"Essentially, all he has to do is claim that everything he did to plot a coup was part of his "official" duties, and the Supreme Court provided no clear method or evidentiary standard that can be used to challenge that presumption.
Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court's ruling here:
The immunity is absolute
There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given
On the first point, the immunity granted to Trump in this case far exceeds the immunity granted to, say, police officers or other government officials, when they act in their official capacities.
Those officials are granted "qualified" immunity from civil penalties. (it can be taken away)
Not so with Trump.
Presidents are now entitled to "absolute" immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear.
.
Moreover, unlike other officials, presidents are now entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges.
Even a cop can be charged with, say, murder, even if they argue that killing people is part of their jobs. But not presidents. Presidents can murder, rape, steal, and pretty much do whatever they want, so long as they argue that murdering, raping, or stealing is part of the official job of the president of the United States.
There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.
.
There will be Republicans and legal academics and whatever the hell job Jonathan Turley has who will go into overdrive arguing that the decision isn't as bad as all that.
These bad-faith actors will be quoted or even published in The Washington Post and The New York Times. They will argue that presidents can still be prosecuted for "unofficial acts," and so they will say that everything is fine.
,
But they will be wrong, because while the Supreme Court says "unofficial" acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting "unofficially."
And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove that their acts were "unofficial."
If trying to overthrow the government is "official," then what isn't?
And if we can't use the evidence of what the president says or does, because communications with their advisers, other government officials, and the public is "official," then how can we ever show that an act was taken "unofficially"?
.
