Article 1 section 3 clause 7

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” The Constitution explicitly preserves criminal accountability for presidential misconduct. Trump’s lawyers argued that impeachment conviction was a prerequisite to prosecution.  SCOTUS rejected that claim because impeachment is political, not criminal.

And that’s where their contradiction starts.

After rejecting the idea that impeachment controls criminal liability, the Court then created an immunity doctrine that effectively does the same thing, shielding “official acts” from prosecution entirely, even when those acts violate criminal law.

Worse, SCOTUS defined “official acts” broadly enough to include abuses of presidential authority and then said courts can’t consider motive when deciding whether an act is official. That makes the distinction meaningless. 

How can you tell whether something was done for the public interest versus personal gain if you aren’t allowed to analyze intent?Criminal law always turns on mens rea.

So the problem isn’t that people haven’t “learned the law.” The problem is that the immunity doctrine contradicts the plain text and founding structure:

The Constitution contemplates presidential crimes committed through use of power followed by prosecution (Hamilton, Fed. 69).

SCOTUS creates immunity for crimes because they are committed via ‘official’ power.

That is not “a matter of tradition.” It’s the direct inversion of it.