Landslide The Exoneration of Richard Nixon
Jul 3, 2024
In this discussion, Alison LaCroix, a University of Chicago law professor specializing in constitutional history, dives deep into the implications of the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity. They explore whether Nixon could have faced prosecution for Watergate under today’s laws. LaCroix analyzes how presidential powers might shield executive actions, discusses potential prosecutable offenses, and reflects on the evolving lessons from Nixon’s era in the context of modern politics.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Presidential Immunity Covers Many Official Acts
- The Trump v. U.S. ruling grants presidents broad immunity from many criminal charges for official acts.
- Alison LaCroix says Nixon's actions to halt FBI probes would likely fall into that protected zone.
Talking To Aides Looks Like Protected Conduct
- The court draws a line around communications with executive officials as 'core constitutional powers' with strong immunity.
- LaCroix notes Nixon's orders to aides and the FBI would likely receive absolute or presumptive immunity.
Weaponizing Federal Power Hard To Criminalize
- Using federal machinery against political opponents reads as official conduct and is hard to prosecute.
- LaCroix warns prosecutors would struggle to overcome the presumption of immunity without clear criminal acts or motive evidence.
