3 ms·
Certain evidence is now off limits: > Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court
by lelandfe 2y ago
Certain evidence is now off limits:
> 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 immune 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
Emphasis mine. There's quite a lot in Watergate that would be changed by this decision, it seems.
- legitster 2y agoThe argument they are making in the full context is that you can use the Nixon tapes admitting to the crimes in question, but you cannot use tape of Nixon discussing with his advisors the legality of such crimes. A counter example is that we have recordings of JFK planning and discussing the legality of Operation Northwoods, but simply discussing or planning a potential crime is not a crime in itself.
- lelandfe 2y agoThat's one reading of "probing." There's quite a lot of latitude for interpretation – but note that it does not say probing the legality. Just "probing such conduct," wherein "such conduct" is conduct for which they are immune.
- legitster 2y agoElsewhere language the court uses is "in the first instance" - so you can use evidence from when the crime occurred, but it sounds like looking for subsequent conversations about it would be "probing".
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]