• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

50 Years Ago Today- Ford Pardon's Nixon

Buckeyes85

Buckeyes85

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
13,460
Reaction score
13,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
www.history.com

Ford pardons Nixon | September 8, 1974 | HISTORY

President Gerald Ford pardons his disgraced predecessor Richard M. Nixon for any crimes he may have committed as part...
www.history.com www.history.com

Was it the right thing to do? It certainly was not popular at the time. And maybe/probably cost Ford reelection in 76?
 
A close call, but ultimately I think it was the right decision. Nixon hasn't fared any better in the history books for having been pardoned, and in a less politically blood thirsty era very few wanted the spectacle of a US President sitting a jail cell.
 
Imagine if today, Biden pardoned trump of all federal charges - or another Republican won the election and pardoned trump - and said it was 'to heal the nation', for some sense of justice that the country was better off and justice served by not having the law applied to trump for his crimes. That's basically the same issue. You can count on them trying to wrap it in flowery language about 'healing the nation'.

Basically any idea of justice is 'a matter of opinion'. When Carter pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers en masse, he gave similar reasons about healing the nation, most would say with quite different merits. We can only speculate about Ford - partisan politics, misguided idea about justice, a 'deal'. I view it as an injustice denying the country justice, whatever 'trauma' that justice would cause some. It put Nixon above the law, like the Supreme Court did with immunity.
 
It was without a doubt, the wrong thing to do. Pardoning Nixon and 1.6.21 have a direct connection imo.
 
Agree the pardon did not (and could not) have cleansed Nixons' reputation and his legacy. And though I doubt Nixon would have received jail time, I have to believe the impeachment would have continued and it would still have been ugly. So probably the right thing. But obviously a very unpopular decision at the time and it fueled the theory that Nixon picked Ford for VP with the agreement that if Nixon had to resign, Ford would pardon him.

On a related note, I always thought it was odd for Ford to have said as part of his statement after Nixon resigned and Ford was sworn in: Our long national nightmare is over.

Obviously, the Watergate scandal did not end and disappear with Nixon resigning. Which leaves his comment to mean Nixon's presidency was a nightmare and now it's finally over. I don't think that's quite what he meant, particularly since he was talking about the guy who essentially hand picked the next president.
 
The decision by Ford to pardon Nixon will stay in history as the decision no one liked but we understood. And those are two very different things.

And while I tend to agree with the history of this, being I understand why Ford made his decision, it did kick off a chain of events resulting in some of the attitudes we see today on the power of the Presidency especially when protected by the next President being from the same party.

Only in a very lame and de facto kind of way, was a pardon of Nixon doing much to hold him accountable. Sure, a pardon is by implication and admittance of guilt by the one pardoned (since this was arguably a preemptive pardon) but by effect there were no real criminal prosecutions and penalties for Nixon's actions. Just about everyone but hyperpartisans agree it will keep Nixon in the bottom of the pile of Presidents in ranking but the bigger issue is so long as conditions are favorable pardon one of your own.

From a history perspective that event also kicked off the argument, and eventual "Watergate and the US Constitution" brief, on the concept of both preemptive pardons but also a President trying to issue their own self-pardon.

The bottom line is when you see a President want to test the limits of the Constitution by engaging in questionable behavior, then when caught try to be clever by the Constitution, you further erode the idea of the Constitution in the first place. Restrict government, make it less than simple to govern, and keep power in check.

And look at us now...

We get Trump and his paid for Supreme Court majority now declaring a President is above the law and by implication cannot be charged with a crime committed while in office even when no longer in office so long as there is an argument on "official act." Something the Founders did not even fathom, political party protectionism for power hungry narcissists and autocrat wannabes who through several Presidents in the modern era have designed a way for a President to be above the Constitution.

All of these challenges to the interpretation of government limitation has resulted in damn near absolute power for a President.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
I have to believe the impeachment would have continued and it would still have been ugly. So probably the right thing.
Click to expand...

What the hell? Every criminal trial is "ugly", so let's not have any criminal trials as "the right thing"?
 
Craig234 said:
What the hell? Every criminal trial is "ugly", so let's not have any criminal trials as "the right thing"?
Click to expand...
That's quite an extrapolation to what I said.
And you can't compare/contrast the situation with Nixon as just another possible criminal prosecution.
 
Jay59 said:
How well do you remember it?
Click to expand...
Pretty well, but I was only 11. And you?

Even as a 10-11 year old, hard to ignore the Watergate scandal since it was seemingly on the news every night, every day for 2 years. And I recall some of my relatives cynically suggesting that if Nixon resigns, Ford would pardon him. So even I suspected it was coming but not old enough to grasp all of the political ramifications.
 
Nixon is not the worst example of a misguided pardon.
In fact, the whole concept seems dictatorial.
 
Grand Mal said:
Nixon is not the worst example of a misguided pardon.
In fact, the whole concept seems dictatorial.
Click to expand...
Do you have worse examples that occurred 50 years ago today?
 
Grand Mal said:
Nixon is not the worst example of a misguided pardon.
In fact, the whole concept seems dictatorial.
Click to expand...
agreed! Pardons should be by a board of many. Not by a single individual.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
That's quite an extrapolation to what I said.
And you can't compare/contrast the situation with Nixon as just another possible criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...
It could hardly be a simpler extrapolation.

The only thing Nixon adds to it is that you want to not only prevent a trial because it's 'ugly' - your word - but that you want to only do that for a president, putting the president above the law, which is arguably worse. You gave us nothing else to go on. No other argument. I'm pointing out what you said. If you don't like how it sounds, reconsider what you said.
 
vanceen said:
That is simply not true.
Click to expand...
It largely is, if not totally. John Dean: “As I looked at it, I realized Richard Nixon would have had a pass. Virtually all of his Watergate-related conduct” and “virtually all that evidence falls in what could easily be described as ‘official conduct,’”.
 
madman said:
agreed! Pardons should be by a board of many. Not by a single individual.
Click to expand...
There is a board, but it's only advisory. Pardons seem a mix of 'legitimate' recommended by the board and many 'corrupt' the president does on their own. The constitution sets up the power that way and would take a constitutional amendment (or president volunteering just for their presidency) to change.
 
Yes! I understand it takes an amendment, unfortunately. Just another flaw in the whole constitution system.

We are far too divided to change anything.
 
madman said:
We are far too divided to change anything.
Click to expand...

Actually, we're pretty close to a bad constitutional convention where Republican states can call it, and the corrupt oligarchs can push their agenda.
 

Dean is simply wrong. You won't find cover-ups of crimes in Article II.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.