> 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.
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.
> "... The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
> The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."
As per the ruling, Trump does not get blanket immunity with his interactions with Pence. But it is the prosecution's responsibility to now make a case that it was outside of his discretion.
I'm not arguing that this is a clear or useful legal distinction, but Trump only got true "blanket" immunity for the first indictment regarding the abuse of the Justice Department.
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?
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.
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.
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.