A question of credibility for Obama?

From the speech granting the pardon (emphasis mine):

Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969, through August 9, 1974.

And the dictionary definition of "pardon":

Main Entry: 1par

Josh, you left out something in Ford's pardon speech:
"After years of bitter controversy and divisive national debate, I have been advised, and I am compelled to conclude that many months and perhaps more years will have to pass before Richard Nixon could obtain a fair trial by jury in any jurisdiction of the United States under governing decisions of the Supreme Court." And:
"The facts, as I see them, are that a former President of the United States, instead of enjoying equal treatment with any other citizen accused of violating the law, would be cruelly and excessively penalized either in preserving the presumption of his innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.".
In the U.S., guilt is determined by a trial. Until there is one, there is a "presumption innocence".

To pardon someone is to forgive an offense committed. Accepting a pardon is akin to admitting wrongdoing. Granted, it took Nixon a few years to publicly admit he'd done wrong (David Frost got it out of him eventually), but acceptance of the pardon was a tacit admission of guilt.

that the WH included taking over the student loan 'business' exclusively from the banks and other financial lenders as of July 1 of this year? And that this was done only the same day by including it in the reconciliation bill as it was presented to read before the vote? It wasn't in the Senate Bill, it wasn't in the original House bill, and it only came up in the reconc bill within the last two days of it being presented because it was also a way for the CBO to approve the money figure the WH wanted to get the win.

$8.7B of overcharged interest to the student will help pay for health care....and it was the only way the health bill could come in under budget and get passed...otherwise it would have fallen on its face, so the pres didn't hesitate to steal from the students to get a win.

The Feds will borrow at 2% interest but charge the students (and their parents) 6.8% interest...raising their payback by $1700 avg per year of that loan.

TONI H

I seem to remember cases where somebody was in prison and new DNA evidence showed they were innocent. As it would take a while to go through the legal process to vacate the sentence, while that party was still in jail, they were pardoned immediately so that they could be free immediately.
So then, would that party's acceptance of that pardon be admitting wrongdoing? In the case at hand in the thread, remember presumption of innocence. In the eyes of the law, even Charles Manson was presumed innocent until he had a trial.
As the case was about Nixon, and you dislike him, you want to have more than one "bite of the apple" and assign guilt to him after the legal system had it's bite, because that bite was a pardon.

...acceptance of a pardon is acknowledgment that you've done something to be pardoned for. In the DNA cases you mentioned, was it literally a pardon? How was it worded?

Nonsense. You are really stretching.

He admitted he'd done wrong, NOT that he committed offenses worthy of being impeached or convicted.

He admitted he had done wrong you said, so that is an admittance of guilt?

Guilty!

But never as President of the United States of America, and never sanctioned raiding and bugging the opposition headquarters. Are they not illegal in your country?

Mark

And, in certain circumstances they are entirely legal.

My point is, by saying he did wrong things, he is not automatically admitting he should have been impeached and convicted.

he was not impeached.

He was pardoned before the impeachment process began. He got away with that.

By the way, that, "And, in certain circumstances they are entirely legal". Under what circumstances is it legal for the President of the USA to sanction bugging opponents headquarters prior to an election campaign? Were they terrorist suspects?

The House Judiciary Committee had voted in favor of three articles of impeachment and these articles were going to go before the full House of Representatives the day after Nixon resigned.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm

Ed is practicing for the Olympics in the bending-over-backwards competition. It's fun to watch.

YOU are the one who is doing the bending. Nixon was not impeached, and you are trying to convince us he was.

No, actually the suspicion was that they were communist subversives. But if they WERE terrorist suspects that would be a case in which the bugging might be legitimate.

By the way, Nixon did not authorize the bugging. What he would have been impeached for was covering up the crimes of his underlings.

And of course, impeachment is not the only available punishment for wrongdoing.

He did do wrong, and so he had to go.

we have a principle in this country: "Innocent until proven guilty."

Man, when you rewrite history you go all out, don't you.

and just resigned to avoid the hassle of facing impeachment charges he he was innocent of?

I think it was pretty much the opinion of an overwhelming majority in the US at the time he resigned because he knew he couldn't avoid conviction on impeachment charges.

And while Ford's statement about the difficulty of him ever getting a fair trial has merit, at the time it certainly looked like a political payback. That is, I'll appoint you vice-president, then resign, and you pardon me.

I agree also with some at the time thought the pardon was good because it helped the country get past it and move on to current business.

Heck, I voted for Nixon, at least once, and I still believe he done several things that really crossed the line and had to leave the office for his actions.

Roger

We don't know what he thought, do we?

FACT: Nixon wasn't impeached.

FACT: Clinton was.

That's all. No need to get your panties in a bunch.

Maybe next time I'll just let historical misinformation go by.

FACT: Impeachment is an indictment, not a conviction.

FACT: Nixon would have been impeached roughly 12 hours after he resigned.

MarkFlax made a statement that was incorrect, that Nixon was impeached. I pointed out that we wasn't. I suggested if he's going to bring up impeachment, Clinton is the better example, since we WAS impeached That's all there is to it.

FACT: Nixon would have been impeached roughly 12 hours after he resigned.

No, "would have been" is not fact. It is speculation, which is off topic anyway.

But Ed, that legal prediction has been kept in a hermetically sealed mayonnaise jar, kept on Funk & Wagnall's front porch, since noon today!(grin)

would get that reference these days.

Do you understand the impeachment process? Clinton had a trial, Nixon did not.