$.02 only because no one else has answered, and also noting that I haven't read the D.C. indictment in full and fully expect that to better indicate which conduct there is "official capacity" and which is not so marked:
I've seen "official acts" defined as those for which an officerholder is charged by a Constitutional or statutory duty. …
$.02 only because no one else has answered, and also noting that I haven't read the D.C. indictment in full and fully expect that to better indicate which conduct there is "official capacity" and which is not so marked:
I've seen "official acts" defined as those for which an officerholder is charged by a Constitutional or statutory duty. So for President it would be to give a State of the Union and to perform whatever any statute says POTUS / White House must do, such as review proposed agency regulations. Things that would not be official acts would be others actions such as what a President does specifically as part of a re-election campaign.
So what? So in theory, SCOTUS's question presented already forecloses the possibility that there could be immunity for non-official acts, like campaign / rally speeches that lead to insurrection, while still possibly creating immunity for actions he took in 2020 that were in fact in accordance with law even if they somehow contributed to the insurrection.
Please take my thoughts with a healthy grain of salt.
$.02 only because no one else has answered, and also noting that I haven't read the D.C. indictment in full and fully expect that to better indicate which conduct there is "official capacity" and which is not so marked:
I've seen "official acts" defined as those for which an officerholder is charged by a Constitutional or statutory duty. So for President it would be to give a State of the Union and to perform whatever any statute says POTUS / White House must do, such as review proposed agency regulations. Things that would not be official acts would be others actions such as what a President does specifically as part of a re-election campaign.
So what? So in theory, SCOTUS's question presented already forecloses the possibility that there could be immunity for non-official acts, like campaign / rally speeches that lead to insurrection, while still possibly creating immunity for actions he took in 2020 that were in fact in accordance with law even if they somehow contributed to the insurrection.
Please take my thoughts with a healthy grain of salt.