What to know about prisoners crafting clemency petitions to capture Trump's attention
ASHLAND, Ky. (AP) — Clemency has come early and often in President Donald Trump's second term, prompting nearly 10,000 convicts to request pardons or commutations of their prison sentences.
Trump has been criticized for wiping away convictions of political allies, former Republican officeholders and hundreds of people charged in the Capitol riot.
In issuing such pardons and commutations, Trump has largely cast aside a process that historically has been overseen by nonpolitical personnel at the Justice Department who spent their days poring over clemency applications — thick packets filled with character references attesting to applicants' atonement and good deeds. Only those meeting strict criteria were then passed along to the White House.
That approach has given prisoners like Chad Scott, a disgraced federal agent serving a 13-year sentence for corruption, hope at earning clemency by tailoring petitions to capture Trump's attention. Scott claimed, for example, that both he and the Republican president were victims of 'political persecution.' The former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent also noted that he and the president have survived gunshot wounds to the ear.
Here are some key things to know about how Trump's approach is changing the world of clemency:
Trump's approach to clemency has upended norms
Legal experts say the flurry of petitions has been sparked by Trump's frequent grants of clemency since retaking office in January.
The president has pardoned or commuted the sentences of more than 1,600 people. Many of those granted mercy have been the president's political allies, campaign donors and fraudsters who claimed they were victims of a 'weaponized' Justice Department. Among those receiving clemency are a pair of reality TV stars, a straw donor who gave $900,000 to Trump's first inaugural committee and a Virginia sheriff sentenced to 10 years for deputizing several businessmen in exchange for cash payments.
It's just part of the way the president has upended how clemency is handled. In the past, career Justice Department lawyers weighed remorse, the severity of the crime and the amount of time a prisoner has already served. Then they passed along recommendations to the White House.
The process at the Justice Department is being overseen by a vocal Trump supporter: The president tapped Ed Martin Jr. to be the Justice Department's pardon attorney. Martin is a former defense lawyer who represented Jan. 6, 2021, rioters and promoted false claims that the 2020 election had been stolen by Democrats.
That approach — and Trump's flurry of clemency grants — has created 'a free-for-all' for those seeking pardons and commutations, said Liz Oyer, the Justice Department's former pardon attorney, who was fired in March. 'The traditional process and practices,' she told The Associated Press, 'all seem to have fallen by the wayside.'
Convicts believe Trump might hear them out
Optimism behind bars has never been higher, says Eric Sanchez Chaparro, a prisoner seeking a commutation for a drug and weapons conviction that carried a 19-year sentence.
'In many ways I feel like he has the same point of view that we've got,' Chaparro told the AP, noting both he and the president were convicted felons. Trump was convicted last year on New York state charges of falsifying business records related to hush money payments to a porn star.
Jonathan E. Woods, an early Trump supporter and former Arkansas state senator, is seeking a commutation of his 18-year sentence for a bribery conviction.
'President Trump is viewed as someone as having a big heart, nonjudgmental and someone who has been put through hell by a very imperfect legal system,' Woods wrote to the AP. 'Inmates view him as someone who will listen to them in hopes of going home early to their loves ones.'
Scott, the former DEA agent, raises and trains service and therapy dogs behind bars in Kentucky. He named one of his most recent canines, a Labradane, Trump.
The White House says Trump is acting 'reasonably' and righting 'many wrongs'
Trump is hardly the first president to generate controversy over how he handled such powers. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, prompted bipartisan outrage in December when he pardoned his son Hunter, sparing him a possible prison sentence for felony gun and tax convictions.
Biden also was sharply criticized — mainly by Republicans — for issuing preemptive pardons to protect lawmakers, former officials and his family members from what he described as a potentially vindictive Trump administration.
Administration officials say Trump decides on clemency requests after they're vetted by the White House Counsel's Office, the White House pardon czar and the Justice Department. Reviewers have been focusing on nonviolent, rehabilitated criminals with compelling references, the officials said.
The White House is also considering petitions from those serving unjustified sentences and what the administration deems 'over-prosecution.'
'President Trump doesn't need lectures from Democrats about his use of pardons, especially from those who supported a president who pardoned his corrupt son, shielded Dr. Fauci from accountability for the millions who suffered under his failed COVID leadership and backed the infamous 'kids-for-cash' judge who profited from incarcerating children,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in an email. 'President Trump is using his pardon and commutation powers to right many wrongs, acting reasonably and responsibly within his constitutional authority.'
Legal experts see it much differently.
'What these pardons signal — together with everything else — is that all bets are now off,' said Frank Bowman, a legal historian and professor emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law who's writing a book on pardons. 'It's a grotesque misuse of constitutional authority of a kind that has never been seen in American history.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
15 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Funeral home owner who stashed nearly 190 decaying bodies sentenced to 20 years in prison
DENVER (AP) — A Colorado funeral home owner who stashed nearly 190 dead bodies in a decrepit building and sent grieving families fake ashes received the maximum possible sentence of 20 years in prison on Friday, for cheating customers and defrauding the federal government out of nearly $900,000 in COVID-19 aid. Jon Hallford, owner of Return to Nature Funeral Home, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in federal court last year. Separately, Hallford pleaded guilty to 191 counts of corpse abuse in state court and will be sentenced in August.
Toronto Star
16 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
California Legislature closes $12B deficit by cutting back immigrants' access to health care
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers on Friday approved a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark health care expansion for low-income adult immigrants without legal status, to close a $12 billion deficit. It's the third year in a row the nation's most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. This year's $321 billion spending plan was negotiated by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders.
22 minutes ago
U.S. Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, in case on Trump birthright citizenship order
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases, as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, where all the justices appointed by Republican presidents voted in favour, granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The court ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of their injunctions and specified that Trump's order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a green card holder. Recap of oral arguments in this case (new window) More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states, as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens to prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship, wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett for the majority. Complaints about 'judge shopping' The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or universal, injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive, even without weighing its legal merits. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The issue is intertwined with concerns of judge shopping, where interest groups and plaintiffs of all kinds file lawsuits before judges they perceive as political allies or friendly to their causes. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body for the federal courts, has been in the process of issuing guidance to curtail the practice. Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the decision as a win to stop the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump. Republicans and conservatives in particular have long complained about a single judge enjoining matters for the entire country, though Democrats were aggrieved during Joe Biden's administration when a single judge in Texas issued a sweeping ruling on the abortion medication mifepristone. Ultimately, the Supreme Court essentially rejected that judge's interpretation in a 9-0 ruling (new window) . No ruling on birthright citizenship The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Not all countries automatically confer citizenship at birth. Britain and Australia modified their laws in the 1980s, requiring a parent to be a citizen or permanent resident in order for a newborn to qualify for citizenship, in part to prevent so-called birth tourism. In Canada, citizenship is overwhelmingly granted to any child born on its soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, following the principle of jus soli , Latin for right of the soil. There are a few exceptions, notably for the children of foreign diplomats. The current Liberal government in Ottawa is looking through legislation to expand citizenship to children born outside of Canada to Canadian parents. String of court rulings allow White House to enact agenda The U.S. Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. Thomson Reuters with files from CBC News
