Let’s apply Trump v. United States to Watergate’s facts. It’s not pretty.

lawandcrime ^ | 07/04/2024 | CIARA TORRES-SPELLISCY

[ChicagoConservative27]

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Donald Trump v. United States — in which a majority of the justices found that presidents are immune from prosecution for many actions taken during their presidency — is a legal earthquake. One way to see what a huge difference this new ruling will have is to look back at Watergate to see what behavior the Supreme Court excused for all presidents.

I wrote about ex-President Trump’s ongoing criminal exposure in my new book “Corporatocracy.” I worried in that book that Trump would not be held accountable by the courts. As it turns out, I was correct to be gravely worried.

In order to understand the seismic shift we need to see what is actually in the opinion.

[ChicagoConservative27]

Ciara is an idiot

[Tell It Right]

Nixon covered up spying on his political enemies.

Obama/Biden used the government to spy on their political enemies.

[webheart]

She’s trying to sell her book.

[Racketeer]

Nixon was taken out by the CIA. One only has to look at the prinipals and their relationship with it to come to an understanding.

If Nixon had fought back he would have won. He just was not selfish enough to put the country through it.

[ActresponsiblyinVA]

I hope she enjoys the world she promotes.

[Alas Babylon!]

The things they accused Nixon of doing were the things that were done to Trump by the Deep State cabal of Obama and then Biden.

Their hate was so strong, three prosecutors ran on campaigns to “get” Trump: Bragg; James and Willis. How can that even be right?

[DoughtyOne]

The concept of rational thought escapes these people.

The president is only protected for conducting his normal
activities as president. Any actually criminal code
violations will not be shielded if broken.

I’m going round and round with some folks on this topic.
Their favorite question is, “Why should we need this now,
when for 248 years, it wasn’t?”

It was at this point where I had to school them on
the legal tactics of the Biden administration, and how
that brought on Trump’s request.

At that point, they melt down and go catatonic.

[Political Junkie Too]

Again, these authors always assume that the impeachment clause was repealed by the Supreme Court.

If Nixon's team burgled DNC headquarters, he could (and would have) be impeached for it. The SCOTUS ruling doesn't prohibit that.

Second, the author states "a majority of the justices found that presidents are immune from prosecution for many actions taken during their presidency — is a legal earthquake."

Was nobody concerned at all that until this ruling the President was the only federally elected office that had no immunity for official acts? Was this an oversight by the Framers, an assumed protection, or on purpose?

Article I says that Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Article 3 says that the Justices serve "during good behavior."

So why are enemies of President Trump arguing that the President has no immunities for himself, or that they are so limited in scope to be narrower than even the members of Congress and the Supreme Court enjoy?

-PJ

[lastchance]

Isn’t this the group behind much of the lawfare targeting conservatives?

[Dr. Sivana]

If Nixon had fought back he would have won.

He might well have been impeached and convicted, meaning removal from office. That is in fact the Constitution's remedy.

[maro]

This case is a logical extension of Nixon v Fitzgerald, which was decided 50 years ago.

[MinorityRepublican]

If Nixon had fought back he would have won. He just was not selfish enough to put the country through it.

In 1974, we did not have Fox News.

No internet, therefore no Free Republic.

No reddit.

No Breitbart.

[gnarledmaw]

Im not so sure, “seismic” is worth like 11 points.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the mention.

[Republican Wildcat]

“Legal earthquake” - just stating the obvious is what the Court did, and it was actually quite a minimalist decision. It just found generally President’s have immunity for acting under their authority, and not all acts they engage in can automatically be assumed to be official acts. They then sent the matter back down to the lower courts for them to determine what acts are or are not within this official. Wow - such an earthquake...

Wonder if she thought it was a “legal earthquake” when the Obama IRS was targeting political opponents? https://youtu.be/VV-0WcPGml0?si=7kyePUvbAJzB4-sy&t=81 “But when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal” - Richard Nixon

[Republican Wildcat]

Presidents, not “President’s”

[Gaffer]

I worried in that book that Trump would not be held accountable by the courts.

This is exactly where I stopped reading this trash.

[Republican Wildcat]

Right. These people are crazy.

Sotomayor’s dissent was insane. She may be the most incompetent Justice ever appointed...not the first time she has made comments in dissents completely devoid of reality.

[ridesthemiles]

Ciara needs an IQ test.

[kenmcg]

How sweet it is a lib is worried.