Can he pardon those complicit in a crime in which he himself was complicit?

I am not a lawyer and I do, occasionally, get caught up in trying to decipher how legal decisions make sense in the real world but this one got to me immediately. Here’s how an AI search defined SCOTUS’ decision on presidential immunity:

“Trump v. United States decision in July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have absolute immunity for official acts related to their “core constitutional powers” and a presumption of immunity for other official acts. A president has no immunity for unofficial acts. This means a former president cannot be prosecuted for actions falling under their core constitutional duties, but they can be prosecuted for acts that are not official. The decision’s framework, which distinguishes between “core constitutional powers,” “outer perimeter” official acts, and “unofficial” acts, requires lower courts to determine the scope of immunity on a case-by-case basis.”

You get that?  “Absolute Immunity” for official acts related to “core constitutional powers” (all italics are my emphasis). 

“Presumptive Immunity” for “other official acts”. Presumptive immunity applies to actions that are “within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility” and can be overcome by the government if it can prove that a prosecution would pose “no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch”. 

The Fat Felon pardoned Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows, both of whom were/are implicated in the crime of trying to overturn a legal, fair, federal election, and there are many, many more.  We all watched as the Felon initiated the entire event from the very beginning where he called it a fraudulent election from the moment Biden was declared the victor, to his speech in the park where he told an already angry crowd to march on the Capitol.  His complicity is impossible to ignore, and it is the overt and public commission of a crime. He was directing the actions of those individuals – a mob, actually – that joined him in overturning a free, fair and legal election.  Can he now turn around and pardon those complicit in a criminal undertaking in which he himself was the leader?  This seems circular in logic and a completely irrational use of the law.

What do you think?