So... the immunity ruling... what changed here?

[Lonestarblue]

9. What I find unsettling is Roberts' comment on what can be used as evidence to determine official versus unofficial.

Or even criminal behavior. Read that last sentence. Is Roberts saying that allegations of criminal behavior cannot be based on private records of the people around Trump or the testimony of his advisers who heard him give instructions for illegal acts? I hope one of the DU legal eagles chimes in here because this seems to shield a tremendous amount of evidence since a president may claim that everyone who works in the WH is an adviser.

“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 immune 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." --Roberts