Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by kaba0 on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @01:15PM (#40858613)

> those conversations are protected and cannot be entered as evidence in a criminal proceeding against the President

I am obviously no lawyer, but this “evidence can be nullified based on this and that” has always been dumb in my opinion. Not sure if that’s universally true in US law, but in certain EU jurisdiction even illegally collected evidence can be used in court, if the illegality of its collection is tiny compared to the case at hand.

E.g. it might be illegal to record phone calls, but if it catches a child molester it can be used - it makes soo much more sense

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by Obscurity4340 on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @06:43PM (#40861151)

Good-faith exception evidence against thee, not mee (Trump probably)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by rangestransform on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @08:10PM (#40861663)

Nope, excluding illegally obtained evidence, period, end of story, is the only way to keep governments from being incentivized to surveil the masses

I would argue that even allowing the inevitable discovery argument or parallel reconstruction is insufficient privacy protections

The government should never be able to benefit from illegally spying on citizens

[ Parent | on HN ]