# Why Did Ford Pardon Nixon If We're Innocent Until Proven Guilty? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 14, 2017, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472 "2017-12-14T03:01:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/21 "2017-12-14T18:15:01Z")
Note, incidentally, that Congress could still have impeached him anyway, if they chose: The power of pardon is explicitly limited to not apply to cases of impeachment. An impeachment would have been mostly pointless, since he was resigning anyway, but they could still have barred him from holding any further office. And I’ve never bought the argument that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. Suppose that I’m the President (or a governor, if we’re talking about a state crime), and there’s some case where I think the defendant got railroaded, and that he really genuinely didn’t do it. What, in such a case, should I do? I think it’s obvious that I ought in such a case to exercise my pardon power. Does that mean that, because I think that the guy didn’t do it, that he’s forced to admit that he did? That’s an absurd result. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/22 "2017-12-14T18:32:07Z")
Ford presented the argument that Nixon accepting the pardon was an admission of guilt. I have no idea if that has any weight under the law, or could since he was pardoned and never could be tried to determine if he was guilty under the law. Nixon continued to insist he had done nothing illegal, though resorting to the famous line “When the president does it that means it’s not illegal”. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/23 "2017-12-14T18:34:12Z")
> [@Jim\_s\_Son](#): > > Ford felt that the Watergate debate had gone long enough (almost two years) and it was time to end it and move on to other things, such as inflation. It went on for much too long. When it preempted monster movie week on the 4pm Movie on WABC I was pissed. > [@Chronos](#): > > Note, incidentally, that Congress could still have impeached him anyway, if they chose: The power of pardon is explicitly limited to not apply to cases of impeachment. An impeachment would have been mostly pointless, since he was resigning anyway, but they could still have barred him from holding any further office. > > And I’ve never bought the argument that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. Suppose that I’m the President (or a governor, if we’re talking about a state crime), and there’s some case where I think the defendant got railroaded, and that he really genuinely didn’t do it. What, in such a case, should I do? I think it’s obvious that I ought in such a case to exercise my pardon power. Does that mean that, because I think that the guy didn’t do it, that he’s forced to admit that he did? That’s an absurd result. Most recently did Sheriff Joe admit to being guilty of anything? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/24 "2017-12-14T18:37:47Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Most recently did Sheriff Joe admit to being guilty of anything? Wasn’t he already convicted? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/25 "2017-12-14T18:40:49Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Wasn’t he already convicted? Contempt of Court, iirc. ---
**Author:** ![Tzigone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Tzigone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tzigone)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/26 "2017-12-14T18:43:00Z")
> [@](#): > > As to whether he should have pardoned Nixon, well you can debate them. Some like Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill felt it was the right move: what matters is how high you fall he said. Others felt it set a double standard. The guys who ended up with the longest prison sentences were the low level guys who did the actual break in; even though most of them had clean records. [Here are some Gallup poll results](http://news.gallup.com/poll/3157/americans-grew-accept-nixons-pardon.aspx) for those interested. Looks like Americans (polled) said poll was the wrong thing to do than the right thing to do in 1974, numbers were tied in 1982, and more Americans polled though it was the right thing by 1986. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/27 "2017-12-14T20:00:48Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > (emphasis added) > > **Cite, please.** I followed that mess as it unfolded. ISTR a lot of republicans did call for his impeachment, but the formal process was never started, let alone pass both houses. You didn’t follow closely enough, or pay enough attention in history class. Or play enough trivia. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only two US presidents to have been impeached, but neither was removed from office (2/3 vote is required in Senate. Johnson snuck through by one. Clinton needed 67 votes to be removed from office, and had 50 and 45 voting in favor of conviction on the two counts in a Republican controlled Senate [55 R senators]). ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/28 "2017-12-14T20:13:27Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > To accept that reasoning you have to believe that Ford didn’t make a deal with Nixon ahead of time to issue the pardon. I’ve always assumed that a Ford promise of a future Nixon pardon is how Ford became Vice President. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/29 "2017-12-14T20:15:18Z")
For anyone interested in this topic, especially if like me, they weren’t around at the time, I highly recommend [John Dickerson’s episode of Whistlestop on Ford issuing the pardon](http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/whistlestop/2017/06/revisiting_sept_8_1974_when_president_ford_announced_his_pardon_of_richard.html). It’s a really thoughtful review and analysis of Ford’s motives and people’s reactions at the time. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/30 "2017-12-14T20:29:37Z")
Does a Presidential pardon cover state crimes too? For instance could California have gone after him if they could tie him to the break-in to the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/31 "2017-12-14T20:48:42Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Does a Presidential pardon cover state crimes too? For instance could California have gone after him if they could tie him to the break-in to the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist? No. Only federal crimes can be pardoned by the president. I don’t know what happens if someone convicted of a federal crime is pardoned and then the state tries to charge them with the same crime at the state level. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/32 "2017-12-14T22:13:52Z")
What happens is it goes to trial in a state court, and if the state jury finds the defendant guilty, then the state judge imposes a sentence, and the defendant has to fulfill it. Just like if there hadn’t been federal involvement. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/33 "2017-12-14T22:26:30Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > What happens is it goes to trial in a state court, and if the state jury finds the defendant guilty, then the state judge imposes a sentence, and the defendant has to fulfill it. Just like if there hadn’t been federal involvement. I was wondering if double jeopardy applied but [according to this website](https://www.wklaw.com/double-jeopardy-federal/) it would not and the person could be prosecuted in both jurisdictions. The article says that it’s rarely done once a defendant is found guilty, but it’s rare for a person to be pardoned in this manner also. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/34 "2017-12-15T00:03:52Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > Ford also pointed out that while not wanting to put the country through the process of a Nixon trial, the pardon was also an admission of guilt by Nixon. This last part is rarely remembered though. And of course, resigning before he was impeached & convicted was a big financial gain for Nixon. He got to keep his pension, his free Secret Service protection, secretarial help with his papers, all the ‘security’ improvements that had been made to his property, etc. He probably would have lost those had he been convicted. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2017, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472/35 "2017-12-15T01:06:59Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I was wondering if double jeopardy applied but [according to this website](https://www.wklaw.com/double-jeopardy-federal/) it would not and the person could be prosecuted in both jurisdictions. The article says that it’s rarely done once a defendant is found guilty, but it’s rare for a person to be pardoned in this manner also. Some states have laws that forbid dual state and federal prosecutions for the same crime – that is, the state won’t prosecute if there’s a federal conviction. But that’s a state policy, not a constitutional prohibition. For double jeopardy purposes, two sovereigns, state and federal, means two prosecutions are allowed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-ford-pardon-nixon-if-were-innocent-until-proven-guilty/804472.md?page=1)