Each of the people mentioned in these cases is connected solely by two points: former President Donald Trump granted them all leniency during his second term, and these acts of clemency have reportedly infringed long-standing Department of Justice protocols meant to proportionally reward persons who express regret, reimburse, and have the potential to positively contribute to society. Trump, it’s noted, forgave over 1,600 people and even two corporations within his initial six months of office. Legal professionals contend that such pardons have breached standards crafted to preserve impartiality and public safety.
The supposed violation of the legal principles came quickly. Trump didn’t waste much time after his inauguration and, shortly after, pardoned 1,500 rioters who sieged the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. This group encompassed men who utilized bear spray and various forms of weapons to assault police personnel. On the surface it seems as though Trump’s acts of clemency are staggering. On the other hand, let’s not forget that other former presidents have also granted controversial pardons.
Indeed, this isn’t something confined to Trump’s presidency. Notably, Bill Clinton pardoned financier Marc Rich, while even Joe Biden granted leniency to his son Hunter despite vowing not to do so. Clearer hindsight paints these instances in the light of potential conflict of interest. George H.W. Bush also pardoned six key figures for their participation in the Iran-Contra scandal, which makes Trump’s actions look far less novel.
However, what sets Trump’s actions apart, according to certain legal scholars, is the sheer volume of pardons that allegedly contradict long-standing regulations and norms right at the beginning of a term. Texas law professor Lee Kovarsky refers to Trump’s handling of the January 6 issue as ‘patronage pardoning’, meaning actions were heavily publicized to assure his allies that they’d be shielded if they violated the law to further his personal agenda. This argument sounds more like narrative crafting, which is particularly popular among a certain crowd.
The Constitution’s Article II affords the president the power to pardon anyone for federal crimes. The Supreme Court validated in 2024 that the president indeed has broad latitude when operating central power of the office. It seems to have permitted a situation where pinpointing the boundary of presidential power may be difficult, if not impossible, to determine.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent against the immunity case, singled out pardons as prospective crimes that future presidents could commit risk-free. It’s curious how the focus of her dissent conveniently ignored the fact that the Justice Department has maintained the Pardon Attorney since 1894, whose main purpose has always been to ensure fairness and equal evaluation of all cases.
In March, Hollywood actor Mel Gibson, a Trump associate, sought a pardon to clean up his criminal record to become eligible to own a firearm again. Gibson, despite his fame, was denied his request due to his track record of violence against women. It seems even Trump has his limits.
As for the pardons given to the January 6 rioters, these were handed down just after the inauguration, demonstrating the lack of input from those who had a stake in the convictions. This lack of consultation was also true for Stewart Rhodes, a far-right anti-government militia leader convicted of attempting to overthrow the government and who had his sentence reduced to time served by Trump.
Aside from Rhodes, Trump pardoned at least nine people either just before or after they were due to start their prison sentences, including one person before even being sentenced. However, the Justice Manual’s guidelines regarding pardons also stress whether the individual has taken responsibility and shown appropriate remorse.
Enrique Tarrio, the Proud Boys leader and mastermind of the Capitol attack who had been slated for a 22-year prison term, was pardoned. Following this, Tarrio and several other Proud Boys sued the Justice Department for $100 million, alleging wrongful prosecution. There are questions surrounding whether their pardon met the requirement of being ‘desirous of forgiveness rather than vindication’.
Another necessary condition for a pardon is restitution: has the individual compensated their victims? Trevor Milton, founder of Nikola, the electric truck startup, was convicted of fraud and sentenced to four years in prison. Milton and his wife each donated $900,000 to Trump political committees and Trump controversially pardoned Milton just before his prison term was set to begin, also negating his restitution requirement.
In late 2024, Paul Walczak, a Florida nursing home executive, faced an 18-month imprisonment term and was instructed to pay $4.4 million in restitution for theft from his employees’ tax payments. His pardon, which came shortly after Walczak’s mother attended a fundraiser for Trump, wiped out both the prison term and restitution. This instance, as with so many of Trump’s pardons, came at a considerable cost to taxpayers and the victims of crime.
However, while the focus has been on the controversial decisions made by Trump, there’s a growing backlog of pardon applications from everyday Americans. The queue nearly doubled from just under 5,000 when Trump took the reins to 11,664 in mid-July. As always, it is easier to criticize actions rather than finding solutions, which clearly isn’t a priority for the current Biden administration.
The post Pardon Breeches: Mismanagement by Trump or Legacy of Preceding Administrations? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
