I recently saw a FB post in which the writer worried that at this late date, the America-hating fuckstick might be removed from office and be pardoned by his successor, President Pence. After a few people pointed out how unlikely the prospect of a putative President Pence would be, another person chimed in with “remember Watergate?”
Yes, I know that Pence’s ascendence to the Oval Office in a Watergate-like manner just ain’t gonna happen, but it did start me thinking. Let’s just suppose that Nixon had blown off Goldwater&Co’s 8/7/1974 advice, and been impeached and convicted. Would Ford’s pardoning powers have been able to shield Nixon from criminal prosecution? The pardon as it actually existed was for putative “crimes against the constitution,” and crimes against the constitution were presumably the basis of the Articles of Impeachment that the HoR was preparing to vote on. In addition, the presidential power to pardon Federal crimes explicitly excluded “in cases of impeachment.”
Did Nixon perhaps calculate that if Ford pardoned him AFTER an impeachment conviction the pardon would be invalid? Is it likely he discussed this possibility with his own lawyers (and maybe Ford)? WOULD a post-conviction pardon have been valid?
(Mods: this might be better placed in either P&E or GD. I have no objections to whatever you may decide.)
From the thread title, I thought you were asking if Ford was bribed or offered some other inducement to pardon Nixon. Ford had a reputation for bedrock integrity and, although he paid a heavy political price for the pardon (rightly IMHO), I don’t think any reputable historian thinks that happened.
The Constitution makes no reference to “crimes against the Constitution,” but to “Offences against the United States,” which could include lesser Federal laws. As you note, the Constitution specifies that the pardon power does not extend to “Cases of Impeachment.” Nixon was a lawyer himself and had plenty of lawyers to tell him the limits on any potential later pardon if he insisted on a trial in the Senate and was, in fact, removed from office.
White House Chief of Staff Al Haig did indeed discuss a possible pardon with then-Vice President Ford, who sidestepped the issue. Later, President Ford, very unusually, went before the House Judiciary Committee and explained why he issued the pardon; he was the first President to appear before the House since Lincoln. My recollection is that even those who vehemently agreed with his decision thought he did it for non-venal reasons.
If Nixon had not resigned and was convicted in a impeachment trial Ford could not pardon him of the impeachment. But the impeachment would only remove form office. One out of office he could have been brought up on criminal charges, Ford could have still pardoned him of those crimes.
Well, if you are asking what limits of a Presidential pardon are, you need not go to the Impeachment/ Conviction/ Subsequent pardon by a successor model. I absolutely believe that Trump believes he could pardon himself, for “anything the witch-hunters think I might have done”, and get away with it. He might even be right.
There would still be liability for state crimes, but the absolute power of a Presidential pardon to make the threat of federal prosecution go away has not been tested because no one thought it would ever come to this. It would take a Constitutional amendment to plug that particular loophole.
As far as a pardon goes, it works equally well at any point in the legal process. Ford could have waited until Nixon was charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced and then effectively nullified the whole legal process which had just occurred by pardoning Nixon. The only difference would have been that Nixon’s crimes would have then been a matter of public record even if the record was subsequently erased. By pardoning Nixon in advance of him being charged and tried, Ford may it possible for Nixon supporters to claim that he had never really committed any crimes.
I think Ford intended the opposite - there’s a long-standing legal doctrine that accepting a pardon means admitting guilt, and he felt that the pardon meant essentially that Nixon had to say ‘yeah, I did wrong’ but wouldn’t do any prison time, and that afterwards things could get back to normal. Ford carried around a cite of the case for years after the pardon to justify himself, but that doesn’t make other people accept the idea.
I think Ford really wanted to avoid a divisive issue racking the country. Like Biden, I think he was a decent man. But as I read this, I started wondering what actual laws Nixon violated. Yes, if had ordered the Watergate break in, but I rather doubt even he would have been so crass and, in any case, proving it in court might have been impossible.
Aside from likely tax evasion (again hard to prove) I even wonder what federal crimes Trump committed. His “high crimes” are obvious to all, but these are not ordinary crimes. Violating the privileges and emoluments clause is probably not a statutory crimes; nor are asking Russia and Ukraine to meddle, AFAIK.
Having lived through this, I think Ford the best thing for the country, by pardoning Nixon. The nation was divided and a trial would have been a mess.
We’d already watched the Watergate committee and the House Judiciary hearings on television and there was a simmering anger in America. I recall men of both parties crying when he resigned.
It was awful.
By pardoning him, it saved the country and helped us move on.
Ford was full of integrity and always claimed no deal or discussion of a deal with Nixon.