There is no question that a showy clemency play for the Fourth of July is being talked up. Allies are at the president’s ear, urging him to go for 250 to celebrate the bicentennial plus 50. Do it, and you might see a reworking of his second-term plans, a stress test for the party, and a new take on what a president can do as we head into a rough patch of politics.
A July 4 gamble with high stakes
If you talk to the lawyers and advisers in the room, they’ll tell you a mass pardon for the long weekend is very much on the table. Let’s call it ‘250 for 250’. Should he pull the trigger, it would be one of the most far-reaching clemency moves we’ve seen in a long time.
The case for it is all in the symbolism, say his supporters. A wide-sweeping act of grace ties the nation’s birthday to a story of redemption and cements a kind of 'Trump the merciful‘ moniker. One of his top men put some numbers to it from an internal poll, hinting at a lift in the right direction, even if he didn’t think we’d be here before the 4th.
Then there are the ones in the room who see the whiplash coming. They’re of the mind that this could run headfirst into his approval numbers and the fact that Republican backing in Congress is waning. It muddies the waters for the rest of the legislative docket and stokes the fires of oversight.
An unconventional scramble for access
Put in some time with the five or so current and ex-people in the administration, or the nine or so legal types and lobbyists in Trump’s world, and you hear of a lot of hard-nosed lobbying. One criminal-defence lawyer had a name for it: ‘a three-ring circus.’ An old hand from the administration was more direct: 'batshit crazy‘.
Those who were around for the last term notice a difference in the atmosphere. I was told by a former associate who was meant to make a pardon happen, ‘Everything is out in the open now. This is your moment.’ Another lawyer, looking at the sheer number of requests, put it like this: ‘I don’t know what you’d call it. In 30 years I haven’t been through anything like it.’
The people making this happen will tell you there’s a whole class of middlemen with their hands out. Some with no experience in law or lobbying have been let on to the fact they can put $1 to $2 million in their pocket for a well-placed introduction, if you believe the word on the street.
Process concerns and official pushback
Normally, you file with the Pardon Attorney at the Justice Department. But these days, the formal way of doing things is being side-stepped for a more direct line to the White House, according to the ones in the trenches.
‘We all know in this business that for $2 million you can get a pardon,’ is how one white-collar attorney put it. And there’s a feeling among some that if you were put away by an Obama or Biden judge, you’ll be treated with a bit more leniency than if a Trump appointee did the sentencing.
Of course, the officials on record will have none of it. They’ll tell you there is no pay-to-play and the review is not for show. The gate is still there, and in the end, it is up to the president to make the call.
Some of the talking points on the record:
– White House: Trump is of the opinion that making a profit off pardons is “detestable.”
– White House: Any and all requests are put through “a rigorous review.”
– White House: The president has the last word.
– Justice Department: “POTUS is the ultimate decider” and, in theory, “anyone is eligible.”
– Liz Oyer: Trump “has made the pardon process like the Hunger Games.”
You have to go with what you see. There’s been some backing for this from pardon proponent Alice Johnson and the DoJ’s Edward R. Martin Jr., who see it as a way to address overly long sentences and what they call the “weaponisation” of the system by those who came before.
Who we’re hearing is in the running
If you ask three people in the know, they’ll point to Low Taek Jho – or Jho Low, the Malaysian on the run over 1MDB. Then there’s Fugees’ Pras Michel, who was convicted of an illegal lobbying scheme with Low and a Chinese official; he’s said to be under consideration as well.
Nicole Daedone of OneTaste is another one. She’s looking at nine years for forced-labour charges. A company rep, Juda S. Engelmayer, says they’ve heard of the advocacy but haven’t had any word from the White House.
Michel’s lawyer, David Tafuri, puts it bluntly: his side has “never had any involvement in any matters related to a potential pardon.” And as for Low? His people didn’t get back to us.
One attorney will have it that folks with means from India, Greece, Turkey and France have been told their files are open. It’s a wide net, and if there’s a July 4 move, it won’t just be a Washington story.
How Trump has done it and the politics of it
Trump doesn’t mince words when it comes to clemency. He’s been a lot more out in front than the last few, who preferred to let things happen in the background. You only have to look at day one: 1,600 Jan. 6 cases were either pardoned or commuted. It was a clear statement of intent.
But there’s risk in that. Some of his own camp is divided on whether a big show of force would rouse the base or do the opposite. (Just look at how some Republicans have been put off by a separate DoJ plan to dish out $1.776 billion to those who feel they were made targets in the past.)
And then there’s the personnel side of things. A number of Republicans are wary that a broadside could make for an even messier confirmation for Acting AG Todd Blanche and put a finer point on the department’s independence.
It’s not like they haven’t been down this road. Two ex-officials say a mass-pardon was in the works a year ago before it was nixed. That memory is part of the calculus now.
What’s coming
The wheels are in motion, even if the when and how of it are still up in the air. Those in the room say the lists are being fine-tuned.
For the advocates, a July 4 is about tying second chances to national pride. For the naysayers, it’s about a power that should be used for mercy, not for deals.
It may come down to two things: does the internal polling hold up, and will GOPers in Congress stand for another round of headlines while they’re in the middle of hard talks?
An attorney with ties to the White House put it best: “The list is ready when he asks for it.”
