Was President Ford's pardoning of President Nixon a good decision?

[Higgins]

Do you believe that President Ford's pardon of President Nixon on September 8th 1974 was overall the right decision for the country?

I say yes, but I feel his timing was wrong. If you go back and read it, questions about Mr. Nixon's future were consuming Ford's new Presidency and the media was more concerned about what would happen next in the sordid and ongoing Watergate story than in the actual issues which concerned the country at the time. Given former President Nixon's very close brush with death in September 1974 I think a trial would've killed him. I think it was best for the country, and for Nixon, that the pardon was issued.

Where I take issue was President Ford's choice of timing, and also, why he didn't pardon all of the Watergate defendants (and at the same time, all draft resistors). If he had waited a few months and chosen to do this say during Christmas 1974 - a time when Americans are more wont to feel compassionate and sentimental - I think it would've went over better. Wiping the slate clean and pardoning both the Watergate defendants as well as the draft resistors (and perhaps also jailed leftist radical figures) would have also gone a long way toward healing the wounds of the 1960s on both ends of the political spectrum.

[RaphaelDLG]

No - it may have helped the country in the short term but it both hurt Ford and the country in the long term

[Higgins]

No - it may have helped the country in the short term but it both hurt Ford and the country in the long term

Ford yes. The country no. You can't have a media focused on the trials and tribulations of a now disgraced ex-President - with a trial that would've taken another six months of time - when you had rapidly rising inflation and employment which culminated the next year in the worst economic downturn at that point since the Great Depression. The media was obsessively focused on Nixon and shutting off the Watergate saga at least got the country's attention focused back on issues that were actually harming every day Americans. The repercussions of the Nixon economy were felt for nearly a decade after. Focusing on the trial of the man wouldn't have helped, if he even survived to the point of a trial that is.

Ford arguably sacrificed his own Presidency for it since until that point he had enjoyed perhaps the most pleasant honeymoon period of any President in the modern day, with approval ratings of roughly 80% prior to the pardon.

[RaphaelDLG]

The president isnt supposed to be above the law.  The standard set by Ford's pardon with nixon helped us down a path that normalized bush, trump, etc

[junior chįmp]

No it wasnt a good decision. But moron intellectuals/historians got together and concocted a bogus narrative of how it was a good decision for the rest of us because the mythical all knowing voters couldnt live another day hearing about Watergate

[Higgins]

No it wasnt a good decision. But moron intellectuals/historians got together and concocted a bogus narrative of how it was a good decision for the rest of us because the mythical all knowing voters couldnt live another day hearing about Watergate

Was pretty much the case. Ever watched a Gerry Ford press conference before the pardon? 90% of the questions were about Richard Nixon. Watergate had become a national addiction ala the OJ trial. The historians you speak of actually lived through the events in question.

[junior chįmp]

No it wasnt a good decision. But moron intellectuals/historians got together and concocted a bogus narrative of how it was a good decision for the rest of us because the mythical all knowing voters couldnt live another day hearing about Watergate

Was pretty much the case. Ever watched a Gerry Ford press conference before the pardon? 90% of the questions were about Richard Nixon. Watergate had become a national addiction ala the OJ trial. The historians you speak of actually lived through the events in question.

Dopey historians have concluded the pardon was a good idea because concocting entertaining historical narratives increases book sales

[brucejoel99]

Yes.

While he was overwhelmingly condemned in 1974 for the pardon, it was the right decision, given that the benefit of hindsight (& history) shows he recognized that the nation had to get on with its business & couldn't if there was a continuing effort to prosecute Nixon. It was a tough call, but time has a way of clarifying things, & I personally believe that he was right.

A lot of people seem to just gloss over the fact that the indictment, trial, & conviction of Nixon, in addition to anything else that would've transpired after that, would've diverted the attention of President Ford, Congress, & the American people from other, arguably more important problems that had to be faced & solved.

Nobody ever really asks themselves, "what would've been the point of a long & drawn out trial?" He was already out of office, publicly disgraced & humiliated, & would never be able to hold even a township clerk position ever again. His career & life were over; Ford knew that. All the trial would be doing is essentially kicking a dead horse, which would've relieved tensions at the moment, but would've distracted the country & the government from bigger issues (Vietnam, stagflation, etc.) & made things worse in the long run. Ford recognized that not only would a criminal trial have served basically no purpose (Nixon had already been punished, & would continue to be punished for the rest of his life with his tarnished personal reputation & inability to hold another position in what he lived for: politics) but that it'd garner so much attention that it could only further harm the government & the office of the Presidency, which at that time needed to win back the people's trust so it could deal with those bigger storm clouds in the sky.

[Xing]

Politically for his party in the short term? Maybe. Morally? Absolutely not.

[Lechasseur]

Yes

[136or142]

If Ford felt he had to pardon Nixon, he should have pardoned the draft dodgers at the same time and said something like "let's put the past behind us."

The hypocrisy of the Republican Party in complaining when Carter pardoned the draft dodgers was shameful.

[politicallefty]

No. I think Ford deserved to be defeated in 1976 for that act alone. The point of having a trial for the former President of the United States is to affirm the rule of law and that no one in this country is above the law. A commutation of any possible sentence could have been more understandable, but a full pardon made a mockery of the rule of law.

[brucejoel99]

No. I think Ford deserved to be defeated in 1976 for that act alone. The point of having a trial for the former President of the United States is to affirm the rule of law and that no one in this country is above the law. A commutation of any possible sentence could have been more understandable, but a full pardon made a mockery of the rule of law.

But Nixon was held to account for his crimes... by Congress. Hence why he resigned, because they were about to impeach (& remove) him. Politically speaking, he was already crucified, & as I stated in my initial post:

Nobody ever really asks themselves, "what would've been the point of a long & drawn out trial?" He was already out of office, publicly disgraced & humiliated, & would never be able to hold even a township clerk position ever again. His career & life were over; Ford knew that. All the trial would be doing is essentially kicking a dead horse, which would've relieved tensions at the moment, but would've distracted the country & the government from bigger issues (Vietnam, stagflation, etc.) & made things worse in the long run. Ford recognized that not only would a criminal trial have served basically no purpose (Nixon had already been punished, & would continue to be punished for the rest of his life with his tarnished personal reputation & inability to hold another position in what he lived for: politics) but that it'd garner so much attention that it could only further harm the government & the office of the Presidency, which at that time needed to win back the people's trust so it could deal with those bigger storm clouds in the sky.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes.

Of course, he really should've pardoned the draft dodgers too.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes. Even taken aside the fact that I firmly believe it was a morally just decision, his health scare should cement the answer - Ford’s pardon may have very well prevented his wife from becoming an untimely widow, and his girls fatherless. It saved America from focusing on a long, drawn out trial assuredly conducted by a jury not impartial, over important economic issues and foreign affairs at the time. I am amused that anyone seriously believes Nixon could be judged by impartial jurors and a judge, as well as presumed innocent by said jurors and judge, when the public had made clear its strong opinion as to his guilt.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Nix sums up my thoughts quite succinctly.

[Orser67]

It was probably a good decision for Ford. Even though the pardon kinda haunted him, it probably kept Nixon out of the news moreso than a trial of Nixon would have, which in turn allowed Ford to be competitive in the 1976 election.

As for the United States in general, I'm not sure. There's certainly the argument that pardoning Nixon allowed the country to move forward. But a trial and jail time might have allowed the public to really come to grips with all of the bad things Nixon did, which might possibly have better helped the public understand the danger caused by the combination of a strong presidency and an immoral president. Nixon's reputation has bounced back quite a bit since he left office, which in turn has led some to minimize the corruption of his administration, and I wonder if a full trial could have prevented the normalization of the then-unique corruption of his administration.

[Mr. Smith]

It was probably a good decision for Ford. Even though the pardon kinda haunted him, it probably kept Nixon out of the news moreso than a trial of Nixon would have, which in turn allowed Ford to be competitive in the 1976 election.

As for the United States in general, I'm not sure. There's certainly the argument that pardoning Nixon allowed the country to move forward. But a trial and jail time might have allowed the public to really come to grips with all of the bad things Nixon did, which might possibly have better helped the public understand the danger caused by the combination of a strong presidency and an immoral president. Nixon's reputation has bounced back quite a bit since he left office, which in turn has led some to minimize the corruption of his administration, and I wonder if a full trial could have prevented the normalization of the then-unique corruption of his administration.

And this is exactly why it would've been a problem to let it keep going, even though he already resigned...the first and only so far. There really would have been no way to move forward and get things done...and given exactly what was looming... well, I just don't see what more a trial would do.

Of course now, even Reagan's admin eclipsed the worst of that era in corruption, and Trump is keeping everything in hysteria no matter what.

Also, given what the office is, what's expected at large, and all the unethical blunders inherent just by our foreign policy alone, I can't say I completely agree with the sentiment that the President isn't a little beyond the law.

[RINO Tom]

Yes

[Sumner 1868]

The point is moot because Nixon was always going to be pardoned by his successor period. The Cold War political system was simply not going to work any other way. Even if he had stood trial, he would have gotten a slap on the wrist because the legal system is a sham that ranks people by income.

Also, the economy was never going to be repaired in the 1970s because both parties were firmly committed to monetarism during that period.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No (believes in holding criminals accountable even when they're rich and powerful, sane)

[Slander and/or Libel]

Nixon's pardon created a massive moral hazard in the presidency. The expectation that you can commit whatever crimes you want and then have them swept under the rug not because it's the right thing to do, but because it's better for everybody else to focus on anything but your crimes.

Maybe, *maybe* there is a kernel of truth in that the media bandwidth would have been entirely taken up by the trial of the president. But not having a trial invited future presidents to act with impunity if they felt like it. That's far more corrosive than a redirection of attention for a few months would have been.

[Kingpoleon]

No (believes in holding criminals accountable even when they're rich and powerful, sane)

I would gladly await finding a fair and impartial jury.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No (believes in holding criminals accountable even when they're rich and powerful, sane)

I would gladly await finding a fair and impartial jury.

lol, the same applies to Charles Manson and other high profile killers. Guess we should let them off the hook too?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Of course not; as a result, hacking of DNC repeated itself in 2016