This story makes me wonder what would have happened if the Watergate scandal would have happened in the age of the Internet. Would the Internet rally in favour of Richard Nixon's impeachment and against his subsequent pardon? Would impeachment proceedings still take place irrespective of the pardon because of massive public support?
The Internet is orthogonal to the issue (probably), the fact is that the US GOvernment is completely corrupt and captured now, from the highest levels to the lowest.
The corporate capture has left the wealthy and powerful above the law, if they're just willing to join the corruption scheme.
In short, the US is swiftly becoming a 3rd world country when it comes to equality of income and fairness of justice, and this is especially the case if someone like Aaron Swartz is looking to really rock the boat… they become the examples hung in plaza so everyone else meekly complies.
Urrm, you seem to be under the impression that impeachment does something more than remove someone from office (technically it doesn't even do that, if the House impeaches then the Senate holds a trial, which happened with Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's VP, and Bill Clinton).
All Ford's pardon did was to prevent vengeful Democrats, some holding grudges going as far back as 1950, from criminally prosecuting him. It allowed the nation to Move On; the alternative would have pretty quickly ended the Republic if history is any guide.
>All Ford's pardon did was to prevent vengeful Democrats, some holding grudges going as far back as 1950, from criminally prosecuting him.
So while we're in agreement that Nixon was a criminal, you're saying he should not have been prosecuted...because people had other reasons to dislike him beyond his criminal acts? I fail to see how allowing Nixon to escape justice allowed the country to Move On. It demonstrated to the public that in fact, there are different classes of people in this country, and the powerful simply aren't subject to the same laws as the commoners.
No, we're not at all in agreement that "Nixon was a criminal" (details on request ... although, it's been 4 decades in general, and a couple decades since I read Silent Coup).
Therefore prosecuting him because he was an anti-Communist Republican would not have been good. While this doesn't address my greater point, look at all the bogus prosecutions of Reagan Administration officials.
My greater point is about the arena that Ford decisively closed off with his pardon. Historically, when a Republic degrades to the point where leaders don't dare lose power, because they'll lose their freedom and frequently in time past their lives, that Republic dies an ugly death.
Perhaps you weren't alive/politically aware back then, but the country did Move On, Nixon and Watergate, which had consumed it, often to the exclusion of very important external issues, just stopped being a, let alone the top issue of the day. We Moved On to the supposedly clumsy Gerald Ford (he did have a bad knee from college football, but this was greatly exaggerated), Whip Inflation Now, Swine Flu, but seriously, the general business of the nation.
> My greater point is about the arena that Ford decisively closed off with his pardon. Historically, when a Republic degrades to the point where leaders don't dare lose power, because they'll lose their freedom and frequently in time past their lives, that Republic dies an ugly death.
The other point in time where Republics die an ugly death is the point at which the leaders no longer feel constrained by the threat of being held accountable for actions while in office. Ford's preemptive pardon of Nixon -- which forestalled a thorough questioning of Nixon's actions and a determination of whether he ought to be held accountable for them -- moved the Republic closer to that point, even if it also moved it farther from the point you are concerned about (which, of course, is always the one those in power want to avoid, and not out of any concern for "the Republic".)
> Perhaps you weren't alive/politically aware back then, but the country did Move On
It did, indeed, move on to the abuses of national security apparatus by later administrations (most notably under Reagan, Bush II, and Obama, though the Ford, Carter, Bush I, and Clinton administrations aren't without issues, as well) with a similar lack of accountability, and indeed an increasing acceptance that, while we didn't like it when it was the other side doing it, such abuses were just part of what happened, and even in the most egregious cases with the clearest involvement from the top, there was no serious consideration of accountability.
The Ford pardon secured and further institutionalized the Imperial Presidency.
Right. Nixon's forced resignation, on a credible threat that he'd otherwise suffer a bipartisan House impeachment and Senate conviction---either a singular event in US history---in no way whatsoever held him accountable, nor illustrated a threat to future Presidents....
> Right. Nixon's forced resignation, on a credible threat that he'd otherwise suffer a bipartisan House impeachment and Senate conviction---either a singular event in US history---in no way whatsoever held him accountable, nor illustrated a threat to future Presidents
Well, no, you'll note I didn't say anything like that.
In fact, viewed alone, that would be a very potent blow for accountability; but impeachment and conviction on articles of impeachment alone is fairly minimal accountability, especially for a President (for, e.g., judges its somewhat more significant, as the ban on future public office is more significant for them than for Presidents.)
It would, however, be significant for Presidents because it opens the door for immediate criminal accountability, but this impact is neutralized when we establish that even the consideration of criminal liability of the President for actions committed during the term of office, even those high crimes and misdemeanors so serious and well established that they certainly would have resulted in impeachment and conviction, is outside the scope of what can be considered.
> A ban on future public office would be news to this ex-Federal judge
The Constitution limits the possible penalties on conviction for impeachment to removal from office and "disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States" [1]. It does not mandate that both of the available remedies be applied upon conviction.
> No, we're not at all in agreement that "Nixon was a criminal"
I'm sorry, I had no idea that you were this far out there. There's not much point in debating you if we're not on the same page about the realities of his actions.
I guess I can't really feel sympathy for anyone involved if the government's default operating mode was 'naked corruption' and then suddenly efforts were made to clean it up. If the upper branches of the government are just known by insiders to be wholly criminal, and the only thing keeping it from collapsing under the weight of its own criminality is collusion, then so be it. Let the whole thing come crashing down, let both sides get the knives out on each other, and let the public witness this and hopefully learn that they must scrutinize their elected officials far more carefully.
Also, I don't care what standards Presidents were held to. Presidents are human beings, which are all equal before the law. He was just as criminal as anyone else who engages in conspiracy to obstruct justice. If other Presidents successfully evaded prosecution for their crimes, that's too bad. However, it's no excuse to let another one slide.
But, you see, it wasn't a case that "suddenly efforts were made to clean it up". A very large number of Democrats considered Nixon to be fundamentally illegitimate---in fact, as far as I can tell that's true for all modern era Republican Presidents except for Ike, who was an obvious special case, not even declaring himself and his family to be Republicans before 1951---and they wanted to get him at any cost.
We can also see that this goes only one way, although that's hindered by the big discontinuity of Ford and Carter being believed to be "clean" (although maybe I'm not remembering efforts to criminalize his short Administration, but a quick skim of Wikipedia didn't bring up anything) and Republicans then holding the office for 12 years.
"Let the whole thing come crashing down", well, that tells us how much you really care for "the people" ... you're talking about ending the Republic. The idea that the public will have an opportunity to elect officials after this is very questionable. Some people claim a desire to pursue justice no matter what the cost is idealistic, I'm with those who consider it idiotic. There is a reason our Founders created an unquestionable right for a President to pardon people, and this is one of the examples.
> "Let the whole thing come crashing down", well, that tells us how much you really care for "the people" ... you're talking about ending the Republic.
No, I'm referring to the collusion between the two extant political parties. Political parties receive no charter in the constitution and the founders of the country generally held them in low regard, and yet they've established a stranglehold on the country. Their reign is what I'm referring to when I say "Let the whole thing come crashing down."
Edit: George Washington said it better than I can in his farewell address[1].
Especially given that the two political parties include 2/3rds of the population, there's no way your preferred conflict would be limited. That's not even counting what hostile countries and non-state actors would do to us while we're tearing apart the nation. What do you see as the end state after the two parties "get the knives out on each other"?
Given that this is how people always organize themselves in the post-monarchical period (significant counter examples welcome, but of course one party states don't count), it's fatuous to imagine that we'd see anything in the vague direction of the Founder's idealism (well, I'm sure some realized they'd develop, as they did rather quickly, especially after Washington left the national stage (heh, which I drafted before seeing your addition)). After those knives spill enough blood, it's doubtful there'd even be a reconciliation.
> Especially given that the two political parties include 2/3rds of the population, there's no way your preferred conflict would be limited.
I think you wildly overestimate how passionately partisan the citizenry of this country really is. The majority of the population isn't even invested enough in their chosen party to make their way into a voting booth every couple of years to fill out a few checkboxes. Do you actually believe that these resigned, apathetic people are going to take up arms against each other simply because their leaders were revealed to be criminals?
Because in no way would justice have been served. The stringing up of one gang leader by another gang would not have provided the country safety, security, recompense, or even resolution - It would have started an all out war, the one we're now seeing in politics.
I'm all for gang leaders being strung up, especially when it's in accordance with the law as would've been the case with Nixon. If the democrats were similarly guilty of felonies, they should've been brought to justice as well. Remind me again, what felonies did the democrats commit?
Just adding: you'd want to believe that an important feature of having more than one political party in the country is that they would compete and keep each other honest, holding each other to account when wrongdoing is exposed. Colluding to prevent the other team from ever facing justice for their crimes reveals that in fact, both parties are hopelessly corrupt and are conspiring to keep their corrupt enterprise operating. It's quite perverse to claim that this outcome is the best that we could hope for.
Depends on how you qualify its big-ness. Go out and talk to regular, non-techie folks about NSA spying. In the unlikely event that you even find someone who knows what you are talking about, they won't care. They will look at you like you're crazy and they'll say, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."
If it's just a small, quickly forgotten blurb on Fox news between TERRORISM and Honey Boo-Boo then does it even qualify as scandal?
People affected is my bigness metric, in this instance.
Nixon got outed for spying on a hotel room. The Executive Branch just got outed spying on pretty much everyone.
Watergate was also in a time when people were, by and large, a little more literate about the supposed balance that's supposed to exist between the government and the individual. I was a teenager during Watergate and recall more than one adult being outraged that the president would spy on anyone and shared their outrage.
Today, the almost absolute apathy about being spied on is as disturbing to me as the surveillance itself. It doesn't bode well for the American political future.
The NSA and Watergate are very different types of things. In Watergate, the Administration engaged in targeted, illegal spying on political opponents. The NSA has Congressional approval for a surveillance program, and there has not yet been evidence to point to them using that for political gain.
