
‘Royal authority': Jeffrey Toobin explores the US presidential pardon in his new book
The constitution expressly confers upon the president the 'Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment'.
Toobin's latest is the book for our tempestuous times.
Joe Biden delivered a blanket pardon to Hunter Biden, his son, a twice-convicted felon then awaiting sentencing. In his last hours on the job, the elder Biden pardoned a slew of family members. Last month, Biden's successor, Donald Trump, reportedly said, 'Fuck it, release 'em all,' then granted pardons and commutations to more than 1,500 January 6 defendants.
For now, the Trump justice department seems distracted, waging war against itself.
Main justice department officials and the US attorneys' office in Manhattan stand pitted against each other over the former's ordered dismissal of the bribery case against Eric Adams, the mayor of New York. Danielle Sassoon (the acting US attorney for the southern district of New York and formerly a clerk to the late supreme court justice Antonin Scalia) and Hagan Scotten (a federal prosecutor, Iraq war combat veteran and former clerk to justices Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts) made headlines with their resignations.
Into this smoldering legal landscape steps Toobin, a long-established bestselling author, a former CNN legal analyst and New Yorker writer now hired by the New York Times. Additionally, he is a former federal prosecutor.
The Pardon is well researched and highly readable, a master class on a power wielded by presidents for more than 200 years. Most of the book, however, concerns events from a half-century ago: the pardon of Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford, in the wake of Nixon's resignation over the Watergate scandal.
The story is familiar, but Toobin offers new facts and insights. He shines a light on Benton Becker, a former federal prosecutor and friend of Ford whom Ford deployed to negotiate Nixon's pardon. Becker blocked Nixon's attempt to fly off with boxes of presidential records – but was in way over his head.
Nixon called Alexander Haig, his chief of staff who was still at the White House, and ordered him to secure the records, Toobin relays. 'Ship them out here,' Nixon said. 'Send everything out here. I want all my records, all my papers and all my tapes.'
Historically, ex-presidents had viewed their papers as their personal property. Haig followed orders but Becker happened on the boxes of records being loaded for shipment. He directed the Secret Service to stop the truck.
'I don't care if you have to shoot the tires out,' Becker recalled saying. 'That truck does not leave here.' Confronted in the Oval Office, Haig feigned ignorance. He also lied, according to Toobin. Outside Ford's presence, Haig told Leon Jaworski, the Watergate special prosecutor, the records were en route to Nixon's home in San Clemente, California.
In the end, the lawyers hammered out a compromise that heavily favored Nixon. He gave Becker a tie pin and a pair of cufflinks. Ford gave Nixon a pardon. It really is a remarkable tale.
'I had certainly never heard of Benton Becker when I went into this,' Toobin told the Guardian.
'If you want to address an issue that will be the central event of your presidency, maybe you want to entrust it to someone who is not a young volunteer lawyer, who is himself under criminal investigation.' (Becker, who died in 2015, was accused of misconduct in a stock-fraud case, then exonerated.)
The Nixon pardon stoked outrage. Jerry terHorst, Ford's press secretary, found the pardon unconscionable given Ford had refused to pardon those who avoided the Vietnam draft. TerHorst quit. In the midterms, the Democrats ran the tables.
With Jimmy Carter in the White House, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act, which made presidential papers government property – a law that Toobin reminds us 'was central to the 2023 indictment of former president Donald Trump in connection with his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left office'.
'For better and worse, pardons operate like X-rays into the souls of presidents,' Toobin writes. 'Gerald Ford revealed himself to be earnest, impatient, and overmatched.'
Fifty years later, Trump asserts that if he does anything, it is axiomatically legal. 'He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,' he recently posted to social media, along with his mugshot, glowering at the camera in his Georgia election fraud case.
For Toobin, the pardon of Hunter Biden reflects on the soul of his father.
'The fact remains that Hunter Biden stood convicted of 12 crimes – and he was, in fact, guilty of all of them,' he said.
But Trump remains in a league of his own.
'If Trump had tried to carve out the non-violent January 6 rioters [for clemency], that would have been somewhat more defensible than what he wound up doing, which was, in my view, completely indefensible,' Toobin told the Guardian.
Hagan Scotten wasn't concerned with presidential pardons when he quit last week, over attempts to drop the case against Mayor Adams. But as US justice comes under terrible strain, his words will long bear scrutiny.
'Our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way,' he wrote. 'I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.'
Lesson learned. But pardons will always be different.
'The powers of the presidency range from nearly absolute to barely existent,' Toobin reminds us. 'The pardon power belongs in the former category.'
Much depends on the person who occupies the Oval Office. Right now, it's someone who views pardons as little more than weapons to be used for political gain.
The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy is published in the US by Simon & Schuster
Hashtags

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


Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Putin hasn't made any real concessions yet
After the jaw-dropping spectacle of the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska, there was another full day of theatre on Monday as Trump hosted European leaders and President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House. Yet the results of this three-day diplomatic pageant are embarrassingly modest. One of Trump's trumpeted achievements is Russia's alleged agreement to western security guarantees for Ukraine. It was President Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff who first announced this breakthrough, with some fanfare, in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. 'We sort of were able to… get an agreement,' Witkoff said, 'that the United States could offer Article 5 protection [for Ukraine], which was the first time we had ever heard… the Russians agree to that.' The word 'sort of' does a lot of heavy lifting here because Russia's unprecedented concession is not a concession at all, or certainly not Russia's concession. It is the United States that, ignoring Zelensky's pleas, has refused to provide tangible security guarantees to Ukraine for fear that doing so could lead to a direct conflict with Russia. But, ever the salesman, Trump has managed to sell a US concession to Ukraine as Russia's major concession and an indication that Putin is willing to talk peace. As for Putin, it remains to be seen what he has actually agreed to. During his joint press conference with Trump, the Russian President referred vaguely to the importance of assuring Ukraine's security. 'Of course, we are willing to work on this,' he offered. But it is important to remember that already in the spring of 2022, during the ill-fated talks in Istanbul, the Russians provisionally agreed to a security mechanism for Ukraine that would involve the United States and other western powers. However, Putin made it clear then that he expected to have the right to veto any collective action to help Ukraine. It is unclear whether this expectation was brought up during his brief interaction with Trump in Anchorage. Thus constrained, any US security guarantee would not be worth the paper it's written on. The other major uncertainty pertains to Russia's willingness (or not) to permit Western contingents in Ukraine as part of a peace settlement. Moscow has repeatedly rejected the idea of troops on the ground in Ukraine if these troops are from Nato member states. The latest rebuttal came even as Trump was meeting European leaders in Washington in the form of a scornful comment by the eccentric spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova who criticised Great Britain – which, along with France, has been one of the leaders of the so called 'coalition of the willing' and has broached the subject of sending contingents to Ukraine – for 'risky and ill-thought-through geopolitical gambits' and for trying to 'obstruct the careful work of the Russian and American negotiators.' Helping Maria Zakharova's case, President Trump has not been very forthcoming with concrete details of US participation. His message – as he put it in a joint press conference with President Zelensky – is that Europe would be 'the first line of defence… but we're gonna help them out also.' What that 'help' may amount to remains to be seen. For now, at least, Trump's security promise sounds rather hollow. So, the big question – what kind of security guarantees Russia has agreed to, and what kind of security guarantees the United States might be willing to offer – remains completely obscure. In the absence of a breakthrough on this important question, Trump's diplomacy is little more than a fireworks show: it offers a momentary distraction from the gruelling reality of war. Trump has now kicked the ball back over to the Russians and the Ukrainians. He expects Putin and Zelensky to meet in person and just work it out among themselves. In a middle-of-the-night phone call with Trump, Putin promised – per Russian readout – to 'consider the possibility of raising the level of representatives of Ukrainian and Russian sides… participating in direct negotiations.' In the meantime, Russian forces continued pummelling targets across Ukraine. Putin has offered no concrete evidence that he is willing to make a deal on terms that would fall short of Ukraine's capitulation. 'If there aren't concessions, if one side gets everything they want, that's called surrender,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared on August 17, shortly after Alaska. But he has failed to show what concessions Putin has made. By all indications, Putin has promised nothing in the way of substance, yet just enough for Trump to drop all talk of 'severe consequences' for Russia if he continued to drag his feet. Shortly before his meeting with European leaders, Trump was caught in hot mic moment: 'I think he wants to make a deal for me,' he said. 'Do you understand? As crazy as it sounds.' Trump may be crazy to believe Putin's good intentions, but he has had us all glued to TV screens in the hope that somehow, against all evidence to the contrary, he will in the end pull a rabbit out of the hat and finally deliver peace. There has been nothing in the hat so far.


BBC News
7 hours ago
- BBC News
Armagh: Man appears in court after petrol bomb attack on pub
A man has appeared in court charged with two counts of attempted murder following a petrol bomb attack on a pub in Patrick Nixon, 38, from Irish Street in the town, has also been charged with arson with intent to endanger life, possession of a blade or point, and three counts of criminal appeared before Newry Magistrates' Court where he spoke to confirm his name, date of birth and that he understood the charges against application for bail was made and Mr Nixon was remanded into police custody. He was charged after a petrol bomb was thrown into The Toby Jug pub on Monday night.

Rhyl Journal
2 days ago
- Rhyl Journal
Putin and Zelensky to meet, Donald Trump says following European leaders summit
The US president spoke directly with the Russian president to begin planning a meeting between the two warring leaders, which will then be followed by a three-way meeting involving himself. It comes after Mr Trump said Moscow will 'accept' multinational efforts to guarantee Ukraine's security while hosting several European leaders including the Ukrainian President, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Nato secretary general Mark Rutte. Posting on his Truth Social platform after the meeting, Mr Trump said he and the eight leaders discussed security guarantees before he called the Russian president. He described the meeting as 'very good' and added: 'During the meeting we discussed security guarantees for Ukraine, which guarantees would be provided by the various European countries, with a coordination with the United States of America. 'Everyone is happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. 'At the conclusion of the meetings, I called president Putin and began arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between president Putin and president Zelensky. 'After the meeting takes place, we will have a trilat which would be the two presidents plus myself.' Before the White House talks, the US president said he would 'probably' be able to find common ground with the leaders on a plan to ward off future attacks on Ukraine. He previously met with Mr Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday, where he declared there was 'no deal until there's a deal' to end more than three years of fighting in eastern Europe. 'The Alaska summit reinforced my belief that while difficult, peace is within reach and I believe, in a very significant step, President Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine,' Mr Trump said on Monday. 'And this is one of the key points that we need to consider.' He later said: 'We also need to discuss the possible exchanges of territory taken into consideration the current line of contact.' Mr Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, had suggested measures similar to Nato's article five mutual defence provision – that an attack on one member is an attack on the entire bloc – could be offered by the US without Kyiv joining the alliance. 'We were able to win the following concession: that the United States could offer article five-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in Nato,' Mr Witkoff told CNN over the weekend, as he spoke about the Alaska summit. Future three-way talks 'have a good chance' of stopping the conflict, the US president claimed. But the president appeared to share conflicting views on whether a ceasefire was necessary to stop the war. 'I don't think you need a ceasefire,' he had originally said, before later explaining that, 'all of us would obviously prefer an immediate ceasefire while we work on a lasting peace'. Sir Keir welcomed plans for a security guarantee, after Mr Trump introduced him at the negotiating table as a 'friend'. The Prime Minister said: 'Your indication of security guarantees, of some sort of article five-style guarantees, fits with what we've been doing with the coalition of the willing which we started some months ago, bringing countries together and showing that we were prepared to step up to the plate when it came to security. 'With you coming alongside, the US alongside, what we've already developed, I think we could take a really important step forward today – a historic step, actually, could come out of this meeting in terms of security for Ukraine and security in Europe.' Sir Keir also described potential future trilateral talks as appearing to be a 'sensible next step' and continued: 'So, thank you for being prepared to take that forward, because I think if we can ensure that that is the progress out of this meeting – both security guarantees and some sort of progress on (a) trilateral meeting of some sort to bring some of the difficult issues to a head – then I think today will be seen as a very important day in recent years.' The PA news agency understands the Prime Minister disrupted his holiday plans over the weekend to join calls, including with Mr Trump and Mr Zelensky, before he headed to Washington, as reported in The Times. Mr Zelensky, whom Mr Trump greeted at the door of the West Wing with a handshake earlier in the evening, wore a black shirt with buttons and a black blazer to the meeting at the White House. His attire had appeared to become a point of irritation for Mr Trump during a previous meeting in February. Early in the meeting, the Ukrainian described the talks as 'really good', saying they had been 'the best' so far. Mr Zelensky said: 'We are very happy with the president that all the leaders are here and security in Ukraine depends on the United States and on you and on those leaders who are with us in our hearts.'