@CaptainXtra
Technically speaking I think you can still prosecute the president for that
The thing that actually screws up the case for US v Trump is that the majority opinion states that not only are official acts immune from prosecution, but that you can’t use his actions in official acts as evidence in a trial
To make it clearer, if someone say bribed the President to grant them a pardon, you can still charge the President with a pardon
But
You can’t bring up the act of the pardon or him discussing the pardon with his official advisors(I’m not kidding about this one)
Now you may wonder “doesn’t this make it next to impossible to persecute a president for anything then?” And the answer is, yeah more or less(this is why Amy Coney Barrett gave a separate opinion even though she’s part of the majority, she disagreed with the notion that official acts can’t be used as evidence in a trial)
Luckily for Jack Smith and his ragged tagged gang of misfits, Trump very much discussed his plans to stay in power illegally with private citizens along with official advisors, so the case isn’t totally destroyed
Albeit I won’t be surprised if some meetings with private citizens can be classified as official acts as iirc Sidney Powell discussed being made special consul to seize voting machines so maybe that falls under official acts, maybe