Equating Trump's accusations and drone strikes only makes sense if you're not allowed to look at intent, which historically is very relevant for criminal law. M

Equating Trump's accusations and drone strikes only makes sense if you're not allowed to look at intent, which historically is very relevant for criminal law. More aptly Nixon would be immune from prosecution for obstructing the Watergate investigation under this ruling. In fact presidents are immune from using the justice department to go after political rivals here since determining prosecutorial priorities is clearly an official act (mentioned in the opinion) and you aren't allowed to inspect intent. If either party used the justice department specifically for personal gain they should be in jail but they are literally immune now. The disallowing of considering even corrupt intent seems to be the real worry here. There's no distinction between using your power to promote general welfare and using it to line your own pockets or subvert democracy.