The majority opinion in Trump says that (1) official acts can't be evidence; and (2) motive is irrelevant.
If that's the case, how could a president ever actually *be* prosecuted for ordering the military, in his capacity as commander in chief, to kill his chief political rival?
Lawyers bragging to their lawyer friends like “I absolutely roasted opposing counsel in my brief” when in reality in one sentence in their response brief they alleged opposing counsel’s argument was “without merit”