logo
Pardon hopefuls pitch themselves as judicial system victims — just like Trump

Pardon hopefuls pitch themselves as judicial system victims — just like Trump

Politico9 hours ago

President Donald Trump has railed against the judicial system for years.
And prospective pardonees, in turn, are modeling themselves after Trump to increase their chances of winning his favor.
The bulk of the over 1,500 clemencies the president has issued in his second term have been granted to celebrities, politicians, Trump donors and loyalists — including those convicted in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot — many of whom have used their platforms to make the case that the judicial system was manipulated against them for political reasons, just like the president himself.
After Trump pardoned his longtime supporter and former Virginia sheriff, Scott Jenkins, of conspiracy to commit bribery at the end of May, the Department of Justice pardon attorney, Ed Martin, took to X to make clear the administration's priorities: 'No MAGA left behind.'
That spirit appears to have pervaded the administration's pardons process — or at least, the perception of it has.
Some people in search of clemency, like former New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat, have appeared to be angling for a pardon by hooking into Trump's argument about judicial weaponization, arguing that they, too, are victims of the system.
Menendez has penned multiple lengthy tracts on X about his victimhood from the weaponization of the Justice Department, and made a thinly veiled plea for clemency in a post shortly after he was sentenced to 11 years in prison at the end of January.
'President Trump is right. This process is political and has been corrupted to the core. I hope President Trump cleans up the cesspool and restores integrity to the system,' Menendez wrote at the time, tagging the president's official account.
The New Jersey Democrat has yet to receive Trump's blessing. A lawyer for Menendez did not respond to a request for comment.
Menendez isn't the only Democrat who has seemingly cozied up to the president to clinch a pardon.
New York Mayor Eric Adams appeared to pounce on the suggestion that Trump was open to granting him a pardon in his now-dismissed federal corruption case earlier this year, even showing up at the president's inauguration after repeatedly saying he was unlikely to attend the event.
Adams' decision to pass on New York's Martin Luther King Jr. Day events to show face at Trump's inauguration rankled Black political and religious leaders in his home state, who said the choice indicated the mayor was more interested in a pardon than his constituents. His case was ultimately dismissed — over the objection of attorneys working on it — after Adams signaled he would assist the Trump administration on immigration and national security measures.
White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields maintained that the president is wielding his pardon powers 'to right many wrongs,' adding that Trump's actions fall 'within his constitutional authority.'
'President Trump doesn't need lectures from Democrats about his use of pardons,' Fields said in a statement, bashing Joe Biden's pardons of his son and Anthony Fauci, among others. 'President Trump is using his pardon and commutation powers to right many wrongs, acting reasonably and responsibly within his constitutional authority.'
Others, like reality TV couple Julie and Todd Chrisley, have had better luck than Menendez.
In a case that garnered national attention, Trump at the end of May pardoned the longtime reality stars, who had been convicted of bank and wire fraud in 2022 and sentenced to seven and 12 years in prison.
The pardons came after a relentless messaging campaign by their daughter, Savannah, who publicly supported Trump throughout his 2024 presidential campaign and made an appearance at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee to speak about the justice system that she said was targeting both her family and Trump.
'We have a two-faced justice system. Just look at what they're doing to President Trump,' she said at the 2024 convention. 'All while, let's face it, Hunter Biden is roaming around free and attending classified meetings.'
After their May 28 pardon, the Chrisleys held a press conference where they thanked the president and his administration — and previewed their new TV series.
Virginia Tech political science professor Karen Hult, who specializes in the powers of the presidency and the executive branch, said that while issuing pardons in arenas of personal interest to the president isn't necessarily unusual — see Jimmy Carter's pardon of people who evaded the Vietnam War draft — repeatedly circumventing the Justice Department's pardons process, as Trump has done, is a less-than-common occurrence.
'Mr. Trump, especially in his second term, seems to be especially distinctive in really not wanting to use advice from anybody else, but certainly not from career civil servants, especially in the Justice Department,' Hult said, noting that, for the first time in modern history, the president replaced the head of the DOJ's pardon office with a political appointee.
Trump's selection of Martin, whose short-lived stint as the U.S. Attorney for D.C. ended after his nomination for the full-time job failed, put a vocal MAGA figure in the traditionally nonpolitical office. Martin has been a staunch defender of people connected with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and fired dozens of prosecutors who pursued riot-related cases during his time as U.S. attorney.
In response to a question about the nature of the pardon process and the perception of partisanship surrounding the system, a DOJ spokesperson said the office of the pardon attorney 'administers the executive process, reviews applications for executive clemency submitted to the Department of Justice, and makes recommendations to grant or deny those applications based on the Justice Manual,' adding that 'the Department is committed to timely and carefully reviewing all applications and making recommendations to the President and Pardon Czar that are consistent, unbiased, and uphold the rule of law.'
A senior administration official, granted anonymity to speak freely about the pardons process, pushed back on claims that the administration was circumventing the traditional pardons process.
The official maintained that the DOJ, Martin and pardon czar Alice Marie Johnson — who herself was the recipient of a 2020 pardon from Trump before he selected her for the role in his second term — review each pardon case individually before making their recommendations to the president.
But not everyone is so eager to be spared.
Pam Hemphill, who earned the online moniker 'MAGA Granny' for her role in the Capitol riot, was one of the Jan. 6 rioters pardoned by the president on his first day in office. But Hemphill, who has since apologized for the part she played in that day's violence and has spoken out against the president, rejected Trump's pardon, saying she doesn't want to play into Trump's hands.
'I cannot have this happen, because then I'm part of Trump's narrative that the DOJ is weaponized,' Hemphill said in an interview.
According to Hemphill, Trump's lengthy list of pardons is part of his broader mission to build a narrative around the existence of the 'deep state' and argue that the DOJ was 'weaponized against him' under the Biden administration.
But not all of those pardoned by Trump have obvious ties to the president.
Two clemency recipients, Tanner Mansell and John Moore Jr., were pardoned of a 2022 theft conviction after freeing what they believed at the time to be illegally captured sharks from a line off the coast of Florida.
Mansell said in an interview he's not sure why the president chose him as a pardon recipient. He said he has never promoted the president online — in fact the professional shark diver avoids publicly talking about politics in order to maintain a neutral business profile that doesn't alienate potential customers.
According to Mansell, his legal team did not apply for a pardon.
'I'd love to ask him, like, 'Hey, did you do this because you like sharks?'' Mansell said of the president, adding that it's 'anybody's guess' what actually prompted Trump to pardon him.
But whatever the reason, Mansell said he hoped the pardon wasn't 'politically driven.'
'I hope to believe that it wasn't just politically driven on his part,' he said. 'I hope to believe that, you know, he read Cato's article and he saw the injustice in the situation and did it because it was the right thing to do.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Netanyahu says Iran tried to assassinate Trump as he tries to justify air strikes on Fox News
Netanyahu says Iran tried to assassinate Trump as he tries to justify air strikes on Fox News

Yahoo

time14 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Netanyahu says Iran tried to assassinate Trump as he tries to justify air strikes on Fox News

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed during an appearance on Fox News that Iran has tried to assassinate Donald Trump twice. Netanyahu, who sought to justify Israel's recent waves of missile strikes in Iran, asked host Bret Baier whether 'these people who chant 'death to America'' and 'tried to assassinate President Trump twice' should 'have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to your cities.' Baier then pressed Netanyahu about his claim that Iran launched two assassination attempts. 'Through proxies, yes.' he said. 'Through, through their intel, yes, they want to kill him,' he added. 'He's enemy number one.' In July, the Secret Service ramped up security for Trump in the weeks leading up to an assassination attempt during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, after learning of a plot to kill then-candidate Trump. In September, the president claimed there were 'big threats on my life by Iran.' The Department of Justice in November charged Farhad Shakeri with trying to conduct a murder-for-hire plot against Trump. 'He's a decisive leader,' Netanyahu added. 'He never took the path that others took to try to bargain with them in a way that is weak, giving them basically a pathway to enrich uranium, which means a pathway to the bomb, padding it with billions and billions of dollars.' Netanyahu referenced Trump's decision to withdraw from the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement brokered by former president Barack Obama's administration. The Israeli prime minister said missile strikes that have killed top military officials and nuclear scientists have sought to curb Iran's nuclear program and prevent the regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon. 'I think we've sent them back quite a bit,' he said. 'I think they were completely surprised. And, you know, surprise is the is a great element of success.' Baier also asked Netanyahu when he told Trump he would launch the strikes on Iran. 'Obviously, we informed our American friends and President Trump, our great friend, ahead of time,' he said. Administration officials have sought to distance the White House from the attacks, though Trump last week said last week — before the attacks — that a military operation against Iran would 'blow' negotiations his administration has tried to broker over its nuclear program. Talks scheduled for Sunday were canceled. The strikes — which preceded Iran conducting any strikes on Israel in kind — followed Trump's deployment of Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to lead negotiations with Iran. Netanyahu said he would be open if Iran complied with Trump's demands. 'I said it is worth it if they'll do what the president wants, and that is eliminate their enrichment capacity,' he said. 'You know, that's a lot better than my having my country, my forces, my brave pilots, having to do it.'

The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. What's in the bill House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. Who would lose health coverage The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Why Republicans want Medicaid changes Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. What polling shows While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'

Justice Department's early moves on voting and elections signal a shift from its traditional role
Justice Department's early moves on voting and elections signal a shift from its traditional role

Boston Globe

time19 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Justice Department's early moves on voting and elections signal a shift from its traditional role

Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up David Becker, a former department attorney who worked on voting rights cases and now leads the Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the Justice Department's moves represent a departure from focusing on major violations of federal law. Advertisement 'This would be like the police department prioritizing jaywalking over murder investigations,' he said. A Justice Department spokesperson responded with 'no comment' to an emailed request for more information about the actions, including whether similar ones had been taken in any other states. Conservatives for years have called for an overhaul of the Justice Department in both personnel and priorities. President Trump also has criticized how elections are run, falsely blaming his 2020 loss on widespread fraud. Earlier this year, he signed an executive order seeking a sweeping overhaul of election operations — an authority the Constitution grants to the states and Congress. Advertisement After his win last November, Trump installed key allies at the Justice Department, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has made similar claims about the 2020 election. Multiple reviews in the presidential battleground states affirmed Democrat Joe Biden's win in 2020, Trump and his allies lost dozens of lawsuits, and even Trump's attorney general at the time said there was no evidence of widespread fraud. Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the department's civil rights division, said most of the DOJ's actions appeared reasonable and focused on issues that had already been raised by conservative activists in those states. They also are the type that would be expected from a conservative administration, he said, with the exception of the Colorado request. He called that 'well out of bounds.' 'This administration has prioritized grievance, even perceived grievance when there is no basis in fact,' said Levitt, who also served as a senior policy adviser in the Biden administration. 'And it's dismaying, but not surprising, that the civil rights division would do the same.' The department's request to Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, asked for all records relating to last year's presidential election. Federal law requires those to be kept for 22 months. In the request, the department stated it had received a complaint alleging that Griswold's office was not in compliance with federal law relating to voter registration. The request also directs Griswold to preserve any records of the 2020 election that might still be in the state's possession. Advertisement Griswold, in an interview, called the request a 'fishing expedition' and said her office responded by providing state voting files. 'I'm not even sure they know what they are looking for,' Griswold said. 'They can request all the data they want, and it's not going to prove anything.' In North Carolina, where Republican lawmakers recently wrested control of the state election board from the Democratic governor, Justice Department lawyers filed a lawsuit accusing state election officials of failing to ensure that all voter records include identifying information, such as a driver's license. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who oversees the civil rights division, said in a statement announcing the lawsuit that accurate voter rolls are critical to ensuring elections are conducted 'fairly, accurately, and without fraud.' The previous board had acknowledged the issue and updated the state's voter registration form. The new board leadership has vowed to address it. In Wisconsin, which Trump won in 2016 and 2024 but lost in 2020, department lawyers recently sent a letter to the state election commission accusing it of not providing a complaint process for those raising concerns. This comes as Republican state lawmakers are pushing legislation to expand the ability to appeal decisions made by the six-member commission, which is equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. Republican lawmakers have long complained about commission decisions they perceive as benefiting Democrats. The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a law firm that frequently defends Republicans on election issues, supports both efforts, said Lucas Vebber, the firm's deputy counsel. 'It's ensuring that Wisconsinites are entitled to have their complaints heard and adjudicated,' he said. 'As something as important as our elections, it's vital to ensure that process is transparent and available to everyone.' Advertisement Representative Lee Snodgrass, a Democrat on the Wisconsin Legislature's elections committee, said state law needs some tightening around how election complaints are handled, but she's dubious about the motives of the Trump administration and conservative activists in the state. They are looking for ways 'to cast doubt on election integrity, so if they don't get the results they want, they can cry foul,' Snodgrass said. In Arizona, DOJ lawyers said the state was not clearly telling voter registration applicants to provide a driver's license if they have one and asked the state to conduct a review to identify any noncitizens. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, responded by saying Arizona requires those registering to vote in state and local elections to provide proof of citizenship and conducts checks using the state's motor vehicle records. In Oregon, Justice Department lawyers weighed in on an ongoing lawsuit filed by the conservative group Judicial Watch. It alleges the state has failed to comply with federal laws on maintaining voter lists and making these records available for public inspection. John Powers, a former Justice Department attorney who now serves as legal director for the Advancement Project, said he was concerned about the moves coupled with the Justice Department's staff departures and its withdrawal from voting rights cases. Powers said he hoped, with midterm elections next year, that the department would not pursue minor technical issues in a way that could undermine public confidence in elections. 'I would be lying if I said I wasn't concerned about what the future might hold,' he said. Advertisement

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store