3 ms·

It would make it illegal to use the tapes as evidence against him. So it doesn't matter if it makes it legal or not, because it makes the illegality impossible

by kibwen 2y ago

It would make it illegal to use the tapes as evidence against him. So it doesn't matter if it makes it legal or not, because it makes the illegality impossible to prove in a court of law by denying evidence to the prosecution.

tuna74 2y ago
Could you explain this a bit further?
- DeRock 2y ago
  From the official ruling on https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf: > (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be im- mune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    E.v.e.r.y.o.n.e should just go read the decision and dissents. It’s not that long or hard to follow. Then probably go read all of the Federalist Papers, if they haven’t already, or one of the Constitutional Debate readers that are readily available and may include much of Federalist. The primary source here is plenty accessible, and free. And alarming.
  - legitster 2y ago
    > 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. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. The argument is not that all recordings are off limits, but if the President asks his lawyer "what is a bribe?" that can't be used as evidence he took a bribe.
    - gmd63 2y ago
      All official recordings are off limits. Even in prosecution of "unofficial" actions. Barrett even disagreed with this.
- stefan_ 2y ago
  "If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated."
legitster 2y ago
This is not an accurate reading. In the decision, gathering of evidence is not protected by immunity. People are jumping on language in the decision that says discussions or probings about the criminal nature of the crime would not be admissible. So Nixon ordering Watergate would still be admissible - Nixon discussing with his legal team or cabinet after Watergate broke would not be.
- tacomonstrous 2y ago
  How would you prove anything if you can't present any of his actual conversations about Watergate as evidence?
  - legitster 2y ago
    > 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. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. The argument is not that all recordings are off limits, but if the President asks his lawyer "what is a bribe?" that can't be used as evidence he took a bribe.
    - tacomonstrous 2y ago
      Hard to read this and conclude that there can be any actual way to produce admissible evidence. Can you give me an example of what conversations you can use as evidence if anything involving him or his advisers is off limits?
      - legitster 2y ago
        The court uses the language "in the first instance". So it sounds like you can use anything generated by the crime itself, but you can't dredge up other conversations about the crime. Nixon ordering an illegal action is a crime, and Nixon destroying evidence was definitely a crime, so evidence of either would be game.

by kibwen 2y ago

tuna74 2y ago

Could you explain this a bit further?

DeRock 2y ago
From the official ruling on https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf: > (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be im- mune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
- vundercind 2y ago
  E.v.e.r.y.o.n.e should just go read the decision and dissents. It’s not that long or hard to follow. Then probably go read all of the Federalist Papers, if they haven’t already, or one of the Constitutional Debate readers that are readily available and may include much of Federalist. The primary source here is plenty accessible, and free. And alarming.
- legitster 2y ago
  > 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. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. The argument is not that all recordings are off limits, but if the President asks his lawyer "what is a bribe?" that can't be used as evidence he took a bribe.
  - gmd63 2y ago
    All official recordings are off limits. Even in prosecution of "unofficial" actions. Barrett even disagreed with this.
stefan_ 2y ago
"If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated."

legitster 2y ago

This is not an accurate reading. In the decision, gathering of evidence is not protected by immunity. People are jumping on language in the decision that says discussions or probings about the criminal nature of the crime would not be admissible. So Nixon ordering Watergate would still be admissible - Nixon discussing with his legal team or cabinet after Watergate broke would not be.

tacomonstrous 2y ago
How would you prove anything if you can't present any of his actual conversations about Watergate as evidence?
- legitster 2y ago
  > 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. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. The argument is not that all recordings are off limits, but if the President asks his lawyer "what is a bribe?" that can't be used as evidence he took a bribe.
  - tacomonstrous 2y ago
    Hard to read this and conclude that there can be any actual way to produce admissible evidence. Can you give me an example of what conversations you can use as evidence if anything involving him or his advisers is off limits?
    - legitster 2y ago
      The court uses the language "in the first instance". So it sounds like you can use anything generated by the crime itself, but you can't dredge up other conversations about the crime. Nixon ordering an illegal action is a crime, and Nixon destroying evidence was definitely a crime, so evidence of either would be game.