Victor Navasky, publisher emeritus of The Nation, recalls the magazine’s legal battle over Gerald Ford’s memoirs and the alleged deal the former president struck to pardon Richard Nixon.
Transcript from AlterNet:
AMY GOODMAN: ... We’re going to turn now to another issue. We have Victor Navasky on the line with us. He’s publisher emeritus of the Nation magazine, chair of the Columbia University Journalism Review, and this is a case that involved the Nation magazine and former President Ford. Welcome to Democracy Now, Victor Navasky.
VICTOR NAVASKY: Good to be here, Amy.
GOODMAN: Can you talk about this case?
NAVASKY: Sure. Let’s see, in August of 1974, which was about a week before Nixon resigned, General [Alexander] Hague took Gerry Ford for a walk in the Rose Garden and told him that Nixon was going bonkers and they had to get him out of there, and there were four possible ways to do that. The first three turned out not to be realistic. But the fourth, he said, was if you would promise to pardon him after you become president, I think he would agree to resign.
Now, some years later Ford wrote about this in his memoir. And, someone—and his memoirs was being kept secret as they had sold publication rights and he had signed a contract saying that he wouldn’t talk about it until the book came out—and someone who had access to it asked me if I wanted to read it. And I said, not particularly, but I would, and it turned out that there was this one chapter that dealt with this conversation. And the way Ford told the story, he put a gloss of innocence on it, and I’ll tell you what he said in a minute. But we ran a story about the story and, subsequently, we were sued by the publisher and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court. And here’s, here’s what happened.
After Hague took Ford for a walk in the Rose Garden, Ford writes in his memoir that he came back to his office and he mentioned this to an aide of his named Bob Hartman, and the aide said, “And then what did you say, after you heard that?” And Ford said, “Well, I didn’t say anything.” And the aide said, “Gee, that’s not good, silence implies assent.” Because Ford had asked Hague, “Well, is it possible to pardon someone before he is indicted?” And Hague said, “Yes, we checked it out with our lawyers and it is.” So Ford says he then went to sleep, he didn’t say anything to Betty about it, and the next morning he got up and he mentioned it to another aide, a fellow named Jack Marsh. And Marsh said, “And then what did you say?” And, Ford said, “I didn’t say anything,” and this aide said, “Gee, that could be a time bomb.”
So Ford then writes that he then went and called General Hague and read him a statement, which he reprints in his book, and the statement said, “Nothing I did or didn’t say yesterday should be taken to mean that I did or didn’t agree to pardon or not to pardon Richard Nixon.” And he writes it as a kind of pro forma thing, and the way I read it was, it’s an attempt to put a gloss of innocence on a deal they had made. And this is a possible obstruction of justice, and that it’s something that he shouldn’t have done and against the law and, possibly, after he got nominated and confirmed, an impeachable offense even.
In any event, we wrote the story and ... about a week or a couple of days later, I got a call from Herb Mitgang, who was a reporter for the New York Times, saying, “What’s your response to the telegram Harper & Row sent you?” I said, “What telegram?” And they had sent it to the New York Times, but our copy didn’t arrive until a day later, threatening a lawsuit and telling us to cease and desist excerpting from the Ford memoirs, which, of course, we hadn’t done. Well, the fact was, what had happened was, Time, which had agreed to excerpt from the book, canceled its excerpts because—cancelled its excerpts, because the deal was that Ford wasn’t—that nothing was supposed to come out about this conversation about the pardon until after they had run their story.
And we, of course, believed that the right of a public figure to keep his secrets while in office is fine, if he keeps them, and he certainly, or she, should be encouraged to write their memoirs so that the public gets the benefit of their thoughts about what happened. But they have no right to copyright the news. They have no right—they have the right to protect their style, and, of course, the Nation wasn’t interested in borrowing Ford’s style. The reason that we quoted from his memoirs was only so that we couldn’t be accused of distorting what he had to say, but the guy had written a book that ran about 110,000 words and we had quoted about 350 words. We quoted some others things which were very clearly public documents, but we also quoted correspondence and stuff that was part of the public’s business.
And the case, it was a very interesting case because Ford himself chose not to be a plaintiff. The plaintiffs were Time Inc., the Harper & Row and Readers Digest, which also had excerpts involved in the thing. And the amount of money at stake was only Time Inc.’s share of the $25,000 that was at issue, so it was $12,500, which barely qualified it for a federal lawsuit. It went all the way up to the Supreme Court, and at the trial level, the judge, a fellow named Richard Owen, was—had been a Nixon appointee, and he was a famous copyright protectionist judge and he decided for Ford.
At the appeals level, the judge was Kaufman, who had been the judge who sentenced the Rosenbergs to death, but Kaufman, about which the Nation had been very critical, but Kaufman—Irving Kaufman—was also a First Amendment absolutist and a Democrat, and he decided in the Nation’s favor. And then the thing was appealed to the Supreme Court and it was very interesting, because then the Supreme Court ultimately, where we were defended by Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer, and the ACLU, and the New York Times, and the New York Review of Books, and a bunch of other periodicals came to our defense.
But, to make it brief, the Supreme Court decided 6-3 against us and the decision was rendered by Sandra Day O’Connor, who these days is celebrated as, you know, a fair-minded balancer, etc., but she was a Republican appointee. And the fact was, and Byron was a right, voted on our side. So it was weirdly a playing out of the realist critique of jurisprudence where the Democrats for the most part voted one way and the Republicans the other. And the—in Justice O’Conner’s decision, she actually misstated some of the facts of the case. It was one of the technical things that is bedeviling to me is when a case is decided against you, but they get the facts wrong at the Supreme Court level, how do you get that corrected? Because there is no appeal from the Supreme Court. Anyway, that’s what happened with this, this sort of sideline of this Gerry Ford case.
GOODMAN: Finally, Victor Navasky, your thoughts today on President Ford’s legacy.
NAVASKY: Well, I think he—the most important thing he did was he pardoned Richard Nixon. And he, he—and if that was, indeed, the result of a deal, rather than this he’s being credited, and maybe properly so, with trying to heal the nation. But if he—if his attempt to heal the nation was a result of a deal he made while he was vice president of the United States, that’s an important missing piece of history. So, he’ll be celebrated because he’s a nice guy and he was a football player and all of that stuff, for the next week or two. But if it turns out that this deal was made, then history is going to have a harsher judgment about him.
GOODMAN: And the fact that he also not only pardoned Richard Nixon, but granted amnesty to draft era resisters, the significance of that?
NAVASKY: Well, I think you have to credit him for that. Time passes, and he was—he was in the healing business, on the one hand. On the other hand, what you mentioned earlier in the program about his attempt to impeach Justice Douglas for publishing in the Evergreen Review, which was an experimental, sort of hippie, avant-garde, very good and serious literary magazine, was outrageous. And so he’s, he’s a complicated guy who came across as a nice guy.
Protesters Razz Bush at July 4 Event
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By HeadlessHessian, January 6, 2007 at 3:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Someone said to me, some time ago, that “A politician is a grade below child molestor”!
Need I say more.
Headless
Report thisBy Lee Dekker, January 6, 2007 at 11:42 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Vice President Agnew resigned after being caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Mr. Agnew was never punished for his crimes and never had to spend a day behind bars as would have been the case for the average American citizen.
Mr. Nixon then appointed Gerald Ford to take Mr. Agnew’s place. The American people did not elect Gerald Ford to the vice presidency
Mr. Nixon was then caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Actually, Mr. Nixon was caught leading a gang of thugs who had their hands in the cookie jar.
Mr. Nixon resigned. Mr. Nixon was never tried for his crimes. Mr. Nixon was never placed behind bars. Mr. Nixon’s assets were never seized. Mr. Nixon was never forced to spend his life savings on legal fees. Mr. Nixon was not dehumanized, raped or beaten in prison.
Mr. Nixon was then pardoned by the very person he had so recently appointed. Cozy.
We were told then, and we are being told now, that these actions were in the best interests of the American people.
But these actions were just another prelude to the American presidency becoming the de facto monarchy we enjoy today.
Report thisBy robert puglia, January 5, 2007 at 5:38 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
i am incredulous that anyone would wonder whether a deal had been made. a deal was made.
Report thisBy jon eden, January 5, 2007 at 3:15 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Was there a deal?
From Amy’s article: “...After Hague took Ford for a walk in the Rose Garden, Ford writes in his memoir that he came back to his office and he mentioned this to an aide of his named Bob Hartman, and the aide said, “And then what did you say, after you heard that?” And Ford said, “Well, I didn’t say anything.” And the aide said, “Gee, that’s not good, silence implies assent...”
And then the next day Ford gives Haig the following statement: “Nothing I did or didn’t say yesterday should be taken to mean that I did or didn’t agree to pardon or not to pardon Richard Nixon.”
I would say this indicates there was not a deal--else why this qualifying communication. I find the statement more than lawyerly. Everyone is desperate to get Nixon out, and if Ford tells Haig no way is he going to pardon Nixon, then we are left with a president who is drinking, depressed, severely shamed, and in possession of a button that can end it all--not just for him but for all of us.
Ford said the country was in trouble--and almost no one denies this-- and that dealing with the Nixon post resignation crisis was seriously diminishing his (Ford’s) administration’s ability to deal with the country’s issues.
So in summary, there is no evidence of a deal (that I am aware of) and Ford had quite good reasons to pardon Nixon--reasons for not pardoning him notwithstanding. Given the above and that knowledgeable people come down on opposite sides of this issue, the advisability of Ford’s action is likely to remain an unsettled piece of history.
Advisable or not, it appears to have been a selfless act which is fully in keeping with Ford’s character. I think we were lucky to have had this man, and I ain’t no Republican.
There are some serious criticisms that can be leveled at Ford--as is true with any president. On the pardon issue, I think Ford deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Jon Eden at Yahoo
Connecting the Dots: From human behaviors to Ecosystem collapse at http://StudentsForTheEarth.org
Report thisBy Leige Watts, January 3, 2007 at 12:34 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
As I recall, there was a real concern that Mr. Nixon might blow his brains out, and although that action might have pleased some people, the very idea of a President doing that so soon after another President had been assinated was something to think about. Whatever the reason, Nixon was pardoned, and we as a nation didn’t have to go through all of that while our allies and enemies of that era would have been scratching their heads wondering what was happening in the USA.
Report thisBy Boggs, January 2, 2007 at 8:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The original story that it was to provide healing for the country is a crock of BS....
Report thisHealing is accomplished with justice being meted out. Otherwise we wouldn’t have every smalltime criminal in a prison cell, right.
Maybe the message is “prisons aren’t for the white collar criminals..?”
By Lefty, January 1, 2007 at 3:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“There was no quid pro quo.”
Oh wait, that was some other corrupt Republican!
Report thisBy Rodney, January 1, 2007 at 1:41 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Check out these things Ford done.
Report thishttp://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/27/1638254
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/
http://www.mediamouse.org/features/123106indep.php
http://www.mediamouse.org/features/122706sanit.php
By Andy, January 1, 2007 at 11:48 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Oh please.
What difference does it make whether Nixon was impeached or not?
Nixon’s name will forevermore be synonymous with failure and criminality. Had I been born a ‘Nixon’ I’d of changed my name to Smith a long time ago.
The real bastard is Bush. As far as I know, nobody died when they broke into that hotel. But thousands have been killed and maimed since this idiot took office. Bush is the real criminal.
Report thisBy richard, December 30, 2006 at 12:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ford told a different version just a year or so ago in an interview, just released, with Woodward. He did it because “ Nixon was… a very good friend.” Indeed. That’s it.
Report thisBy Skruff, December 30, 2006 at 6:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Comment #44389 by vet240 on 12/29 at 9:20 pm says:
“Skull and Bones members (usually chosen in their Junior or senior year, presumably after they have shown their political or ethical leanings), include William Howard Taft a “Progressive Conservative”, George Herbert Walker Bush a Conservative, and our current president George Dubya Bush a Compassionate Conservative.”
AND John Kerry??? (apply political lable here)
“I still believe Gerald owed his soul to the company store.”
As do all who enter the top level of our system. Franklin D. Roosevelt villified by conservatives, lionized by liberals used his “compassionate conservativism” to save the idea of capitalism. not really much help for the working man until WW II, but he sure talked a good game.
Report thisBy Robert, December 29, 2006 at 11:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Interesting story.
Report thisI’d put more faith in it if they spelled Haig’s name correctly!
By vet240, December 29, 2006 at 9:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The title of this article, “Did Ford Trade Nixon Pardon for Presidency? Lacks Imagination, and indicates a certain Naivete, or worse could be willfully misleading.
Ford got his Law Degree from Yale in 1941. Ford never passed the Bar Exam. He took a coaching position at Yale after he got his Law Degree. He apparently was only a wannabe when it came to the Skull and Bones Society. Skull and Bones members (usually chosen in their Junior or senior year, presumably after they have shown their political or ethical leanings), include William Howard Taft a “Progressive Conservative”, George Herbert Walker Bush a Conservative, and our current president George Dubya Bush a Compassionate Conservative.
This wasn’t a simple quid pro quo between Ford and Nixon Nor was it about Protecting old friend Nixon from the Government, it was about protecting the 5%, the Republicans and/or the Government from what Nixon might disclose to the public if backed into a corner. The powers that be ( they want you to think it was all about Ford) were faced with a conundrum. Should they risk the wrath of the Governed by giving Nixon a blanket pardon before trial ( how can you pardon someone never charged?), or should they take a chance of exposing the truth about our “Political System”? The one we think that’s operative is the one that says “Of the people, by the people, for the people. The one that really runs things is the two party system in cooperation with the corporations.
There are two Americas. The one, 95% percent of us reside in. This is the one that leads a simple honest life trying to raise a family in better conditions than we grew up in. We pay for our citizenship with our tax dollars, our productive
efforts where we produce at a much greater value than our rewards (salary/wages). We sometime pay with our blood and lives fighting wars in which the corporate world has the most to gain.
The other 5% live a life of avarice and deceit and the constant quest for more power and wealth.
Ford was a part of the 5%, no matter how the media, the political leaders, or the Boy Scouts spin his philanthropic endeavors. Remember, it is necessary for the 5% to keep the 95% appeased with minimal assistance. An example would be the Katrina disaster.
For balance, I concede that Ford was just like the rest of us in some ways. He started out hard and scratched to get to the top. But, like the lyrics of a song sung by Tennessee Ernie Ford (no relation) I still believe Gerald owed his soul to the company store.
Report thisBy Quy Tran, December 29, 2006 at 3:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Absolutely ! Just ask Alexander Haig who brought all arrangements regarding Nixon full pardon for presidency. An don’t forget what did Carl Berstein say about these two criminals :"The son of the bitch pardons the son of the bitch”.
Report this