Pardoning Nixon, a retrospective

[TurkeysGhost]

Given the current political climate and my sense of optimism, impeachment and ex-presidential indictment have been on my mind. Of course, the Nixon example comes to mind, being the only true precedent we have.

I am curious to what are people's thoughts on Ford's pardoning of Nixon. The argument was that Nixon needed to be pardoned so that the nation could move on and not dwell on old wounds as the trials dragged out. Also, it would be bad for the nation to have a former president in a jail cell.

This was before my time, so my opinion is not very firm. Generally, I found that excuse pretty weak and Nixon essentially got away with being a criminal.

What are the forums thoughts on the matter? Is the general concept sound? What are the arguments for or against pardoning Nixon, or some future "hypothetical" criminal president.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Pardons are messed up in the US: it should be a requirement for the President to explain why he gave a particular pardon, with a statement from the DoJ one the case: Pardons should be transparent and have political consequences.

But I believe that the most important function of a Democracy is the peaceful Transition of Power: an autocrat won't give up power if he can expect to spend the rest of his life in jail or worse. And his followers might not accept a new leader who they blame for punishing the old one.

So for the interest of the country, Pardons are probably be a necessary evil.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm in favor of making pardons for corruption available only on a posthumous basis, but at the same time greatly reducing the time lag between conviction and pardon.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The problem with "The President has to justify the pardon" argument is what justification could he give that wouldn't essentially be "Because I want to?"

I think people think that pardons are a check on the justice system falsely convicting someone by allowing the President to pardon (to save time I'm going to just say pardon to cover the whole pardon/commute spectrum) someone he thinks is innocent when in reality the purpose of pardons is as much or more for the President to pardon someone even though he's guilty.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I can't really see any argument against giving the king the power to subvert the course of justice at whim by setting aside the lawful convictions arrived at by the legal process. What could be more democratic?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Pardons are messed up in the US: it should be a requirement for the President to explain why he gave a particular pardon, with a statement from the DoJ one the case: Pardons should be transparent and have political consequences.

But I believe that the most important function of a Democracy is the peaceful Transition of Power: an autocrat won't give up power if he can expect to spend the rest of his life in jail or worse. And his followers might not accept a new leader who they blame for punishing the old one.

So for the interest of the country, Pardons are probably be a necessary evil.

The successor is the VP and the same party. They would be the perfect person to oversee a trial. But they won't because it hurts their election

 

[sackett]

I'm 76 and I remember feeling relieved that Ricky Dick was out of our hair -- mildly relieved, and also slightly disappointed that he wouldn't be tried. I also felt comtemptuous of him and his creatures. It seemed to me, and to many others, that Dick the Nose wasn't worth going to any further trouble: he was beneath notice.

Napoleon Bonespurs and his gang, otoh, need thorough extirpation. It'll take years, and huge expense, and by god it'll all be justified.

 

[dudalb]

I can't really see any argument against giving the king the power to subvert the course of justice at whim by setting aside the lawful convictions arrived at by the legal process. What could be more democratic?

So you want to get rid of the power of Presidents and Govenors to Pardon altogether? That's a bit extreme.

 

[dudalb]

I would have had no problem if Ford had waited until after the Trial to pardon Nixon.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So you want to get rid of the power of Presidents and Govenors to Pardon altogether? That's a bit extreme.

I don't think it is. What has been a good use of the pardon power? What are the best examples of the pardon power?

 

[TragicMonkey]

So you want to get rid of the power of Presidents and Govenors to Pardon altogether? That's a bit extreme.

How is it extreme to want to excise an antidemocratic autocratic power specifically designed to allow someone in power to overrule the rule of law at his personal whim?

 

[shemp]

I'm in favor of making pardons for corruption available only on a posthumous basis, but at the same time greatly reducing the time lag between conviction and pardon.

The time lag could be shortened greatly by requiring the convicted president to perform seppuku immediately after the conviction, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serving as kaishakunin; televised and streamed live, of course, preferably without advance warning to viewers of the afternoon soap operas.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The time lag could be shortened greatly by requiring the convicted president to perform seppuku immediately after the conviction, televised and streamed live, of course, preferably without warning to viewers of the afternoon soap operas.

Don't be ridiculous. If the convicted had had the required sense of honor he would have done that before being tried. If not by the gory method you mention, the more genteel Roman methods used in such situations. But of course if one were truly honorable one wouldn't have committed such crimes in the first place. Really, compelling the state to execute one displays the most shocking lack of taste and manners, which is a powerful demonstration of the deservedness of the sentence in the first place!

 

[crescent]

The time lag could be shortened greatly by requiring the convicted president to perform seppuku immediately after the conviction, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serving as kaishakunin; televised and streamed live, of course, preferably without advance warning to viewers of the afternoon soap operas.

Oval office, or capitol rotunda? Full public on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial?

So many options....

 

[jimbob]

The problem with "The President has to justify the pardon" argument is what justification could he give that wouldn't essentially be "Because I want to?"

I think people think that pardons are a check on the justice system falsely convicting someone by allowing the President to pardon (to save time I'm going to just say pardon to cover the whole pardon/commute spectrum) someone he thinks is innocent when in reality the purpose of pardons is as much or more for the President to pardon someone even though he's guilty.

The Home Secretary in the UK had (has?) the power to issue pardons. It has been very rarely used and often they are posthumous.

I can't really see any argument against giving the king the power to subvert the course of justice at whim by setting aside the lawful convictions arrived at by the legal process. What could be more democratic?

I don't think it is. What has been a good use of the pardon power? What are the best examples of the pardon power?

In principle I agree with you, but there are edge cases where pardons are justified. For example in cases where the law is changed as a consequence of the situations of the case.

ETA: I don't think it should be the head of state - maybe the Supreme Court instead.

 

[shemp]

Don't be ridiculous. If the convicted had had the required sense of honor he would have done that before being tried. If not by the gory method you mention, the more genteel Roman methods used in such situations. But of course if one were truly honorable one wouldn't have committed such crimes in the first place. Really, compelling the state to execute one displays the most shocking lack of taste and manners, which is a powerful demonstration of the deservedness of the sentence in the first place!

Barbarian! If we are not going to give the condemned an opportunity to restore his family honor, we might as well go with scaphism then! The Scaphing of the President would certainly provide several days of family entertainment on Netflix.

 

[LSSBB]

I wonder how well Ford would have been able to carry out the office of president with such a trial going on. Not that he did a great number of things. Here is a link to major events of his presidency: https://millercenter.org/president/gerald-ford/key-events

The inflation fighting actions may have been of significance, however I am not sure of what the long term effects may have been.

 

[Lurch]

I'm ambivalent about Nixon's pardon. He should have paid a higher price for his ghastly antics, but the Nation's well being came first. A full airing of the mess via completion of the impeachment process might have been sufficiently satisfying, followed by the pardon.

As for the current state of affairs. As a distant observer, I'm apalled and mystifyied by a country in paralytic thrall to a rogue, anti-democratic President *criminally* mooting the purely partisan pardons of *criminal associates.* Every mob boss ever could only dream of the good fortune to be 'elected' to such a position. As far as I'm concerned, that's already occurred, in the guise of PDJT. Or failing that, at least an asset of the Russian criminal apparatus has been installed.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The Home Secretary in the UK had (has?) the power to issue pardons. It has been very rarely used and often they are posthumous.





In principle I agree with you, but there are edge cases where pardons are justified. For example in cases where the law is changed as a consequence of the situations of the case.

ETA: I don't think it should be the head of state - maybe the Supreme Court instead.

Some states use clemency and pardon boards to inform the governor. It is a process that could be standardized.

 

[Segnosaur]

Given the current political climate and my sense of optimism, impeachment and ex-presidential indictment have been on my mind. Of course, the Nixon example comes to mind, being the only true precedent we have.

I am curious to what are people's thoughts on Ford's pardoning of Nixon. The argument was that Nixon needed to be pardoned so that the nation could move on and not dwell on old wounds as the trials dragged out.

I think there are significant differences between the current Trumpian environment and Nixon. These differences include:

- The depth of corruption. Yes, Nixon (and his minions) engaged in illegal acts, and impeachment was the correct course of action. But for every illegal act by Nixon, you can probably find 2 that Trump and/or his administration has engaged in. Nixon (and his team) were involved in an illegal break-in... Trump (and his team) were involved in hacking (morally equivalent of a break-in) AND conspired with a foreign country in doing so. Which one appears more serious? This of course is in addition to all the other fraud that Trump has been involved in...before (e.g. Trump U), during (illegal campaign contributions) and after (Emoluments) the campaign.

- Nixon was at least half-ways competent as president. He wasn't perfect, but you could at least point to his opening relations with China and his weapons deals with Russia as examples of success/things that improved the U.S. and/or world political situation. Trump has no such good marks on his record, and will be better known for having children locked in cages and praising neo-nazis as "fine people"

- Trump's flaws/crimes have been well publicized even before the election, and not only did he win but he still maintains a significant amount of support. (I would have been too young to remember Watergate, but from what I understand, none of the crimes really came out until AFTER the election, and when details emerged Republican support dropped.) Because Trump supporters are so eager to overlook Trump's crimes (as well as embrace his racism) I'd be less inclined to grant him a pardon in order to "heal the nation".