[DeRock]

From the official ruling on https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf:

> (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.

[vundercind]

E.v.e.r.y.o.n.e should just go read the decision and dissents. It’s not that long or hard to follow. Then probably go read all of the Federalist Papers, if they haven’t already, or one of the Constitutional Debate readers that are readily available and may include much of Federalist.

The primary source here is plenty accessible, and free. And alarming.

[legitster]

> And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself.

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.

[gmd63]

All official recordings are off limits. Even in prosecution of "unofficial" actions. Barrett even disagreed with this.