Barret mentioned that:
If one bribes the president in appointment of an official - like an embassador - since the appointment of the embassador is an official act, under this ruling, one cannot bring this as evidence to the jury in a criminal trial because it was part of an official act.
But the official act is appointing the ambassador. Taking a bribe is not part of the official act of that. That's something else entirely not connected to that act at all, at least in my eyes. I'd hope the eyes of the law as well.
Yes. It does limit theoretically limit the evidence, but it’s the same crime whether they accept the money and follow through with the appointment or reneg and appoint someone else. The crime is in the solicitation.
