First, any crime has two different components. The "act" itself (or "actus reas" in legal terms) and the requisite degree of criminal intent ("mens reas"). You have to put them both together to have a "crime." Needless to say, people are usually very quick to impute mens rea to acts they don't like, but look for every excuse in the world to avoid finding mens rea when it is being applied to people they do like. "My guy did it for a noble reason, but your guy did it for an evil one."
Anyway, here's the problem with your question about that code section. The Supreme Court in Trump v. United States was very clear that you cannot consider the President's intent or motive when determining whether the act he took is covered by immunity. In other words, the President's "mens rea" (literally "guilty mind") is something that you cannot consider when determining questions of immunity. You must look only at the act itself. So when you cite a criminal code section and ask "is this covered by immunity", it is a non-sequitor because you are adding in criminal intent to an immunity determination where intent is irrelevant.
Here's an example to hopefully make the point more clearly. I have actually read someone on FR say that Kentaji Jackson-Brown is so incompetent, and so intent on destroying the country, that Biden appointing her was literally treason. So to that person, Biden committed treason - a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2381.
Of course, the actus reus in question is Biden appointing her to the Supreme Court, which SCOTUS would find 9-0 is an "official act" covered by Presidential Immunity. But then you'd have people here saying that would be an absurd result because you are now claiming that there is Presidential immunity for treason!! Horrors!!
That's why asking if there is immunity for the violation of a particular code section, as you did, doesn't make sense. What courts will look at is the act itself, minus all the spin, and minus all the imputation of evil motive or purpose. Simply the bare act. So, I couldn't answer your question because I don't even know what you are claiming the specific underlying act actually is. All I know is that you cited a code section without specifying what he actually did, which is the only thing that actually matters when it comes to determining whether immunity applies.
“So, I couldn’t answer your question because I don’t even know what you are claiming the specific underlying act actually is.”
I’d say knowingly using false information to drag a duly elected President through years of criminal trials would qualify as a deliberate violation of Trump’s civil rights in violation of 18USC242. Hence my mention of that statute.
I’d also say that ordering underlings to knowingly use false information to violate the civil rights of a duly elected President might run afoul of th RICO statutes. I can’t see even the most liberal member of SCOTUS signing off on that. But once again, I’m no lawyer. And Roberts has more gyrations that an Olympic gymnast so who knows.
And if you mean to say that SCOTUS said a sitting President can NEVER be considered to have a “guilty mind” I’d politely ask you to point me to the specific section of the decision which states that. Because I must have missed it.
Granted I’m no lawyer and my Latin is a bit rusty. So I could be wrong. My understanding of the decision is that it would need to be litigated to determine whether or not it was an “official act”. Do I have that right?
And just for the record I don’t use ChatGP or any other AI platform to do my research. I don’t trust natural intelligence all that much so I’m very hesitant to use the artificial version.
It’s why I asked the question of you and not ChatGP. I assume you’re a lawyer.
L