Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

The rise of evil, page-63

First 63 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Cowboyinvestor

23,685 Posts.

33

03/07/24

17:13

Post #: 74592391
Share

Originally posted by pintohoo: ↑

also for other's interest

Based on the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, it is highly unlikely that Richard Nixon would have been prosecuted for his role in the Watergate scandal if this ruling had been in place at that time.
The Supreme Court's recent 6-3 decision grants presidents broad immunity for actions taken while in office[1][3]. This ruling establishes two key principles:
1. Absolute immunity for conduct falling within a president's "core" constitutional responsibilities[3].
2. Presumptive immunity for other official acts, which prosecutors must rebut before charges can be brought to trial[3].
Legal experts and former Nixon-era officials believe this ruling would have significantly altered the outcome of the Watergate scandal:
1. John Dean, former White House counsel during the Nixon administration, stated that Nixon would not have been forced to resign and would have served out his full term under these new immunity standards[3][5].
2. Peter Shane, a constitutional law expert from New York University School of Law, concurred that Nixon would likely have escaped unscathed if the current Supreme Court's immunity standards had been in place during Watergate[5].
The ruling's implications for the Watergate case include:
1. Nixon's actions, such as using government agencies to obstruct justice and cover up the break-in, would likely be classified as official acts protected by immunity[3][5].
2. Prosecutors would face significant hurdles in rebutting the presumption of immunity and bringing charges against Nixon[3].
3. The court's decision limits the evidence that can be used to rebut the presumption of immunity, making it more difficult to prosecute even overt actions by a president[3].
It's important to note that this ruling does not grant immunity for purely personal, unofficial conduct while in office or for actions taken before or after a president's term[3]. However, the broad protections afforded to official acts would likely have shielded Nixon from prosecution for his role in the Watergate cover-up.
In conclusion, the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity would have likely prevented the prosecution of Richard Nixon for his involvement in the Watergate scandal, potentially altering the course of American history[1][3][5].

[1]
[2] https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/...er-21-presidential-immunity-watergate-crisis/
[3] https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc...mmunity-trump-ruling-richard-nixon-rcna159846
[4] https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4750581-supreme-court-immunity-nixon/
[5] https://www.newsweek.com/did-supreme-court-make-watergate-legal-immunity-ruling-1920091

Expand

so Nixon resigned before the House could vote on articles of impeachment and was never formally charged…

hate to point out the obvious to you, but you can’t seek immunity against non-existent charges

lol
3 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

ASX Market Close: Another ATH close for Oz bourse on mining rally | July 2

Wednesday's HotCopper trends: Trigg $12.5M placement, Domino's shock exit | July 2

MEU

Double-time: Marmota starts deeper Greenewood drilling days after title transfer

Trump chides Powell as Goldman call for calm. The RBA must be nervous

Listen: HotCopper Wire Podcast 016 – FY25 ended up not so bad... but Trump unpause is coming

First 63 Last

SPONSORED BY