What The Hell Was Gerald Ford Thinking When He Pardoned Nixon?

Some history talking for your Monday morning!

Donald Trump was indicted last Thursday, and there was much rejoicing. However, there were also sorrowful reflections about the “unprecedented” action of indicting a former president. This would seem to miss the larger point: What was unprecedented was an obvious criminal thug like Trump becoming president in the first place. District Attorney Alvin Bragg treating him like any other citizen reinforces US democracy and is a step toward national redemption after the 2016 election.

Trump, of course, is only the first former president to face criminal charges because Mr. Watergate himself, Richard Nixon, was pardoned. The New York Times   covered the details around Nixon’s legal troubles in a Sept. 1974 article called “Indictment, Pardon, or Deal?” which was also one of my favorite game shows of the period. The Times has seemingly always lamented when the powerful must face consequences like some lowly prole.

Mr. Nixon is now open to the full range of criminal investigations, indictments, trials and penalties. Such things are never pleasant for any citizen; nasty questions are asked, ominous facts assembled. It is a distasteful business, and some of those who are his political and personal friends, and many who are not, feel Mr. Nixon should not be put through it. The nation already has its “pound of flesh” and does not need “the blood that goes with it,” Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania said.

Scott was a moderate Republican who supported civil rights legislation and public housing. He even posed for official Senate photos with a pipe. RINO! He was one of the Republicans who urged Nixon to resign rather than face certain impeachment and removal.

PREVIOUSLY: The New York Times Dares To Ask: Should Criminal Presidents Be Charged With Crimes 

 www.youtube.com 

Leon Jaworskl, the Watergate special prosecutor handpicked by Nixon, was stuck with an ex-president who defiantly rejected any personal wrongdoing while also having all but confessed to a host of major felonies. It’s not a great combination, and as the Times wrote, "If the facts are there showing criminal behavior on Mr. Nixon's part, few think Mr. Jaworski will turn them aside. 'I think in the final analysis, unless somebody bails Jaworski out, he's got to go. He's got to indict,' said one lawyer with a defendant in the cover‐up case."

The person to bail out Jaworski would be Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford. Now, before we go further into indictment or pardon, let’s look behind door number three, which was a negotiated deal. That was certainly an option, and Nixon had as his personal lawyer, Herbert Miller Jr., a skilled negotiator who was once head of the Justice Department's criminal division. The Times recently claimed in its news analysis that was neither of those things that presidents have been "declared immune from prosecution while in office and, effectively, even afterward." There's no evidence supporting that argument. Nixon knew he was in legal jeopardy even after he resigned.

Former Attorney General Elliot Richardson had given a sweetheart deal to former Vice President Spiro T. Agnew for admitted income tax evasion because he insisted a trial would have “potentially disastrous consequences to the vital interests of the United States.” Replace "United States" with "Spiro Agnew" and that statement is probably correct. Agnew's buddy Frank Sinatra loaned him money to pay off his legal and tax bills, so keep that in mind when playing your grandparents' copy of "Fly Me To The Moon."

There was no legal precedent here, just specific instances of powerful people being held above the law, supposedly for the benefit of the nation, which must maintain its pristine image.

There was no Fox News in 1974 but the political right nonetheless spouted similar rhetoric that we see today:

A voice from far on the political right, Hamilton Fish Sr., of Operation. Freedom, Inc., warned darkly of trouble if Mr. Nixon is prosecuted. Mr. Fish summoned up a biblical prophet: “Jeremiah warned of the dissensions, disunity and hatred among his people and was not listened to.” Said Mr. Fish: “An unfair lynching trial of Mr. Nixon would make the previous Watergate controversy a mosquito bite.”

If convicted of his crimes, Nixon would've remained alive and in full possession of his testicles, unlike an actual lynching victim. He probably never would've seen the inside of a prison.

 According to Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Ford’s chief of staff, Ford’s aides offered pros and cons for Nixon’s arrest, indictment, and prosecution.

[They were: ] the “principle of equal justice”; that the country would remain divided without a final disposition of charges; that the lack of action might encourage a future president to commit acts of lawlessness; and that a resignation alone might not be “sufficient retribution” for such criminal offenses. Among the factors cited that weighed against arrest, indictment and prosecution were: that the embarrassment and disgrace associated with resignation would be punishment enough; that prosecution would “aggravate” the nation’s divisions; and that pretrial publicity might make it hard, if not impossible, for Nixon to receive a fair trial

Almost 50 years later, we're still weighing these pros and cons, except there was at least some good faith among Ford's aides who opposed prosecuting Nixon. Republicans today are just acting like common gangsters protecting their Don(ald).

A week after that 1974 Times article, Ford announced that he was pardoning Nixon, and his explanation suggested this was somehow America’s pardon. He said about the Nixon family: “Theirs was a tragedy in which we all have played a part. It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must.”

I was only a few months old at the time, but I’m fairly sure I didn’t play a part in Watergate. In fact, this seemed all on Nixon. Anyway, Ford argued that Nixon was too famous to get a "fair" trial, a fact OJ Simpson and Johnny Depp would disprove decades later.

The facts, as I see them, are that a former President of the United States, instead of enjoying equal treatment with any other citizen accused of violating the law, would be cruelly and excessively penalized either in preserving the presumption of his innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.

And here is where Ford placed Nixon and his family above the law.

Finally, I feel that Richard Nixon and his loved ones have suffered enough and will continue to suffer, no matter what I do, no matter what we, as a great and good nation, can do together to make his goal of peace come true.

Everyone who commits a major crime and is publicly exposed “suffers.” Their family feels the shame. It’s embarrassing when you lose your job at McDonald’s because you were caught stealing Filet-O-Fish sandwiches but you can still face criminal charges.

Ford shouldn't have pardoned Nixon, though I agree with those who suggest that Nixon likely would've made a deal similar to Agnew. It's possible he'd have never set foot in a courtroom. The corruption and systemic bias in our criminal justice system is perhaps larger than one man's mistake.

 www.youtube.com 

[ Politico / New York Times ]

  Follow Stephen Robinson on  Twitter if it still exists.  

Catch SER on his new podcast, The Play Typer Guy. 

Did you know SER has his own YouTube Channel? Well, now you do, so go subscribe right now!

Click the widget to keep your Wonkette ad-free and feisty.