Note that the majority opinion forbids prosecutors from referencing the official act in court, no matter the charge. So they'd have to prove the President accep

Note that the majority opinion forbids prosecutors from referencing the official act in court, no matter the charge. So they'd have to prove the President accepted a bribe, but never mention anything about the ambassadorship. How could a jury ever reach a guilty verdict? At most, the evidence would point to a President receiving a lavish monetary gift. This isn't a misreading of the ruling. Justice Barret dissented from that particular part of the majority opinion, bringing up the hypothetical of bribery.