undefined | Better HN

0 pointslegitster1y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

tacomonstrous1y ago

How would you prove anything if you can't present any of his actual conversations about Watergate as evidence?

legitsterOP1y 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.

gmd631y ago

Pressuring an aide, via threats of violence, or whatever, is now blanket immune under this.

You cannot use official communications between a president and his VP for example, as evidence, even in prosecution of an unofficial act that is criminal.

A horrendously stupid, devoid of any logic ruling, so much so that Barrett even disagreed with this part.

1 more reply

tacomonstrous1y 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?

1 more reply

amalcon1y ago

SCOTUS didn't need to make a special POTUS-only right to keep that "evidence" out. That would be covered by attorney/client privilege, a right that is available to everyone in the American courts.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

tacomonstrous1y ago

How would you prove anything if you can't present any of his actual conversations about Watergate as evidence?

legitsterOP1y ago

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.

gmd631y ago

Pressuring an aide, via threats of violence, or whatever, is now blanket immune under this.

You cannot use official communications between a president and his VP for example, as evidence, even in prosecution of an unofficial act that is criminal.

A horrendously stupid, devoid of any logic ruling, so much so that Barrett even disagreed with this part.

1 more reply

tacomonstrous1y ago

1 more reply

amalcon1y ago

SCOTUS didn't need to make a special POTUS-only right to keep that "evidence" out. That would be covered by attorney/client privilege, a right that is available to everyone in the American courts.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse