5 ms·

> This is the primary reason the United States has a long tradition of not prosecuting former Presidents, even ones that were provably guilty of crimes. There

> This is the primary reason the United States has a long tradition of not prosecuting former Presidents, even ones that were provably guilty of crimes. There is no such tradition. In 222 years no former U.S. President has committed any crimes.

krisoft 4y ago
> In 222 years no former U.S. President has committed any crimes. If it is so, then why did Gerald Ford grant a full and unconditional pardon to Richard Nixon for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president? [1] It seems to imply that at least someone thought Nixon might have committed some crime. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
- mcny 4y ago
  I would very much like to see the pardon powers be limited by extending it. You should never be able to commute any one person’s sentence or pardon any one person. It should be all or nothing. Want to pardon someone who has been convicted for lying to a federal agent? You must pardon everyone currently serving a sentence for lying to a federal agent. No exceptions. Also the whole idea of pardoning someone who has not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted is just morally bankrupt. I was not born yet back then but I’m glad that Ford lost the POTUS election after such blatant corruption.
- Maursault 4y ago
  If Nixon committed any crimes it was while he was president. Please understand the difference between a sitting president and a former president. Not for nothing, Nixon was never charged with a crime. A pardon is a forgiveness. What was Nixon pardoned for, exactly? Who knows!
cdogl 4y ago
> There is no such tradition. In 222 years no former U.S. President has committed any crimes. This is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

5 ms·

> This is the primary reason the United States has a long tradition of not prosecuting former Presidents, even ones that were provably guilty of crimes. There

by Maursault 4y ago

krisoft 4y ago
> In 222 years no former U.S. President has committed any crimes. If it is so, then why did Gerald Ford grant a full and unconditional pardon to Richard Nixon for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president? [1] It seems to imply that at least someone thought Nixon might have committed some crime. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
- mcny 4y ago
  I would very much like to see the pardon powers be limited by extending it. You should never be able to commute any one person’s sentence or pardon any one person. It should be all or nothing. Want to pardon someone who has been convicted for lying to a federal agent? You must pardon everyone currently serving a sentence for lying to a federal agent. No exceptions. Also the whole idea of pardoning someone who has not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted is just morally bankrupt. I was not born yet back then but I’m glad that Ford lost the POTUS election after such blatant corruption.
- Maursault 4y ago
  If Nixon committed any crimes it was while he was president. Please understand the difference between a sitting president and a former president. Not for nothing, Nixon was never charged with a crime. A pardon is a forgiveness. What was Nixon pardoned for, exactly? Who knows!
cdogl 4y ago
> There is no such tradition. In 222 years no former U.S. President has committed any crimes. This is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.