Probably would have been. But I was all of 10-18 during the clinton years. Can't say I was all too concerned with politics.

Commuted Sentence, Not Pardoned (Yet)
 

President Bush wouldn't rule out a pardon for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, after sparing him a 30-month prison sentence. But Bush said the $250,000 fine and two years' probation assessed Libby should stand.

Guess Cheney's not planning on running for dog catcher.

OK, I know a lot of Presidents have done it, and I've already said above that it seem excessive to give Libby longer sentences than some of the Watergate conspirators, I think that for any President to do this kind of thing is an affront to our legal system.

So you think Ford was wrong? Or is it different when you do it preemptively?

Do you not believe in commutations or pardons generally, or just in cases of a political nature? Or just of a political nature involving members of his own administration?

Answers:

I think Ford was absolutely wrong. So was Clinton.

I do believe in commutations and/or pardons in some circumstances, but not purely political ones -- especially for members of a President's administration.

Although if I were asked in a hypothetical way about what Ford did, it might creep me out; oddly under the actual circumstances, I think he did the right thing for the country.

I think some of it is in that Ford didn't seem to have much to gain from doing it, where with more recent commutations or pardons there's a sense of either protecting someone for doing your bidding or covering for you or sort of selling your influence.

I met Ford and believe he was a good man, and I might even believe the pardon was for the good of the country.

However Nixon did appoint him Vice President.

To me, though, Nixon got away with a lot.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with the current situation -- except that Libby may get away with a lot, too.

Agreed, on all points. But, I think others are getting away with a lot also. Didn't Libby claim that Cheney directed him to act as he did? Or is my memory failing?

I'm not sure I get the point about Nixon appointing him. Do you think Ford was more sullied by Watergate corruption than may be conventionally held?

Libby may avoid going to jail, but it's hard for me to see as getting away with a lot. He is a convicted felon, fined, and on probation.

No, I have no reason to believe President Ford had anything to do with Watergate.

My point about Ford/Nixon is that Milhouse basically made Ford President -- even if he didn't intend to. Also, they served in Congress together in the Republican Party for years and were friends. Their interaction didn't begin with the pardon.

As for Libby, if he is pardoned -- and the President won't rule that out -- doesn't the felony conviction go away?

As for AGDee's question -- yes, I think others are getting away with a lot also.

Remember, though, that this is my opinion -- we may never know all of the facts.

The common thought at the time was that Nixon had made a deal with Ford. I appoint you VP, then I resign and you can be President, but you have to pardon me. I was only 7 at the time and I remember hearing people say that.

If you watch The Presidents series on the History Channel, some say that it was a good thing that Ford did, because the country just needed to move on at that point and a long dragged out issue was only going to hurt people's trust in the government, which was totally shot then. This idea was reiterated when Ford died and they were talking about his Presidency.

I don't remember any of the discussion at the time (how politically aware you were at 7, AGDee!), so I'm pretty uninformed about it really. It's just kind of hard to see Ford as the guy who wanted to be President enough to make a deal with Nixon just to be President, assuming that he didn't authentically believe the pardon was the right thing to do anyway. And if he thought it was the right thing to do, and history may kind of affirm him on that, it's hard to have a problem with the deal. (He'd have to realize that being connected to that administration would doom him in the next general election.)

I was just Wikipedia-ing the Nixon resignation.
You know what's absolutely astounding? Carl Albert! Can you imagine someone today as sincerely concerned about the will of the people that he (or she, as the case may be) would publicly express concerns about taking on the role? No person at the time could have believed that, knowing what they presently knew, Nixon would have been elected, and yet, Albert expressed a reluctance. If something similar happened with Pelosi today or Gingrich under Clinton, well, I think it's safe to say, the last congressional election results would have been considered a new and better mandate from the people than the previous Presidential election.

Or maybe Carl just knew taking the Presidency at that point would be a career ender.

Your comment about Carl Albert prodded me to do some Googling as well. Albert's career in the Senate ended with his retirement in 1976. Watergate was around 73-74, so I suspect he saw the end of his career in the not so distant future anyway.

Albert was a Democrat. There's no way, short of Nixon's unexpected death before Ford was appointed and confirmed, that he (Nixon) would have allowed a situation where a Democrat would ascend to the Oval Office.

I remember Watergate well, but I think that any speculation that Nixon and Ford had made a deal was just that -- speculation. It was certainly never proved.

Could it have happened? Yes. Another thing we'll probably never know.

Albert being a Democrat was central to my point (faced with a similar situation, Pelosi or Gingrich would have been trying to accelerate the impeachment process, it seems to me), but you may be right that Albert knew his concerns and commentary were unlikely to be put to the test.

It seems that he got caught up in a scandal of his own, so that might have expedited his retirement so quickly after being speaker of the house.

ETA: I realize what I was missing was the completely separate nature of Agnew's resignation from the full-blown Watergate scandal. When you look them up, it appears more likely that both positions could have been vacant at the same it actually was. Until the tapes surfaced, Nixon probably expected to ride it out. So even without a VP, Albert really didn't need to fret about being a caretaker. I still can't imagine any recent Speaker not using the opportunity to try to seize power away from the other party, and his concerns seem much more noble.

AND: I salute you for your signature. I says it all for all of us, with GLO substitution, of course.

Thanks. That's a nice thing to say.

Vis-a-vis the signature, one way to look at is that while you really can fool some of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time -- sometimes honesty really is the best policy.

Maybe even all of the time.

Besides, as I've said a number of times, the more "mature" I get (you can read that "older"), the less I am absolutely sure of anything. That's as oppossed to when I was younger and "always right" about everything.