Liberal Forum

jerrab » 09 Dec 2024, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

09 Dec 2024, 11:59 am

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.

What you FAIL to comprehend is that NIXON had no "question" to be resolved for any CRIMINAL PERSECUTION. Trump did and ASKED THE COURT to determine if the SAME IMMUNITY that they ruled Nixon had applied to CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS AS WELL.

And since the "charges" were related to a STATE PERSECUTION, it required a SCOTUS RULING of immunity on a FEDERAL LEVEL.

You really are ONE **** PIECE OF **** IDIOT of the 1000th degree. 

Trump was given NO "added" immunity that didn't ALREADY EXIST under the NIXON ruling. They only determined that the same IMMUNITY afforded Nixon applied equally to CRIMINAL CASES FOR IMMUNITY FOR OFFICIAL LEGAL ACTS AS PRESIDENT. 

As a NOTE IN THE RULING, any actual CRIMES COMMITTED by President while in office are not OFFICIAL ACTS, but CRIMES. MURDER is not an official act, but a CRIME. CORRUPTION is not an official act, but a CRIME and both would be held accountable in a COURT OF LAW without any immunity to prosecution since NEITHER are permitted acts under the Constitution.

The SCOTUS did NOT rule on the merit of the NY State case which precluded the filing and left THAT to the NY State courts to determine. 

You really need to SHUT THE **** UP and GO BACK INTO THAT SLIMEY HOLE YOU CRAWLED OUT OF, ****!!