4 ms·
The majority specifies some ways this may apply that very much make all kinds of things directly shielded by this ruling, and indirectly shields more by restric
by vundercind 2y ago
The majority specifies some ways this may apply that very much make all kinds of things directly shielded by this ruling, and indirectly shields more by restricting the use of evidence that has to do with official acts.
The way they’ve set this up, the people involved have a lot to do with it. It sure looks like the President can now openly discuss corruption like selling secrets or pardons with e.g. relevant cabinet members, and none of that can be prosecuted, nor can it be evidence presented in a prosecution of crimes.
The immunity granted is insanely broad.
- Matticus_Rex 2y agoThe wording is definitely not clear enough in that section, however I don't think this is the intended reading (and I'm hoping we get clarification on this) -- the pardon would be an official act, but according to footnote 3 the sale of the pardon and discussions about that would not be included in the bar on evidence of the official act, because they're not considered part of that official act. It seems (with the footnotes considered) to be a very narrow interpretation of "official act," which does seem to contradict the plain reading. Very annoying.