[plain talk]

“John Dean says Nixon ‘would have survived’ Watergate under immunity ruling,”

No he would have likely been impeached and removed from office.

[edwinland]

“John Dean says Nixon ‘would have survived’ Watergate under immunity ruling,”

<> No he would have likely been impeached and removed from office.

Exactly. Dean is lying through his teeth. Congress can (and did and will in the future) use whatever evidence it wants. The Supreme Court's ruling relates only to the judiciary.

[hanamizu]

No he would have likely been impeached and removed from office.

---

He resigned when told by Republicans that he would be impeached (which at the time had only happened once) and possibly convicted by the Senate. I don’t think he was worried about criminal charges. Although Ford, knowing the dem’s hatred of Nixon, pardoned him

[Phlyer]

No he would have likely been impeached and removed from office.

Exactly! This is what everyone misses on the decision. Nothing in the Supreme Court decision stops Congress from impeaching and (if convicted) removing the President from office.

It is a sign of how poorly people understand the Constitution that this even gets mentioned. I'm not surprised the Dhimms don't care what the Constitution says, but there are even those who should know better climbing on this bandwagon.

A central and key part of this Supreme Court decision is that it is strictly limited to actions of the Judicial branch. Nothing in it limits Congress at all.