The Supreme Court's widely derided ruling last week on presidential immunity opens up an extreme possibility — imagine a kiosk in the lobby of the White House where the president's "lap dogs" order get-out-of-jail free cards rather than fries and a soda.That's the country's new reality, according ...
I have a different take and I think the Chief Justice is being intentionally vague here. He references a bribery prosecution but never specifically mentions in the footnote whether he is referring to the issuance of a pardon, which is a core function, and thus entitled to absolute immunity based on the rest of the opinion. It’s also not clear whether he is referring to a prosecution of the briber or the person being bribed.
Reading Justice Barrett’s partial concurrence, which is what the footnote responds to and also included in the linked ruling addresses your concern. Justice Barrett is unambiguously talking about prosecuting the president for accepting a bribe.