I saw somewhere that today’s ruling holds that prosecutors can’t even introduce evidence of official presidential acts into the record to prove the criminality of an unofficial act. Is that true?
I saw somewhere that today’s ruling holds that prosecutors can’t even introduce evidence of official presidential acts into the record to prove the criminality of an unofficial act. Is that true?
This, to me, is the mind-boggling part of today's ruling. The Court held that evidence of official acts *can* be introduced if it's in the public record (see footnote 3), but not if it's not. I'm not sure how that line would hold (e.g., if the official act is secret when it happens, but become public later). But it's the exact point on which Justice Barrett broke from the majority--not just because it wasn't really presented, but because it's crazy. She's right on both counts.
I saw somewhere that today’s ruling holds that prosecutors can’t even introduce evidence of official presidential acts into the record to prove the criminality of an unofficial act. Is that true?
This, to me, is the mind-boggling part of today's ruling. The Court held that evidence of official acts *can* be introduced if it's in the public record (see footnote 3), but not if it's not. I'm not sure how that line would hold (e.g., if the official act is secret when it happens, but become public later). But it's the exact point on which Justice Barrett broke from the majority--not just because it wasn't really presented, but because it's crazy. She's right on both counts.
Thank you!