and he accepted Ford's pardon because he knew he was likely to be prosecuted. There was never any question about immunity at the time. Sometime later, in 1977, he said in an interview that when a president does something it's legal. Nobody ever actually believed that, though; and Nixon certainly didn't either. In fact, that statement was qualified as referring to acts taken for purposes of national security. Here's a transcript of that part of the interview:
Frost: So, what in a sense you’re saying is that there are certain situations and the Huston plan or that part of it was one of them where the president can decide that it’s in the best interest of the nation or something and do something illegal.
Nixon: Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal.
Frost: By definition –
Nixon: Exactly … exactly… if the president … if, for example, the president approves something … approves an action, ah … because of the national security or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of, ah … ah … significant magnitude … then … the president’s decision in that instance is one, ah … that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they’re in an impossible position.
Frost: So that the black-bag jobs that were authorized in the Huston plan … if they’d gone ahead, would have been made legal by your action?
Nixon: Well … I think that we would … I think that we’re splitting hairs here. Burglaries per se are illegal. Let’s begin with that proposition. Second, when a burglary, as you have described a black-bag job, ah … when a burglary, ah … is one that is undertaken because of an expressed policy decided by the president, ah … in the interests of the national security … or in the interests of domestic tranquility … ah … when those interests are very, very high … and when the device will be used in a very limited and cautious manner and responsible manner … when it is undertaken, then, then that means that what would otherwise be technically illegal does not subject those who engage in such activity to criminal prosecution. That’s the way I would put it. Now, that isn’t trying to split hairs … but I do not mean to suggest the president is above the law … what I am suggesting, however, what we have to understand, is, in wartime particularly, war abroad, and virtually revolution in certain concentrated areas at home, that a president does have under the Constitution extraordinary powers and must exert them with … as little as possible. . . .
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/transcript-of-david-frosts-interview-with-richard-nixon/
So what Nixon was saying was that if actions that are ordinarily against the law are taken in the interests of national security or other national concerns, those actions should not result in prosecution. He added that he did "not mean to suggest the president is above the law," only that a president has "extraordinary powers" that can be used under certain circumstances to protect the national interest. This is not what Trump is claiming at all. Trump's argument is that a president can't be prosecuted at all for any crimes committed as president - including the murder of political opponents - unless he is first impeached and removed from office, which is ridiculous. Even Nixon didn't suggest anything like that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
