How do you feel about Ford's decision to pardon Nixon?

[darklordoftech]

My opinion: It was the wrong decision. I believe that it's important that the President be held to the same legal standards as everyone else. A judicial system that cannot prosecute the President isn't a functioning judicial system.

[Kingpoleon]

The question here is not one of morality, but of compassion, for the nation and Nixon: Do you believe that Nixon's jury and judge could have, by any means, been impartial as to his guilt or innocence prior to his trial? If so, do you believe that Ford's Profile in Courage, presented to him by Ted Kennedy himself, is then undeserved?

I'm sure Ford felt he was doing the right thing, but that's not really the point. Nixon had obviously broken the law, and everyone knew it. If, to quote another president, an important public figure were to "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone," it would probably be true that most prospective jurors would have an opinion as to the defendant's guilt — not because they would be insufficiently impartial, but because the facts of the case would be a matter of public record. To fail to prosecute obvious lawbreaking because it is obvious is a failure of justice, plain and simple.

But to answer your question: I don't think it was impossible for Nixon to get a fair trial. I don't know if Ford's Profile in Courage was undeserved, because the decision was obviously courageous — but then, so was Robert E. Lee's decision to resign from the U.S. Army and join the Confederacy. Ultimately, I think the greatest effect of Ford's Pardon was to deny the nation an opportunity to resolve the controversy and ill feelings raised by Watergate according to the firm and reasonable standard of the Law. It was a deus ex machina that sought to rescue the country by saving it the responsibility of making hard choices, and whether "compassionate" or not, I don't think that was a good thing.

If all men are truly to be treated equally, then we cannot afford to deal with Nixon without a sense of partiality and compassion. Furthermore, Nixon's crimes were not as cut and dry as you suggest. This is why I have always refused to take a position on any criminal activity until a ruling has been passed down - I believe that the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" [proven such in a court of law, not proven such the court of public opinion] ought to be applied always to everyone. This is possible in most cases because even most murder cases never make the news.

[Usili]

I always view the decision for Ford's pardoning of Nixon as something that can not be easily answerable. While many comments before this have summarized my thoughts on it, I have always thought about it in terms of the differences if he had been pardoned and if he had not.

If he had not been pardoned, I could imagine that if he had gone to trial (presuming he had not died from his phlebitis as he very nearly did in October, 1974), the nation would have been obsessed about it. President Ford would have been constantly overshadowed and likely been unable to push through any kind of efforts in legislative action with the country likely paralyzed from watching it. Nixon would have likely released significant amounts of the information he had held on his political enemies, while information on what Nixon did would have also been released. Considering the kind of economic and political climate in the 1970s, I do not imagine this would have been pleasant, and could have lasted for a long period. There's also the question of what would have happened if he died in the middle of the trial, and what that might have been done.

I can understand however from the people who say that Nixon's pardoning basically made it so Presidents were 'above the law', and their sharp criticism for it. It's one of such a nature that I feel is nearly impossible in how to picture what in another world where Nixon hadn't been pardoned would've looked like. Maybe it would've been worse in the long run by the much sharper anger, distrust, and possible hatred of the United States government because of the trial. Maybe it wouldn't have been worse, but is one that I still feel is near impossible to answer. It's a decision that I'm not sure I can honestly answer, but if I was pressed to give an answer on it, I'd probably support Ford's decision to pardon Nixon, because while there might have been the issue of making it so that Presidents were 'above the law', I have the much more terrifying thought of the much sharper view of distrust of government that would likely be present in that world.

[Kingpoleon]

I always view the decision for Ford's pardoning of Nixon as something that can not be easily answerable. While many comments before this have summarized my thoughts on it, I have always thought about it in terms of the differences if he had been pardoned and if he had not.

If he had not been pardoned, I could imagine that if he had gone to trial (presuming he had not died from his phlebitis as he very nearly did in October, 1974), the nation would have been obsessed about it. President Ford would have been constantly overshadowed and likely been unable to push through any kind of efforts in legislative action with the country likely paralyzed from watching it. Nixon would have likely released significant amounts of the information he had held on his political enemies, while information on what Nixon did would have also been released. Considering the kind of economic and political climate in the 1970s, I do not imagine this would have been pleasant, and could have lasted for a long period. There's also the question of what would have happened if he died in the middle of the trial, and what that might have been done.

I can understand however from the people who say that Nixon's pardoning basically made it so Presidents were 'above the law', and their sharp criticism for it. It's one of such a nature that I feel is nearly impossible in how to picture what in another world where Nixon hadn't been pardoned would've looked like. Maybe it would've been worse in the long run by the much sharper anger, distrust, and possible hatred of the United States government because of the trial. Maybe it wouldn't have been worse, but is one that I still feel is near impossible to answer. It's a decision that I'm not sure I can honestly answer, but if I was pressed to give an answer on it, I'd probably support Ford's decision to pardon Nixon, because while there might have been the issue of making it so that Presidents were 'above the law', I have the much more terrifying thought of the much sharper view of distrust of government that would likely be present in that world.

Indeed - if all of Nixon's tapes were released, I suspect one in ten, or maybe even one in three, of all our politicians would be implicated in some form of corruption, lie, misdemeanor, felony, or immoral action.

[Bismarck]

As bad as it was, It was the right thing to do. This country would've literally torn itself apart if Nixon stood trial and Ford wouldn't have been able to govern the country at all (and he was barely able to even with the pardon) had he not done so and this was his main reasoning for pardoning Nixon in the first place. Keep in mind we had inflation and at the same time had  what was at the time the worst economic recession since the great depression from 1973-1975, all of which would most likely be worse had the country been pre occupied with Watergate and a trial.

This. Having a former president thrown in jail would have been more damaging long term than letting him off too easy.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Of course, the courtesy that applies to letting top dogs get off scot-free doesn't apparently apply to the Republican Party. They has no problems in the 90's of Ken Starr magnifying the sleaze and sexual depravity of the Clinton administration into a Watergate tier scandal.

Meanwhile, the post-watergate precedent of allowing the President and his staff off on actual crimes has continued to mire other cases. Look at Iran-Contra - a scandal that showed the White House, the intelligence agencies and military in a clear treasonous conspiracy with full knowledge of Bush Sr and probable knowledge of the St Ronnie of Reagan. Look at the actions committed by the Bush Jr admin covering up their actions, and how willing Obama was to say "ah well, that's all in the past now, no lessons to be drawn from here". To a certain extent, a similar precedent was used to let off Wall Street after their actions led to the largest recession since the 30's. Ford's pardon enshrined as legal precedent that if you are powerful, people will just let you off breaking the law. It didn't make people "less angry" or "less distrustful in government", it just caused the waters to be ever further muddied.

The really alarming thing is how so many Americans are willing to treat their president as some manner of elected absolute monarch, and that the "symbol of the country" being arrested is equivelent to the Parliamentarians beheading Charles I. Just saying, but if you really think the entire system will collapse because a crook goes to jail, it's probably not a system worth saving.

[Zioneer]

Of course, the courtesy that applies to letting top dogs get off scot-free doesn't apparently apply to the Republican Party. They has no problems in the 90's of Ken Starr magnifying the sleaze and sexual depravity of the Clinton administration into a Watergate tier scandal.

Meanwhile, the post-watergate precedent of allowing the President and his staff off on actual crimes has continued to mire other cases. Look at Iran-Contra - a scandal that showed the White House, the intelligence agencies and military in a clear treasonous conspiracy with full knowledge of Bush Sr and probable knowledge of the St Ronnie of Reagan. Look at the actions committed by the Bush Jr admin covering up their actions, and how willing Obama was to say "ah well, that's all in the past now, no lessons to be drawn from here". To a certain extent, a similar precedent was used to let off Wall Street after their actions led to the largest recession since the 30's. Ford's pardon enshrined as legal precedent that if you are powerful, people will just let you off breaking the law. It didn't make people "less angry" or "less distrustful in government", it just caused the waters to be ever further muddied.

The really alarming thing is how so many Americans are willing to treat their president as some manner of elected absolute monarch, and that the "symbol of the country" being arrested is equivelent to the Parliamentarians beheading Charles I. Just saying, but if you really think the entire system will collapse because a crook goes to jail, it's probably not a system worth saving.

Exactly. And for the Wall Street example, it's not like you're going to jail every single Wall Street executive and crash the economy. Just jail enough that some justice is done and a point is made.

[Kingpoleon]

Of course, the courtesy that applies to letting top dogs get off scot-free doesn't apparently apply to the Republican Party. They has no problems in the 90's of Ken Starr magnifying the sleaze and sexual depravity of the Clinton administration into a Watergate tier scandal.

Meanwhile, the post-watergate precedent of allowing the President and his staff off on actual crimes has continued to mire other cases. Look at Iran-Contra - a scandal that showed the White House, the intelligence agencies and military in a clear treasonous conspiracy with full knowledge of Bush Sr and probable knowledge of the St Ronnie of Reagan. Look at the actions committed by the Bush Jr admin covering up their actions, and how willing Obama was to say "ah well, that's all in the past now, no lessons to be drawn from here". To a certain extent, a similar precedent was used to let off Wall Street after their actions led to the largest recession since the 30's. Ford's pardon enshrined as legal precedent that if you are powerful, people will just let you off breaking the law. It didn't make people "less angry" or "less distrustful in government", it just caused the waters to be ever further muddied.

The really alarming thing is how so many Americans are willing to treat their president as some manner of elected absolute monarch, and that the "symbol of the country" being arrested is equivelent to the Parliamentarians beheading Charles I. Just saying, but if you really think the entire system will collapse because a crook goes to jail, it's probably not a system worth saving.

Bill Clinton going to jail after impeachment is something I would absolutely oppose. His victims were crushed ten times as much as any of Nixon's, and yet the matter does not change. The crimes are not a variable in this equation, at least for me.