All points
2279 words
- The presidential pardon power has existed since George Washington. It is a constitutional power that does not require the president to provide an explanation. The Department of Justice (DOJ) normally screens applicants and recommends those who demonstrate remorse and seek mercy, although presidents have historically departed from that process.
- Previous presidents have issued controversial pardons outside the typical remorse-based process. The report cites President Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, President Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich following donations, and President Joe Biden's pardons of his son Hunter Biden and Anthony Fauci.
- President Donald Trump is described as operating a different approach to pardons. His administration has pardoned political allies, including all January 6 rioters, as well as financial fraudsters who maintain that they were wrongly prosecuted. Some of these recipients have shown little remorse and have portrayed themselves as victims of political persecution.
- A commercial market has developed around access to presidential pardons. Donations appear to help some applicants, while brokers, lawyers, and lobbyists charge substantial fees for their claimed connections to the president and his inner circle. The report describes an economy in which money can purchase access to the people who might influence a pardon decision.
- Ammon Covino became the central participant in an investigation into pardon brokers. He and his wife, Crystal, operate several zoos and aquariums. About a decade earlier, Ammon was convicted of illegal wildlife trafficking and served 23 months in prison.
- Covino's original attempt to obtain a pardon through the DOJ failed. He submitted the regular application form and waited for a decision, but when the pardons were announced, his application appeared on the rejection list. His attempt through the official process had cost him little more than a postage stamp.
- Journalists arranged a covert investigation because pardon brokers refused to speak openly. They wanted to investigate people promising applicants that they could circumvent the DOJ and secure access to the president for substantial fees. After brokers declined interviews, the journalists asked Ammon to approach them as though he were reapplying for a pardon and allow hidden cameras to record the encounters.
- Twelve pardon brokers responded quickly to Covino's initial emails. Some replied almost immediately, while others responded within a day. Several represented themselves as people who could help him secure a pardon. Covino said he repeatedly questioned whether the arrangements were illegal and consulted AI about the practice, but came away believing this was how the process worked.
- Pardon brokers repeatedly claimed close relationships with Trump's inner circle. During telephone conversations, several promoted their political connections and suggested they could get applications in front of people capable of influencing the president.
- Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl responded to Covino within seven minutes. Both are Trump loyalists with histories of political stunts. Their 2020 robocall scheme, which sought to suppress Black voter participation, resulted in a criminal conviction.
- Burkman and Wohl claimed to have previously secured a pardon for a wealthy nursing-home operator convicted of massive tax fraud. They said the individual had paid them nearly $1 million for their promise to reach the president. The investigation also found that some pardon brokers charge as much as $3 million.
- Burkman and Wohl offered to arrange a pardon for Covino for approximately $300,000. They said they would put his application directly into the president's hands and apply sustained pressure from multiple directions until Trump signed it. They described their objective as making the president sufficiently tired of hearing about the case that he would grant the pardon.
- The brokers explained that their $300,000 fee would finance an extensive access campaign. They mentioned purchasing tickets to Mar-a-Lago events, attending functions where Trump would be present, potentially buying a $10,000 fundraising ticket, hiring contractors, and employing influencers with connections to politically influential people. Their proposed approach involved spending money to get close to people who could influence the president.
- Burkman and Wohl proposed mobilising politicians and influencers to pressure the White House. They said they would arrange for members of Congress and influential personalities to contact the administration repeatedly. They described this coordinated pressure strategy as a pincer movement intended to force the president's hand.
- The contrast between official and commercial pardon applications was stark. Covino's original DOJ application had cost him a postage stamp. The brokers wanted approximately $300,000 to pursue the same objective through their network of political connections and access.
- Rapper Boosie Badazz was another client approached by Burkman and Wohl. Boosie has a lengthy criminal record and had been convicted on a gun charge. He said he had been led to believe that paying the brokers would secure a presidential pardon and that he paid them $600,000 upfront.
- Burkman and Wohl allegedly used prominent political connections to reassure Boosie. Text messages sent to his lawyer listed people they supposedly recruited, including Laura Loomer, Erica Kirk, and House Speaker Mike Johnson. Another message mentioned Natalie Harp, an executive assistant close to Trump, and suggested she would personally deliver Boosie's application to the president.
- Boosie believed the brokers would deliver the promised result because he had paid them. He explained that he thought this was simply how the process worked and that the money would make the pardon happen. It did not.
- The four people identified in the brokers' messages denied involvement in Boosie's pardon application. Boosie's contract stipulated that he would receive half his money back if he did not obtain a pardon. Burkman and Wohl have refused to return the money, arguing that the contract is invalid and denying that they sent the messages. Boosie is suing them.
- Law professor Mark Osler believes the new pardon economy disadvantages ordinary applicants. Osler, from the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, has spent approximately 15 years helping indigent felons apply for presidential pardons. He says people without money or influential connections are now effectively locked out of the process.
- Osler distinguishes legitimate access to legal assistance from a market selling political influence. He describes a situation in which applicants believe they need to pay a million dollars to someone connected to White House counsel or find someone who can reach Trump at Mar-a-Lago to have a realistic chance. He argues that this is no longer a functioning clemency system but something closer to anarchy.
- Demonstrating remorse may no longer be the most effective approach for some pardon applicants. Osler says that an apparently successful tactic is to claim that the people who prosecuted the applicant were wrong and that the applicant was the victim of a weaponised Department of Justice. This reverses the traditional expectation that someone seeking mercy should acknowledge wrongdoing.
- Burkman and Wohl specifically encouraged Covino to exploit Trump's grievances against the previous administration. They advised him to present his prosecution as an example of the weaponisation of the DOJ and remind Trump that it was an Obama-era prosecution that should never have happened.
- The brokers portrayed Trump's pardon process as largely independent of the DOJ. They told Covino that Trump makes his own decisions and relies very little on the Justice Department, which they described as an afterthought in the process. Their sales pitch depended on the idea that direct political access was more important than the official application system.
- The DOJ pardon office had approximately 16,000 applications awaiting decisions. Until nine days before the report, the office was run by Trump appointee Ed Martin. The backlog illustrates the contrast between ordinary applicants waiting for official decisions and wealthy applicants paying brokers hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to pursue direct access to the president.
- Ed Martin rejected the suggestion that the pardon system was operating as the investigation described. When questioned about wealthy applicants paying brokers to bypass the DOJ, he said he had not seen or heard evidence supporting that characterisation. He said he had personally met approximately 1,000 people in his office during the previous year, some of whom subsequently received clemency or pardons.
- The investigation found that most of Trump's second-term clemency decisions bypassed the DOJ. Approximately 70% of the clemencies examined had not gone through the department. When January 6 rioters were included, that proportion rose to 92%.
- The investigation identified several pardons that followed substantial donations or business dealings involving Trump's interests. It found patterns that raised questions about whether financial contributions and commercial relationships could help applicants obtain presidential mercy. The report presents these as circumstances warranting scrutiny rather than establishing that every transaction was an explicit agreement to exchange money for a pardon.
- A businessman convicted of fraud received a pardon after he and his wife donated almost $2 million to support Trump's re-election. He had deceived investors with a video purporting to show the first zero-emission truck driving. The vehicle was actually rolling downhill, creating the false impression that it was operating under its own power.
- A cryptocurrency-related pardon followed a business relationship involving Binance and a Trump family venture. The individual had been convicted for failing to prevent money laundering on his cryptocurrency exchange. He received a pardon after his company, Binance, boosted a Trump family cryptocurrency venture. Both sides deny that the business relationship had any connection to the pardon.
- A healthcare executive convicted of tax crimes received a pardon after his mother paid $1 million to attend a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser. The timing raised questions because the fundraiser required a substantial financial contribution and was followed by presidential clemency for a family member of the attendee.
- The investigation questioned whether these financial relationships amounted to pay-to-play politics. It specifically challenged Martin over the circumstances in which individuals or their relatives made substantial financial contributions and subsequently received pardons. Martin said he did not know enough about the examples to comment on them.
- Martin defended the president's constitutional authority as complete and plenary. He argued that the president has broad discretion over pardons and said he had never personally seen or heard evidence of brokers arranging quid pro quo agreements or selling presidential clemency.
- The interviewer confronted Martin with the brokers' explicit claims that they could bypass the DOJ. Martin said he saw no evidence of any special or magical brokers and suggested that people were simply trying to make money. He described the brokers as "snake oil salesmen" and "swamp salesmen."
- Burkman and Wohl agreed to an interview after being informed about the hidden-camera investigation. They challenged the journalists over the operation, describing Covino as a fake client in a sting arranged by the reporters. They nevertheless agreed to discuss their pardon business and defend their practices.
- Burkman and Wohl denied that their pardon business was corrupt or improper. They argued that they provide a legitimate paid service, just as journalists receive payment for their work, and that they should not be expected to work for free.
- The brokers defended their fees by arguing that navigating Washington requires specialist access. They claimed that both ordinary people and wealthy individuals need assistance getting their cases noticed by the president. Their argument was that without intermediaries, there would be no reliable way to ensure the president became aware of individual pardon applications.
- The brokers argued that political lobbying for presidential attention is not a new practice. They pointed out that lobbyists have been hired for centuries to influence government decisions and questioned whether lobbyists had also worked on pardon applications during the Obama and Biden administrations.
- The historical existence of paid clemency assistance does not explain the dramatic increase in fees. The discussion acknowledged that lawyers have long prepared clemency petitions, often for a few thousand dollars. The significant change identified in the report was the amount intermediaries are now charging, with some pardon brokers demanding hundreds of thousands or millions.
- The White House had become sensitive to the perception that Trump was selling pardons. The report noted this concern while examining the growing public scrutiny of financial relationships surrounding presidential clemency.
- All the brokers warned the Covinos against making political donations. This advice contrasts with the report's examples of pardons following substantial donations or business dealings, although the transcript does not establish why the brokers advised against donating.
- Osler argues that people seeking freedom should not be blamed for following advice they believe will work. He says the greater responsibility belongs to the people who create and profit from a system in which applicants are told that political connections and enormous payments are necessary to obtain mercy.
- Osler ultimately places responsibility on the presidential administration. Although brokers, lobbyists, and lawyers participate in the business, he argues that the administration is responsible for the conditions that allow this market to operate.
- The Covinos regarded the new pardon economy as fundamentally unfair. They felt that obtaining a pardon had become a matter of who someone knew and how much money they could spend, rather than the merits of their application.
- Ammon Covino admitted that he would still pay the $300,000 if money were no obstacle. Although he disliked the enormous fee and the importance of personal connections, he said that if this was how the game worked, he would play it. His response illustrates how applicants can feel compelled to participate in a system they themselves consider unfair.
- The White House explicitly rejected allegations that presidential pardons were being sold. Its statement said that anyone spending money to lobby for pardons was "foolishly wasting their money." It added that President Trump performs his constitutional duties ethically and that suggestions otherwise were either ill-informed or malicious.