User avatar
jerra b
9 Dec 2024 10:59 am
User avatar
      
9,901 posts
*Beekeeper » 09 Dec 2024, 8:17 am » wrote: Uh, yes he did. And the SCOTUS said he did.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald - Wikipedia
 In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court found that "the President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office."[5] The Court did not address the issue of immunity from criminal prosecution.[6]

 The Court noted that a grant of absolute immunity to the President would not leave him with unfettered power. It stated that there were formal and informal checks on presidential action that did not apply with equal force to other executive officials.[7]

 The Court observed that the President was subjected to constant scrutiny by the press and noted that vigilant oversight by Congress would also serve to deter presidential abuses of office and to make the threat of impeachment credible. It determined that other incentives to avoid presidential misconduct existed, including the desire to earn re-election, the need to maintain prestige as an element of presidential influence, and the traditional concern for his historical stature.[8]The decision was clarified by Clinton v. Jones, in which the Court held that a President is subject to civil suits for actions committed before he assumes the presidency
wrong, ford gave him a pardon
-----------------------------------------------------------------Gerald Ford knew Richard Nixon could be prosecuted for crimes he committed as president. That was simply a fact, when President Ford gave his predecessor “a full, free, and absolute pardon” 50 years ago this week.Former presidents did not enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution until July 1, 2024, when six members of the Supreme Court created that privilege in Trump v. United States.In 1974, when Nixon’s resignation seemed likely to lead to prosecution for his role in many of the crimes of Watergate, Republicans in the White House and Congress took their cue from the Constitution. Article II, Section 4 established that former presidents had criminal liability, not criminal immunity. Even after impeachment, conviction and removal, “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”Ford faced that fact squarely in his pardon proclamation: “As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States.”Nixon had a right to a fair trial, Ford said. The Constitution guarantees that to all. But Ford raised doubts about whether America would be able to give Nixon a fair trial until months, perhaps years, elapsed. That was his justification for pardoning Nixon.
Updated less than a minute ago
© 2012-2025 Liberal Forum