Pardon me, Mr. President

Yahoo

6 days ago

Mediators like to tell a story about two kids fighting over an orange when the exasperated dad enters the room, snatches the orange, cuts it in half and hands each kid half. Problem solved, right?
Well, not exactly. As it turns out, one kid wanted the peel and the other wanted the fruit. The solution isn't to cut the orange in half. It's to peel it. This story reminds me of two pardons President Donald Trump recently granted.
In the first, Trump pardoned Paul Walczak. Walczak was charged with 13 counts of tax fraud, based on his withholding pay from employees at his nursing home. According to prosecutors, Walczak used the money to fund a lavish lifestyle that included a $2 million yacht and shopping sprees to Bergdorf and Cartier. Part of Walczak's sentence was a "restitution" order, meaning he had to return what he stole to the victims. But thanks to the pardon, Walczak no longer must repay the victims.
In April of this year, Walczak's mother paid $1 million to attend a Trump fundraising dinner at Mar-a-Lago. A little more than a month later, the pardon came through.
But this column does not concern the corruption here. Others can comment on that. This column concerns Trump as the bumbling father.
The timing of the pardon – before Walczak paid restitution – means that ordinary Americans (e.g. the ones whose mom can't write a $1 million check) are hung out to dry. Remember, this is not a case where Walczak has maintained his innocence. He admitted he ripped off his employees. If Trump felt a pardon was warranted, why not wait until the victims were compensated? Like the exasperated dad, Trump apparently didn't bother thinking through the problem.
In the case of P.G. Sittenfeld's pardon, Trump jumped in too quickly as well. In upholding Sittenfeld's conviction, the Sixth Circuit noted that there were underlying legal issues with the case that the Supreme Court should address. Given that the Sittenfeld case examined the fine line between political fundraising and bribery, a Supreme Court decision could guide politicians and prosecutors nationwide.
But thanks to the pardon, the case is moot, and the high court won't have a chance to issue a clarifying ruling. It's not clear why Trump rushed to this pardon, but his doing so eliminates the prospect for now that the law will get some needed clarity. Again, Trump could have waited for the Supreme Court to rule, considering that's their job. But an exasperated dad doesn't bother to consider the consequences. And that's exasperating for everyone.
And speaking of people doing their jobs, Trump's pardon of Sittenfeld may not have cheated victims out of restitution, but it was an unwarranted slap in the face of Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Gladfelter and her team. Gladfelter and her team secured an indictment, tried the case to a jury and successfully argued the appeal in the Sixth Circuit. In short, she and the courts did their job.
But apparently Trump knows better than these trained professionals. If Trump believes that political corruption ought not be punished, he should have let the Sittenfeld appeal play out and/or encourage Congress to change the law. But one off, arbitrary pardons is a slipshod way to go about it.
Jack Greiner is a partner at Faruki PLL law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Strictly Legal | Pardon me, Mr. President