We were discussing the issue of Presidential immunity as discussed in Trump v. United States, and whether or not criminal intent is relevant to that immunity determination. THAT was the point being discussed. To quote you directly:
Your post #12): "Obama doesn’t have presidential immunity in this case because he had criminal intent which nullifies any immunity.
You repeated that exact same point in Post #23:
Criminal intent nullifies any presidential immunity.
THAT is your argument that we addressed. You have claimed that language came from the decision, but it didn't. You provided the citation for the case itself, but not the page on which that (alleged) quote was contained. Hmmmmm... Woodpusher then pointed out that the word "intent" doesn't even appear in the majority opinion at all. So your bolded statements above aren't quotes from the actual case -- you just made them up.
Oh, and here's a link to the actual decision itself. Please feel free to find the non-existent pages on which the non-existent language you cited appears. Because...it doesn't.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
In contrast, woodpusher quoted language verbatim from the syllabus. Now in overly-technical fairness, the syllabus is not part of the official decision. However, the following language does come directly from the Opinion itself, P.18. Feel free to go to that link and read the first full paragraph on that page yourself. Here it is:
"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect. Indeed, “[i]t would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government” if “[i]n exercising the functions of his office,” the President was “under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become the subject of inquiry.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 745 (quoting Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483, 498 (1896))."
Oops. So perhaps realizing you got out too far over your skis, you called me a "fucking idiot", but then shifted your claim to no longer being about immunity at all. Here's your new spin:
"A related crucial aspect of the case and potential future criminal proceedings is the requirement of mens rea, or criminal intent.
Nobody would argue that IF no presidential immunity was found, and a case then proceeded to a subsequent criminal trial, criminal intent would become relevant. But that has NOTHING to do with your bogus claim -- made twice by you and bolded above -- that criminal intent controls the presidential immunity determination itself.
It doesn't. Inquiries into the President's motives, criminal or otherwise, are irrelevant at the immunity stage.