What do you make of Footnote 3?

JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” ... But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.

Doesn't this language imply that a president can be prosecuted for bribery? And, if so, does the "official act" that is part of the bribery scheme lose its flavor as an official act? Is the footnote bullshit, or is it a hole through which a savvy prosecutor can drive a truck?

I don't see anything in this opinion that saves "All I need is 11,000 votes." That recording is not a presidential record, and the ask is not an official act. (As Footnote 3 says, the acts can be adduced as evidence; only presidentially sourced information about the acts is barred.) Assuming that infamous Georgia phone call was made in furtherance of a conspiracy to steal the election, this case seems to leave that prosecution standing.

Like Dobbs and the Fourteenth Amendment case, I hope and believe that this case will bring out Democrat voters. If we can't prosecute a criminal president, we must not elect a criminal president.