Subject: Re: SCOTUS on POTUS immunity
Because civil suits have different standards. And anyone can sue anyone for anything, even if they just disagree (e.g. abortion policy). That should be directed at government. Criminal is another matter. It requires enough evidence for indictment, and even more evidence for an actual conviction. That's a much higher bar.

It's not all that high a bar. The old aphorism that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich is still true. As with even the Trump indictments, all of these claims will not really turn on disputed issues of fact, but questions of law. The President will insist his actions were legal, and the prosecution will disagree - and the grand jury will almost certainly adopt the prosecution's theory of the law.

If SCOTUS issues an opinion that modifies the lower court decision, I think it will be because they are uncomfortable with the idea that "ordinary" official acts - exercising foreign policy, participation in international agreements, overseeing the DOJ, or the rough-and-tumble struggle with Congress in oversight activities - might end up being the source of criminal indictments.

For example, the crime of "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so..." can cover a lot of ground. Especially since under our system of government, the Executive is intentionally placed somewhat in opposition to Congress - and vice versa. That's the whole point of checks and balances. The Executive is always trying to influence and impede certain official proceedings of Congress, especially when one or both chambers are held by the opposition. So unless the official acts taken in service of those struggles are immune, criminal liability will always turn only on the single element of "corruptly" - whether the official acts are taken for a corrupt motive. So if an opposition Congress is holding hearings on a politically damaging topic (whether pretextually for political points or legitimately on an issue the President is vulnerable on), I think SCOTUS wants to distinguish between something like bribing a witness to lie to the panel and a President trying to get the results to be more favorable to him. Both are "influencing" the proceeding, and both are arguably doing so for a 'corrupt' purpose (political gain for the President), but one is clearly outside the scope of his job description while the other is part of the normal tug-of-war with a coordinate branch.