During a Tuesday, December 12 conversation with CNN's Anderson Cooper, former President Richard Nixon White House counsel, Watergate whistleblower and CNN contributor John Dean shared his thoughts on special counsel Jack Smith's current "gambit" in his criminal 2020 election interference case against Donald Trump.
CSmith's current push to get Donald Trump's "claim of immunity in the January 6th case on a fast track to the Supreme Court," Cooper said "could be a decision that ranks among the most consequential for the high court." He added, "Perhaps the closest the court came was in 1974 with US v. Nixon which compelled then-President Nixon to turn over those Watergate tapes."
The CNN host then asked Dean, "John, in terms of potential significance, does any prior Supreme Court case involving the presidency aside from US v. Nixon compare to the immunity ruling that Jack Smith is seeking in the Trump case?"
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?
He replied, "No. It is a pinnacle."
Cooper said, "I mean, in U.S. v. Nixon the question was whether a president has executive privilege in a subpoena fight, not necessarily immunity from the criminal trial, so is there actual precedent from the Nixon case that could or should apply to the Trump case?"
Dean replied, "You know, there's a little bit of language in what they call the dicta, the sort of just remarks, that indicates that the court then thought a president had criminal exposure. But it's never been spelled out, never been fully addressed, never been fully briefed."
Cooper said, "During Watergate, [Bob] Woodward and [Carl] Bernstein they wrote [in their book, The Final Days], special prosecutor Leon Jaworski's decision to appeal to the supreme court, saying, 'It was risky. Very, very risky. Suppose the justice said no. Suppose it was an angry no. Suppose it was a sarcastic reminder to Jaworski that there was a Court of Appeals for such a reason and that no one receives special treatment. Not the president. And not an arrogant prosecutor.' Do you see any potential down sides to Jack Smith's gambit?"
READ MORE: 'His hands are tied': How Jack Smith’s latest gambit 'puts Trump in a fraught situation'
Dean replied, "I don't. I think he is one step ahead. I think he's got a stronger case than Nixon had, for example, with the tapes. And certainly that Trump has in this case for total immunity."
Cooper then asked, "Given the dispute over immunity, I mean to say nothing of the ongoing dispute over Judge Chutkan's gag order, do you think there's any way in which Trump's federal election subversion trial starts on time in early March?"
Dean said, "It's got a shot now. We'll see what the high court does in taking this on and how long it takes them to deliberate. In the Nixon case they did it from start to finish, Anderson, in 61 days."
Cooper asked, "And given the make-up of the court, how do you think they'd rule if they took the case?"
The former White House counsel said, "Well, that's harder to tell. You know, if conservatives are being true conservatives, they're not going to say that a president — any president — is above the law. So once they take that case on, if they take it on — I think they will — they're going to go the distance and find no immunity for our president."
Watch the video below or at this link.
