Subject: Re: SCOTUS on POTUS immunity
The only case in which reasonable people MIGHT disagree on the justification for limited Presidential immunity involves military decisions as Commander in Chief that impact Americans.

I don't think that's right.

Imagine an international agreement dealing with money laundering. Some agreements (not all) allow a party to withdraw unilaterally - so let's assume this money laundering agreement has that provision. So the President can decide to withdraw the U.S. from the agreement, if he chooses. Generally speaking, that's the type of foreign policy decision (and criminal justice decision) that generally lies within the discretion and judgement of the President, as head of state and head of government.

That type of decision is clearly an "official act" of the President. It's the type of decision (whether to stay in or drop out of an international agreement) that Presidents make all the time. But it's also the type of decision that can have a significant impact on a lot of criminal and financial matters, and it's not hard to imagine a scenario (albeit an uncommon one) where someone might suggest that the President's decision to pull the U.S. out of such agreement was to help someone obtain financial gain or avoid potential criminal enforcement.

For example: Biden pulls out of that agreement in 2021 (hypothetically), in 2022 FTX collapses in a paroxysm of financial misconduct and fraud charges, and in 2025 the new Trump DOJ brings charges against Biden claiming that the withdrawal from the agreement was part of a criminal conspiracy to help SBF avoid international enforcement, because SBF was (or was claiming he would be) a big political donor to the Democratic party. Biden would certainly argue that his decision whether to withdraw from the agreement is an official act, and that he should be immune from prosecution over it (the same way he would be completely immune from civil suits over it). I think that's a fairly reasonable argument for him to make.