Could Trump pardon Diddy and end his trial?
"Yes, it could," says Brian Kalt, law professor at Michigan State University College of Law, who focuses on legal issues and the presidency.
According to Kalt, Trump — who appears to be in the middle of a pardoning spree — would be within his presidential rights to extend a preemptive pardon to fellow New Yorker Combs, who has been described by witnesses so far as violent and abusive.
"These are federal charges (against Combs), so that's the main limit. The matter has be federal, it has to be criminal vs. civil, and related to something that's already been done," says Kalt. "But the person doesn't have to even be charged yet, or convicted. The Supreme Court has said preemptive pardons are OK."
Trump weighed in on the possibility Friday, May 30, in the Oval Office. "Nobody's asked" about a pardon, the president said. "But I know people are thinking about it. I know they're thinking about it. I think some people have been very close to asking."
Trump added, "I haven't spoken to him in years. He really liked me a lot."
'Nobody's asked': President Trump doesn't rule out pardoning Sean 'Diddy' Combs
Typically, one of the last gestures from an outgoing president is a pardon. In President Joe Biden's final days in office, he famously pardoned his son, Hunter, convicted of federal gun felonies and federal tax charges. At the end of Trump's first term, he granted clemency to political allies such as Roger Stone, found guilty of obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and related offenses.
But pardons can take place during a president's term, says Kalt. The right was established in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which among other things gives the president "power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Kalt says the power to pardon is derived from the British monarch's historic right and stems from a recognition that criminal law was often too harsh, and it was important to have a safety valve. "The president was the best person to be that safety valve because of his political accountability," he says.
But that's where things get murky, he adds, noting that Republican lawmakers "don't appear willing to hold the president accountable" for granting pardons, meaning they aren't costing him in terms of political capital. In contrast, President Gerald Ford's controversial pardoning of disgraced President Richard Nixon was perceived so negatively "that it probably cost Ford re-election in 1976," Kalt says.
In just over 100 days since taking office, Trump has issued pardons to a broad range of personalities. They include Todd and Julie Chrisley, stars of the reality show "Chrisley Knows Best," who were convicted in 2022 of swindling $36 million from Atlanta banks and being tax evaders, and rapper NBA YoungBoy, who in 2024 was sentenced to two years in prison for weapons possession. He also pardoned former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, convicted of wire fraud and extortion, and Jan. 6 participant and "Bob's Burgers" actor Jay Johnston.
The reason many presidents issue pardons at the end of their terms is precisely to avoid political fallout, says Kalt. In that sense, Trump's brash approach suggests he has no concerns about such ramifications.
"I don't agree with these pardons on their merits, but the fact that he did them when he is politically accountable as opposed to slinking out the door does add some legitimacy to them in that sense," he says. "With pardons, you don't need Congress, you wave your magic wand and it happens. You can see the appeal for a president, particularly one like Trump."
One can also see the appeal for those such as Combs, whose ordeal could end instantly should Trump's pardon "wand" wave his way.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Will Trump pardon Diddy? Trial could end, experts say
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
6 minutes ago
- New York Post
Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith
It's enraging. More than a decade after the Obama administration first tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy contraception including abortifacient drugs for employees, states are still hounding the nuns in court. At its heart, ObamaCare was a massive welfare program meant to redistribute health-care costs to the middle class. But it was also a social engineering project aimed at coercing religious organizations and businesses to adopt progressive values. The Affordable Care Act mandated employers, including nonprofits such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for contraceptives in their worker-provided health insurance as an 'essential health benefit' under the euphemistic category of 'preventative and wellness services.' There was no 'religious exemption.' It's worth taking a step back and thinking about that term: The very idea that an American citizen should be impelled to ask the state for an 'exemption' to practice their faith is an assault on the fundamental idea of liberty. Imagine having to ask the state for an exemption to exercise your free speech? What makes the case even more unsettling, of course, is that the state is demanding citizens engage in activity that is explicitly against their faith. Now, there may well be numerous theological disputes within the Catholic Church. The use of contraception and abortion aren't among them. There is absolutely no question that nuns hold genuine, long-standing religious convictions. And there is no question that liberals want to smash them. Nevertheless, the Little Sisters spent years in court, working their way up to the Supreme Court and winning protections against the federal government (twice). In 2017, the Trump administration exempted religious groups like the Little Sisters from the ObamaCare mandate entirely. The government, however, bolstered with unlimited taxpayer funds, can hunt its prey in perpetuity. So states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania began their own lawsuits against the Little Sisters. This week, in a nationwide ruling, Judge Wendy Beetlestone, chief judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that the Trump administration's expansion of religious exemptions from the contraception mandate was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Religious nonprofit groups and businesses will again have to ask for special accommodations from the Department of Health and Human Services to avoid buying abortifacients. Even if the Trump administration grants every one of them, one day there will be authoritarians in charge who won't — and nonprofit employees will still be guaranteed contraception through health plans paid for by employers. Beetlestone, incidentally, was the same judge who issued a nationwide injunction against the contraception exemption back in 2017, arguing it was 'difficult' to think of any rule that 'intrudes more into the lives of women.' The Supreme Court overturned it in 2020 by a 7-2 majority. Because no one has a right to free condoms. Indeed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds that the state must have a 'compelling interest' and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious practice. Free birth control isn't a compelling interest. And fining religious organizations millions of dollars to pressure them into abandoning their beliefs is perhaps the most restrictive means of action, short of throwing nuns in prison. You'd think attacking a group of nuns who offer end-of-life care for the elderly would be a public relations nightmare for Democrats. Yet they've never really shied away from it. Because the point is to intimidate others. In many ways, the Little Sisters' struggle is reminiscent of the travails of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refuses to create unique message cakes for gay weddings. Phillips is now embroiled in his umpteenth court case over his crimes. The message: Dissent from those who practice their faith will be punished. Take the Catholic Charities adoption agencies, which shuttered in numerous states due to laws and policies compelling them to place children with same-sex couples. The attacks will continue until the Supreme Court upholds the clear language and intent of the First Amendment and religious liberty. It's already punted once: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in favor of Jack Phillips, the court barred the state's attacks only if state officials openly demeaned their target's faith — a ruling so narrow as to be largely useless. But it shouldn't matter why the state is steamrolling the religious liberty of nuns, or anyone else for that matter. The problem is that the ObamaCare mandate is authoritarian and unconstitutional. And the only way to fix that problem is to overturn it. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
Sexual violence in conflicts worldwide increased by 25% last year, UN says
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Sexual violence in conflicts worldwide increased by 25% last year, with the highest number of cases in the Central African Republic, Congo, Haiti, Somalia and South Sudan, according to a U.N. report released Thursday. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' annual report said more than 4,600 people survived sexual violence in 2024, with armed groups carrying out the majority of the abuse but some by government forces. He stressed that the U.N.-verified figures don't reflect the global scale and prevalence of these crimes. The report's blacklist names 63 government and non-government parties in a dozen countries suspected of committing or being responsible for rape and other forms of sexual violence in conflict, including Hamas militants, whose attack in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, sparked the war in Gaza. Over 70% of those listed have appeared on the report's blacklist annex for five years or more without creating steps to prevent the violence, the U.N. chief said. U.N. warns Israel and Russia about allegations For the first time, the report includes two parties that have been notified the U.N. has 'credible information' that could put them on next year's blacklist if they don't take preventive actions: Israel's military and security forces over allegations of sexual abuse of Palestinians primarily in prisons and detention, and Russian forces and affiliated armed groups against Ukrainian prisoners of war. Israeli U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon, who circulated a letter Tuesday from Guterres about the country's forces being put on notice, said the allegations 'are steeped in biased publications.' 'The U.N. must focus on the shocking war crimes and sexual violence of Hamas and the release of all hostages,' he said. Russia's U.N. mission said it had no comment on the secretary-general's warning. The 34-page report said 'conflict-related sexual violence' refers to rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced abortion, forced sterilization, forced marriage and other forms of sexual violence. The majority of victims are women and girls. 'In 2024, proliferating and escalating conflicts were marked by widespread conflict-related sexual violence, amid record levels of displacement and increased militarization,' Guterres said. 'Sexual violence continued to be used as a tactic of war, torture, terrorism and political repression, while multiple and overlapping political, security and humanitarian crises deepened.' The toll of sexual violence in conflict The U.N. says women and girls were attacked in their homes, on roads and while trying to earn a living, with victims ranging in age from 1 to 75. Reports of summary executions of victims after rape persisted in Congo and Myanmar, it said. In an increasing number of places, the report said armed groups 'used sexual violence as a tactic to gain and consolidate control over territory and lucrative natural resources.' Women and girls perceived to be associated with rival armed groups were targeted with sexual violence in the Central African Republic, Congo and Haiti, it said. In detention facilities, the report said sexual violence was perpetrated 'including as a form of torture,' reportedly in Israel and the Palestinian territories, Libya, Myanmar, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen. 'Most of the reported incidents against men and boys occurred in detention, consistent with previous years, and included rape, threats of rape and the electrocution and beating of genitals,' the report said. U.N. report details where abuse is occurring The U.N. peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic documented cases of rape, gang rape, forced marriage and sexual slavery affecting 215 women, 191 girls and seven men. In mineral-rich eastern Congo, the peacekeeping mission documented nearly 800 cases last year, including rape, gang rape, sexual slavery and forced marriage, 'often accompanied by extreme physical violence,' the report said. The number of cases involving the M23 rebel group, now controlling the main city Goma, rose from 43 in 2022 to 152 in 2024, it said. In Sudan, where civil war is raging, the report said that groups providing services to victims of sexual violence recorded 221 rape cases against 147 girls and 74 boys since the beginning of 2024, 'with 16% of survivors under five years of age, including four one-year-olds.'
Boston Globe
6 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Russia and Ukraine agree: A Trump summit is a big win for Putin
Related : For Russia, 'this is a breakthrough even if they don't agree on much,' said Sergei Mikheyev, a pro-war Russian political scientist who is a mainstay of state television. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, iced out of the Alaska talks about his own country's future, has come to the same conclusion, telling reporters Tuesday: 'Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos. He needs a photo from the meeting with President Trump.' Advertisement But it is more than a photo op. In addition to thawing Russia's pariah status in the West, the summit has sowed discord within NATO — a perennial Russian goal — and postponed Trump's threat of tough new sanctions. Little more than two weeks ago, he vowed that if Putin did not commit to a ceasefire by last Friday, he would to punish Moscow and countries like China and India that help Russia's war effort by buying its oil and gas. Advertisement The deadline passed with no pause in the war — the fighting has in fact intensified as Russia pushes forward with a summer offensive — and no new economic penalties on Russia. Ukrainian firefighters and rescue personnel at the site of a Russian bombing in the area in Kharkiv, Ukraine, on July 24. Friday's summit in Alaska pull the Russian leader out of diplomatic isolation from the West, and Ukrainian and European leaders fear it gives him an opening to sway the American president. DAVID GUTTENFELDER/NYT 'Instead of getting hit with sanctions, Putin got a summit,' said Ryhor Nizhnikau, a Russia expert and senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. 'This is a tremendous victory for Putin no matter what the result of the summit.' Before Alaska, only two Western leaders — the prime ministers of tiny Slovakia and Hungary — had met with Putin since he ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and was placed under an international arrest warrant for war crimes in March 2023. Many in Europe have been flabbergasted by Trump's decision to hold a summit on Ukraine that excluded Zelenskyy, and the continent's leaders have pressed the president not to strike a deal behind Ukraine's back. Trump tried to allay those fears in a video call with European leaders, including Zelenskyy, on Wednesday. The Europeans said they had hammered out a strategy with Trump for his meeting with Putin, including an insistence that any peace plan must start with a ceasefire and not be negotiated without Ukraine at the table. A peace deal on Ukraine is not Putin's real goal for the summit, said Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. 'His objective is to secure Trump's support in pushing through the Russian proposals.' For Putin, she said, the meeting is a 'tactical maneuver to turn the situation in his favor' and calm what had been increasing White House anger over the Kremlin's stalling on a ceasefire. Advertisement On the eve of the summit Thursday, the Kremlin signaled that it planned to inject other issues beyond Ukraine into the talks, including a potential restoration of economic ties with the United States and discussions on a new nuclear weapons deal. The arms idea plays into Russia's long-standing efforts to frame the war in Ukraine as just part of a bigger East-West conflict. Trump has called his rendezvous with Putin just a 'feel-out meeting' from which he will quickly walk away if a peace deal looks unlikely. President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine during a heated exchange in the Oval Office on Feb. 28. On Trump and Putin's meeting, Zelensky said, "Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos." DOUG MILLS/NYT Neither the White House nor the Kremlin has publicly stated what kind of peace deal they are looking for. But Trump has said it could involve 'some land-swapping,' something he feels he is well equipped to negotiate as a onetime New York property developer. Zelenskyy has rejected any land swap, insisting he has no authority under the Ukrainian Constitution to bargain away parts of the country. Agreeing to do so would be likely to trigger a serious political crisis in Kyiv and advance one of Putin's long-standing objectives: toppling Zelenskyy. Ukraine's surrender of its eastern regions would also torpedo Trump's hopes that the United States will one day benefit from Ukraine's reserves of rare earth minerals, most of which are in territory that Russia claims as its own. 'The worst-case scenario for Ukraine and more broadly is that Putin makes some sort of offer that is acceptable to the United States but that Zelenskyy cannot swallow domestically,' said Samuel Charap, a political scientist and the co-author of a book about Ukraine and post-Soviet Eurasia. Advertisement Putin, a veteran master of manipulation, will no doubt work hard in Alaska to cast Zelenskyy as an intransigent obstacle to peace. 'Trump thinks he can look into Putin's eyes and get a deal. He believes in his own talents as a negotiator,' said Nizhnikau, the Finnish expert on Russia. 'The problem is that Putin has been doing this his whole life and is going into this summit with the idea that he can manipulate Trump.' Trump's last summit meeting with his Russian counterpart, held in 2018 in Helsinki during his first term, showcased his propensity to accept Putin's version of reality. He said then that he saw no reason to doubt the Russian president's denials of meddling in the 2016 presidential election. President Trump and Russian President Putin arrived for a one-on-one-meeting at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland, in July 2018, the last time the two world powers held a summit. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press Trump suggested this year that Ukraine was responsible for the invasion of its own territory and refused to join the United States' traditional Western allies in voting for a United Nations resolution condemning Russia's aggression. On Sunday evening, Zelenskyy worried aloud that Trump could be easily 'deceived.' Trump responded testily Monday to Zelenskyy's insistence that he could not surrender territory. 'He's got approval to go into war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap?' Trump snapped. 'There'll be some land swapping going on.' Still, said Charap, the political scientist, 'Putin can't really count his chickens yet.' Despite his iron grip on Russia's political system and its major media outlets, he has his own domestic concerns, particularly on the issue of land, if the sort of swap floated by Trump advances. 'Territory is a third rail politically, especially for Ukraine but also for Russia.' This article originally appeared in . Advertisement
