.
See: “Private Acts” Open the Way for a Trial on Trump’s Election Interference (Part II)

With regard to TRUMP V. UNITED STATES, Mr. Wallison goes through a long-winded recount of the oral arguments before the S.C, which was limited to the following question:

"WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE

Mr. Wallison finally concludes,

“ . . . because the Supreme Court will have agreed on what are “private acts” and what are not, there is little likelihood that the trial will be interrupted by interlocutory proceedings and delays. This should allow the trial to proceed with some dispatch before the election.”
The error of his conclusion however is found earlier in his rambling.
“ . . . who should decide whether the President’s acts are private or official, and whether that decision “should be undertaken in the first instance by the D.C. Circuit or the District Court?”
The truth of the matter is, our Founders addressed this very question when creating a special and unique due process procedure for a President who might commit "... political crimes, or offenses against the state...".

“While evidence of precisely what conduct the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution considered to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors is relatively sparse, the evidence available indicates that they considered impeachment to be an essential tool to hold government officers accountable for political crimes, or offenses against the state. 70 James Madison considered it “indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief executive,” as the President might “pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression,” or “betray his trust to foreign powers.”71 Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”72 SOURCE
In fact, our founders concluded our ordinary judicial system was an improper venue to judge such matters, e.g. .in Federalist No. 65 Hamilton writes:

"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives.. .

. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."
And under our Constitution's due process procedure to deal with a President who is charged with acts violating his public trust, Trump was found "not guilty" by the SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE. And so, the D.C. Indictment of Trump is defective for lack of prosecutorial jurisdiction because Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7 commands:
”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Trump was acquitted and is thus not ". . . liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment . . . " under our ordinary judicial system.

So, as it turns out the historical evidence confirms the absurdity of the question, “ . . . who should decide whether the President’s acts are private or official . . . “

As concluded by Hamilton “ . . . the Supreme Court [our ordinary judicial system] would have been an improper substitute for the Senate..."

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)