Historians commonly point to the parallels between Richard Nixon and Donald Trump. Both were deeply corrupt Republicans with fascistic tendencies. And both Republicans were impeached before their terms came to an end.
This weekend, CNN's Jim Acosta brought up Nixon while discussing Trump's current issues with legal analyst Norm Eisen. According to Acosta, the idea that Nixon had to be pardoned by his successor Gerald Ford proves that the Presidency did not offer him immunity.
The host asked Eisen, "If presidents have absolute immunity why did [Gerald] Ford ever pardon [Richard] Nixon? I mean, you know, how is it that they can argue that they have absolute immunity?"
Eisen cheekily replied by noting that super-criminals"[there] would be a stampede for the criminally minded to get to the Oval Office would now be seeking office."
The legal expert continued:
"Where would it stop?" Eisen asked. "They could do kidnappings, bank robberies, murders. That is inimical to American law. There is no hint of absolute immunity anywhere in our Constitution or history. The prior cases before the Supreme Court, as you point out, 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."
Watch a clip of the segment below: