By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This article highlights concerns raised by lawmakers regarding President Trump’s pardons, particularly those granted to allies. These pardons are criticized for potentially “depriving victims of compensation and justice,” with an analysis suggesting nearly $2 billion in recovered funds from fraud cases was nullified. The lawmakers are seeking information on payments made by pardon recipients to lobbyists and others who may have influenced the pardon process. Failure to cooperate with these requests could lead to congressional investigations and potential further scrutiny.
Read the original article here
Congressional Democrats are launching an investigation into a suspected “pay to play” scheme surrounding presidential pardons, seeking to uncover how much individuals paid to secure their freedom from former President Trump. This inquiry delves into allegations that the pardon power, a significant constitutional authority, may have been exploited for personal gain, sparking widespread concern and calls for accountability. The core of the investigation revolves around determining if financial transactions were made in exchange for clemency, essentially turning the solemn act of a presidential pardon into a transactional commodity.
The idea that pardons might have been bought and sold is deeply troubling, suggesting a corruption of the justice system that the Founding Fathers likely never envisioned. The constitutional framers placed a great deal of trust in the integrity of the president, believing that such power would be exercised responsibly. However, the current scrutiny implies that this trust may have been misplaced, leading to a situation where individuals could leverage financial means to escape legal consequences. This raises fundamental questions about fairness and the equal application of the law.
One of the key challenges in this investigation is the very nature of presidential pardons, which are generally considered absolute once granted and properly issued. There isn’t a clear-cut statute that explicitly forbids charging for a pardon, which complicates efforts to pursue criminal charges against those involved. While bribery is a crime, proving a direct link between a payment and a pardon, and then challenging the pardon itself based on that evidence, presents a significant legal hurdle. Some argue that the current legal framework makes it nearly impossible to overturn a presidential pardon, even if it were obtained through illicit means.
Given these legal complexities, some suggest that the most viable path forward might involve civil litigation rather than criminal prosecution, at least in the short term. A potential strategy could be to sue former President Trump to impose a “constructive trust” on any money received in exchange for pardons. The argument would be that he used the constitutional power of the presidency for personal enrichment, rather than to administer justice as intended. This approach would aim to force an accounting of all funds exchanged and potentially compel Trump to turn over that money to the U.S. Treasury, arguing that he unjustly benefited from the sale of pardons.
Beyond legal remedies, there’s a strong sentiment that more fundamental changes are needed to prevent such abuses in the future. A constitutional amendment is frequently proposed as a way to address the perceived weaponization of the pardon power. Such an amendment could potentially allow other branches of government, like Congress or the judiciary, to have some oversight or veto power over presidential pardons, or establish clearer guidelines and limitations on their use. This would provide a structural safeguard against future corrupt practices.
The public disclosure of the names of pardon recipients and the amounts potentially paid is also being advocated as a crucial step. The idea is to make the alleged “pay to play” scheme transparent by plastering this information on billboards across the country, perhaps even including QR codes that link to the full list. This transparency, akin to a “dumber version of Indulgence,” aims to shock the public conscience and generate pressure for action, leveraging blockchain technology for immutability if desired.
Some view this investigation as long overdue, suggesting that accountability should have been pursued much sooner. There’s a frustration that such alleged corruption hasn’t been met with swifter consequences. The concern is that without decisive action, these pardons will remain in effect, and the perceived injustice will stand. The effectiveness of the current “investigation,” which some describe generously as merely sending out letters, is questioned, with skepticism about whether Congress will ultimately take significant action.
The comparison to accusations leveled against other political figures, particularly the Clintons, is also surfacing, with some pointing out a perceived hypocrisy in the actions of those now investigating. The sheer scale of Trump’s alleged corruption is often described as eclipsing even that of Richard Nixon, suggesting a level of systemic abuse that is deeply concerning to observers. The focus on financial transactions is not just about the act of pardoning itself, but also about the immense financial benefits that may have been accrued by the former president through these actions, with estimates of wiped-out restitution in the billions of dollars adding a stark economic dimension to the scandal.
The idea of making pardons null and void is also being discussed, though the legal feasibility of such a move is highly questionable. The consensus among many legal scholars is that presidential pardons, once properly issued, are difficult, if not impossible, to revoke or overturn for federal crimes. While states might have avenues to pursue individuals for state-level offenses, the federal pardon typically shields them from federal prosecution. This legal reality underscores the urgency of finding mechanisms to prevent future abuses, as rectifying past ones appears to be an uphill battle.
Ultimately, the ongoing probe into how much Trump pardon recipients paid to get free highlights a critical juncture in assessing the integrity of the presidential pardon power. It’s a situation that demands both immediate investigation into alleged wrongdoing and a broader discussion about constitutional safeguards to ensure that such profound authority is never again perceived as a commodity to be bought and sold. The hope is that through these investigations and potential reforms, the system can be strengthened to uphold justice and public trust.