Folks always ask me, what about these pardons? The whole business with trump pardons, it’s a show, isn’t it? A real head-scratcher for anyone who’s been watching Washington for, oh, twenty years like I have. I’ve seen my share of strange things come out of that town, believe you me, but this… this is different. It’s got a different kind of tang to it, like a cheap whiskey trying to pass itself off as something aged.
I remember back when I started out, just a young buck trying to make sense of the news cycle. Presidents, they’d issue pardons, sure. Usually at the end of their term. Quietly. A few, maybe a dozen, for folks who’d done their time, or maybe some old-timer from some long-forgotten scandal. A little mercy. A bit of closure. But what we saw with the trump pardons, that wasn’t quiet, was it? That was a public spectacle. Each one felt like a jab, a message being sent. Who was it for, really? The guy getting the pardon? Or the guy giving it? Or the guy watching the whole thing unfold? You tell me.
And you know, the talk always goes to, “Is this even legal? Can he do that?” And the short answer, if you’re asking me, is yeah. Article Two, Section Two, Clause One of the Constitution. Gives the President the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. It’s broad, that power. Real broad. Broad as a barn door on a windy day. They don’t put a lot of strings on it. Which, if you think about it, is a bit terrifying. Or freeing, depending on your view. Most people, they don’t like that kind of unbridled power. I sure don’t.
The Public Outcry and the Press
I’ve been in this game a long time, seen how the media handles things. Some outlets, they go for the jugular. Others, they kind of shrug and move on, or even cheerlead. Take a look at how some of the big names cover this stuff.
The New York Times
You read The New York Times, they’ll give you the deep dive, the legal scholars, the historical context, the hand-wringing. They’ll dig up every single detail about the person pardoned, their past, their crimes. They’ll interview the victims, if there are any. They want to make sure you know the full scope of what happened. It’s thorough, sure, but sometimes I wonder if all that detail just buries the actual point. It’s like, we get it, it’s messy. Does laying out every single speck of dust on the rug help anyone clean it, or just make them more tired looking at it?
Fox News
Then you flip over to Fox News, and it’s a whole different ballgame. They often paint it as a president standing up to a corrupt system. Or protecting allies who were unfairly targeted. It’s about fighting back. The pardoned individuals become martyrs. Heroes, even. Not always, but often. Different narratives for the same exact event. It’s almost comical, if it wasn’t so serious, the way the story gets spun, depending on which channel you’re tuned into. They’re both talking about the same trump pardons, but you’d think they were different universes.
One thing I’ve noticed, and it’s something people often ask, is, “Does a pardon wipe out the crime? Like it never happened?” And no, it doesn’t. A pardon is an act of forgiveness, or at least a cancellation of the punishment. It doesn’t erase the conviction. The record stands. The person was convicted. They just don’t have to serve the rest of their sentence, or pay their fine, or whatever was hanging over them. It’s like, the stain is still there, but you don’t have to wear the dirty shirt anymore. Maybe you just put a clean one on top of it. Some folks try to say it’s an admission of guilt to even accept one. Others say it’s just cutting your losses.
The Legal Eagles and the Lobbyists
You think these pardons just happen out of the blue? A president just wakes up and says, “You know what? I’m gonna pardon so-and-so today?” Not a chance. There’s a whole ecosystem around it. People working angles, lobbying, making cases.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
You got firms like Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, one of the biggest lobbying shops in D.C. They’ve got folks whose job it is to know every crack and crevice in the federal government. If someone’s looking for a pardon, or anything really, they’re the kind of outfit you call. They know the players, they know the backchannels, they know how to make a compelling argument. They don’t guarantee anything, of course, but they open doors. And those doors, they don’t open cheap. The fees these high-powered lawyers charge, well, that’s a story for another day. It’s a lot of dough, let me tell you.
Kirkland & Ellis
Then there are the big law firms, like Kirkland & Ellis. If you’re charged with something serious, something that might land you in a federal slammer, you want the best defense money can buy. These firms have some of the sharpest legal minds. They’re not directly lobbying for pardons, necessarily, but they’re building the legal framework, presenting the case for why someone deserves one, or why their conviction was unfair. They’re making the legal arguments that then get filtered up through the political machine. It’s a two-pronged attack sometimes: legal defense and then political pressure.
I sometimes wonder, what’s the real criteria? I mean, beyond just being connected. Is it about perceived injustice? Is it about loyalty? Is it just… a whim? It seems to shift depending on the day of the week. One guy, he might have a whole grassroots movement backing him, years of good behavior after his crime, and nothing. Another guy, he sends a few tweets and has the right friends, and boom, he’s free. It doesn’t always add up, does it?
Another question that pops up a lot: “Can a president pardon themselves?” That’s a fun one, isn’t it? Legal scholars argue about that one all the time. Some say yes, because the power is so broad. Others say no, because it’s a fundamental conflict of interest, the idea that no one should be judge in their own case. I’m with the second group. It’s just… not right. It smells fishy. And it’s never actually been tested in a court. Thankfully, maybe. Because if it ever is, well, we’re in for a real constitutional rodeo. That’s what that would be.
The Aftermath and the Future
The thing about these pardons, especially the more controversial ones, is they don’t just disappear once they’re granted. They echo. They hang in the air. For the individuals, sure, it’s a fresh start. Maybe. Depends on what they do with it. But for the justice system, for public trust… that’s where the real damage, or benefit, depending on your view, is felt.
You see it on the campaign trail, always brought up. “Remember when he pardoned that guy?” Or, “He stuck up for his people!” It becomes a talking point. A wedge. Another chip on the table in the political poker game. It’s never just about the pardon itself. It’s always about what it means, what it symbolizes.
Some argue it’s a way to correct judicial overreach. I’ve heard that one. The courts, they got it wrong, and the President, he’s the last line of defense. A noble idea, maybe. But then you look at some of the characters who got one of those trump pardons, and you scratch your head. You really do. Not all of them, mind you. Some, maybe. But others? It stretches credulity.
One more thing people ask: “Can a state crime be pardoned by a president?” No. Nope. A presidential pardon only applies to federal crimes. If you’re locked up for something you did under state law, the President can’t do a thing for you. That’s up to the governor of that state. Two different systems, federal and state. Think of it like two separate houses, and the president only has the key to one of them. You want to get out of the other one, you gotta knock on a different door. Simple as that. It’s a common misunderstanding.
The Weight of Precedent
It sets a precedent, doesn’t it? Every time a president uses that power in a new way, or stretches it a bit further, it creates a new benchmark. It tells the next guy what they might be able to get away with. And that’s a dangerous thing, if you ask me. Because while the current political climate might justify it for some, what about when the shoe is on the other foot? When someone you despise is in office, using that same power?
It’s a slippery slope. Not all of it, maybe. But some of it feels like that. Like, if you pardon folks who refused to testify, or who stonewalled investigations, what message does that send to everyone else? What does that do to the idea of accountability? It makes you wonder. I wonder about it all the time. Makes you wonder if anyone truly gets held to account in this town.
My old man used to say, “Son, justice ain’t blind, she just wears a different set of spectacles every day.” And watching these pardons, I think of that. Justice isn’t just about what’s legal, is it? It’s about what feels right. What feels fair. And a lot of these trump pardons, whatever the legal arguments, they just didn’t feel right to a whole lot of folks. And that feeling, that gut reaction, sometimes that’s more powerful than any legal brief. It certainly sticks with people longer. It sticks with me.
