Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 1 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 6/5/18

Trump's Nixonian Moment has Arrived

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     (# of views)   2 comments
Author 7909
Follow Me on Twitter     Message David Schultz

From Counterpunch


(Image by YouTube, Channel: Business Insider)   Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -

Trump just had his Nixon moment.

In asserting via a tweet that he had the power to pardon himself, President Trump veered into the direction of Richard Nixon who said to David Frost in the famous 1977 interviews that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal," or he was aping Nixon from a 1973 press conference when the latter declared "I am not a crook." In either case, Trump's tweet shows increased desperation as his defenses against illegal behavior -- whether primary liability for collusion with the Russians or other elections crimes -- or obstruction of justice, fall.

Consider first the legal argument Trump made in his tweet that he can pardon himself. As I argued in Counterpunch and many others have pointed out, few if any reputable constitutional law scholars would support him on this argument. Basic principles of law such as checks and balances and separation of powers stand for the proposition that presidents are not above the law and that no person, not even the president, has unlimited authority to pardon himself from being accountable to the law. Presidents are not kings, they cannot be prosecutors, judges, juries, and executioners all at the same time.

- Advertisement -

But even more boldly, the 20-page memo from Trump's attorneys to the special prosecutor asserts presidents are above the law and they do not have to answer to subpoenas. It also asserts that the president as chief law enforcer can start or end criminal prosecutions at a whim. These claims rest upon an extreme legal theory of the "unitary executive" that traces back to Alexander Hamilton and which were asserted under the George W. Bush administration to support policies ranging from waterboarding to his detainment of individuals accused of being terrorists. Whatever textual claims in the Constitution presidents point to, numerous Supreme Court decisions have refuted the unitary executive theory and at least since the advent of the New Deal the law recognizes that presidents do not have unlimited control over actors and agencies within the executive branch.

But brushing aside constitutional law and precedent, Trump's language has become increasingly shrill. Months ago it was that the Russians did not interfere in the elections and that claim has largely been rejected by the Senate and special prosecutor investigation. Then it was his campaign did nothing wrong, until Bob Mueller secured several indictments and guilty pleas. Then it was he did nothing wrong but he could nonetheless fire FBI director for any reason and it did not constitute obstruction of justice. Now the language has shifted.

Yes, one still sees assertions of innocence, but increasingly it is that the special prosecutor and investigation are unconstitutional, which it is not, and that is why if the president shuts down the investigation it cannot be illegal (obstruction of justice) because the president has done it.

- Advertisement -

And now, it is I can simply pardon myself even if I did act illegally, although I am not a crook. While in arguing this both Trump and Rudy Giuliani still claim the president does not need to issue a pardon for the former because he has done nothing wrong, resorting finally to saying no matter what I did -- even if it is illegal -- I can simply pardon myself, is effectively saying that Trump may have broken the law but I get away with it because simply I can.

So Trump is caught in a Nixon moment. Either he is a crook but can pardon himself, or nothing he does is illegal because he is president. Like Nixon, Trump wants it both ways, asserting his innocence while tacitly admitting he has done something illegal if done by anyone else but because he is president he cannot have broken the law.

 

- Advertisement -

Well Said 2   Must Read 1   Interesting 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

David Schultz Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

David Schultz is Hamline University professor in the Graduate School of Management where he teaches classes in government ethics, public policy, and public administration. He also holds appointments in the Hamline University Department of Criminal (more...)
 
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Marx, Globalization, and the Death of Neo-Liberalism

Trump's Nixonian Moment has Arrived

Death and Dying on Wall Street:: The End of the Reagan Era

The Moral Crisis of the Republican Party

Identity Politics and the Triumph of Trump Tax Reform

Stupid Public Policies and Other Political Myths: Ideas that President Obama should Avoid