CNN anchor Jim Acosta questioned why Gerald Ford would issue a pardon to Richard Nixon if presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution for any crimes they allegedly committed while in the White House.
Donald Trump’s attorneys are arguing in court that he possesses “presidential immunity” and therefore cannot be prosecuted for actions he took while trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election after his loss.
In an interview on Sunday, Acosta asked former White House ethics czar Norm Eisen, why would Nixon need a pardon if presidents are immune from prosecution for crimes committed in office.
“If presidents have absolute immunity, I suppose, why did Ford ever pardon Nixon? How is it they can just argue they have absolute immunity?” Acosta asked.
Eisen called Trump’s argument an “astonishing proposition.”
“If presidents had absolute immunity, presidential elections would become a stampede for the criminally minded so they can get to the Oval Office,” Eisen said. “It’s not just election overturned. Where would it stop? They could do bank robberies, kidnappings, murders. That is inimical to American law.”
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s immunity claim earlier this month, ruling that he does not have a “lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.” Trump’s lawyers have appealed the ruling.
Late Saturday night, Trump’s lawyers asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to throw out his election subversion case once again arguing that Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for actions he took while in office.
“There is no hint of absolute immunity anywhere in our Constitution or history,” Eisen said. “If Trump’s arguments were correct Richard Nixon would have refused to resign because he wanted to take advantage of his absolute immunity and take his chances that Congress would acquit him. So, it’s not going to work. But Jim, it’s not about winning. It’s all about running out the clock.”
After the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation, Ford issued a pardon to his predecessor for any crimes he may have committed or participated in while in office.
Trump’s lawyers are also arguing that the election subversion case should be dismissed because he wasn’t convicted by the Senate in his second impeachment trial in 2021 after the insurrection at the Capitol . It’s an argument Eisen dismissed as “frivolous.”
“I mean it’s not even colorable, Jim,” Eisen said. “I checked the Constitution this morning, and what the Constitution actually says is, that if a president is convicted, he or she shall, quote, nevertheless be liable for criminal proceedings. Nevertheless is not the same as only if they’re convicted are they liable. So they’re turning the Constitution upside down.”
