Nixon being pardoned a good idea? - Frost/Nixon (2009) Discussion

[–] misterjb 15 years ago

Politicians on Nixon's level work so hard to preserve a historical legacy that I can see how the astrix next to his name in the history books can be considered an apt punishment. Yes, pardoning Nixon did avoid a stigma, but it possibly created another: that there are two systems of justice, one for you and me and one for Nixon, Clinton and Cheney et al.

reply

[–] palisade-1 15 years ago

In accepting the pardon, Nixon implicitly admitted to having committed criminal acts. So, although it avoided his going to jail or prison, it removed the possibility of "clearing his name" which is what Nixon most wanted. Although he managed to rehabilitate his image to a considerable degree over the years, he remains an admitted criminal.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

On the one hand, I think Nixon deserved to face the music for his crimes. But on the other, I don't even want to think of what might have been, given how polarized the country was at that point in time.

"I do NOT want your tawdry tales of office lust infecting my newsroom!"

reply

[–] bsharporflat 15 years ago

Not as polarized as when Bill Clinton was impeached. It isn't mentioned so much anymore but Clinton committed his perjury in a much more provable manner than Nixon's crimes. Both were approximately equal in covering up transgressions related to the job; Nixon's to cover up election improprieties, while Clinton's to cover up workplace sex and favoritism (Monica's job placement). Monica also claimed she had an influence on Clinton's education policy decisions but that part would be hard to prove.

reply

[–] Mihos 15 years ago

I'd say the country was MORE polarized with Clinton. But that was because it was just sex and preferment. Only people who already hated him for his politics wanted to impeach him. Nixon tried to subvert the electoral process. Even though he would have been reelected without it. Strange to talk about perjury, which is the least important charge against Nixon and the only real charge against Clinton.

reply

[–] Mannlaw99 15 years ago

No - not until he fully admitted his misconduct, appologized for it, and asked for a pardon. Then, yes.

reply

[–] keywestmusicinc 15 years ago

Good idea for the country no doubt.....bad idea for Ford. He couldn't just sweet it under the rug, the American people wanted to see Nixon sweat.

In my opinion the country was WAY more polarized by Nixon's abuses of Presidential powers than Clinton's cheating on his wife?

reply

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

The USA could never get over it. But we needed to move past it. I think Ford did the right thing for that particular moment of time. Although the lack of a trial left the door open for other presidents to abuse their power, knowing that such scandals will forever be ignored, sweetened or otherwise diluted for "the sake of the country".

Was it a good idea? At the time, perhaps. Was it right? Was it justice? Hardly.

Forever will I wonder if it would have been better for our country's future to have held Nixon to the fire, and all subsequent violators thereafter.

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

reply

[–] wadebr 15 years ago

I don't believe you are in the minority. With the death of Gerald ford, Ted Kennedy admitted that the pardon was the correct course of action. I wished Ted had made his comments while Gerald ford was alive, but he did eventually vindicate the pardon.

reply

[–] kissmyart 14 years ago

Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. Either the law is applied justly to all citizens or it is not.

Pardons are supposed to come AFTER a fair trial and a conviction. The idea that a former president having to face justice is somehow bad for the nation is a ludicrous conclusion and actually the opposite of what is best.

If the American people and the citizens of the world had seen that the law was applied evenly to all Americans regardless of power or privilege then the pardon, if it came would be a footnote of sorts to the message that we are a nation of laws with ideals worth fighting a dying for and that we as a collective people hold ourselves to the ideals laid down in documents like the Constitution and the Magna Carta. In Nixon's case, I personally believe he should have gone to prison and that would have RAISED the prestige of our nation, and shown the world that we have the conviction of our ideals intact and place them above all else. Only the guilty would have suffered.

Obama's refusal to pursue convictions of admitted torturers and the entire BushCo league of criminals, along with Ford's pardon of Nixon sends a signal that all a criminal President need do is not get caught, lie repeatedly, act in an imperial manner, stonewall when discovered, and finally actively obstruct justice (like Scooter Libby did to protect Cheney from a charge of treason) until his term runs out and then he or she need never worry. Is this a good idea?

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 14 years ago

Anyone using "BushCo" ought to have their opinion dismissed out of hand. But please tell me how you propose Bush to be tried, by whom and on what charges?

"Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?"

reply

[–] alveolate 12 years ago

anyone who believes in dismissing someone else using a moniker as a shorthand reference -- that person's opinion ought to be dismissed too.

Bush and Cheney basically deceived the nation they served so they could go to war and invade another country. remember? "weapons of mass destruction"? "Iraq = Al Qaeda"? at the very least, some accountability NEEDED to be apportioned for those immense lies. the state of international laws basically went back centuries when the US formed a "Coalition of the Willing" to snub their collective noses at the UN and ICJ. the middle east conflict is still officially dragging on, no doubt due partially to the impact of actions justified by those patent falsehoods.

reply

[–] RynoII 10 years ago

Personally I think that pardoning a criminal in order to avoid is a stigma, should be a crime. It should fall under the obstruction of justice law, and in my opinion Ford is guilty of doing that too. Criminal Justice, is more important than stigmas.

Plus letting him go, shows to the world that America's democracy is too cowardly to prosecute it's own President's if they commit crimes, which looks bad to the rest of the world, even worse than the other stigma in my opinion.

reply

[–] grolaw 15 years ago

This lawyer finds the pardon a gross miscarriage of justice - and it has set the precedent ever since - from Ford's own secret war to Carter's misdeeds in Iran to Reagan's entire administration (working the hostage release deal to take place on the date and time of Reagan's Inauguration is a violation of the 1799 Logan Act 18 U.S.C. § 953) and Iran Contra, the date and time that Reagan's Alzheimer's disease made GHW Bush the de facto President without invoking the 25th Amendment (read Reagan's Iran-Contra deposition given after he left office - he was incompetent), Clinton's Perjury, GW Bush's multiple violations of the Constitution....

What would have happened had we tried Nixon - and confined him for the rest of his life in a small federal prison cell - would we be in the mess that we are in today?

The law exists for all and we have now seen how the immunity from prosecution of the governing elite has spread to the financial sector and to military contractors and to telecommunications corporations - and on and on and on....

NO, the pardon was purely a quid pro quo for Ford's presidency and it laid the foundation of an ever expanding immunity from prosecution for the rich and powerful. This was a horrible idea.

reply

[–] Writerchamp13 15 years ago

That is a very interesting perspective grolaw. I never considered it from that vantage point.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

Presidential abuses of power far predate Nixon, from John Adams to Abraham Lincoln to Woodrow Wilson to FDR to JFK. You can't blame the Ford pardon for the fact that executives have always taken advantage of the flexibility the Constitution affords them.

"I can tell you that I am very much uninterested in whether I am shot or not."

reply

[–] jz5x5 15 years ago

That anyone would compare what Clinton did to what Nixon did simply boggles my mind. Nixon undermined the government of the most powerful nation in the history of the world during one of its most precarious times and Clinton lied about a blow job-- arguably not even perjury given the requirement for relevance and materiality.

When Reagan was deposed on Iran-Contra it was way after he was out of office. I believe that was actually during an investigation of GHW Bush's involvement after he had become president.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] perrrob 15 years ago

Nixon will always be remembered as a crook. Live with it.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

Clinton's liaison with Lewinsky, while morally repugnant perhaps, was no issue for anyone but the parties involved. The way he set about covering up, stonewalling and perjuring about it, however, shows the same arrogance, abuse of Presidential power and contempt for the law as Nixon. And that is the issue here, not the act itself. If anything, I might argue that Clinton engaged in such actions in service of something so petty was even more disgusting. With Nixon, the crime itself is more disgusting than the cover-up.

If the whole affair was no a big deal, as Clinton supporters continue to claim, why did Clinton himself make such a big deal out of it? Certainly he couldn't have done worse to just admit to adultery right off the bat than he did by dragging the country through a long, bitter, divisive impeachment trial. Certainly the Republicans were out to get him, but why then did Clinton give them such a great weapon?

"PLEASE DON'T DATE ME! I PROMISE I'LL WORK HARDER!"

reply

[–] Mihos 15 years ago

You've never been married.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

Not sure what you're getting at here.

"If life gives you lemons, choke on 'em and die. You stupid lemon eater."

reply

[–] Mihos 15 years ago

Clinton's cheating had nothing to do with the office of the presidency, a good reason it shouldn't have been an issue for impeachment. It was not so trivial to Hilary, however. And Bill had to live with her afterward.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

Lying about it under oath, on the other hand, is a federal crime, regardless of the reason why it was committed.

Yes, the Republicans were out to get him, but Clinton was at best very stupid to give them that big an opening to attack him through.

"If life gives you lemons, choke on 'em and die. You stupid lemon eater."

reply

[–] Mihos 15 years ago

Choosing whether to give up your job or your marriage is not an easy choice. I'd rather give up my job.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

Clinton had to give up neither.

"I am Mr. Shackelford's attorney, Rusty Shackelford, and my client pleads insanity."

reply

[–] Mihos 15 years ago

He didn't know that at the time any more than you did.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

He did everything within his power to make it so.

"Earth first! Make Mars our bitch!"

reply

[–] Mihos 15 years ago

Now I'm having trouble understanding you. If you mean the cheating was stupid, absolutely. One of his aides said he was brilliant in his political life and dumb in his personal life.

What gets me is that they turned something that wasn't a crime into one by asking about it in a public proceeding. It was nobody's business, had nothing to do with the office of the presidency, and had no place in the investigation. The motivation was purely political. And entirely different from Nixon's situation.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

I don't disagree with your overall point. The GOP was definitely out to get Clinton, there is no denying that. But no one held a gun to Clinton's head and forced him to commit perjury either. I can understand the motivation, but the best you can possibly wring out of that is that Clinton is a liar, not only to the country at large (what politician is completely honest?) but to his friends and family as well. And that doesn't reflect well on him at all.

Again, the cover-up is what I'm referring to, not the "crime" itself. As I said, I don't care overmuch about Clinton getting a blow-job, which is nothing compared to Grover Cleveland or Warren G. Harding or FDR or JFK's Oval Office shenanigans. But I still don't see how Clinton was in any way justified in his efforts to stonewall and obstruct justice. If you have nothing to hide, then come clean. Or don't lie in the first place. Or don't have an affair in the first place. There were many things he could have done to avoid being in that situation, and the blame comes back to him. The Republicans couldn't have "gotten" him if he hadn't given them the perfect weapon.

"Earth first! Make Mars our bitch!"

reply

[–] Mihos 15 years ago

And I don't disagree with his being a liar. But:

"But I still don't see how Clinton was in any way justified in his efforts to stonewall and obstruct justice."

They misused the legal system for political purposes. That's hardly justice. If the question had been asked in regular court, the judge wouldn't have allowed it because it was irrelevant to the case. Personal matters that had nothing to do with what was being investigated, that's what he was covering up.

"If you have nothing to hide, then come clean."

Get real. Everyone has something to hide. I doubt you'd want to be asked about your personal life under oath on national tv. You would at least be tempted to lie. I bet Starr would lie. Don't expect anyone else to be perfect unless you are. And if you are, you wouldn't expect anyone else to be.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

They misused the legal system for political purposes. That's hardly justice. If the question had been asked in regular court, the judge wouldn't have allowed it because it was irrelevant to the case

Again, I don't disagree; the Republicans clearly wanted to nail Clinton on whatever came to hand. Still doesn't excuse his actions though. If anything it means he ought to have been extra careful, knowing the type of people he was up against.

Get real. Everyone has something to hide.

Not everyone is the President of the United States. Perhaps you haven't noticed. Not only are they (rightly or wrongly) held to a higher moral standard, they're also much more likely to have people look into and try and verify their claims.

I'd say it's better to tell an embarrassing truth than to lie and risk being found out. Look at Grover Cleveland: he was accused of infidelity while President and owned up to it, and the issue pretty much went away. The "everyone does it" excuse doesn't amount to much, if you ask me; no better than claiming Watergate was no big deal than claiming JFK and LBJ did similar thing.

I doubt you'd want to be asked about your personal life under oath on national tv.

They'd find out that I'm a loser who putters around his dorm all day drinking IBC Cola. I think I could bear the shame of that revelation.

"Earth first! Make Mars our bitch!"

reply

[–] Mihos 15 years ago

I didn't say it was okay for Clinton to lie. I said asking him about an affair that had nothing to do with the investigation was even less ethical than his lying. As to holding a president to a higher standard, even Honest Abe lied. They all did at one time or other. All you're saying is that Clinton's no better than the others. And to claim that lying about an affair is as bad as Watergate just means politics is more important to you than ethics.

"They'd find out that I'm a loser who putters around his dorm all day drinking IBC Cola. I think I could bear the shame of that revelation."

If that's the worst thing you've ever done in your life, what's the name of the church they built to worship you in? Didn't even have to put you on national tv. Glass houses.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

I said asking him about an affair that had nothing to do with the investigation was even less ethical than his lying.

Yeah, I agree.

And to claim that lying about an affair is as bad as Watergate just means politics is more important to you than ethics.

I think the cover-up is as bad as Watergate, if only because the actual "crime" was unimportant in and of itself.

Using Presidential authority to cover up a personal problem is extremely unethical. Most of us don't have that opportunity.

"Earth first! Make Mars our bitch!"

reply

[–] Mihos 15 years ago

"Using Presidential authority to cover up a personal problem is extremely unethical."

Would've been if he'd done that. There was speculation whether Clinton would invoke presidential privilege to refuse to testify. He didn't. Maybe you're thinking of what the Bush administration did in the Valerie Plame scandal.

reply

[–] willjohn 14 years ago

Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. Hell, all he did was not brag about getting some oral sex from a grown woman. Nixon covered up criminal activity by his staff.
At the least he was an accessory after the fact to break, enter and steal.

Nixon should have stood trial.

reply

[–] Desertman84 14 years ago

I think that Nixon should have been pardoned considering that he was remorseful for his acts in office.If there was someone who should have been sent to trial,it should have been W and Cheney.

reply

[–] spmcevoy 15 years ago

What crimes would Nixon have been convicted of that would have resulted in him living the rest of his life in jail? Perjury? Obstruction of justice? Violation of electoral rules? None of those would even come close to a life sentence. Even if you think a 10-year sentence would be for the rest of Nixons life, that would even be far longer than any term Nixon would have served.

No, I don't see Nixon serving a long sentence, no matter what he was convicted for. And no, it's not because rich politicians get to live by different rules. If you or I were convicted of the same things, the sentence would be far shorter than you think.

reply

[–] vgarci2003 8 years ago

👍👍👍

reply

[–] adarkhorse 15 years ago

"it would have created a stigma that would have haunted the American people for decades, not to mention any international credibility for the United States would have been tarnished for a long time."

Tarnished more than the idea that American Presidents do not have to obey the law? They can now act with impunity and never have any legal consequences.

reply

[–] Druff 15 years ago

if Nixon had been impeached AND convicted, it would have created a stigma that would have haunted the American people for decades, not to mention any international credibility for the United States would have been tarnished for a long time.

Are you implying that, as it stands, the American people were NOT haunted for decades? And that the US's international credibility was NOT tarnished? Really? Really?

reply

[–] NIMHrat1 15 years ago

People can go back and forth on this issue all they want but the fact is that Article 2, Section 2 of our Constitution gives the President the "power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States". I think Ford did the same as any other Vice President would have done for the previous resident of the Oval Office, he "protected the shield", if you will.

If we as Americans are so outraged by this type of action by our high ranking officials, we should use our system of government to change it. Start writing you Congressional representatives and asking for a proposal to amend the Constitution to limit or remove the Presidential pardon. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

- Free Willzyx -

reply

[–] burnhollywoodburn277 15 years ago

If I grew up in the 1970s, hell yeah I would want him to face criminal charges (he couldn't be impeached if he resigned) just like I think Bush needs to be charged with crimes against humanity...But he did get caught, resigned the presidency and was shamed for the rest of his life, so he did not escape the consequences (unlike Bush) so I think he got what he deserved, plus what he did wasn't all that bad.

For true hip hop fans: hiphopterrorist.blogspot.com

reply

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

I think it was all that bad. I think we NEED to prosecute our politicians above all others. It's a solid way to maintain the integrity of our government and our representatives.
I think what we're seeing today is a direct reflection on what Ford did 35 years ago. When people see that not even the Commander in Chief is above the law, it validates our laws and the nation which is founded upon them

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

When was the President never above the law? I doubt you can find one President who did not in some way abuse his power, not even Washington (perhaps even especially him).

"I am Mr. Shackelford's attorney, Rusty Shackelford, and my client pleads insanity."

reply

[–] gabby_bm 15 years ago

When was the President never above the law? I doubt you can find one President who did not in some way abuse his power, not even Washington (perhaps even especially him).

I don't deny what you're saying. But in 1975 it was certainly more visible to the nation than it was in Washington's time- or even in Eisenhower's time. It probably felt more like "I know you're watching, America and I'm going to stick it to you anyway".

I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

Fair enough. Nixon was one of the first to get publically outed as a sleazeball and remained pretty much unrepentant to the end of his life.

"Earth first! Make Mars our bitch!"

reply