The circumstances varied across each case. One individual was preparing to endure a four-year sentence for scamming people out of a staggering $675m, marketing an unusable electric truck. Another was implicated in plotting to overturn the government. A tax evader, in a more shocking turn of events, evaded prison and a $4.4m restitution by conveniently having his mother donate $1 million to a political figure. Both scenarios have one striking commonality: they were ‘forgiven’ by President Donald Trump during the early months of his second term. This blind favoritism violates longstanding Department of Justice guidelines, which emphasize that only those who demonstrate remorse, settle their paybacks and show potential for societal contribution ought to be considered for pardons.
Trump didn’t waste time in returning to his shocking conduct at the White House. He forgave over 1,600 individuals and at least two corporations during his first six months back in the Oval Office. His decisions have shown a perplexing disregard for established rules intended to uphold fairness and protect public interest, say legal experts and attorneys. These changes were immediate. The day Trump assumed office yet again, he pardoned over 1,500 participants of the infamous Jan. 6, 2021 attack on U.S. Capitol. This included those who brazenly assaulted law enforcement officers with bear spray, bats, and poles.
Controversial pardons are not a Trump-exclusive phenomenon; previous presidents have had their share. Bill Clinton pardoned financier Marc Rich, while George H.W Bush forgave six officials involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. Most notably, Joe Biden, despite promises to the contrary, issued a pardon to his own son Hunter, making the public question his judgment and integrity. However, experts agree that no president has ever started their term with such a spree of pardons that utterly disregard long-established policies and cultural norms.
University of Texas law professor, Lee Kovarsky, terms Trump’s Jan. 6 pardoning as ‘patronage pardoning’. He sees them as high-profile actions aimed at sending a message that Trump will protect allies who break the law to further his agenda. This is hardly good governance, it turns the pardon’s executive privilege into a tool for personal protection.
Article II of the Constitution empowers the president to pardon anyone for federal crimes. The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision on presidential immunity clarified that this power is nearly limitless. Duke University’s law professor, Brandon Garrett, voiced a concern shared by many experts, stating: ‘The Supreme Court decision makes it hard to even get a grasp on just how blatantly corrupt presidential conduct would have to be to overcome immunity.’ This dangerous precedent invites unfettered abuses in the name of so-called immunity.
In her dissent on the immunity case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor outlined potential abuses that future presidents could commit without facing repercussions. From ordering assassinations of political rivals to instigating military coups to take or hold power, or even receiving bribes in exchange for pardons – all would be covered under this unjust blanket of immunity.
Since 1894, the Justice Department has been home to the Pardon Attorney. The procedures concerning the applications processing for pardons and commutations have been codified in the Justice Manual. This manual is designed to guarantee that all applications are evaluated by the same rules, irrespective of an individual’s identity or connections, according to Liz Oyer, who served as Pardon Attorney for three years. It aims to ensure pardons are given to those actually deserving a second chance and who pose no further threat to the community.
Friend of Trump, actor Mel Gibson, sought a pardon to clean up his criminal record, with a hope to regain gun ownership rights. Given Gibson’s history of violence against women, Oyer declined to recommend a pardon. Mysteriously, she was fired a few hours later without any reason provided. The former Pardon Attorney is now suing to reclaim her post.
The task of reviewing pardon applications, in accordance with the Justice Manual, is claimed to be adhered to by the Justice Department. One of the first duties of the pardon office is to seek insights from those involved in the conviction: prosecutors, sentencing judges, and victims of the crime. An FBI background check might also be requested. However, all of these steps were sidestepped when Trump issued pardons on Jan. 6.
Among those pardoned was Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers, a vehemently anti-government militia. Rhodes, who received an 18-year sentence for attempting to subvert the government, was abruptly granted clemency after serving less than two years.
All norms and procedures were further upended when Trump issued pardons for at least nine people either before or just after they reported to prison, including pardoning one person even before sentencing. The Justice Manual places significant emphasis on an individual demonstrating remorse and taking responsibility for their crimes. However, this guidance was neglected in many instances, including the case of Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys and a key figure in the Jan. 6 attack.
Another condition outlined in the Justice Manual, making crime victims financially whole again through restitution, was often ignored. Trevor Milton, the founder of electric truck startup Nikola, was convicted for defrauding investors, sentenced to four years, and asked to pay $675m in restitution. Mere weeks before he was slated to report to prison, he was pardoned by Trump. This not only eradicated his prison sentence but also erased his obligation to repay the victims of his fraud.
In another blatantly partial move, Trump pardoned Paul Walczak, a Florida nursing home executive. Walczak was sentenced to 18 months in prison and asked to pay $4.4m for stealing employees’ tax payments. Soon after Walczak’s mother attended a fundraiser for Trump costing $1m per guest, the President pardoned him, resulting in the prison term being quashed and the restitution order completely ignored.
Ultimately, Trump’s pardons have proven costly for taxpayers and crime victims. Liz Oyer has set up a ‘pardon tracker’ to monitor the financial impact, stating that the cost is over an astounding $1.3 billion. While this unsettling trend continues, an increasing backlog of ordinary American pardon applications languishes shamelessly. As of July 15, there were more than 11,664 – more than double the queue when Trump began his second term.
The post Trump’s Rampant Pardon Spree: Breaking Records or Shattering Norms? appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
