'Richard Nixon Would Have Had A Pass': John Dean Stunned By Trump Immunity Ruling

[Nevilledog]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/richard-nixon-supreme-court-trump-immunity-ruling_n_6682f7d5e4b038babc7c7c39

Former President Richard Nixon’s counsel John Dean said Monday that the Supreme Court’s decision that Donald Trump has full immunity for “official” actions he took as president — even his attempted coup — likely would have meant that Nixon was immune from his criminal conduct during the Watergate scandal that led to his resignation.

“As I looked at it, I realized Richard Nixon would have had a pass,” Dean said on a press call with the Defend Democracy Project, a group that advocates for free and fair elections.

“Virtually all of his Watergate-related conduct” and “virtually all that evidence falls in what could easily be described as ‘official conduct,’” he said.

Dean, who served as counsel to Nixon from July 1970 to April 1973, said he was “stunned” by the Supreme Court’s sweeping 6-3 decision. It concluded that Trump enjoys complete immunity for his coup-attempt-related presidential actions that were “official” in nature, but not for those that were “unofficial.” The justices kicked the case back to a U.S. District Court to sort out what counts as “official” and “unofficial” behavior by a president.

The Supreme Court’s decision means that Trump’s federal trial on his Jan. 6, 2021, charges almost certainly won’t begin before the November election. If Trump is elected president for a second term, he would have authority to appoint a new attorney general who could dismiss the federal charges, as well the potential power to pardon himself.

*snip*

[Silent Type]

1. Don't think Nixon was charged with criminal action. Maybe fear had part in his stepping down, but think that was mostly

Republicans telling him he had to leave.

None of the outstanding cases we’re going to start before election, anyway.

[Jose Garcia]

2. He resigned because Republican Senators told him they wouldn't support him when

he was impeached.

[Silent Type]

3. Agree. But, that has nothing to do with current SC ruling because as I understand it, impeachment

is still possible. But who knows?

[Irish_Dem]

4. Impeachment is for high crimes.

There are no crimes if POTUS has immunity?

[Silent Type]

6. One of our attorneys here stated today that "high crimes and misdeamnors" are political

matters, not criminal prosection. Criminal is what the SC ruling applies to. Believe it or not.

[Irish_Dem]

7. Right.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Think of all the evidence that would not have come out, under this ruling

Roberts’ opinion further restricted prosecutors by prohibiting them from using any official acts as evidence in trying to prove a president’s unofficial actions violated the law. One example not relevant to this case but which came up in arguments was the hypothetical payment of a bribe in return for an ambassadorial appointment.

Under Monday’s decision, a former president could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe, but prosecutors could not mention the official act, the appointment, in their case.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-capitol-riot-immunity-2dc0d1c2368d404adc0054151490f542

From the Roberts' decision: "And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."

And, of course, it also gives presumptive immunity in an even wider area. So a criminal president and federal officials can merrily destroy any incriminating evidence, and say "you must presume that nothing untoward happened".

[UTUSN]

5. Yip, tapes, enemies list, plumbers everything - not to mention war crimes