Would this ruling make Nixon’s actions in Watergate legal too?
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.
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.
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 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.
Nixon ordering an illegal action is a crime, and Nixon destroying evidence was definitely a crime, so evidence of either would be game.
> (3) 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 im- mune 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 at trial.
The primary source here is plenty accessible, and free. And alarming.
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.
Most likely not. Watergate was a result of an election campaign, not official acts as President.
> Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
And the 'smoking gun' implicating Nixon:
> Nixon then released the tapes six days later. On one tape was the so-called "smoking gun," showing that six days after the break-in Nixon had tried to use the CIA to block the FBI investigation of the burglary.
IANAL, but my understanding is under this ruling those tapes would have never been made permissible evidence in court. Giving orders to the CIA is certainly an official act, as much as granting pardons is, and this court has established the examination of said motives is out-of-scope:
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
The President has immunity when acting with powers granted from the Constitution. Commanding the military is one of those powers. The majority opinion also specifically says motives can't be considered. So they are legally immune if they order the military to stop impeachment.