Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by philjohn on Monday July 01, 2024 @05:31PM (#40850943)

Except doesn't the "can't enter things into evidence" clause of the ruling mean that bringing the prosecution against Nixon would never have had a snowball's hell in chance of being argued and won?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by ethbr1 on Monday July 01, 2024 @06:09PM (#40851331)

I'm curious how that one gets interpreted in subsequent lower court (and Supreme Court) opinions.

It feels like once an act is to be classified as unofficial, then evidence of same cannot be covered, regardless of whether it's personal or not.

So maybe whittled down to "You can't go on an investigation of the President's personal/private documents because you have a suspicion of an unofficial act." Which feels more like the Supreme Court's intent.

[ Parent | on HN ]