The issue is that this could prevent even opening up the discussion of whether a transaction was a bribe if the former president can claim it was an official act.
Nixon was never prosecuted because he was pardoned so the official acts stuff is moot. Crimes committed in war/putting down rebellion/etc are bad but more clearly within the scope of official acts than anything Trump is accused of.
Reagan, to the extent that he did/didn't coordinate with Iran to delay the hostage release, would be the closest parallel since it would have been a crime (Hatch act violation) in the direct pursuit of winning an election. But that was before he was president so this also wouldn't be relevant for today's ruling.
We don't prosecute ex presidents often because most of them either don't commit crimes or the ones they do are arguably part of the job. Trying to prevent the legitimate transfer of power is not close to a part of the job. The opposite in fact. Nixon only gets pardoned because he agrees to fuck off and spare the country the shitshow we currently have.
Nixon was never prosecuted because he was pardoned so the official acts stuff is moot. Crimes committed in war/putting down rebellion/etc are bad but more clearly within the scope of official acts than anything Trump is accused of.
Reagan, to the extent that he did/didn't coordinate with Iran to delay the hostage release, would be the closest parallel since it would have been a crime (Hatch act violation) in the direct pursuit of winning an election. But that was before he was president so this also wouldn't be relevant for today's ruling.
We don't prosecute ex presidents often because most of them either don't commit crimes or the ones they do are arguably part of the job. Trying to prevent the legitimate transfer of power is not close to a part of the job. The opposite in fact. Nixon only gets pardoned because he agrees to fuck off and spare the country the shitshow we currently have.