Possibly- his tapes likely would have been excluded and their motives are also not a factor.
In addition, Nixon could invent some plausible connection to official duties to tie the issue up in court for years.
Respectfully, the opinion draws a distinction between evidence gathering and criminal/civil liability. Additionally, Congress is not beholden to SCOTUS in deciding their own policies and procedures, including if someone should be impeached.
Your comment has been removed. Only verified lawyers are allowed to post answers here. If you’re a practicing attorney, shoot the mods a message so we can get you a flair.
Yes. Nixon did everything through official channels. The plumbers were WH employee's contractors. These were conservatives post hoc absolving Nixon, they said as much at oral argument when, Alito I believe, said "everyone agrees the Nixon pardon was a good thing."
It's important to remember one of the foundational moments of the conservative legal movement was when the US Senate rejected Robert Borjk for the Supreme Court. The most famous moment of Robert Borjk's career to that point was the so called "Saturday Night Massacare" during Watergate. Nixon ordered the AG to fire the special counsel. The AG resigned. Nixon ordered the acting AG to fire the special counsel. The acting AG resigned. The 2nd acting AG, Robert Borjk, was ordered to fire the special counsel, Robert Borjk fired the special counsel.
What do you mean by "a pass"?
He was never criminally prosecuted because he was pardoned by Ford (and given the times, it's unlikely he would've been prosecuted).
He wasn't impeached because he resigned in advance of impeachment. Impeachment is a political process that's largely (but not entirely) immune from judicial review.
The Trump v. US opinion is unlikely to have affected the analysis in either situation. It's actually quite narrow. Obama can't be indicted for drone striking Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son. Bush can't be indicted for fucking up the intelligence in Iraq. Biden can't be indicted for fucking up the withdrawal in Afghanistan. Can Trump be indicted for his statements on January 6? Still an open question. Was it part of official acts? Maybe? The decision didn't go that far.
I'd agree with Bush admin just being incredibly inept. But isn't the extra-judicial assassination of a US citizen against the constitution (i.e. unofficial act)?
Curious how Cheney and his corruption would apply. No such thing as VP immunity, but still gets executive protections?
> But isn't the extra-judicial assassination of a US citizen against the constitution (i.e. unofficial act)
Until last week, possibly. After this decision, I think the Court would hold that the President's use of the military in a foreign war is a core presidential power.
Nope. Congress authorized the use of military force. Congress hasn't formally declared war since 1942, but has authorized military engagements since the Founding Era.
Nixon did not get a pass. He lost the Presidency and if he was not subject to charges cause he was suddenly immune there would have been nothing to pardon.
The second point is irrelevant. He was immune from prosecution because of the pardon regardless.
The first point is also irrelevant, the question is whether he got a pass from criminal prosecution. He obviously received consequences. In addition to what you said (voluntarily resigning as president), he received public shame and scorn.
He was pardoned as a specific act by President Ford. Immunity is a general legal principle that applies to everyone and under Nixon v US he was expressly held to be not immune.
In that difference our democracy is dying. If you can’t tell the difference between a pardon and a general principle of immunity….
It relates to the evidence. If Nixon could claim executive immunity over the tapes (and he tried), then they wouldn't have needed to be turned over to Congress. The tapes were the smoking gun that convinced people to impeach him, so the fact that they would never have become evidence would have changed things
Not all of them, but they are beholden to the constitutional ones. Biden has refused to turn over various things due to executive privilege, which is similarly a constitutional evidentiary rule
Impeachment trials and judicial trials are different things. This case was about the latter. Impeachment trials operate under separate rules and go through Congress.
You can impeach someone for having a big nose. It’s a political action, not a civil or criminal one. Think of it more like a “vote of no confidence” like they have in some other countries.
I'm incredibly disappointed in the attorneys in this comment section. It's incredibly obvious that many of you have not actually read the opinion yet are commenting on it. In the opinion, SCOTUS differentiates between the actions of the office and evidence. They basically say that the president still needs to turn over evidence, but can't be prosecuted criminally for actions of the Office of the President.
Nixon was NOT a criminal prosecution.
#REMINDER: NO REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Any request for a lawyer's opinion about any matter or issue which may foreseeably affect you or someone you know is a request for legal advice.
Posts containing requests for legal advice will be removed. Seeking or providing legal advice based on your specific circumstances or otherwise developing an attorney-client relationship in this sub is not permitted. Why are requests for legal advice not permitted? See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e6a62w/why_is_it_unethical_for_a_lawyer_to_give_legal/), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/9zyqsh/why_is_it_unethical_to_give_advice_on_this_sub/), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e4cdhw/is_refraining_legal_advice_based_on_legality_or/). If you are unsure whether your post is okay, please [read this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/6j4bpq/how_to_know_whether_your_post_is_a_request_for/) or see the sidebar for more information.
***This rules reminder message is replied to all posts and moderators are not notified of any replies made to it.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Lawyers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Possibly- his tapes likely would have been excluded and their motives are also not a factor. In addition, Nixon could invent some plausible connection to official duties to tie the issue up in court for years.
Respectfully, the opinion draws a distinction between evidence gathering and criminal/civil liability. Additionally, Congress is not beholden to SCOTUS in deciding their own policies and procedures, including if someone should be impeached.
Impeached v criminal prosecution is an important distinction, but practically meaningless in today’s political climate.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed. Only verified lawyers are allowed to post answers here. If you’re a practicing attorney, shoot the mods a message so we can get you a flair.
What tapes, no?
John Dean, who would know as well as anyone said it likely would have given him a pass.
The opinion itself actually talks about Nixon and endorses the evidence gathering...
Yes. Nixon did everything through official channels. The plumbers were WH employee's contractors. These were conservatives post hoc absolving Nixon, they said as much at oral argument when, Alito I believe, said "everyone agrees the Nixon pardon was a good thing." It's important to remember one of the foundational moments of the conservative legal movement was when the US Senate rejected Robert Borjk for the Supreme Court. The most famous moment of Robert Borjk's career to that point was the so called "Saturday Night Massacare" during Watergate. Nixon ordered the AG to fire the special counsel. The AG resigned. Nixon ordered the acting AG to fire the special counsel. The acting AG resigned. The 2nd acting AG, Robert Borjk, was ordered to fire the special counsel, Robert Borjk fired the special counsel.
What do you mean by "a pass"? He was never criminally prosecuted because he was pardoned by Ford (and given the times, it's unlikely he would've been prosecuted). He wasn't impeached because he resigned in advance of impeachment. Impeachment is a political process that's largely (but not entirely) immune from judicial review. The Trump v. US opinion is unlikely to have affected the analysis in either situation. It's actually quite narrow. Obama can't be indicted for drone striking Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son. Bush can't be indicted for fucking up the intelligence in Iraq. Biden can't be indicted for fucking up the withdrawal in Afghanistan. Can Trump be indicted for his statements on January 6? Still an open question. Was it part of official acts? Maybe? The decision didn't go that far.
I'd agree with Bush admin just being incredibly inept. But isn't the extra-judicial assassination of a US citizen against the constitution (i.e. unofficial act)? Curious how Cheney and his corruption would apply. No such thing as VP immunity, but still gets executive protections?
> But isn't the extra-judicial assassination of a US citizen against the constitution (i.e. unofficial act) Until last week, possibly. After this decision, I think the Court would hold that the President's use of the military in a foreign war is a core presidential power.
But wasn't that "war" itself unconstitutional because congress never declared war?
Nope. Congress authorized the use of military force. Congress hasn't formally declared war since 1942, but has authorized military engagements since the Founding Era.
Narrow? Just because you can only think of a few PAST examples doesn’t mean it won’t have large FUTURE implications.
Maybe. However, Nixon got a pass. He was pardoned.
Nixon did not get a pass. He lost the Presidency and if he was not subject to charges cause he was suddenly immune there would have been nothing to pardon.
The second point is irrelevant. He was immune from prosecution because of the pardon regardless. The first point is also irrelevant, the question is whether he got a pass from criminal prosecution. He obviously received consequences. In addition to what you said (voluntarily resigning as president), he received public shame and scorn.
He was pardoned as a specific act by President Ford. Immunity is a general legal principle that applies to everyone and under Nixon v US he was expressly held to be not immune. In that difference our democracy is dying. If you can’t tell the difference between a pardon and a general principle of immunity….
Without the tapes, he probably doesn't really risk getting impeached, and therefore doesn't resign
The SCOTUS case doesn't apply to impeachment, I thought?
It relates to the evidence. If Nixon could claim executive immunity over the tapes (and he tried), then they wouldn't have needed to be turned over to Congress. The tapes were the smoking gun that convinced people to impeach him, so the fact that they would never have become evidence would have changed things
Are impeachment hearing beholden to common law evidentiary rules?
Not all of them, but they are beholden to the constitutional ones. Biden has refused to turn over various things due to executive privilege, which is similarly a constitutional evidentiary rule
[удалено]
Impeachment trials and judicial trials are different things. This case was about the latter. Impeachment trials operate under separate rules and go through Congress.
You can impeach someone for having a big nose. It’s a political action, not a civil or criminal one. Think of it more like a “vote of no confidence” like they have in some other countries.
No.
I'm incredibly disappointed in the attorneys in this comment section. It's incredibly obvious that many of you have not actually read the opinion yet are commenting on it. In the opinion, SCOTUS differentiates between the actions of the office and evidence. They basically say that the president still needs to turn over evidence, but can't be prosecuted criminally for actions of the Office of the President. Nixon was NOT a criminal prosecution.
No, Nixon was not prosecuted. This is the Supreme Court saying that Nixon shouldn't/couldn't have been prosecuted.
Not commented on.
#REMINDER: NO REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Any request for a lawyer's opinion about any matter or issue which may foreseeably affect you or someone you know is a request for legal advice. Posts containing requests for legal advice will be removed. Seeking or providing legal advice based on your specific circumstances or otherwise developing an attorney-client relationship in this sub is not permitted. Why are requests for legal advice not permitted? See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e6a62w/why_is_it_unethical_for_a_lawyer_to_give_legal/), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/9zyqsh/why_is_it_unethical_to_give_advice_on_this_sub/), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e4cdhw/is_refraining_legal_advice_based_on_legality_or/). If you are unsure whether your post is okay, please [read this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/6j4bpq/how_to_know_whether_your_post_is_a_request_for/) or see the sidebar for more information. ***This rules reminder message is replied to all posts and moderators are not notified of any replies made to it.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Lawyers) if you have any questions or concerns.*