The majority specifies some ways this may apply that very much make all kinds of things directly shielded by this ruling, and indirectly shields more by restricting the use of evidence that has to do with official acts.
The way they’ve set this up, the people involved have a lot to do with it. It sure looks like the President can now openly discuss corruption like selling secrets or pardons with e.g. relevant cabinet members, and none of that can be prosecuted, nor can it be evidence presented in a prosecution of crimes.
The wording is definitely not clear enough in that section, however I don't think this is the intended reading (and I'm hoping we get clarification on this) -- the pardon would be an official act, but according to footnote 3 the sale of the pardon and discussions about that would not be included in the bar on evidence of the official act, because they're not considered part of that official act. It seems (with the footnotes considered) to be a very narrow interpretation of "official act," which does seem to contradict the plain reading. Very annoying.
Let's imagine that a president decides to, say, stop aiding Ukraine, and in exchange, Putin promises said president a couple billion dollars.
Stopping aid to Ukraine is definitely an official act, which, on its own, is within their powers. Trading said official action for the billion dollars is what is fraudulent, but if I am understanding the Roberts opinion correctly, it cannot be prosecuted, because the motives of the president should not be used as part of the ruling of immunity. So... free bribery, as long as said president pays their taxes.
