Ep 137 - Justice for Sale? The Business of Presidential Pardons

The Constitution gives presidents the extraordinary power to forgive federal offenses. But when political connections and enormous lobbying fees become part of the process, an uncomfortable question emerges: Is mercy still about justice, or has access to it become another privilege of wealth and power?

Presidential mercy is supposed to serve justice, but when political access comes with a hefty price tag, who really gets a second chance?

Imagine two Americans seeking presidential mercy. One sits at a kitchen table, surrounded by paperwork, trying to explain why a conviction or sentence should no longer define their future. Perhaps they've demonstrated genuine rehabilitation. Perhaps their punishment was excessive. They gather records, write letters, and submit a petition, hoping someone in Washington will consider their circumstances. The other applicant has substantial financial resources and can afford attorneys, political consultants, and professional lobbyists with connections to people close to the president. Both are asking for the same extraordinary exercise of constitutional authority. But their paths to obtaining the president's attention may look remarkably different.

That distinction lies at the center of an increasingly troubling question about presidential pardons. The Constitution grants the president the power to forgive federal offenses, but it does not establish that every person seeking forgiveness will have an equal opportunity to command the president's attention. And in modern Washington, an entire industry has developed around helping people obtain that attention—sometimes for extraordinary sums of money.

On October 13, Reuters published an investigation examining Donald Trump's clemency decisions involving public officials accused or convicted in corruption-related cases. Across Trump's two presidencies, Reuters identified at least 85 officials who received clemency in such matters. Sixty-four were Republicans, Republican political appointees, or publicly aligned with Trump. Those numbers do not establish that any particular pardon was corrupt, nor do they prove that political loyalty was exchanged for forgiveness. But they raise legitimate questions about the standards guiding presidential mercy and the influence of political relationships on its exercise.

The more revealing story, however, may not be the individual pardons themselves. It may be the constitutional system that makes them possible—and the lucrative business that has grown around gaining access to the person who grants them.

A Power Intended for Mercy

The presidential pardon power wasn't an oversight by the Founders. It was deliberately included in the Constitution because the people designing the American government understood something important: even a properly functioning criminal justice system can produce unjust outcomes. Laws establish rules, courts determine guilt, and judges impose punishment. But human circumstances don't always fit neatly within the boundaries those institutions create. Sometimes justice requires something more than simply enforcing the rules.

Alexander Hamilton defended the pardon power in Federalist No. 74, arguing that the severity of criminal law sometimes needed to be tempered by mercy. His reasoning was sound. A person might receive a disproportionate sentence, demonstrate extraordinary rehabilitation, or suffer the consequences of a prosecution that later appears deeply unfair. A justice system incapable of acknowledging such circumstances risks confusing punishment with justice.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution therefore gives the president authority to grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses, except in cases of impeachment. A pardon can relieve someone of criminal punishment and certain legal consequences. A commutation can reduce punishment without eliminating the conviction. Neither necessarily establishes innocence, and presidential clemency does not reach state crimes. Yet within its constitutional boundaries, the power is remarkably broad.

A president doesn't need Congress to approve a pardon. The Supreme Court doesn't routinely review whether a recipient deserved forgiveness. And although the Department of Justice maintains an established clemency review process, presidents aren't constitutionally required to follow its recommendations. The ultimate decision rests with one individual.

That creates a distinction Americans should never lose sight of: the constitutional authority to grant a pardon is not the same thing as the ethical justification for granting it. A decision can be entirely legal while still raising serious questions about fairness, judgment, and the responsible exercise of power.

When Mercy Meets Political Loyalty

Presidential clemency can serve genuinely important purposes. Someone who committed a nonviolent offense decades ago may have demonstrated profound personal change. Another person may be serving a punishment that would be substantially shorter under today's sentencing laws. Someone else may have experienced a miscarriage of justice that ordinary legal procedures have failed to correct. These are the circumstances that make executive mercy valuable.

But a different set of questions arises when clemency is granted to public officials convicted of abusing their positions. Consider Michele Fiore, the former Nevada politician and outspoken Trump supporter who was convicted in federal court of fraud involving donations solicited for a memorial to a slain police officer. Trump pardoned Fiore before she was sentenced. The White House argued that the prosecution was politically motivated, while Fiore maintained her innocence. The pardon was constitutionally permissible, but the existence of a jury verdict and the administration's stated justification invite legitimate scrutiny of why extraordinary relief was warranted.

The concern extends beyond any single recipient. If public officials believe maintaining favorable political relationships might improve their prospects of receiving clemency, that possibility creates troubling incentives. It doesn't prove that anyone committed wrongdoing in anticipation of a pardon. But institutions are shaped not only by their written rules, but also by what people believe the consequences of their conduct might be.

There are also people whose interests are often overshadowed in these discussions: victims of the underlying offenses, taxpayers whose money may have been misused, and communities whose trust in public institutions has been violated. Presidential mercy may be directed toward the offender, but its consequences extend far beyond the person receiving forgiveness.

The Business of Forgiveness

If political relationships can provide access to presidential decision-makers, those relationships inevitably acquire value. And in Washington, where influence is practically a professional language, it shouldn't surprise anyone that people have found ways to charge for it.

In June 2026, Reuters investigated the network of advocates involved in obtaining clemency during Trump's second presidency. The investigation identified 290 advocates associated with 197 successful clemency applicants, including at least 110 known Trump allies. Not all those advocates were paid, and their involvement does not establish that they caused the eventual decisions. Nevertheless, Reuters reported that people familiar with the process described intermediaries charging fees that could reach $2 million.

Two million dollars. Not necessarily for a successful pardon, but for professional assistance in pursuing one. That's a staggering price for the possibility of getting a decision-maker's attention, although for a wealthy person facing years in prison or substantial financial consequences, the calculation may be very different. When the potential reward is freedom, some applicants may consider almost any price worth paying.

A September 2026 60 Minutes investigation offered an especially revealing look at how pardon-related influence can be marketed. CBS secretly recorded political operatives Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl describing services to a prospective clemency client. Their discussion emphasized creating pressure around the president and attracting the attention of politically influential individuals. Their statements were a sales pitch, not independent proof that they possessed the influence they claimed. Nevertheless, the reporting provided a window into an industry built partly around the perceived value of political connections.

There's an essential legal distinction here. Hiring an attorney to prepare a clemency application is lawful. Hiring a lobbyist to advocate for favorable government action can also be lawful. Paying substantial professional fees does not automatically constitute bribery, and a successful pardon following lobbying does not independently establish a corrupt exchange. Criminal wrongdoing requires evidence satisfying specific legal standards.

But legality doesn't resolve every ethical concern. There's a meaningful difference between paying someone to assemble evidence of rehabilitation and paying someone because of their relationships with powerful political figures. The first is primarily about presenting the merits of an application. The second raises questions about the importance of political access in securing consideration. Both may be legal, but they aren't necessarily equivalent in what they reveal about how government power is approached.

Existing federal lobbying laws provide some transparency, but not every attorney, consultant, or informal intermediary falls within the statutory requirements for registered lobbying. The absence of a disclosure doesn't automatically establish wrongdoing. It also doesn't guarantee that the public has a complete picture of who is being paid to pursue clemency or what services those individuals claim to provide.

And that brings us back to the ordinary applicant at the kitchen table. That person can petition for clemency without spending a fortune. But they may not be able to hire former officials, political consultants, or connected advocates capable of pursuing additional channels of attention. No one should assume that wealth guarantees a pardon. The troubling question is whether wealth creates opportunities for consideration that others cannot realistically obtain.

Who Is Watching the Gate?

The Department of Justice already has an established mechanism for evaluating applications for presidential clemency. Its Office of the Pardon Attorney reviews petitions, collects information, examines relevant circumstances, and develops recommendations. Applicants do not need to hire an attorney to participate. The process is designed to be accessible regardless of an individual's financial resources.

That institutional process has limitations of its own. Reviews can be slow, and the Justice Department may have institutional interests connected to convictions obtained by federal prosecutors. There are legitimate circumstances in which a president might reasonably seek independent advice or act outside conventional channels. Executive discretion can be important precisely because ordinary institutions sometimes fail.

But the president is not required to follow the Department's recommendations, and that creates a difficult accountability problem. Congress can investigate questionable practices and examine whether applicable laws were violated. Courts can resolve certain legal disputes concerning clemency. Serious presidential misconduct may raise constitutional questions about impeachment. But these are not ordinary mechanisms for reconsidering the merits of a valid presidential pardon.

A president can therefore make a deeply controversial clemency decision without necessarily violating the Constitution. And if that decision involves wealthy applicants, political allies, or financially connected advocates, the public may have limited ability to determine what influenced the outcome. That doesn't prove the decision was improper. It means the available safeguards may be insufficient to answer legitimate questions about how it was reached.

A Problem Bigger Than Donald Trump

Controversial presidential pardons did not begin with the current administration. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon following Watergate, arguing that the country needed to move beyond the scandal. Bill Clinton's final-day pardon of financier Marc Rich generated questions about political relationships, access, and financial influence. Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter after repeatedly indicating he would not, and later issued preemptive pardons to family members and others he feared might face politically motivated prosecutions.

These circumstances are not interchangeable. They involve different justifications, different evidence, and different ethical considerations. A preemptive pardon for federal offenses already committed is legally distinguishable from an attempt to pardon future crimes, which falls outside the recognized scope of presidential clemency. And controversy alone does not establish illegality.

Nevertheless, the historical record illustrates why this issue cannot be resolved simply by changing the political party occupying the White House. The power itself creates opportunities for difficult judgments, potential conflicts of interest, and decisions that may be constitutional without commanding public confidence.

Reform is possible, although meaningful restrictions on the president's constitutional authority would generally require a constitutional amendment. Greater transparency around paid clemency advocacy, clearer disclosure of relevant financial relationships, stronger independent review, and more detailed public explanations could help the public evaluate controversial decisions. Each approach would have limitations, including potential privacy concerns, procedural delays, and the risk of making legitimate mercy harder to obtain.

The challenge is to preserve the president's ability to correct injustice while providing stronger assurances that this extraordinary authority is not being exercised primarily for personal or political advantage. That is a difficult balance. But the difficulty of achieving reform is hardly an argument for abandoning accountability.

Justice Shouldn't Require Connections

I don't oppose presidential pardons. I believe mercy has an important place in the administration of justice. Our legal system can get things wrong, and people can change. Punishment shouldn't automatically become an obligation to ignore every circumstance that might justify forgiveness.

But I have a serious problem with a system in which wealthy applicants can spend extraordinary sums pursuing political connections while ordinary Americans are left hoping their paperwork receives attention. The existence of that market raises questions that deserve more than assurances that the president has the constitutional authority to make the final decision.

Donald Trump's clemency decisions deserve scrutiny. So do controversial decisions by Democratic presidents. And the people making money marketing access to presidential power deserve scrutiny as well. The standard should not change according to the political affiliation of the person holding the office.

The issue isn't whether everyone who asks for forgiveness should receive it. They shouldn't. Nor is it whether wealthy people are inherently less deserving of mercy. They aren't. The issue is whether the process provides sufficient assurance that decisions are based on the circumstances of an individual's case rather than the influence they can afford to pursue.

Presidential clemency was established because justice sometimes requires forgiveness. It wasn't intended to make political access a substitute for the merits of a plea. And although the Constitution gives presidents extraordinary discretion, it doesn't relieve them of the responsibility to exercise that discretion in ways the public can reasonably evaluate and question.

The Constitution gives the president the power to forgive. It doesn't require the rest of us to stop asking questions. And in a country that promises equal justice under the law, nobody should need a million-dollar connection to have their plea for mercy taken seriously.

SOURCES

Reuters investigation into Trump's pardons for public officials and political allies (October 13, 2026) - https://www.reuters.com/investigations/trumps-pardons-public-officials-republicans-win-most-mercy-2026-10-13/

Reuters investigation into pardon advocates, political connections, and the influence industry (June 11, 2026) - https://www.reuters.com/investigations/forget-doj-trump-pardon-call-bobby-other-influencers-2026-06-11/

CBS News / 60 Minutes investigation into paid pardon brokers and their claims of political access (September 13, 2026) - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-pardon-economy-60-minutes-transcript/

CBS News reporting on pardon lobbying, fees, and access to Trump's administration - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-pardon-lobbyists-60-minutes/

60 Minutes video examining how pardon brokers determine their prices - https://www.cbsnews.com/video/how-pardon-brokers-determine-their-prices-60-minutes/

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2 — Presidential pardon power and its constitutional limitations - https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-2/clause-1/

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 74 — The Founders' rationale for presidential clemency - https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_1s20.html

U.S. Department of Justice — Office of the Pardon Attorney, clemency procedures, eligibility, and presidential discretion - https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions

U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General — Review of the Department's Clemency Initiative and its review procedures - https://oig.justice.gov/archives/reports/2018/e1804.pdf

Gerald Ford Presidential Library — President Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon - https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/digital-research-room/library-collections/topic-guides/nixon-pardon

CBS News / 60 Minutes — Historical controversies involving the Nixon, Marc Rich, and Hunter Biden pardons - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-pardon-economy-60-minutes-transcript/

President Joe Biden's statement explaining his pardon of Hunter Biden (December 2024) - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202401043/html/DCPD-202401043.htm

President Joe Biden's statement concerning preemptive pardons for public officials (January 20, 2025) - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202500100/pdf/DCPD-202500100.pdf

President Joe Biden's statement concerning pardons for family members (January 20, 2025) - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202500102/html/DCPD-202500102.htm