CNN anchor raises Nixon pardon in questioning Trump immunity defense

The Hill ^ | 12/25/2023 | Jared Gans

[ChicagoConservative27]

CNN anchor Jim Acosta raised former President Ford’s pardon of his predecessor, former President Nixon, in questioning former President Trump’s assertion of having total immunity from prosecution for his conduct in office on Sunday.

Acosta asked his guest, former White House ethics head Norm Eisen, about the reasoning for a pardon if presidents could not be criminally prosecuted for their actions in office.

[ChicagoConservative27]

Digging up Nixon again I see? 🙄

[bort]

The Democrats were threatening to prosecute Nixon for tax evasion and burglary. Those are private acts. Trump is arguing that immunity applies to “official acts.”

[Vermont Lt]

That is what you got from that article? Wow.

[rottndog]

Immunity only applies to LEGAL acts of the office holder.

[rottndog]

BTW...POTUS can be criminally charged for behavior conducted in office...just not while he is POTUS. That is what the impeachment process is for.

[Steely Tom]

Ha ha! Hey CNN, how much didja pay Nick Sandmann? Ha ha ha!

[Pikachu_Dad]

Probably a very wide latitude on the office rules.

Prosecuting the prior leader is third world stuff.

[SFConservative]

Immunity only applies to LEGAL acts of the office holder.

Well, if the acts are obviously legal, immunity isn't needed, is it?

Immunity is needed regarding acts that were legal from one side's perspective, but that the other side seeks to portray as illegal. Immunity takes that dispute off the table in order to avoid every new administration throwing the prior administration in prison.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Acosta the loudmouthed Cuban anchor baby born in the District of Corruption and to cowardly to leave. The boy is 100% ignorant.

[Real Cynic No More]

If I recall, Ford didn’t pardon Nixon primarily to protect Nixon, but to prevent the nation from going down the never-ending cycle of disruption that we’re seeing today by those who will do anything to take down Trump.

[TornadoAlley3]

Are diplomats prosecuted?

[South Dakota]

Nixon didn’t need a pardon.
He wasn’t convicted of anything

[Rockingham]

Bingo!

[brent13a]

BTW...POTUS can be criminally charged for behavior conducted in office...just not while he is POTUS. That is what the impeachment process is for.

What….. I…….. I’m not even sure where to start with this nonsense. The impeachment process has nothing to do with “criminality” whatsoever, full stop. It’s a political and Constitutional process and can be used against a President when the President commits an offense (a political offense) against the (people of the) country via doing something unconstitutional.
On to the other parts of the nonsense you said: the question everyone is posing (and hopes the Supreme Court will weigh on) is if the President can be charged criminally (after he’s out of office) for something he did politically while in office. While Trump has been charged criminally, none of the actions he’s been charged criminally for have ever been legally considered criminal acts UNTIL NOW. It’s the Ouroboros Snake. If anything political can be made criminal at the will of the party in power, then a President can be charged with anything they so chose after he’s out of office. THAT is the situation and not the convoluted nonsense you posted.