7 ms·

> (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indict

> (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 immune 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. Pp. 30–32 For example, from my understanding this means that Nixon's tapes could never have been used in any form in a criminal trial regarding Nixon's actions. In today's political environment I don't see an impeachment ever succeeding unless the opposing party has a super-majority in the US Senate.

throwaway4220 2y ago
Nixon resigned knowing an impeachment was pending. I cannot imagine that ever happening today.
- tstrimple 2y ago
  Conservatives since Nixon have been working to ensure none of them could be taken down like he was. This is just the final chapter in them successfully implementing their plan that began with Fox News.
  - vsuperpower2020 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tstrimple 2y ago
      It's pretty well documented. Not my fault you're ignorant to it and think it must be a conspiracy. Maybe try learning something about Roger Ailes and his history with the administration and creation of Fox News.
    - dang 2y ago
      > You sound like a basket case. Maybe turn off the tv and touch some grass. You can't post like this here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. Since you've been breaking the site guidelines like this repeatedly*, I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. * e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40746143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40746143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40745673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40745673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40710487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40710487
      - vsuperpower2020 2y ago
        [dead]
  - dgellow 2y ago
    That started in 1982 with the Federal Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
- tootie 2y ago
  We are still paying the price for Watergate. The Saturday Night Massacre was Nixon's attempt to use his executive authority to prevent his investigation. The loyalist who ended up being his third AG of the day was Robert Bork. First Ford declined to prosecute, then Reagan nominates Bork to the SC and suddenly SC appointments become combative partisan affairs
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    I mean even Washington had a SC nominee rejected. It goes back pretty far.
metabagel 2y ago
[flagged]
- tick_tock_tick 2y ago
  Democrats have also tried to impeach the last 4 Republican presidents.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Bluestrike2 2y ago
    That's a rather misleading take. Reagan was threatened with impeachment twice--first by a group of eight representatives over his invasion of Grenada, and later by a lone Representative, Rep. González, over Iran-contra--but it never went anywhere in either instance. González later introduced two resolutions against George H.W. Bush over the Gulf War that were ignored. Those were promptly ignored and died in committee. There was a much larger push to impeach George W. Bush over Iraq and other behaviors, but even there, party leadership ultimately chose to squash the impeachment effort. When you're talking about such a small number of representatives, it's tough to suggest that "Democrats" did anything as a political party. A few lone voices do not denote a party's position, especially when party leadership was against it. For that matter, most all of those impeachment efforts at least had a degree of legitimate purpose. One might disagree as to whether actions such as circumventing arms embargoes via illegal arms deals to fund rebel groups prohibited by Congress or (potentially) lying about a foreign nation in order to justify a war are in fact impeachable, but it's difficult to argue that weighing the possibility of impeachment wasn't at least rationally justifiable.
- jameslk 2y ago
  Nixon, that former president the person you’re responding to brought up, was going to be impeached by his fellow Republican party members. > On August 5, 1974, Nixon released a transcript of one of the additional conversations to the public, known as the "smoking gun" tape, which made clear his complicity in the Watergate cover-up. This disclosure destroyed Nixon politically. His most loyal defenders in Congress announced they would vote to impeach and convict Nixon for obstructing justice. Republican congressional leaders met with Nixon and told him that his impeachment and removal were all but certain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Ri...
alluro2 2y ago
I don't understand what weight impeachment still holds in today's world. Trump was impeached twice - and? If Trump, in his second term, is supposed to be held liable through fear of impeachment for his actions, I'm afraid it won't be the counter-weight the Founding Fathers envisioned.
- SubiculumCode 2y ago
  Impeachment is not conviction.
  - HaZeust 2y ago
    Might as well have been. It's easier to indict a conviction of a high ranking figure 4 times over than it is playing the political game of a successful impeachment.
    - efitz 2y ago
      An impeachment (by the House of Representatives) is analagous to an indictment. The trial is held in the Senate, and the Senators serve as a judge-less jury. Partisan impeachment is rightfully difficult, by design. Juries either have to be unanimous or a super-majority, depending on venue. If you can't get a small fraction of the opposition party to agree with the charges, the charges are defective. If the charges are "here's some crap we scraped together, let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks", then it deserves to fail. It failed under Clinton and under Trump, partly for partisan reasons but mostly because senators didn't think the charges rose to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Dershowitz has some really good analysis on this. The founders weren't all convinced that impeachment was even necessary; the president's term is only 4 years. Many were rightfully concerned that impeachment would become a spectacle used by a opposition House to damage the sitting president. And that's what it has become, since the 90's. No one can preside over a country when any ambitious DA anywhere can drag you into court afterwards. I think the decision today was a good one. But also think about it this way: no matter how you feel about Trump, imagine how you'd feel if $YOUR_PREFERRED_CANDIDATE was president and lawfare was being conducted against that person by $OPPOSITION_PARTY. The majority in the court was wise today and closed the door firmly on lawfare as an alternative to campaigning, for all presidents moving forward.
claytongulick 2y ago
> In today's political environment I don't see an impeachment ever succeeding unless the opposing party has a super-majority in the US Senate. It's supposed to be hard to do. Impeachment is intended to be reserved for egregious violations or actions that most of congress (and by proxy, the citizenry) agree on.
- goda90 2y ago
  If only Congress were a proxy for the citizenry, but gerrymandering has ruined that.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    But it’s the Senate that is the limiting factor and there is no gerrymandering involved there. Gerrymandering has a lot more effect on state legislatures in general.
- karmajunkie 2y ago
  it’s supposed to be hard. not impossible. and it’s pretty clear at least to me that the authors of the constitution very clearly intended presidents like trump to be thrown out of office.
  - luxuryballs 2y ago
    the constitution loves presidents like Trump, because he actually acted as a constitutional president while in office instead of being a figurehead for manufacturing consent on behalf of the global hegemony
austin-cheney 2y ago
Impeachment is not considered a criminal proceeding, but a political one. It just serves to authorize a criminal proceeding by the senate. If Nixon’s tapes could not be used during a criminal proceeding they could still be used in a push for an impeachment. But, yes, an impeachment or senate trial is likely unthinkable without a super majority. Driving conformity/uniformity is the goal of party politics.
ensignavenger 2y ago
How do you conclude that? It is my understanding that the Nixon tapes were recordings of conversations Nixon had with campaign staff as a candidate, and as the Supreme Court held, actions taken as a candidate are not official actions and are therefore not subject to immunity.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  If it gets interpreted more clearly this way in subsequent Supreme Court decisions (because there will definitely be 1+), then I like the ruling. To me, it's clear that there's {President-the-President} and {President-the-candidate}. Furthermore, campaign staff are explicitly not federal employees nor members of the executive branch. What really needs to happen, and I believe what the Court was promoting the legislative branch to do, is for Congress to pass laws circumscribing Presidential authority specifically around elections. In the form of can-do and can't-do.
- monetus 2y ago
  Nixon still had the presidency as he ran for reelection, allowing for the argument that tapes of anyone under the Whitehouse's employ were inadmissible official acts.
  - torstenvl 2y ago
    Immunity is not admissibility. They are orthogonal. Law enforcement has qualified immunity for the vast majority of what they do in an official capacity. That doesn't mean their testimony about what they do in an official capacity is inadmissible, including if they testify about what other law enforcement officers did.
    - monetus 2y ago
      The problem is that official conduct is inadmissible as evidence for even an unofficial crime, from what I understand. On that point, Barrett and the other women justices dissented from the majority, with "official acts" being a nebulous term.
luxuryballs 2y ago
I think it would easily succeed if there was actually a real actual reason to use it and not just a political stunt in the lower house.
rayiner 2y ago
The phrase “probing such conduct” refers back to the “conduct for which a president must be immune from prosecution.” So what it’s saying is that you can’t use tapes relating to protected official acts. So Nixon tapes discussing his campaign probably would be admissible.

throwaway4220 2y ago

Nixon resigned knowing an impeachment was pending. I cannot imagine that ever happening today.

tstrimple 2y ago
Conservatives since Nixon have been working to ensure none of them could be taken down like he was. This is just the final chapter in them successfully implementing their plan that began with Fox News.
- vsuperpower2020 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tstrimple 2y ago
    It's pretty well documented. Not my fault you're ignorant to it and think it must be a conspiracy. Maybe try learning something about Roger Ailes and his history with the administration and creation of Fox News.
  - dang 2y ago
    > You sound like a basket case. Maybe turn off the tv and touch some grass. You can't post like this here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. Since you've been breaking the site guidelines like this repeatedly*, I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. * e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40746143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40746143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40745673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40745673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40710487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40710487
    - vsuperpower2020 2y ago
      [dead]
- dgellow 2y ago
  That started in 1982 with the Federal Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
tootie 2y ago
We are still paying the price for Watergate. The Saturday Night Massacre was Nixon's attempt to use his executive authority to prevent his investigation. The loyalist who ended up being his third AG of the day was Robert Bork. First Ford declined to prosecute, then Reagan nominates Bork to the SC and suddenly SC appointments become combative partisan affairs
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  I mean even Washington had a SC nominee rejected. It goes back pretty far.

metabagel 2y ago

[flagged]

tick_tock_tick 2y ago
Democrats have also tried to impeach the last 4 Republican presidents.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Bluestrike2 2y ago
  That's a rather misleading take. Reagan was threatened with impeachment twice--first by a group of eight representatives over his invasion of Grenada, and later by a lone Representative, Rep. González, over Iran-contra--but it never went anywhere in either instance. González later introduced two resolutions against George H.W. Bush over the Gulf War that were ignored. Those were promptly ignored and died in committee. There was a much larger push to impeach George W. Bush over Iraq and other behaviors, but even there, party leadership ultimately chose to squash the impeachment effort. When you're talking about such a small number of representatives, it's tough to suggest that "Democrats" did anything as a political party. A few lone voices do not denote a party's position, especially when party leadership was against it. For that matter, most all of those impeachment efforts at least had a degree of legitimate purpose. One might disagree as to whether actions such as circumventing arms embargoes via illegal arms deals to fund rebel groups prohibited by Congress or (potentially) lying about a foreign nation in order to justify a war are in fact impeachable, but it's difficult to argue that weighing the possibility of impeachment wasn't at least rationally justifiable.
jameslk 2y ago
Nixon, that former president the person you’re responding to brought up, was going to be impeached by his fellow Republican party members. > On August 5, 1974, Nixon released a transcript of one of the additional conversations to the public, known as the "smoking gun" tape, which made clear his complicity in the Watergate cover-up. This disclosure destroyed Nixon politically. His most loyal defenders in Congress announced they would vote to impeach and convict Nixon for obstructing justice. Republican congressional leaders met with Nixon and told him that his impeachment and removal were all but certain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Ri...

alluro2 2y ago

I don't understand what weight impeachment still holds in today's world. Trump was impeached twice - and? If Trump, in his second term, is supposed to be held liable through fear of impeachment for his actions, I'm afraid it won't be the counter-weight the Founding Fathers envisioned.

SubiculumCode 2y ago
Impeachment is not conviction.
- HaZeust 2y ago
  Might as well have been. It's easier to indict a conviction of a high ranking figure 4 times over than it is playing the political game of a successful impeachment.
  - efitz 2y ago
    An impeachment (by the House of Representatives) is analagous to an indictment. The trial is held in the Senate, and the Senators serve as a judge-less jury. Partisan impeachment is rightfully difficult, by design. Juries either have to be unanimous or a super-majority, depending on venue. If you can't get a small fraction of the opposition party to agree with the charges, the charges are defective. If the charges are "here's some crap we scraped together, let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks", then it deserves to fail. It failed under Clinton and under Trump, partly for partisan reasons but mostly because senators didn't think the charges rose to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Dershowitz has some really good analysis on this. The founders weren't all convinced that impeachment was even necessary; the president's term is only 4 years. Many were rightfully concerned that impeachment would become a spectacle used by a opposition House to damage the sitting president. And that's what it has become, since the 90's. No one can preside over a country when any ambitious DA anywhere can drag you into court afterwards. I think the decision today was a good one. But also think about it this way: no matter how you feel about Trump, imagine how you'd feel if $YOUR_PREFERRED_CANDIDATE was president and lawfare was being conducted against that person by $OPPOSITION_PARTY. The majority in the court was wise today and closed the door firmly on lawfare as an alternative to campaigning, for all presidents moving forward.

claytongulick 2y ago

> In today's political environment I don't see an impeachment ever succeeding unless the opposing party has a super-majority in the US Senate. It's supposed to be hard to do. Impeachment is intended to be reserved for egregious violations or actions that most of congress (and by proxy, the citizenry) agree on.

goda90 2y ago
If only Congress were a proxy for the citizenry, but gerrymandering has ruined that.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  But it’s the Senate that is the limiting factor and there is no gerrymandering involved there. Gerrymandering has a lot more effect on state legislatures in general.
karmajunkie 2y ago
it’s supposed to be hard. not impossible. and it’s pretty clear at least to me that the authors of the constitution very clearly intended presidents like trump to be thrown out of office.
- luxuryballs 2y ago
  the constitution loves presidents like Trump, because he actually acted as a constitutional president while in office instead of being a figurehead for manufacturing consent on behalf of the global hegemony

austin-cheney 2y ago

Impeachment is not considered a criminal proceeding, but a political one. It just serves to authorize a criminal proceeding by the senate. If Nixon’s tapes could not be used during a criminal proceeding they could still be used in a push for an impeachment. But, yes, an impeachment or senate trial is likely unthinkable without a super majority. Driving conformity/uniformity is the goal of party politics.

ensignavenger 2y ago

How do you conclude that? It is my understanding that the Nixon tapes were recordings of conversations Nixon had with campaign staff as a candidate, and as the Supreme Court held, actions taken as a candidate are not official actions and are therefore not subject to immunity.

ethbr1 2y ago
If it gets interpreted more clearly this way in subsequent Supreme Court decisions (because there will definitely be 1+), then I like the ruling. To me, it's clear that there's {President-the-President} and {President-the-candidate}. Furthermore, campaign staff are explicitly not federal employees nor members of the executive branch. What really needs to happen, and I believe what the Court was promoting the legislative branch to do, is for Congress to pass laws circumscribing Presidential authority specifically around elections. In the form of can-do and can't-do.
monetus 2y ago
Nixon still had the presidency as he ran for reelection, allowing for the argument that tapes of anyone under the Whitehouse's employ were inadmissible official acts.
- torstenvl 2y ago
  Immunity is not admissibility. They are orthogonal. Law enforcement has qualified immunity for the vast majority of what they do in an official capacity. That doesn't mean their testimony about what they do in an official capacity is inadmissible, including if they testify about what other law enforcement officers did.
  - monetus 2y ago
    The problem is that official conduct is inadmissible as evidence for even an unofficial crime, from what I understand. On that point, Barrett and the other women justices dissented from the majority, with "official acts" being a nebulous term.

luxuryballs 2y ago

I think it would easily succeed if there was actually a real actual reason to use it and not just a political stunt in the lower house.

rayiner 2y ago

The phrase “probing such conduct” refers back to the “conduct for which a president must be immune from prosecution.” So what it’s saying is that you can’t use tapes relating to protected official acts. So Nixon tapes discussing his campaign probably would be admissible.