50 Years Ago Today- Ford Pardon's Nixon

[Helix]

Are you going to explain why, in the context of the actual Supreme Court ruling?

You don't already know?

 

[Craig234]

Dean is simply wrong. You won't find cover-ups of crimes in Article II.

You contradict someone far more expert than you without any evidence. Dean isn't talking about Article II, obviously, he's talking about the immunity ruling.

 

[joluoto]

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 of the Watergate scandal while in office.

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 great mistake. It said Presidents are above the law, and look where we are now.

 

[Nickyjo]

A great mistake. It said Presidents are above the law, and look where we are now.

And if I remember correctly, afterwards Nixon said something like “when the president does it, it’s not against the law.” Sort of predicted Trumpism.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

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 of the Watergate scandal while in office.

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?

It decidedly was a reason Ford lost in ‘76.

It had to be done though. A Nixon trial would have caused more damage than it was worth.

Though it might have set a precedent we need today, as certainly the SCOTUS decision on Presidential immunity would have been tougher to cite to if Nixon had been tried and convicted.

 

[Craig234]

It had to be fine though. A Nixon trial would have caused more damage than it was worth.

We don't agree on that. It would have strengthened the country following our principle about the rule of law and the president not being above it.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

We don't agree on that. It would have strengthened the country following our principle about the rule of law and the president not being above it.

I can see that argument as well.

I don’t know how old you are. I was old enough to be cognizant of the going’s on and I could see why Ford thought it was necessary. I also know he had a tough time with it. I felt for him. It was kind of obvious he felt in between a rock and a hard place on it.

 

[Craig234]

I also know he had a tough time with it. I felt for him. It was kind of obvious he felt in between a rock and a hard place on it.

I have limited sympathy. Hopefully every judge has a tough time sentencing people, but it doesn't just refusing to. Good for Ford if he recognized the impact on the nation, but that impact was Nixon's fault. IMO he had no excuse to deny the country justice. I don't see it as a rock and a hard place.

 

[vanceen]

You contradict someone far more expert than you without any evidence. Dean isn't talking about Article II, obviously, he's talking about the immunity ruling.

Article II contains the core duties of the President. It is only these which are covered by full immunity. That's what the ruling says.

 

[Craig234]

Article II contains the core duties of the President. It is only these which are covered by full immunity. That's what the ruling says.

That's not actually what it says, not all of what it says.

 

[vanceen]

That's not actually what it says, not all of what it says.

I know what it says. I've read it.

There is immunity for the core duties of a President. There may or may not be immunity for actions at the "outer perimeter" of a President's duties.

There is no immunity for actions that are not Presidential duties. Conspiring to cover up a burglary is clearly outside of Presidential duties.

 

[element94]

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 of the Watergate scandal while in office.

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?

Yeah, I guess so. He did the honorable thing by resigning. As we can appreciate much more today, that was the only good thing about it, but at least there was a good thing.

 

[element94]

It was without a doubt, the wrong thing to do. Pardoning Nixon and 1.6.21 have a direct connection imo.

Where there is no connection is the fact that today we have a fully criminalized "Republican Party" (at least that's what they keep calling themselves), and mostly corrupted and criminalized right-wing majority SCOTUS making new decisions to protect a criminal former president that was successfully prosecuted by our legal system!!!! Let that one sink in.

 

[vanceen]

I was a young adult at the time, and I remember the events clearly.

The country was torn apart over Nixon. Some may remember the national strife that went on during Clinton's impeachment; multiply that by ten. I remember people in my family saying "if they put him on trial we should take it to the streets".

Ford's intention was to put all that in the past.

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced it lost him re-election, though it didn't help. Economic woes (stagflation) had already emerged before the 1976 election, and that is usually bad news for an incumbent.

 

[Craig234]

I know what it says. I've read it.

There is immunity for the core duties of a President. There may or may not be immunity for actions at the "outer perimeter" of a President's duties.

There is no immunity for actions that are not Presidential duties. Conspiring to cover up a burglary is clearly outside of Presidential duties.

That's correct, and not the same thing you said in the post before that only notes core activities. Regardless, I suspect a president ordering his security forces to do things claiming it's for national security would be 'immune' for a friendly Supreme Court, and they ruled 5-4 evidence of such criminal behavior can't even be brought to court as I read the comments.

 

[element94]

I was working my first job back then: paper boy. Yes kids, there were things back then called paper boys. I vividly remember delivering the "NIXON RESIGNS" Baltimore Morning Sun paper that day (August 9th) with Nixon's mug all over the front page, which was basically a reprint of that day's Washington Post front page, and the "Ford Pardons Nixon" paper a month later.

 

[poweRob]

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 of the Watergate scandal while in office.

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?

Because it's ok to crime if you are a Republican.

 

[vanceen]

That's correct, and not the same thing you said in the post before that only notes core activities. Regardless, I suspect a president ordering his security forces to do things claiming it's for national security would be 'immune' for a friendly Supreme Court, and they ruled 5-4 evidence of such criminal behavior can't even be brought to court as I read the comments.

Yes, it actually is the same thing I said before. Only core activities have blanket immunity.

You or I can "suspect" anything we want. I think it's common sense that cover-up of a burglary for the purposes of re-election are not part of the core or the "outer perimeter" duties of a President.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you may be thinking of the ruling that "intent" should not be admissible when deciding whether actions were in the "outer perimeter". (A part of the ruling I disagree with.) I don't think that's even relevant in this case, as there is no question of whether the coverup was a Presidential duty or not. Even Trump's lawyers, in the arguments before the ruling, said that several of the actions cited in the indictment of Trump would be private and not subject to immunity.

 

[MAGAnificent]

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.

Agreed mon both counts. It did not help Nixon fare any better in history and the pardon was the right thing to do. It prevented the "lawfare pandora's box from being opened at that point in time. That's box remained unopened until the democrats gained the impression that they could not beat Trump in 2024 at the ballot box so they sought to tie him up in the courts.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, it actually is the same thing I said before. Only core activities have blanket immunity.

Some people post pedantically, and it's pointless. You left out the middle category in your first post, as well as the topic of the 5-4 ruling. I don't care to continue this.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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 of the Watergate scandal while in office.

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?

I believe it was the right thing to do.

Hopefully, President Harris won’t feel obliged to follow suit.