Trump’s Egregious Power Trip: Generous Pardoning Spree Flouts Equity
The parallelisms among distinct convicts are striking – a con artist who was embroiled in a $675 million fraud case, the mastermind behind an attempted coup, and an accomplished tax evader. The thread binding these individuals is the barrage of pardons granted by President Donald Trump, a noteworthy behaviour in his second term that openly flouts Department of Justice results. More troubling than this is the fact that each pardon mocks the values and principles that form the bedrock of the Department of Justice – restitution, remorse, and the potential to contribute to society.
Upon resuming office, Trump enacted a generous and questionable pardoning spree, absolving over 1,600 individuals and a few corporations within just six months. Legal aficionados argue that this wave of pardons blatantly transcends established guidelines aimed at maintaining equity and public safety. Essentially, Trump bulldozed these norms and ushered in a new era of pardons.
Unceremonious is the term that comes to mind when reviewing Trump’s actions just hours following his undertaking of the presidential oath. Over 1,500 individuals convicted of abusing the peaceful sanctity of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, walked free, a disturbing testament to Trump’s abuse of power. Downplaying the violent means these instigators used to overpower law enforcement signifies a marked departure from the honour and respect that should infuse the office of the presidency.
Controversial pardons are not exclusive to Trump – past presidents have also navigated these murky waters. Nevertheless, no other President has kicked off their term with such a noticeable disregard for the Department of Justice rules and societal norms. Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, George H.W. Bush pardoned individuals instrumental in the Iran-Contra scandal, and Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter in a contradiction of his earlier claims.
To put it simply, the prolific nature of Trump’s pardons suggests a kind of ‘patronage pardoning’, an alarming concept introduced by Lee Kovarsky, a law professor at the University of Texas. This concept underscores the President’s willingness to defend his cronies, even those who blatantly defy the law to further his objectives.
Although Article II of the Constitution authorizes the President to pardon those convicted of federal crimes, it is implicitly understood that this power should be used responsibly. However, a Supreme Court decision in 2024 further solidifies the president’s discretion in exercising this privilege, casting a shadow on the ethical implications.
Highlighting the quandary this unlimited power presents, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticised the immunity conferred on potential presidential misconduct. Meanwhile, the Justice Department, the traditional home of the Pardon Attorney since 1894, continues to process clemency applications, seeking to ensure a uniform application of rules.
The assessment of applications maintains two key goals according to Liz Oyer, a former Pardon Attorney; fairness in judgment irrespective of personal connections, and the granting of pardons to those who merit a second chance and pose no threats to society. Yet, when actor Mel Gibson, a Trump acquaintance, pleaded for a pardon, Oyer refused due to his violent past, a move which subsequently cost her job.
Surprisingly, irrespective of these events, the Justice Department maintains that all pardon applications undergo the prescribed Justice Manual review process while providing recommendations. Diverse parties affected by the convictions, including prosecutors, sentencing judges, and victims of crime, offer feedback that forms an integral part of the decision-making process.
However, this crucial consultation step bypassed the notorious Jan. 6 mob leading to question the transparency of Trump’s pardon process. Likewise, the case of Stewart Rhodes, leader of the anti-government Oath Keepers did not follow this clause either. Convicted of attempting to overthrow the government, Rhodes served less than two years of an 18-year sentence before Trump reduced his sentence to time served.
The question of accountability and remorse plays a significant role in granting pardons, according to the guidelines set forth in the Justice Manual. Nevertheless, Trump, unbounded by these conventions, pardoned individuals who had barely commenced their prison terms and in one instance even before sentencing.
Enrique Tarrio – leader of the Proud Boys – despite his pivotal role in the Capitol assault and a 22-year sentence, received a Presidential pardon. This act gave birth to a baseless $100 million lawsuit by Tarrio and his affiliates against the Justice Department arguing for wronged prosecution.
Contrary to expected protocols, Trevor Milton, fraudster and founder of the fraudulent electric truck start-up Nikola, was pardoned by Trump without paying restitution for his deeds. Trump’s pardons, thus, seem to be tied with political contributions rather than regret or a willingness to compensate the victims, as suggested by the rules.
Paul Walczak, an executive convicted of stealing employees’ tax payments, bears similar hallmarks. Walczak’s prison term and restitution responsibility were quashed just weeks after his mother splurged at a Trump fundraiser. Trump’s actions have had a deep financial impact on taxpayers, with the majority of those pardoned by him being cleared of fines and restitution.
Liz Oyer, in an innovative move, developed a ‘pardon tracker’ on her website to display the financial consequences of these pardons. She notes that the cost of Trump’s pardons to taxpayers and crime victims exceeds $1.3 billion, compounding the financial strain on those impacted.
Pardons should be a method of redemption for ordinary Americans who seek clemency, but the backlog has doubled to a staggering 11,664 during Trump’s tenure, showcasing his dismayingly selective and biased pardon policy.