The Supreme Court held that President Nixon did not have absolute privilege to withhold
evidence, such as audio tapes, from a criminal investigation into the Watergate scandal. While
the President has a general privilege of confidentiality, it cannot outweigh the need for relevant
evidence in a criminal proceeding. The Court found that the Constitution's requirements for a fair
trial and due process under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were more important than the
President's interest in confidentiality in this case. This established an important limitation on
presidential privilege.
Darren Chaker, opinion by federal court on privacy issues, and in federal case. Important issues in privacy and internet are addressed in lawsuit, very useful cases discussed.
11/25/19 ICC AMICUS CURIAE Of Vogel Denise Newsome (UIE Seal)VogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
This is the Amicus Curiae that the United States of America’s President Donald Trump, Congressional Members, Military, their Legal Counsel Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz and their CO-Conspirators (Town of Utica MS Officials/Hinds County MS Officials/Newsome’s Siblings, etc.) had the Utica International Embassy’s Interim Prime Minister Vogel Denise Newsome KIDNAPPED over on 03/25/19, and conspired to have her MURDERED for purposes of silencing her voice in efforts of avoiding Investigations and Prosecution for War Crimes not only in Afghanistan, but here in the United States of America and across the WORLD!
While USA’s Congressional Members are using their Zionist-Controlled Mainstream Media to DISTRACT with their President Trump Impeachment Scandal, we are staying focused and are using our time to provide the WORLD with TRUTH and being sure that HISTORY for the FALL of the United States of America is accurate and that Donald Trump does not take the Fall alone for the WAR CRIMES orchestrated and carried out under the direction and Leadership of the Nazi/Zionist Law Firm of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz!
This is only the BEGINNING of GREAT Things to come now that we are releasing to the PUBLIC/WORLD the attempts on the Utica International Embassy’s Leader’s Life in the USA’s quest to AVOID Investigations and Prosecutions in the Afghanistan Situation, FAILED Venezuela Invasion/Venezuela Situation, and CONSPIRACIES to have Vogel Denise Newsome MURDERED!
Darren Chaker, opinion by federal court on privacy issues, and in federal case. Important issues in privacy and internet are addressed in lawsuit, very useful cases discussed.
11/25/19 ICC AMICUS CURIAE Of Vogel Denise Newsome (UIE Seal)VogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
This is the Amicus Curiae that the United States of America’s President Donald Trump, Congressional Members, Military, their Legal Counsel Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz and their CO-Conspirators (Town of Utica MS Officials/Hinds County MS Officials/Newsome’s Siblings, etc.) had the Utica International Embassy’s Interim Prime Minister Vogel Denise Newsome KIDNAPPED over on 03/25/19, and conspired to have her MURDERED for purposes of silencing her voice in efforts of avoiding Investigations and Prosecution for War Crimes not only in Afghanistan, but here in the United States of America and across the WORLD!
While USA’s Congressional Members are using their Zionist-Controlled Mainstream Media to DISTRACT with their President Trump Impeachment Scandal, we are staying focused and are using our time to provide the WORLD with TRUTH and being sure that HISTORY for the FALL of the United States of America is accurate and that Donald Trump does not take the Fall alone for the WAR CRIMES orchestrated and carried out under the direction and Leadership of the Nazi/Zionist Law Firm of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz!
This is only the BEGINNING of GREAT Things to come now that we are releasing to the PUBLIC/WORLD the attempts on the Utica International Embassy’s Leader’s Life in the USA’s quest to AVOID Investigations and Prosecutions in the Afghanistan Situation, FAILED Venezuela Invasion/Venezuela Situation, and CONSPIRACIES to have Vogel Denise Newsome MURDERED!
2-3 Pages APA Style FormatThere’s an old adage that says that hi.docxavaforman16457
2-3 Pages APA Style Format
There’s an old adage that says that history is always written by the winners. Although this is not always the case, it is true that people's sense of historical events is often influenced by the viewpoints of the historians who write about them.
During the Watergate scandal in 1974, many policy pundits wrote columns demanding that President Richard Nixon resign from the presidency because he was, in their view, clearly culpable for the Watergate break-ins. Not all pundits felt this way, however. Read articles that offer differing views of President Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal.
Complete the following for this assignment:
Step 1:
Summarize the arguments made in each of the two articles regarding the conduct of President Nixon. How might each of the author’s views impact the reader’s understanding of the Watergate crisis?
Step 2:
Describe how the Watergate events changed American views toward politics and politicians. In your view, how did these events change the press coverage of politicians?
Step 3:
Speculate about how the Watergate event coverage might have been different (better or worse) in the age of social media and smartphones. Would it have lasted as long? Why or why not? Are these innovations in technology helpful or harmful to the way that people understand current events?
At least 2 credible sources are required for this assignment. Your sources should be cited using APA format; both in-text citations and references.
References
Burch, D. (1974, May 14).
In defense of Richard Nixon
. Retrieved from The Harvard Crimson Web site:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/5/14/in-defense-of-richard-nixon-pithe/
The Washington Post. (1973, May 1).
Editorial: Watergate: The unfinished business
. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/050173-2.htm
Article 1
Editorial: Watergate: The Unfinished Business
Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A18
Mr. Nixon's speech and actions yesterday, far-reaching as they were in impact and effect, leave a lot yet to be done if he means to repair the damage of 10 months of temporizing, evasion and deceit where the Watergate scandals are concerned. Plainly, the President would like to turn the whole ugly matter over to the courts. And plainly took that is where the prosecution of specific criminal violations should be. But almost from the beginning, the test of "wrong-doing" has been neither exclusively nor overridingly whether men the President put in high office had violated criminal laws. An equally important test has been whether these men met certain minimum standards of decency, propriety and honor, to borrow a word much invoked by the President. When one speaks about public confidence and trust, that is the heart of the matter: people are entitled to something more than confidence that their highest public officials do not break the law; they are also entitled to know that these officials do not lie .
1. Megan James
1
United States v. Nixon
418 U.S. 683 (1974)
FACTS
The Watergate Scandal created numerous court actions when it began on June 17, 1972. On
that day seven men broke into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters located in the
Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. The men were caught and charged with criminal
offenses. Coincidently, all men had connections to either the White House of the Committee to
Reelect the President, at the time Nixon. Five out of the seven men plead guilty and two were
convicted. Once the trial ended, one of the men claimed he had been pressured to plead guilty
and others involved had not even been tried. Many people began believing that this was just a
small fraction of the corruption and shady dealings engaged in by those closest to the Nixon
Administration. On May 17, 1973 the Senate began their Watergate investigation. John Dean III
became the star witness as he was special counsel to the President. Dean alleged that officials
high in the President’s office were involved and that even Nixon had known about the events.
Alexander Butterfield then testified as Nixon’s advisor shocking everyone even more when he
revealed that the President had secret cameras installed in the Oval Office. Those very tape
recordings hold the settlement between the White House’s involvements in Watergate, so of
course the Nixon Administration declined to release them. A special prosecutor was also
appointed to look into the Watergate incident. Archibald Cox was the first to hold this position.
Cox asked Nixon to hand the tapes over and when Nixon declined Cox went to get a court order
requiring him to deliver the tapes. The District and Appeals Court ruled in favor of Cox. Nixon
then offered to release summaries of the tapes, but that was unsatisfactory. Nixon the ordered
Cox to be fired, and in return two of the highest officials in the Judicial Department resigned,
Solicitor General Robert Bork became the acting attorney general. With this position, he
dismissed Cox, this became known as the “Saturday Night Massacre.” During this time
Americans began the idea of presidential impeachment. Leon Jaworski was appointed to
replace Cox and also relentlessly requested the tapes. Finally, Nixon agreed to produce some of
the tapes, which had been heavily edited also indicating certain parts had been erased.
Jaworski obtained criminal indictments for many of Nixon’s aides although Nixon was never
charged. The House of Judiciary began an investigation into the impeachment of the President.
The Judiciary Committee and Jaworski demanded more of the tapes and Nixon refused citing
his executive privilege to decide what would be released and what would be kept secret. The
District Court issued a final subpoena duces tecum. Both Nixon and the United States asked the
Supreme Court to review the case and the Justices accepted bypassing the Court of Appeals.
2. Megan James
2
ISSUE
1. Can Nixon quash the subpoena due to his Presidential Privilege of Immunity?
2. Does the president have presidential immunity over the people’s interests?
HOLDING
The United States Supreme Court held in an eight count decision that affirmed the District
Court’s decision to deny the motion to quash the subpoena because President Nixon did not
have privilege of immunity from the judicial process. Assertion of the general privilege of
confidentiality could not prevail over an apparent need for evidence in a pending criminal case.
REASONING
Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court discussing and breaking down the
President’s privileges and absolute privilege. Because of separation of powers, the Executive
Branch within itself protects the President from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing prosecution
and thereby protects the President’s communications. Burger states that even with the
doctrine of separation of powers, it is not possible for the President to obtain absolute privilege
of immunity from the judicial process in every circumstance. The Court finds it necessary for the
President to keep top level communications between the need to protect the military,
diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the Court finds it hard to vest absolute
immunity privilege to the President under these circumstances. The Court references the
Constitution, the Sixth Amendment. This requires the right to produce all evidence at a criminal
trial has constitutional dimensions that must be met. The Fifth Amendment also calls for fair
due process and because of those two amendments it is essential that all evidence, relevant
and admissible, be produced. The Court accepts the need for confidentiality in communications
of his office of “general nature” but the Constitutions blatant need for production of relevant
evidence in a criminal proceeding is specific and central to the fair adjudication of a particular
case. The Court made very clear that the people’s interest in the fair administration of criminal
justice outweighed the president’s interest in confidentiality.
IMPORTANCE
The case of United States v. Nixon is a significant case in dealing with presidential privilege and
the boundaries of such. The case came during a crucial time when the Constitution was being
severely questioned in terms of the three branches and separation of powers.