No, the Court said that the President could not be prosecuted for actions that the President takes while being The President. If the President is not being The President then they can be prosecuted. If the President beats his/her wife/husband, then they can be prosecuted because that's not something The President is involved in.
So if the President calls another official over the secure line and tasks them to falsify election results and then prevents the transcript from going into the archive, how do you even get em? Practically speaking. That's the problem, that's how it works -- use the office immunity, plausible deniability and procedure rules to your advantage. Making it so is asking for trouble, just waiting to be abused the hell of.
They could just argue the PRA is impeding their ability to communicate with the people within the executive branch and are thus immune to the punishments of the PRA.
idk man, probably the same way that they get mafia bosses who write their plans on little pieces of paper that are given to henchmen who then burn them
I understand your point and I'm not saying it's a great spot to land at, but I don't understand how the country's President can function if it were any other way. It's not just about Donald Trump, it's about 1 through 44 and 46 through whatever number we get to before this whole place burns down.
The court only said that a specific thing (him directing the justice department to look into the election) was an official act. The person is presumptively immune from prosecution for official acts under the constitution.
I mean, it's still really bad, but a few slivers less bad than you say :P
