Content, its clear that petitioner is acting in the capacity as office seeker, not as president. We would look at that content. Okay. The test im focused on the legal test. Im not hearing any objections to it. Other than, i think that the d. C. Circuit placed more Content Consideration off limits than i would. All right. I wanted to understand, on the Core Immunity or whatever word we use, that it seems to me we are narrowing the ground of dispute here considerably, do we look at motives, the president s motives for his actions . For example, he has more power as we discussed, but he might use them to enhance his election, his personal interests. Is that a relevant consideration when were looking at core powers . I am thinking of this more as looking at the objective of the activity as opposed to the subjective motive in the sense that your honor is talking about. I think theres a lot of concern about saying an electoral motive to be reelected. Right. Every firstterm president everythi
again, it s a mixed bag decision. there is some presidential immunity. there is presidential immunity for official acts, not unofficial acts. the way that they ve worded it as we ve been discussing at this table and with our guests is that it does seem to lean heavily toward donald trump s arguments here, that he can do what he wants to do as the president of the united states. let s bring in ken dilanian outside of the supreme court. ken, what do you have? reporter: yeah, katy, i think the analysis here has been spot on. you know, the decision goes a long way to say that the president is not above the law and that private acts, unofficial acts are not immune. but if you look at the implications for jack smith s indictment of former president trump, they appear to be dire because there s a whole section in the indictment about donald trump s efforts to enlist the justice department to falsely- allegedly falsely proclaim there was fraud in the election, write letters to stat