Hard to read this and conclude that there can be any actual way to produce admissible evidence. Can you give me an example of what conversations you can use as evidence if anything involving him or his advisers is off limits?
The court uses the language "in the first instance". So it sounds like you can use anything generated by the crime itself, but you can't dredge up other conversations about the crime.
Nixon ordering an illegal action is a crime, and Nixon destroying evidence was definitely a crime, so evidence of either would be game.
