Nixon attorney: "Richard Nixon would have had a pass" with this Supreme Court
AILSA CHANG, HOST:
It's TRUMP'S TRIALS from NPR. I'm Ailsa Chang.
(SOUNDBITE OF MONTAGE)
UNIDENTIFIED PEOPLE: (Chanting) We love Trump.
DONALD TRUMP: This is a persecution.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: He actually just stormed out of the courtroom.
JACK SMITH: Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
CHANG: The Supreme Court's landmark decision granting presidents broad immunity is already having an effect on former President Trump's other legal cases. Trump was scheduled to be sentenced next week for his conviction in the New York hush money trial, but that has been moved to September 18 because the judge now has to determine whether the Supreme Court decision affects Trump's conviction. Not since Richard Nixon has there been a serious consideration to prosecute a president. And that got NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson thinking what would have happened if this Supreme Court was back on the bench in 1974. That conversation when we come back.
(SOUNDBITE OF SONG "ESCAPE MAZE")
CHANG: Essentially, the Supreme Court here has just given Donald Trump kind of a legal shield, right? What do you think that does now to the special counsel's case against Trump?
CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: At least part of the election interference case against Donald Trump is now dead, according to the Supreme Court majority. This is after they ruled presidents get absolute immunity for things like replacing an attorney general. In fact, the majority opinion said it would be no problem for presidents to discuss opening criminal investigations with top Justice Department officials, and that's something most presidents have avoided since the Watergate scandal. It got me thinking about Watergate and what might have happened to Richard Nixon if this Supreme Court ruling had been on the books back in 1974. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment. Then he hired a law firm to defend him in the criminal investigation. William Jeffress was a young defense lawyer at that firm. I caught him by phone today to ask about the Nixon probe.
WILLIAM JEFFRESS: He was accused of orchestrating an obstruction of justice, using his Attorney General Mitchell, his chief of staff, Bob Haldeman, his assistant for domestic affairs, John Ehrlichman, not to mention the White House counsel John Dean.
JOHNSON: Within a month, Nixon accepted a pardon, so his criminal exposure never got litigated. Jeffress says the Supreme Court ruling this week would have completely reshaped Nixon's legal predicament. Former White House counsel John Dean put it bluntly.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
JOHN DEAN: Richard Nixon would have had a pass.
JOHNSON: Dean, who pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge and served prison time, spoke to reporters this week after the high court ruling on immunity.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
DEAN: Virtually all of his Watergate-related conduct and virtually all that evidence falls in what could easily be described as official conduct.
JOHNSON: Official and thus presumptively immune, according to the Supreme Court majority. Philip Lacovara worked for the Watergate special prosecutor. Lacovara says it was unthinkable back then that Nixon would be forever immune for any criminal acts he committed during his presidency - things like misusing the CIA to block an FBI investigation into the Watergate burglary and cover-up.
PHILIP LACOVARA: Even such things as illegal wiretapping and the break-in at the psychiatrist's office of Daniel Ellsberg - those were all done in the name of national security, which this court would certainly view as a core presidential function.
JOHNSON: Lacovara says the high court decision reflects a dangerous endorsement of an imperial presidency.
LACOVARA: Decision by the Roberts court was explicit that the president's motives for exercising his constitutional functions may not be examined by the courts. And I think that's another one of the aspects of this decision that is so destructive of all of the concepts of justice that we've come to cherish in this country.
JOHNSON: As for what the case means now and in the future, Lacovara says...
LACOVARA: It basically puts a blowtorch in the hands of an arsonist by declaring that any acts within the outer perimeter of presidential functions is either absolutely immune from criminal prosecution or effectively immune from criminal prosecution.
CHANG: All right, we have Carrie Johnson joining us again in the studio. That was so interesting to revisit history through the lens of yesterday's Supreme Court decision. And before we let you go, I mean, there's been more fallout today from that immunity decision, right?
JOHNSON: That's right. Trump's sentencing in the New York hush money case had been set for next week. Now it's delayed to September 18 as Donald Trump tries to argue the Supreme Court decision on immunity helps him there in that case.
CHANG: That is NPR's Carrie Johnson. Thank you so much, Carrie.
JOHNSON: My pleasure.
SCOTT DETROW, HOST:
Thanks for listening to TRUMP'S TRIALS from NPR. Keep an eye out for more episodes like this whenever big news happens. And we'll be back later this week with our regular show on Saturday. I'm Scott Detrow.
(SOUNDBITE OF SONG "ESCAPE MAZE")
Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.