Jesse Jackson: Obama should follow Ford's example - grant Hillary Clinton a pre-emptive pardon

This faux man of the cloth has it wrong for a couple of reasons. The first is that Obama can't follow Ford's example because Ford pardoned a former President - something Hillary Clinton will, fortunately, never be. On top of that, Nixon had already been publicly humiliated. The Watergate coverup had ended in his resigning the presidency to prevent a 100% certain impeachment. To put it bluntly, Nixon had already paid a high price for the conspiracy. Hillary, in stark contrast, has paid no such price. Yes, she lost an election, but her secret server (and flagrantly illegal handling of classified information) was just part of the reason she lost. She’ll now embark on a lucrative post non-presidency without paying for her crimes, largely because a colluding administration and media have squashed investigations and protected her. That, however, is still not the most important reason. Ford's decision was largely based in the idea that prosecuting and jailing a former President would be a tremendous black eye for the country. I'd argue that the exact opposite is true. A President who has committed a felony should be prosecuted. He or she is supposed to be no better than any other citizen. The "black eye" comes from pretending that politicians are somehow "better than everyone else" and are therefore untouchable.

By the way, liberals in the 1970's were furious about Ford's pardon. Ford announced the pardon on a weekend in an attempt to squelch the outrage, but it didn't work. Temnpers flared, angry Dems clogged the White House phone system, and Senators like Ted Kennedy were quick to decry the decision. Even now, leftists are still arguing that it was a mistake. As Slate.com pointed out in 2006:

Why was Ford wrong to pardon Nixon? Mainly because it set a bad precedent. Nixon had not yet been indicted, let alone convicted, of any crime. It's never a good idea to pardon somebody without at least finding out first what you're pardoning him for. How can you possibly weigh the quality of mercy against considerations of justice?

It's a cliche to say that we're a nation of laws, but that's the case. Those who make and enforce expansive regulations - people in whom the public has placed its trust - should be held to a higher standard, not a lesser one. Besides, If Hillary's done nothing wrong (as she and her surrogates have been arguing for a year and a half) why would she need a pardon in the first place?