), but unless the *pro* is established, it's not a bribe. 3/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika If examining the motivation for a pardon is out of bounds, how can you establish a connection between the *quid* and the *quo*? Again, a pardon alone is under the President's absolute discretion, can never be a crime in and of itself. So without motive, could the prohibition against bribing for a pardon ever be enforced? 4/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika Roberts — extremely unpersuasively in my view — answers that the pardon itself is a public act. So, for example, if the wife of a Federal prisoner gave a big sum to a President or to his campaign, and then that prisoner was pardoned, perhaps that would be enough? 5/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika Perhaps we can agree that is unpersuasive, because perhaps we have a shared low opinion of Bill Clinton and his ethics. 6/

screenshot from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika We already know, I think, that the mere public act of a pardon subsequent to some nice "donations" is insufficient in practice to establish a bribe. In fact, this Supreme Court has dramatically tightened standards, clarified that only a clear quid-pro-quo is actionable, outright legalized after-the-fact gratuities to state and local officials. 7/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika Note that neither Amy Coney Barrett nor John Roberts relied upon the possibility that motive might leak. Evidence of motive (I think!) already exists in Jack Smith's case against Trump. The Court does not consider it, I think because it's now inadmissible, under the may-not-inquire-into-motives standard. 8/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika But suppose evidence of motive was just brazenly public? A whistle-blower leaks a memo to the New York Times, in which a President (idiotically) instructs a pardon be issued in consideration of the spouse's loyal financial support. 9/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika I don't think, under this decision, that changes anything. The Court may not inquire. To bring a public New York Times article into evidence, for the prosecutor to subpoena from the Times a copy, to validate it by interviewing and examining its author or the reporter would be the court inquiring into motive. 10/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika And without some degree of validation, some degree of "inquiry", even what is fully public can only be rumor and hearsay to a court of law. I don't think the court would be able to take into account information about motive that "everybody knows", because converting common knowledge to vetted evidence would be an inquiry to far. 11/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika John Roberts seems to suggest that at least conjectures or allegations about motive might have a role (how else could the mere public act of a pardon become the *quo* of quid-pro-quo?), but i think a plain reading of "courts may not inquire into the President's motives" would also prohibit entertaining conjectures and allegations about motive. 12/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika And even if it did not, how could mere conjecture and allegation form the basis of any criminal prosecution? /fin

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika You also wonder, what if it's not a leak, what if the President himself states his motive on the public record somehow? Could courts at least use that, in deciding whether an act was an official act?

I don't know! 1a/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika The way I characterize this decision is not that it's automatic immunity for anything a President does. Trump, if he loses the election, might still be on the hook, because some of the allegations against him involve actions that may well be unofficial acts. 2a/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika What the decision is is a *roadmap* to Presidents who want to break the law and get away with it. It's fine to instruct your Attorney General to gin up a prosecution against a political opponent. Your discussions and prosecutorial decisions have absolute immunity. 2b/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika Even with several of your too-charitable-I-think reading of a limitation in the taking-Care clause, there'd be no way to demonstrate that the prosecutorial decisionmaking was out of bounds without any ability of courts to inquire into motive, even when there is a credible allegation of lawbreaking. 2c/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika But Presidents can still do stupid stuff and get in trouble. If the President instructed his driver to mow down a Congressperson he disliked, Courts would probably pretty easily find that an unofficial act. 2d/

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika Openly confessing a corrupt motive for actions that would otherwise enjoy immunity I think falls into that category. Yes, there are still ways that a President can be stupid or careless and shed His immunity. But the decision presents a clear roadmap, which if followed, permits a President to act very flexibly without deference to general law, with no way for Congress to regulate or the courts to hold accountable. /2fin