[mullingitover]

>All Ford's pardon did was to prevent vengeful Democrats, some holding grudges going as far back as 1950, from criminally prosecuting him.

So while we're in agreement that Nixon was a criminal, you're saying he should not have been prosecuted...because people had other reasons to dislike him beyond his criminal acts? I fail to see how allowing Nixon to escape justice allowed the country to Move On. It demonstrated to the public that in fact, there are different classes of people in this country, and the powerful simply aren't subject to the same laws as the commoners.

[hga]

No, we're not at all in agreement that "Nixon was a criminal" (details on request ... although, it's been 4 decades in general, and a couple decades since I read Silent Coup).

Therefore prosecuting him because he was an anti-Communist Republican would not have been good. While this doesn't address my greater point, look at all the bogus prosecutions of Reagan Administration officials.

My greater point is about the arena that Ford decisively closed off with his pardon. Historically, when a Republic degrades to the point where leaders don't dare lose power, because they'll lose their freedom and frequently in time past their lives, that Republic dies an ugly death.

Perhaps you weren't alive/politically aware back then, but the country did Move On, Nixon and Watergate, which had consumed it, often to the exclusion of very important external issues, just stopped being a, let alone the top issue of the day. We Moved On to the supposedly clumsy Gerald Ford (he did have a bad knee from college football, but this was greatly exaggerated), Whip Inflation Now, Swine Flu, but seriously, the general business of the nation.

[dragonwriter]

> My greater point is about the arena that Ford decisively closed off with his pardon. Historically, when a Republic degrades to the point where leaders don't dare lose power, because they'll lose their freedom and frequently in time past their lives, that Republic dies an ugly death.

The other point in time where Republics die an ugly death is the point at which the leaders no longer feel constrained by the threat of being held accountable for actions while in office. Ford's preemptive pardon of Nixon -- which forestalled a thorough questioning of Nixon's actions and a determination of whether he ought to be held accountable for them -- moved the Republic closer to that point, even if it also moved it farther from the point you are concerned about (which, of course, is always the one those in power want to avoid, and not out of any concern for "the Republic".)

> Perhaps you weren't alive/politically aware back then, but the country did Move On

It did, indeed, move on to the abuses of national security apparatus by later administrations (most notably under Reagan, Bush II, and Obama, though the Ford, Carter, Bush I, and Clinton administrations aren't without issues, as well) with a similar lack of accountability, and indeed an increasing acceptance that, while we didn't like it when it was the other side doing it, such abuses were just part of what happened, and even in the most egregious cases with the clearest involvement from the top, there was no serious consideration of accountability.

The Ford pardon secured and further institutionalized the Imperial Presidency.

[hga]

Right. Nixon's forced resignation, on a credible threat that he'd otherwise suffer a bipartisan House impeachment and Senate conviction---either a singular event in US history---in no way whatsoever held him accountable, nor illustrated a threat to future Presidents....

[dragonwriter]

> Right. Nixon's forced resignation, on a credible threat that he'd otherwise suffer a bipartisan House impeachment and Senate conviction---either a singular event in US history---in no way whatsoever held him accountable, nor illustrated a threat to future Presidents

Well, no, you'll note I didn't say anything like that.

In fact, viewed alone, that would be a very potent blow for accountability; but impeachment and conviction on articles of impeachment alone is fairly minimal accountability, especially for a President (for, e.g., judges its somewhat more significant, as the ban on future public office is more significant for them than for Presidents.)

It would, however, be significant for Presidents because it opens the door for immediate criminal accountability, but this impact is neutralized when we establish that even the consideration of criminal liability of the President for actions committed during the term of office, even those high crimes and misdemeanors so serious and well established that they certainly would have resulted in impeachment and conviction, is outside the scope of what can be considered.

[hga]

A ban on future public office would be news to this ex-Federal judge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings

[dragonwriter]

> A ban on future public office would be news to this ex-Federal judge

The Constitution limits the possible penalties on conviction for impeachment to removal from office and "disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States" [1]. It does not mandate that both of the available remedies be applied upon conviction.

[1] Art. I, Sec. 3

[mullingitover]

> No, we're not at all in agreement that "Nixon was a criminal"

I'm sorry, I had no idea that you were this far out there. There's not much point in debating you if we're not on the same page about the realities of his actions.

[hga]

One thing I should add is that Nixon wasn't "a criminal" by the standards to which Presidents were held to going back to at least FDR.

If you can't see the danger of changing the rules of the game and throwing people into jail based on that....

[mullingitover]

I guess I can't really feel sympathy for anyone involved if the government's default operating mode was 'naked corruption' and then suddenly efforts were made to clean it up. If the upper branches of the government are just known by insiders to be wholly criminal, and the only thing keeping it from collapsing under the weight of its own criminality is collusion, then so be it. Let the whole thing come crashing down, let both sides get the knives out on each other, and let the public witness this and hopefully learn that they must scrutinize their elected officials far more carefully.

Also, I don't care what standards Presidents were held to. Presidents are human beings, which are all equal before the law. He was just as criminal as anyone else who engages in conspiracy to obstruct justice. If other Presidents successfully evaded prosecution for their crimes, that's too bad. However, it's no excuse to let another one slide.

[hga]

But, you see, it wasn't a case that "suddenly efforts were made to clean it up". A very large number of Democrats considered Nixon to be fundamentally illegitimate---in fact, as far as I can tell that's true for all modern era Republican Presidents except for Ike, who was an obvious special case, not even declaring himself and his family to be Republicans before 1951---and they wanted to get him at any cost.

We can also see that this goes only one way, although that's hindered by the big discontinuity of Ford and Carter being believed to be "clean" (although maybe I'm not remembering efforts to criminalize his short Administration, but a quick skim of Wikipedia didn't bring up anything) and Republicans then holding the office for 12 years.

"Let the whole thing come crashing down", well, that tells us how much you really care for "the people" ... you're talking about ending the Republic. The idea that the public will have an opportunity to elect officials after this is very questionable. Some people claim a desire to pursue justice no matter what the cost is idealistic, I'm with those who consider it idiotic. There is a reason our Founders created an unquestionable right for a President to pardon people, and this is one of the examples.

[mullingitover]

> "Let the whole thing come crashing down", well, that tells us how much you really care for "the people" ... you're talking about ending the Republic.

No, I'm referring to the collusion between the two extant political parties. Political parties receive no charter in the constitution and the founders of the country generally held them in low regard, and yet they've established a stranglehold on the country. Their reign is what I'm referring to when I say "Let the whole thing come crashing down."

Edit: George Washington said it better than I can in his farewell address[1].

[1] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Addres...

[GauntletWizard]

Because in no way would justice have been served. The stringing up of one gang leader by another gang would not have provided the country safety, security, recompense, or even resolution - It would have started an all out war, the one we're now seeing in politics.

[mullingitover]

I'm all for gang leaders being strung up, especially when it's in accordance with the law as would've been the case with Nixon. If the democrats were similarly guilty of felonies, they should've been brought to justice as well. Remind me again, what felonies did the democrats commit?

[mullingitover]

Just adding: you'd want to believe that an important feature of having more than one political party in the country is that they would compete and keep each other honest, holding each other to account when wrongdoing is exposed. Colluding to prevent the other team from ever facing justice for their crimes reveals that in fact, both parties are hopelessly corrupt and are conspiring to keep their corrupt enterprise operating. It's quite perverse to claim that this outcome is the best that we could hope for.