National Security Counselors 🕵 @natlseccnslrs.bsky.social

No because that would be evidence about an official act.

2 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

Benny6Toes @benny6toes.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 15:58 UTC

So, then that footnote really isn't very meaningful. Sounds kind of useless, in fact. (I appreciate you entertaining my foolishness. This is all very frustrating as a layperson. I imagine it's worse for lawyers)

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Ben Gaines @gaines-law.com [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 16:12 UTC

Unless it was a core function meeting, it would only be presumptively excluded. The evidentiary bar only covers “official conduct for which the President is immune” or “immune conduct,” not all official conduct. Of course, we have no way of knowing when or if that presumption is surmountable.

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes