Not everyone is ready to praise Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon for his criminal role in Watergate. Leave it to Christopher Hitchens, ever the political provocateur, to challenge the conventional wisdom now awash in the media:
“The Ford epoch did not banish a nightmare,” Hitchens writes. “It ended a dream — the ideal of equal justice under the law that would extend to a crooked and venal president.”
The debate about whether Ford was right to pardon Nixon is not over yet.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
46 Comments
Is that what they call someone who dances and spits on someone’s grave before the last shovel of dirt is placed, a political provocateur?
Out here in Kansas, we call them a self-righteous son of a _____.
SJM,
Bitch, SJM. Say it: bitch. Just like what I called you the other day.
As for Hitchens, this truly is the stopped clock being right twice a day. I don’t think I’ve agreed with Hitchens about anything at least since the mid-1990’s, but I’m glad the liquid courage has loosened his tongue to speak the truth about what Ford’s pardon of Nixon has cost us as a nation.
I think Ford pardoned Nixon because he knew that if the impeachment trial got underway, all kinds of hell would be unleashed. And once the Pandora’s box has been opened, it cannot be closed.
We should have learned that from Bill Clinton’s impeachment, but I don’t hear any of the Republicans saying that was wrong.
We have seen the consequences of Clinton’s impeachment, the country is sharply divided. Perhaps this is why Ford did pardon Nixon – to avoid the sharp division?
To keep politicians honest, the voters will need to exercise their authority as ‘we the people’ and vote out those they don’t approve of – much like the voters did in the last election.
No system is perfect, but at least democracy the voters do have a chance to have their say.
Good points CS. As much as I hated seeing Nixon get off I agree that closing the chapter was necessary.
An impeachment is not the same thing as a pardon for criminal action! Nixon was impeached, and he resigned because he knew his goose was cooked.
High crimes was Nixon’s issue, not a simple lie about an affair.
Nixon was not impeached. That was Clinton.
Here we go again.Clinton’s was not a “simple lie”.He swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and he didn’t.Why is that so hard for you people to understand?
Articles of Impeachment:
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.
Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.
In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:
(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.
(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.
(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.
(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.
(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.
(8) Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or
(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved by a vote of 27-11 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, July 27, 1974.)
Article 2: Abuse of Power.
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.This conduct has included one or more of the following:
(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)
Article 3: Contempt of Congress.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.
In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.
(Approved 21-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 30, 1974.)
Again: Nixon was not impeached.
Clinton was.
First Fleettwood argued that Gore did NOT evacuate Katrina victims from New Orleans hospitals . . . now Goof Nut claims that Nixon was not impeached with the articles of impeachment staring him in the face.
The ability to ignore facts is why CONservatives are what they are.
That’s true… he merely ran away from the truth and the Law!!
On Friday, August 9, Nixon resigned the presidency and avoided the likely prospect of losing the impeachment vote in the full House and a subsequent trial in the Senate.
historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm
The fact is he resigned before he was impeached.
Nixon was not impeached.
Clinton was.
These are the facts.
You still haven’t asnwered the question, Nutz and Fleet – why impeachment for Clinton and not for Reagan and Bush I?
Ahh.. Nixon/Agnew.. what a tag team for the ages!
I will say that Nixon could not only spell foreign affairs, but work well in that medium, unlike our ,.. our, ahh, hmmm, Fearful Leader?
CF,
Funny stuff on Hitchens!
Did you ever see the debate between him and George Galloway held in New York 6 months after the war started?
It’s great (long, but great).
Here’s an unofficial transcript–
http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2005/09/galloway_vs_hit.html
And here’s where you can stream the video
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2005/sept/video/grapple.rm
An excerpt–
Hitchens:
Not content with that, he [Galloway] turns up in Damascus. The man’s search for a tyrannical fatherland never ends! The Soviet Union’s let him down, Albania’s gone, the red army’s out of Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia. The hunt persists! Saddam has been overthrown, and his criminal connections with him have been exposed, but on to the next. On the 30th of July, in Damascus in Syria, appearing, I’ve given it all to you on a piece of paper. In front of Mr. Assad, whose death squads are cutting down the leaders of democracy in Lebanon, as this is going on, to tell the Syrian people they’re fortunate to have such a leader. The slobbering dauphin who they got because he’s the son of the slobbering tyrant who came before him. How anyone with a tincture of socialist principle can actually speak in this way is beyond me, and I hope ladies and gentlemen, far beyond you and far beneath your contempt. Thank you.
[Applause]
Moderator: George, George Galloway, your response.
Galloway: Well uh… Dear ladies and gentlemen, slobbering was the note that Mr. Hitchens chose to end on, I’m not sure that was wise.
[Laughter]I come to praise Mr. Hitchens . . .Not withstanding all of these things, Mr. Hitchens bravely, fanatically you may say, stood against the idea of president George Bush invading Iraq in 1991. What you have witnessed since, is something unique in natural history. The first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly back into a slug.
[Applause/Cheers]
And uh…
I mention, I mention slug purposely, because the one thing a slug does leave behind it, is a trail of slime. Now, I was brought up by my father on the principle never to wrestle with a chimney sweep, because whatever you do, you can’t come out clean. But you, Mr. Hitchens, are no chimney sweep. That’s not coal dust in which you are covered. You are covered in the stuff you like to smear on to others. Not just me, with your Goebbelian leaflets, full of selective quotation, half-truth, mis-truth, and downright untruth, and the comments you made in your last two minutes of this speech. But people much more gentle than me, people like Cindy Sheehan. Whom you described…
[Applause]
Whom you described, whom you described as a sob-sister, as a flake, as a La Rouchie, a woman who gave the life of her son for the war you have come here to glory in. People like Mr. Hitchens are ready to fight to the last drop of other people’s blood, and it’s utterly contemptible, utterly and completely contemptible. Now uh…
[Applause]
Hitchens makes much, and I know that he will in his next segment, so I shall, to coin a phrase, pre-empt it of the nature and character of those resisting the foreign invasion and occupation in Iraq. I spoke last night in Boston, in a hall, where many of the leaders of the great American revolution stood and spoke. My favorite member of the British parliament has a statue, it’s the first one you meet as you walk in Saint Stephens entry. It is a statue of Charles James Fox. He was expelled twice from parliament for supporting the American revolution and supporting the French revolution. Now some might say, Fox was wrong, supporting the anti-colonial struggle of the American people. After all, some might say, better be careful what you wish for, Charlie, maybe one day that independent free country you’re supporting the birth of will be ruled by crazed fundamentalists like Pat Robertson, and George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney, and John Ashcroft.
[Applause]
They might have said, be careful Charlie, if this country becomes free, it might one day not even be able to pick up the dead bodies in one of its most important cities a week after they’ve lain there. Such is the malevolence and incompetence of the government which will rule it.
But Fox would have said no, Fox would have said no, he would have said the American people have a right to be free. Who they chose to rule them is a matter for them, let them make their mistakes, let them have their own politics. My country has no right to occupy them any further.
Now I am, I am of Irish background myself. When the Irish people rose in 1916 for their freedom to strike one of the first decisive blows against the British empire, on which the sun never sets, because God would never trust the English in the dark. When the Irish people rose, the Hitchens of those days, in Bloomsbury, in the salons, denounced the Irish rebels as priest-ridden, bog-trotting, Celtic, Gaelic, obscurantists to whom they would never issue, from Bloomsbury, a certificate of approval. But the only certificate of approval that mattered, was the one issued by the Irish people, not the liberals in London who refused to endorse it.
My point is this, for us in the United States and the United Kingdom there is only one big question. Mr. Bush actually framed it for us: Are you with the foreign occupation of Iraq, or are you with the right of the Iraqi people to be free and to resist the foreign armies who have violently invaded them. And that’s why…
[Applause]
That’s why that cheap, cheap demagoguery by Hitchens at the beginning of this debate got the risible response that it did from this audience, because he wants you to have, he wants you to make a minute silence for the 145 today, but he can’t bring himself to mention the massacre in Tal Afar over the last 4 days in Iraq. He doesn’t want to know about the massacre in Fallujah when the American forces, brick by brick, destroyed a city and massacred thousands of people.
Now this debate, as Amy Goodman said, is taking place at a very important time on a very important subject. This war, in which he glories, although I wish, how I wish he would put on tin hat and pick up a gun, and go and fight himself. How I wish, how I wish to see that sight. This war in which he glories has cost the lives, according to those well known Saddamist fronts, the Lancet and Johns Hopkins University, well in excess of 100,000 peoples lives. And hundreds of thousands more have been maimed and wounded. And it was all for a pack of lies, there were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, there was no link between Iraq and the atrocities on the 9th of September, on the 9-11 here in the United States. There was no welcome for the foreign armies that invaded Iraq. Hitchens said they would be greeted by flowers, but there are 2,000 young Americans boys lying in the ground now, testimony to the fact that they were welcomed by something else. And thousands, and thousands more, wounded, maimed, many of them in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives, testament to the folly of Hitchens, and Bush, and Cheney, and the rest of the neo-con gang that dragged your country into this disaster.
Golfnut:
The difference lacks a distinction! Nixon was the leader of a criminal organization. He plotted to commit crimes against the state and persons and carried out those plots.
The fact that he escaped justice has created a cynicism in our society and a legacy of imperialism that has turned votes off for an entire generation.
Perhaps you are old enough to remember the Nixon years, I remember them with sadness and still feel the shame he brought to the highest office in the land.
I remember those days with sadness and still feel the shame…
What tripe! Man up, pussy.
… still waiting for your answer, Fleet – why impeach Clinton and not your boys?
the (can I call you “the”?),I disagree. When Ford took office and declared “our long national nightmare is over” he knew that pardoning Nixon would be best for the country. He was right. We would gain nothing by furthering the case against Nixon. He was gone. The end.
The same is true for most corporate officers that commit crimes against the company: send information to competitors, steal, lie… The offender gets fired – rarely prosecuted.
Had Clinton did what he did as CEO of any US corporation, he would have been fired before the end of the day.
..and what would have happened to Reagan and Bush I in private busienss?
Clinton lied under oath.While we’re at it, how ’bout a riveting discussion on Millard Fillmore or James K. Polk.
golfer is correct – technically. Clinton was partisanly impeached by the radical GOP. Nixon faced a bipartisan impeachment that would likely have resulted in a bipartisan conviction. Therefore he resigned before the vote was taken. So, he was not impeached.
So what? Clinton’s impeachment is just like Andrew Johnson’s – an exercise in partisan extremism. And now the perpetrators plead for bipartisanship and lovey-dovey in return. Now the partisans whine when they are treated as they treated others.
You still didn’t answer the question Fleet. Reagan and Bush I violated American law – why are you okay with impeaching Clinton but not Reagan and GHWB?
It’s too late for that. Live in the now.
Clinton’s impeachment was eight years ago – is that the “now” you’re talking about?
Why are you giving a pass to Repubs?
fleettwood has a point, and not just the one on the top of his head.
Clinton did lie under oath.
But to lie under oath, you first have to be sworn in a court proceeding.
You notice that Bush has scrupulously avoided ever raising his hand and saying, “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth . . .” He refused to be sworn when he was questioned by Congressional committees, and during the 9-11 hearings, he would only appear if he could bring Uncle Dick along to help him.
If the Dems can ever get this greasy weasel on the stand under oath, the entire house of cards will come tumbling down, because he’ll either lie and be condemned for it or tell the truth and be condemned for it.
Touche, Clarkster!
SolDevVB,
“The fact is he resigned before he was impeached.”
It sure looks like he resigned because he KNEW he’d be impeached… and CONVICTED.
Ford’s blanket pardon basically ended any possibility of indictment of Nixon, i.e. he was above the law.
fleet,”Clinton lied under oath.”
Not according to a jury of your peers. 55 Senators voted to ACQUIT, including 10 Republicans. A 2/3rd majority is required to convict.
Pardoning Nixon was the best thing that happened to this country at the time. To have attempted to bring him up on charges would have polarized the country at a time it needed anything BUT that.
Hitchens is nothing more than an agent provacatour(sp), whose only purpose is to clog discussions with trivial nonsense. They come in all flavors, both repug and demo.
Ford did what had to be done. Hitchens is an idiot and a moron, who makes as much sense as Pat Robertson. Reading him is like trying to read a diary of a madman. I relegate averything he says to the round file.
I am more upset about the Tea Pot Dome scandal.
You just can’t bring yourself to answer the question,can you, Fleet?
The answer is who gives a shit. That ship has sailed.
What hypocrisy, Fleet, you can trash Clinton but you are more than willing to give Reagan and Bush I a pass on crimes against US law and international law.
I would not have expected more from a die-hard right-winger.
The die-hard right-winger will never answer back to reasonable and logical debate. The reason they are right-winger is because they think themselves to be ‘above the law’ like the rest of us commoners.
I agree that the only reason Georg W. Bush has never raised his hand to swear to tell the truth is because he knows not to and he has probably been told to never take an oath to tell the truth.
So, the right-wingers would rather parse everything into technicalities when it comes to Nixon’s impeachment but yet when Bill Clinton parsed what the word ‘is’ is – that was wrong?
I’m not defending Bill Clinton here so don’t go jumping on me but if it was wrong for Clinton it is wrong for any Republican.
Actually, Golfnutz, corporate CEO’s are fired and they take home that golden parachute separation package (and some after only a few months on the job). But the sad fact is that the fired person will probably end up in some other corporation doing the very same thing. So let’s not put the corporations on that integrity pedestal too high.
Lucy,Employees (executives included) who are fired for illegal activities or gross violation of company policy are not given any separation package.
That’s what you say but in the real world we know exactly what goes on behind those closed doors.
Corporations are not the God of the Universe as you may worship them to be.
And,of course, Ken Lay of Enron never prospered because of his illegal activities?
“Golfnut”"Had Clinton did what he did as CEO of any US corporation, he would have been fired before the end of the day.”
Had Tricky Dick done what he did as a private citizen he would be called a gangster and sent to prison.
truthy-Second point taken.First point stands.
“the”,Had Clinton resigned – and then President Gore pardoned…
Oh wait. Nevermind. I’m glad he didn’t resign.
Whew – close one.
ok this really makes me mad. i remember watching saddam kill people on t.v as a little girl but yet we can’t watch him die thats crazy. what about all those kids and parents who didn’t have a choice to watch there mom or dad or son or daughter die.the person who filmed this video in my books should be proud that he captured killing of saddam. i am thankful that we got to watch him die just like we had to watch everyone he killed die.
i posted the comment right above on the the wrong one sorry
I came in kinda late, but what crime/s did Reagan and Bush 1 commit?
Watergate – Iran Contra – Savings and Loan scandal – lies about WMD’s = all republican administrations
Why do Republican administrations feel compelled to commit major crimes? WHY?
Why then does the republican party stand behind its’ criminals come hell or high water?
Cubster brings forth an article about the divided repub party which begs the question why does it take the republican party bringing law breaking shameand/or taking our economy down the tubes before they pretend to give a damn?
Do they not pay attention?
Do they not know that setting up the oil companies once again in the mideastthrough illegal invasion is unethical and wrong?