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.
> (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.
