So much for textualism? Clarence was actually citing precedents in support of Presidential immunity.
I support qualified immunity for reasonable judgement calls by public officials acting in their official capacities.
Abuses of official capacity can be problematic since internal processes, including impeachment, tend to be dysfunctionally corrupted.
That said, it should be obvious that illegal acts outside official acts aren't protected. If a police officer accidentally shoots an innocent bystander; he should be covered. If he hires a hitman to murder his wife; he is not.
If I read it correctly; Trump's lawyers claim Presidents and former Presidents have total immunity and only answer to the impeachment process.
Ironically, the 2 hard core resident textualists seem the most receptive to an immunity based on implication and precedent.
Authentic textualists have a different view:
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/09/what-should-a-textualist-think-about-trumps-claims-of-presidential-immunity/