Not correct. Authorizing the Watergate burglary was not an official act as the Supreme Court defined it.
Nixon did not authorize, nor did he have prior knowledge of, the Watergate break-in. Contrary to popular belief, Nixon was most likely the target of a deep state coup. Woodward was most likely CIA asset.
I highly suggest you question everything you’ve been taught by the media and our educational system about Watergate.
“Not correct” is correct. Can’t these people read? Dumb as a sack of hammers.
Agreed. Also nothing the court said yesterday would prevent an impeachment. Congress still gets to decide for themselves what constitutes a ‘High crime or misdemeanor’.
He did not authorize it.
Technically, I don’t think Nixon authorized it, but only tried to cover it up once done.
“”Authorizing the Watergate burglary was not an official act as the Supreme Court defined it.””
Something those people will never give up...they don’t recognize the word OFFICIAL.....maybe they’ll get tired of being the fools and just shut up!!! Nah - I don’t think so....too much to hope for.
“Authorizing the Watergate burglary was not an official act as the Supreme Court defined it.”
Nixon did not authorize the burglary. He covered it up.
Nixon did not authorize the Watergate burglary. He didn’t even know about it until after the fact. To this day, 50+ years later, no one knows who ordered it or what the burglars were looking for.
The Committee to Reelect authorized the burglary not Nixon. Nixon’s undoing was the subsequent cover up which he alleged later was done for reasons of national security, ex the knowledge that Oval Office conversations had been taped could cause problems with foreign leaders, US officials, governors, mayors, business and union leaders. Example of one personal point of interest. My uncle was one of the representatives of NY Building Trades right after the Hardhat Parade in ‘70. They met in the Oval Office. They might have been taped. But that would be seen as official duty.So could all or most of the Nixon tapes. So yes I believe this decision would have protected Nixon from post presidency indictment. Impeachment, not likely.
“Authorizing the Watergate burglary was not an official act as the Supreme Court defined it.”
There was never any evidence he authorized the watergate burglary.
Richard Nixon did not authorize the Watergate break-in. Nixon in fact, did nothing wrong during the entire affair. The MSM was the only game in town, and they went after him “hammer and tong”. In 2024, We the People would have had his back.
Assuming that’s what happened.
He resigned to avoid impeachment; imho it’s likely he’d have been convicted in the Senate, depending upon the charges, based upon exactly your point (though pertaining to the coverup, not the break-in itself).
More importantly, the ruling Monday wouldn’t have ‘expanded’ diddly as it pertained to protecting Nixon any more than it will to DJT or, for that matter, the puppet himself.
It is more interesting to me to witness that from the right we are promoting checks & balances - just as the Founders intended - whereas from the left we are witness to all that the Founders sought to prevent.
And that is FACT, not ‘bias’.