The author is making the case that Presidents should have immunity from states prosecuting them over alleged violations of Federal law, and I agree. Such prosecutions are already restricted by our legal system, when applied to ordinary citizens. How much more so when being applied to a President? President Trump should be immune from the New York indictment on jurisdictional considerations alone, regardless of the larger Presidential immunity question.
Actually I may have initially mis-interpreted the author’s argument. She’s pointing out that “falsifying” the ledger to avoid impeachment, during his first term, is by definition a Presidential act. Falsifying the ledger to avoid impeachment is the only viable interpretation of one of the three crimes from which the jury was allowed to choose.
One of the other two other options was that the ledger entry was in furtherance of a tax violation (even though Trump’s tax liability increased by defining the payment as legal expenses rather hush money.
The third option jurors were given, was that the entry was made to hide a violation of Federal campaign finance laws.
I would argue that the jury instructions were so convoluted, that the jury can be assumed, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have not even understood what crimes President Trump was being charged with, let alone whether he was guilty of them.
Bingo.