Nixon Resigns (The Dope!)

President Nixon resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974. Flashback to the White House group to prevent leaks aka "the Plumbers":

The plumbers burglarized the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in California, hoping to find something to discredit him, then moved on to bigger targets. Together with the Committee to Re-elect the President (fittingly dubbed CREEP as its activities became known), they planted fake letters in newspapers declaring support for Nixon and hatred for his opponents, spied on Democrats, and hired vendors for Democratic rallies and then scarpered on the bills. Finally, they set out to wiretap the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, in the fashionable Watergate office complex.

And, thus we had Watergate, which was portrayed in that excellent real-life film (not really) Dick. A special prosecutor subpoenaed tapes from President Nixon in April 1974. Skipping the court of appeals, the Supreme Court decided the matter in July. Nixon resigned in early August.

Nixon claimed executive privilege. The Supreme Court unanimously (Rehnquist, a former presidential man, recused) held it did not apply here. They held that the "presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law." 

The special prosecutor wanted the tapes as part of the criminal prosecution of "all the president's men" (were there any women?) to quote a book title. The Roberts Court slow-walked the Trump immunity case [they were asked to take it in December and decided it in July]. It held key evidence could not be used to prosecute crimes when the president is involved. It blocked and/or made it harder to prosecute. 

What did the Burger Court hold? 

We have elected to employ an adversary system of criminal justice in which the parties contest all issues before a court of law. The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts. The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence. 

The logical conclusion of supporters of Trump v. U.S. is that Nixon v. U.S. very well might be wrongly decided. The Supreme Court later held 5-4 that a president is immune in civil suits from cases involving their official acts. They left open criminal prosecution. It was a strongly divided 5-4 Court. Why not go all the way, right?

There is a good argument to be made that if the same events arose President Nixon would have served out his term. The Roberts Court could have slow-walked the case into 1975. 

Then, they could have granted Nixon more of an executive immunity privilege. Finally, the dispute would continue in the courts into 1976. Meanwhile, not only would the tapes not be released, but Republicans would more loyally stick by Nixon. 

Put aside that the likelihood of similar testimony of key Nixon officials in front of Congress in must-see nationwide televised hearings (this was before the age of C-SPAN) was also unlikely given the age of Republican stonewalling (see Trump's first impeachment).  

The bit in the film about "everything being different now" and that they "won't lie to us" was bitterly amusing in 1999. The whole affair is quaint today.

And, how about the Nixon Administration providing a principled investigation of Vice Presidential Agnew? Today, when evidence arises that President Trump continued his N.Y. crimes while in the White House, it is not only left to state prosecutions but the immunity case threatens the ultimate convictions which "reasonable" sorts damn as silly and maybe even a violation of due process. 

I wonder if we will have a film in the 2040s about Donald Trump. Wonder how that would go.