Was Ford correct in pardoning Nixon? At the time, the decision was widely criticized, and many believe it cost him the 1976 election. In Jeffrey Toobin’s recent book The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy, he argues Ford was wrong, that Nixon was unlikely to be prosecuted, and the pardon carried a heavy political price.
Critics of the pardon argue that no person is above the law, including Presidents. By pardoning Nixon, Ford seemed to place him beyond legal accountability. The move also seemed like a quid pro quo: Nixon resigns, Ford becomes president, and then the pardon. Indeed it may have created incentives for future presidents to negotiate the pardon in exchange for resignation.
Supporters of the pardon argued that it allowed the country to move on. In 1974, Watergate consumed the national conversation. Without a pardon, a drawn-out prosecution could have dominated politics for years. Ford himself argued that his action redirected the country’s attention. Nixon almost certainly could not have received a fair trial, and the nation faced pressing economic problems (most notably inflation) that mattered more to the average American than relitigating Watergate. The pardon power exists precisely to let a president decide who should be spared from prosecution. If one objects to the concept of a pardon, the remedy is to amend the Constitution, not to fault Ford for using the power it provides.
Interesting book.