In the recent legal battle over former President Donald Trump's attempt to shield his private records from public scrutiny, his attorneys have referenced the landmark United States versus Nixon case multiple times. This case, often associated with the Watergate scandal, has become a focal point in Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court. However, legal experts have pointed out that Trump's attorneys may be missing the point of that case.
John Dean, Richard Nixon's former White House counsel, who is well-versed in the lessons learned from the Watergate case, discussed the significance of the Nixon precedent in Trump's current legal endeavor. Dean noted that Trump's attorneys have drawn on various Nixon precedents, but it is important to recognize that the circumstances surrounding the two cases are not the same. Unlike Nixon, who faced legal proceedings after leaving office, Trump's case is being presented while he was still serving as president.
The current request before the Supreme Court is not a full case; rather, it is an application for a stay. Trump's attorneys are seeking to delay the trial by asking the Court of Appeals not to send the case back to the district court. They also intend to file an appeal for the full court to review the case. Dean explained that the Supreme Court now has a unique opportunity to dismiss the case altogether if Chief Justice Roberts, serving as the circuit justice, chooses to do so.
When considering how someone like Justice Kavanaugh might approach the arguments presented in Trump's case, Dean pointed out that Kavanaugh holds a favorable view of presidential powers, given his background in the White House Counsel's Office. However, he emphasized that this case presents a different issue: whether a president has any boundaries at all. Dean expressed skepticism that the Court would grant immunity to Trump and stated that doing so would be a significant departure from the nature of the American presidency, potentially even setting the stage for an authoritarian regime.
Dean also addressed Trump's potential use of the legal process to escape legal consequences. He noted that if Trump were to regain power and influence, he could pressure his attorney general to drop the cases against him, effectively evading accountability. Dean emphasized the danger of such actions, warning that it could lead to a transformation of the American presidency into a dictatorship.
As the legal battle continues, the role of the Supreme Court in determining the boundaries of presidential power and accountability remains critical. The outcome of this case could have profound implications for the future of the American presidency and its system of checks and balances.
