5 ms·

Would this ruling make Nixon’s actions in Watergate legal too?

dustincoates 2y ago
> Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments. Most likely not. Watergate was a result of an election campaign, not official acts as President.
- jshier 2y ago
  Yeah, Nixon should've ordered his secretary to do it, as all executive communications are now protected against criminal investigation.
- camel_Snake 2y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. From this ruling: > Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. And the 'smoking gun' implicating Nixon: > Nixon then released the tapes six days later. On one tape was the so-called "smoking gun," showing that six days after the break-in Nixon had tried to use the CIA to block the FBI investigation of the burglary. IANAL, but my understanding is under this ruling those tapes would have never been made permissible evidence in court. Giving orders to the CIA is certainly an official act, as much as granting pardons is, and this court has established the examination of said motives is out-of-scope: > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kibwen 2y ago
It would make it illegal to use the tapes as evidence against him. So it doesn't matter if it makes it legal or not, because it makes the illegality impossible to prove in a court of law by denying evidence to the prosecution.
- tuna74 2y ago
  Could you explain this a bit further?
  - DeRock 2y ago
    From the official ruling on https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf: > (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be im- mune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
    - vundercind 2y ago
      E.v.e.r.y.o.n.e should just go read the decision and dissents. It’s not that long or hard to follow. Then probably go read all of the Federalist Papers, if they haven’t already, or one of the Constitutional Debate readers that are readily available and may include much of Federalist. The primary source here is plenty accessible, and free. And alarming.
    - legitster 2y ago
      > And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. The argument is not that all recordings are off limits, but if the President asks his lawyer "what is a bribe?" that can't be used as evidence he took a bribe.
newprint 2y ago
I'm actually curious about this as well. Would like to hear some opinion.
citizen_friend 2y ago
Well you can always impeach a president.
- Miner49er 2y ago
  Well no, technically the president can use the military to stop impeachment. That would be considered an "official act" and they would be immune.
  - citizen_friend 2y ago
    I think you’re imagining scenarios not supported in any of the written opinions.
    - Miner49er 2y ago
      I don't see how. The President has immunity when acting with powers granted from the Constitution. Commanding the military is one of those powers. The majority opinion also specifically says motives can't be considered. So they are legally immune if they order the military to stop impeachment.
      - mperham 2y ago
        Doesn't the Constitution also say that the military cannot operate domestically?

> Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments. Most likely not. Watergate was a result of an election campaign, not official acts as President.

jshier 2y ago
Yeah, Nixon should've ordered his secretary to do it, as all executive communications are now protected against criminal investigation.
camel_Snake 2y ago
I'm not so sure about that. From this ruling: > Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. And the 'smoking gun' implicating Nixon: > Nixon then released the tapes six days later. On one tape was the so-called "smoking gun," showing that six days after the break-in Nixon had tried to use the CIA to block the FBI investigation of the burglary. IANAL, but my understanding is under this ruling those tapes would have never been made permissible evidence in court. Giving orders to the CIA is certainly an official act, as much as granting pardons is, and this court has established the examination of said motives is out-of-scope: > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

kibwen 2y ago

It would make it illegal to use the tapes as evidence against him. So it doesn't matter if it makes it legal or not, because it makes the illegality impossible to prove in a court of law by denying evidence to the prosecution.

tuna74 2y ago
Could you explain this a bit further?
- DeRock 2y ago
  From the official ruling on https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf: > (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be im- mune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    E.v.e.r.y.o.n.e should just go read the decision and dissents. It’s not that long or hard to follow. Then probably go read all of the Federalist Papers, if they haven’t already, or one of the Constitutional Debate readers that are readily available and may include much of Federalist. The primary source here is plenty accessible, and free. And alarming.
  - legitster 2y ago
    > And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. The argument is not that all recordings are off limits, but if the President asks his lawyer "what is a bribe?" that can't be used as evidence he took a bribe.

newprint 2y ago

I'm actually curious about this as well. Would like to hear some opinion.

citizen_friend 2y ago

Well you can always impeach a president.

Miner49er 2y ago
Well no, technically the president can use the military to stop impeachment. That would be considered an "official act" and they would be immune.
- citizen_friend 2y ago
  I think you’re imagining scenarios not supported in any of the written opinions.
  - Miner49er 2y ago
    I don't see how. The President has immunity when acting with powers granted from the Constitution. Commanding the military is one of those powers. The majority opinion also specifically says motives can't be considered. So they are legally immune if they order the military to stop impeachment.
    - mperham 2y ago
      Doesn't the Constitution also say that the military cannot operate domestically?