Trump's New Pardon Spree
SINCE ISSUING A BLANKET PARDON affecting nearly 1,600 individuals convicted of crimes relating to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, Donald Trump has issued another 57 individual pardons.1 (The only presidents to issue more pardons were Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who served three full terms, and Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter, who both pardoned large numbers of draft evaders.) Among the recipients of Trump clemency actions, the most 'worthy' include government fraudsters, obsequious political loyalists, and financial benefactors. This was not how the Framers intended the pardon power to work.
Nor is it how pardons are assessed under prevailing Department of Justice guidelines, which require applicants to wait five years after completion of the underlying sentence before filing. The substantive criteria include acceptance of responsibility, engagement in community activities, the reasons for committing the crime, and a description of how a pardon will improve the applicant's life.
For the over 156,000 inmates in federal custody and thousands of others who have completed their sentences, meeting these metrics won't help much. To get a presidential pardon in this administration what matters is some combination of political access, a large amount of money, and a demonstrated commitment to political vengeance. According to the New York Times, Trump has installed 'a team of appointees . . . with a particular focus on clemency grants that underscore the president's own grievances about what he sees as the political weaponization of the justice system.'
Join now
Last week, Trump pardoned Todd and Julie Chrisley, a reality-TV couple serving time for a $30 million conspiracy to defraud banks; their daughter appeared at the Republican National Convention last year and on Lara Trump's Fox News show. He pardoned Newsmax commentator Michael Grimm, a former member of Congress who once threatened to break a reporter in half 'like a boy' and throw another off a balcony at the U.S. Capitol, and who spent seven months in prison after a conviction for felony tax evasion. He pardoned former Virginia sheriff Scott Jenkins, calling him 'a victim of an overzealous Biden Department of Justice' and 'a wonderful person, who was persecuted by the Radical Left 'monsters,' and 'left for dead.'' In March, Jenkins was sentenced to prison for taking $75,000 in cash in exchange for giving law-enforcement badges to eight civilians—but, says Trump, he 'doesn't deserve to spend a single day in jail.'
Trump also commuted the sentence of Imaad Zuberi, a $900,000 donor to Trump's first inaugural committee who was convicted of falsifying records to conceal his work as a foreign agent and obstructing an investigation into the fund. He pardoned Paul Walczak, a former nursing-home executive who was sentenced in April to eighteen months in prison after he pleaded guilty to tax crimes involving the personal use of funds earmarked for employees. Walczak's mother, Elizabeth Fago, raised millions for the Trump campaign and was nominated to Trump's National Cancer Advisory Board. Walczak made note of Fago's donations on his pardon application, along with her efforts to hurt Joe Biden by making public the private diary of his daughter, Ashley Biden, an incident that prompted a DOJ investigation. Three weeks after Fago attended a $1 million dinner at Mar-a-Lago, Trump signed a full and unconditional pardon for her son.
Trump also commuted the life sentence imposed in 1998 on Larry Hoover, the founder of a criminal gang known as the Gangster Disciples, which was implicated in drug trafficking, money laundering, and even murder across 110 cities and 31 states. Meanwhile, for those keeping score, Kilmar Abrego Garcia remains in an El Salvador prison despite a Supreme Court order directing that Trump facilitate his return to the United States. Abrego Garcia is too dangerous to be afforded basic due process or to re-enter the United States, Trump says, because of his supposed gang membership—but an actual convicted gang leader and murderer deserves a commutation.2
Keep up with all our articles, newsletters, podcasts, and livestreams—and pick which ones show up in your inbox:
LAST WEEK, REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-Md.) sent Trump's new pardon attorney, Ed Martin, a letter demanding an explanation of 'the criteria and process' now being used for vetting pardon applications:
Alas, it at least appears that you are using the Office of the Pardon Attorney to dole out pardons as favors to the President's loyal political followers and most generous donors, completely ignoring and abandoning the thousands of individual applications for clemency in the normal process. These Americans depend on your office for a fair shot at a second chance in a process that has some real integrity.
Although designed as a tool of mercy, the presidential pardon has always been ripe for abuse. At the constitutional convention in 1787, George Mason of Virginia voiced concern that a 'President could . . . frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself to stop inquiry and prevent detection, eventually establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic.' Edmund Randolph, also a Virginia delegate, proposed an exception for treason, arguing that the pardon was otherwise 'too great a trust, that the President may himself be guilty, and that the Traytors may be his own instruments.'
Yet in his Trump v. U.S. ruling last year creating criminal immunity for presidents exercising 'core' and adjacent executive power, Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted the pardon power as 'conclusive' to the president and 'preclusive' of any oversight. In a concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett took issue with the suggestion that the taking of a bribe in exchange for an official presidential act should be immune from prosecutorial scrutiny, to which Roberts retorted that 'such second-guessing would 'threaten the independence or effectiveness of the Executive.''
The Supreme Court got it exactly backwards. It's the Court's endorsement of a culture of corruption—not accountability for criminal abuses of presidential power—that harms society. The Trump administration's trend toward pay-to-play government not only continues the culture of lawlessness that began during Trump's first term of office. It also will likely threaten national security, enable terrorism and organized crime, deepen inequality, and erode citizens' trust in government institutions.
In the case of Trump's pardon spree, we are witnessing a constitutional tool of mercy, one whose use the Supreme Court has put practically beyond question, being wielded as a tool for rewarding loyalty and creating 'an incentive structure to encourage people to take illegal actions' on the president's behalf. George Mason's fear that the pardon power could be abused and help 'destroy the republic' seems more plausible by the day.
Zip this article to a friend's inbox or zap it onto social media:
Share
1
One figure in this corrupt mess of Trump pardons who deserves praise for moral clarity: Pamela Hemphill, the 'MAGA Granny' who pleaded guilty to a minor offense related to January 6th—unlawfully demonstrating—and served out her two-month prison sentence. She refused to accept Trump's pardon, and yesterday posted a letter from the Department of Justice acknowledging her refusal. 'How could you sleep at night taking a pardon when you know you were guilty?' she has said.
2
Hoover will remain behind bars, for now at least, since his murder conviction was on a state charge.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.jpg&w=3840&q=100)

Miami Herald
15 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
What you need to know about Trump's travel ban on Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela
The Trump administration announced in a proclamation on Wednesday that it will ban nationals from Haiti from entering the United States and partially limit Cubans and Venezuelans from coming into the country. Here is a breakdown on how the travel ban will work. What does the proclamation do? The proclamation restricts the entry of nationals from a dozen countries starting on June 9. Nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela are under a partial ban. That means that immigrants and nonimmigrants on tourist, business and student visas are banned under the proclamation. Nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen are subject to a full visa suspension for both immigrants and non-immigrants. The proclamation applies to nationals from the designated countries who are outside the United States and don't have a valid visa on the effective date of the proclamation. However, there are some exceptions for entry under both categories that the proclamation mentions. Why are Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela included? The proclamation noted the high rates of overstays in the United States by visa holders from Haiti, and said the country's lack of a centralized government means it cannot vet if Haitian nationals looking to come to the U.S. are national security threats. On Cuba, the Trump administration said the island is considered a state sponsor of terrorism and that its government does not cooperate on law enforcement matters or take back its own nationals as deportees. It also declared that Venezuela lacks a competent central authority for issuing passports or civil documents, and does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. The federal government will evaluate in three months, and every six months after that, whether or not to keep or end the bans for each country. What visas from Cuba and Venezuela are banned? Tourism, business and student visas from Cuban and Venezuelan nationals are subject to the suspension. That means non immigrant visas under the categories B-1, B‑2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J, What visas from Haiti are affected? All visas from nationals of Haiti as immigrants and nonimmigrants are suspended, though there are some limited exemptions. What visas are exempted under the travel ban? The proclamation notes there are exceptions for visa suspensions. That includes: Green card nationals who have a passport not designated under the travel visas under categories IR-3, IR-4, IH-3 and relatives of U.S. citizens with IR-1/CR-1, IR-2/CR-2, IR-5 visas. Entry intro the U.S. will require clear and convincing proof of identity and family relationships like foreign government officials and members of international organizations with visa categories A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1, NATO‑2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, or Special Immigrant Immigrant Visas for United States Government visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran. The proclamation also notes the federal government can make case-by-case exceptions for people who serve American national interests. Why did Trump enact the ban? In the proclamation, the Trump administration framed the measure as a way to protect the United States from terrorism and crime, arguing that the designated countries lack adequate screening and vetting procedures. It also claimed that these nations are unable to effectively manage or verify the travel documents of their citizens. Is this the first travel ban issued under Trump? No. In his first term, Trump issued several travel bans for different countries. The first was issued in January 2017 when he imposed a 90-day ban on nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and barred entry for all refugees without a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days. In March 2017 a second travel ban was enacted that targeted nationals from six Muslim-majority countries. The third was issued in September 2017, expanding the restrictions and banning nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Chad, Venezuela and North Korea from entering the U.S. In the case of Venezuela, certain government officials and their immediate family members were banned, but not to its nationals in general on tourist or business visas.

USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
A look at Trump's travel ban timeline throughout his first presidency
A look at Trump's travel ban timeline throughout his first presidency Show Caption Hide Caption What to know about travel bans and who they could affect Immigration law allows presidents to restrict travel into the U.S., but President Donald Trump's bans have been more sweeping than past presidents. President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Wednesday banning or restricting travel of foreign nationals from several countries, reminiscent of his first administration when he banned travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries in 2017. The ban, which goes into effect on June 9, affects Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The entry of people from seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, will be partially restricted. The travel restrictions were first reported by CBS News. "We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm,"Trump said in a video posted on X, formerly Twitter. He said the list could be revised and new countries could be added. Since returning to the White House for his second term, the president has vowed to replicate the impact of his original travel bans, which stirred several legal battles with courts that blocked the mandate. Here's a timeline of what ensued then. See events of Trump's first travel ban Jan. 27, 2017: Trump issues an executive order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." It suspends travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, blocks refugees for 120 days, and suspends travel from Syria indefinitely. Jan. 28: Chaos reigns at U.S. airports as Department of Homeland Security agents block travelers from entering the country, leading to protests and legal action. Feb. 3: Federal District Court Judge James Robart in Seattle issues a nationwide restraining order that blocks the travel ban from being implemented. Feb. 9: TheU.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, refuses to reinstate the ban, ruling that it violates due process rights without a sufficient national security justification. March 6: Trump issues a revised travel ban targeting only six countries and exempting visa- and green card-holders in an effort to reverse his fortunes in the courts. March 15: Federal District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii issues a nationwide halt to the revised travel ban on immigrants and refugees. March 16: Federal District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland blocks part of the travel ban that applies to travelers from six predominantly Muslim nations. May 25: TheU.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upholds the ruling from Maryland on the basis of religious discrimination against Muslims. June 12: The 9th Circuit appeals court upholds the ruling from Hawaii, saying the ban discriminates based on nationality. But it clears the way for a review of screening practices. June 26: The Supreme Court upholds parts of the ban and schedules oral arguments for October. In the meantime, travelers in a wide range of visa categories must prove their connection to a U.S. organization or individual in order to avoid the ban. Sept. 24: Trump issues his third version of the ban following what the administration says was a deep dive into international vetting procedures. Included indefinitely: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Chad, North Korea and Venezuela. Chad was recently dropped from the list. Oct. 17: Judge Watson in Hawaii blocks the third version nationwide, writing that it "suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor" and "plainly discriminates based on nationality." Oct. 18: Judge Chuang in Maryland says much the same thing, ruling that it still constitutes a "Muslim ban" that violates the Constitution's protections against religious discrimination. Dec. 4: The Supreme Court rules that the ban can take full effect while legal challenges continue in federal appeals courts. The justices urge those courts to render decisions "with appropriate dispatch." Dec. 22: A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit appeals court rules against the ban in part, contending that Trump exceeded his authority under federal law. Jan. 19, 2018: The Supreme Court agrees to hear the Justice Department's appeal of the 9th Circuit ruling, leading to oral arguments. Feb. 15: The full 4th Circuit appeals court again declares the ban unconstitutional based on its discrimination against Muslims. April 25: The Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the appeal of the 9th Circuit ruling. Conservative justices appear sympathetic to the administration's stance. June 26: The Supreme Court reverses the 9th Circuit's ruling, handing a major victory to Trump. June 31, 2020: Trump adds visa restrictions to six more countries including Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania. The White House said those nations failed to "comply with basic national security" requirements or to conduct "proper identity management" procedures. USA TODAY's Joey Garrison and Reuters contributed to the reporting of this story


CNN
19 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump Amid Weak Jobs Report: 'Too Late' Powell Must Lower Rates - Erin Burnett OutFront - Podcast on CNN Audio
Trump Amid Weak Jobs Report: 'Too Late' Powell Must Lower Rates Erin Burnett OutFront 48 mins Trump takes on the Federal Reserve president for bad jobs numbers. Plus, Trump announces to the world that Putin is about to attack Ukraine as revenge for an air assault. Also, a Chinese couple is charged with trying to smuggle a dangerous biological pathogen into the United States, capable of decimating crops and poisoning humans.