3 ms·
The 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 discu
by legitster 2y ago
The 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]