Could Trump pardon Diddy and end his trial?
Could Trump pardon Diddy and end his trial?
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Defense strategies for Sean 'Diddy' Combs in his sex crimes trial
A legal expert discusses strategies the defense attorneys for Sean "Diddy" Combs might use in his federal sex crimes trial.
Sean Combs is being tried in a New York courtroom for racketeering and sexual trafficking. Could that daily drama vanish instantly if President Donald Trump pardoned the embattled rapper?
"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."
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
14 minutes ago
- New York Times
Quote of the Day: Pardons Prop Up Crimes of a Certain Collar
'Of course, stealing by fraud is still stealing. It's just that this is the way rich people do it.' BARBARA L. MCQUADE, a U.S. attorney in Michigan during the Obama administration, on how President Trump's pardons of white-collar criminals could normalize nonviolent offenses.


Politico
35 minutes ago
- Politico
Appeals court keeps block on Trump administration's downsizing of the federal workforce
SAN FRANCISCO — An appeals court on Friday refused to freeze a California-based judge's order halting the Trump administration from downsizing the federal workforce, which means that the Department of Government Efficiency-led cuts remain on pause for now. A split three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the downsizing could have significant ripple effects on everything from the nation's food-safety system to veteran health care, and should stay on hold while a lawsuit plays out. The judge who dissented, however, said President Donald Trump likely does have the legal authority to downsize the executive branch and there is a separate process for workers to appeal. The Republican administration had sought an emergency stay of an injunction issued by U.S. Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and cities, including San Francisco and Chicago, and the group Democracy Forward. The Justice Department has also previously appealed her ruling to the Supreme Court, one of a string of emergency appeals arguing federal judges had overstepped their authority. The judge's order questioned whether Trump's administration was acting lawfully in trying to pare the federal workforce. Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire Elon Musk to lead the charge through the Department of Government Efficiency. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs, or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation, and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go. Illston's order directs numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president's workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston, who was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, wrote in her ruling that presidents can make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, but only with the cooperation of Congress. Lawyers for the government say that the executive order and memo calling for large-scale personnel reductions and reorganization plans provided only general principles that agencies should follow in exercising their own decision-making process.

43 minutes ago
Appeals court keeps block on Trump administration's downsizing of federal workforce
SAN FRANCISCO -- An appeals court on Friday refused to freeze a California-based judge's order halting the Trump administration from downsizing the federal workforce, which means that the Department of Government Efficiency-led cuts remain on pause for now. A split three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the downsizing could have significant ripple effects on everything from the nation's food-safety system to veteran health care, and should stay on hold while a lawsuit plays out. The judge who dissented, however, said President Donald Trump likely does have the legal authority to downsize the executive branch and there is a separate process for workers to appeal. The Republican administration had sought an emergency stay of an injunction issued by U.S. Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and cities, including San Francisco and Chicago, and the group Democracy Forward. The Justice Department has also previously appealed her ruling to the Supreme Court, one of a string of emergency appeals arguing federal judges had overstepped their authority. The judge's order questioned whether Trump's administration was acting lawfully in trying to pare the federal workforce. Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire Elon Musk to lead the charge through the Department of Government Efficiency. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs, or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation, and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go. Illston's order directs numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president's workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston, who was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, wrote in her ruling that presidents can make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, but only with the cooperation of Congress. Lawyers for the government say that the executive order and memo calling for large-scale personnel reductions and reorganization plans provided only general principles that agencies should follow in exercising their own decision-making process. __