Donald Trump’s pardon tests the limits of power

During deliberations on whether to ratify the United States Constitution in 1788, George Mason, a Virginia politician and scholar, warned against including one particular: the president’s right to pardon the people.

He may often pardon the crimes which he himself advised. Mason said. “It might happen, some day in the future, that he establish a monarchy and destroy the republic.”

This week Donald Trump tested once again the limits of what voters will tolerate when it comes to presidential clemency, and the pardon. 15 people On Tuesday and 26 others Wednesday.

They included two Republican politicians, four former private security contractors convicted of involvement in the killing of Iraqi civilians, and four people convicted of crimes related to the Mueller investigation into the president’s relations with Russia, and the father of Trump’s son-in-law. Jared Kushner.

Trump is not the first president to controversially use his pardon, but historians say the outgoing president acted unusually the number of times he used power to benefit his allies.

“Presidents tend to use the power of pardon to help unify the country, to correct a mistake in justice, or when there are mitigating circumstances such as subsequent good behavior,” said Barbara Berry, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia.

“The extenuating circumstances are not supposed to be for the president himself, and it is not just that this person is supposed to be on their side,” she added.

Among those pardoned by Trump this week is Roger Stone, a veteran political activist who was found guilty of lying to Congress, obstructing him and watching him tamper with protecting Trump in the Mueller investigation. The president had already commuted Mr. Stone’s sentence last month.

Trump pardoned Paul Manafort, his former campaign manager, George Papadopoulos, a former low-profile campaign advisor, and Alex van der Zwan, a former attorney. Papadopoulos was found guilty of making the false statements, while Mr. Van der Zwan lied to investigators about his contacts with Brick Gates, a former senior advisor to Trump. Mr Manafort is convicted of income-related financial fraud from his political advisory work in Ukraine.

Last month, the president Also issued Pardon for Michael Flynn – his former National Security Adviser who admitted lying about contacts with a Russian diplomat.

As with so many other disputes during Donald Trump’s tenure in office, what is unusual here is the sheer scale

Constitutional experts said on Wednesday that Mr. Trump is operating within his legal powers. The constitution grants the president the power to grant a stay of execution for crimes against the United States, even if not for state crimes or for which Congress can hold the perpetrator accountable.

Mr. Trump has the only authority to issue a federal pardon, although the guidelines state that it is usually granted if a person accepts responsibility for a crime and exhibits good behavior long after conviction.

The amnesty has proven controversial throughout history. Gerald Ford granted an unconditional preemptive pardon to his predecessor, Richard Nixon, in an attempt to cure a divided country, even though the move put his political life at risk. Andrew Johnson caused much deeper anger across most of America in 1865 by issuing a blanket amnesty for the former Confederates.

There is also a historical precedent for bosses using such powers to help themselves or those close to them. Bill Clinton caused outrage when he pardoned fugitive financier Mark Rich and his brother on his last day as president. George HW Bush pardoned several officials who were prosecuted for their roles in the Iran-Contra scandal.

But historians say these are still anomalies, and that Mr.Trump stands out as unusual due to the frequency with which he issued a pardon that appears to be in his favor.

An analysis by Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, found that more than 90 percent of those who were pardoned or whose sentences were commuted by Trump had a personal or political relationship with the president.

“As with so many other disputes during Donald Trump’s tenure in office, what is unusual here is the sheer size,” said Tim Naftali, associate professor of history at New York University.

Many expect Trump to go further in his final weeks in office. The outgoing president It said He discussed granting protective pardons to his three children, as well as Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, and Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney.

Some believe that he may ultimately feel restricted from doing so due to the legal view that pardons automatically grant guilt. According to a 1915 Supreme Court ruling, a pardon “implies guilt,” and acceptance of a pardon is an “admission of it”. Ford was said to have carried a piece of paper in his wallet with those words written on it.

But even more important for Mr Trump’s future is that by accepting the pardon, his aides are withdrawing their right not to testify in a future trial for fear of implicating themselves.

According to a judgment of 1895 by the Supreme Court,[I]If the witness has already been pardoned, then he cannot then determine his privilege, because he stands in relation to this crime as if it was never committed. ”Legal experts say this may make them more likely to appear as a witness in any trial against Mr. Trump himself.

There is a final option if Trump wants to make sure he is not prosecuted once he becomes a regular citizen: he can try to pardon himself.

No president has tried this before, and the constitution does not state the possibility, except to say that no one can be a judge at his trial. Nixon weighed the option to pardon himself, but in the end I decided not to After warnings from his advisers.

If Mr. Trump tries this, there will almost certainly be a legal challenge that will likely end up in the Supreme Court.

“Even Nixon never tried this, and this was Nixon.” Thomas Balsersky, associate professor of history at Eastern Connecticut State University, said, “But Donald Trump is different. “Everyone who cares about the constitution and the state of our democracy has cause for concern.”