On July 24, 1974, the United States Supreme Court ordered President Richard Nixon to turn over recordings he had made in the White House. The most famous recording was the tape with an eighteen-and-a-half-minute gap, which occurred during Nixon’s meeting with his chief of staff Bob Halderman. This meeting was right after the break-in of Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. Nixon’s Secretary, Rose Mary Woods, claimed that the gap occurred because she accidentally erased the tape while answering the phone. No one bought her story. Within three weeks, Nixon was gone, having resigned the presidency. At that time, Nixon still had the support of the Republican base. However, the leadership of the party, including Senator Barry Goldwater, thought that this conduct warranted removal and asked Nixon to resign.
Forty-nine years later, almost to the day, former president Donald Trump, who was already under federal indictment, had additional charges added. Some of the charges related to his requesting that the video footage taken at Mar-a-Lago be erased. This footage showed boxes being moved right before Trump’s counsel went to the location and then acknowledged that all classified material was returned. The Republican establishment’s response to this new charge was silence, or doubling down defending Trump, or as Speaker Kevin McCarthy did, float the idea of an impeachment inquiry as to President Biden. This current group of Republican leaders is amoral. It is all about the polls. If tomorrow the polls would show that Trump was toxic in the Republican Party, they would stop defending him in a heartbeat.
The Republicans have the legal right to open an impeachment inquiry, although they could continue the inquiry about the President and his son Hunter in a committee. However, they have to overcome a high bar that they have set for conduct that constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. They voted against two Trump impeachments and claim that Trump did nothing wrong warranting the filing of federal criminal charges. In other words, President Biden would have had to engage in conduct that that is worse than (among other things) (a) threatening a foreign leader that he would hold back military aid unless the leader initiates an investigation against a political rival, (b) subverting and obstructing the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election including by falsely claiming that an election was stolen and in calling a secretary of state asking him to “find” enough votes for him to win the state (c) knowingly take documents that he had no right to retain including classified documents, (d) trying to hide the documents so that they will not be returned, (e) trying to have the tape showing the removal of the documents erased after being served with a subpoena to produce the tapes, and (f) showing classified documents to someone not entitled to see them. This is not even considering the January 6 Commission’s report or the expected federal charges relating to January 6 and the election or the state charges relating to the election. I have a feeling that there will be additional facts and charges that were unexpected.
The second event that occurred last week involved the Hunter Biden plea deal that had to be postponed. For those non-lawyers or lawyers who do not dabble in litigation, this sounds like something nefarious occurred. This happens more than one may think. I have had this situation with agreements that I participated in, or interpreting agreements made by others. It can happen in criminal or civil cases. Normally this occurs later on in the process if there is a problem when each side gives their conflicting view of what was agreed to. This should not be surprising, since it is human nature to look at something in a way most favorable to your position. Thus, the absence of the item being mentioned does not matter since it is clearly covered or excluded. For example, as occurred here, the defense looked at the agreement broader than the People did in understanding what is covered by the plea. The judge in the Hunter Biden case did not want to do what is common: let the deal go through with little analysis and close the case. If anything comes up later, they will deal with it. The judge realized that with Hunter’s case, especially with the notoriety involved, that the terms had to be clear to both sides and have the agreement address any anticipated situation that could come up. This may be a process that should be used more often because it could avoid any future problems.
If at the time when Nixon was forced to resign I had told a Republican that the candidate for his party’s nomination for president was indicted for multiple felonies in two jurisdictions was leading in the polls by a substantial margin, they would have thought I was crazy. I long for the days when leadership and much of the country were able to look at the situation objectively, and even if it was our guy, to do the right thing and cut him loose.
Warren S. Hecht is a local attorney. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
