Trump's Abuse of Pardons Undermines Entire Justice System: Reagan Official Bruce Fein
Trump’s Abuse of Pardons Undermines Entire Justice System: Reagan Official Bruce Fein
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 30, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/30/ ... transcript
President Donald Trump has signed a wave of pardons for people convicted of fraud, including a Virginia sheriff who took tens of thousands of dollars in bribes and a reality TV couple who evaded millions in taxes after defrauding banks. Last month, Trump pardoned a Florida healthcare executive convicted of tax evasion for stealing nearly $11 million in payroll taxes from the paychecks of doctors and nurses. Many of Trump’s pardons have gone to supporters of his or those who made political donations to the president.
“These pardons are not indiscriminate,” says constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein. “They’re targeted to help people who are politically his supporters, raise money for him or otherwise.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman.
We end today’s show with a slew of pardons President Trump has issued, many this past week. In one case, Trump pardoned Scott Jenkins, a former Virginia sheriff and longtime Trump supporter, convicted on corruption charges after undercover video showed he accepted over $75,000 in bribes.
In another case, Trump pardoned the former reality show couple Todd and Julie Chrisley after they were sentenced to long prison terms for evading taxes and defrauding banks of more than $30 million. The couple’s daughter helped campaign for Trump. She requested the appeal on Fox News.
This comes as Trump loyalist Ed Martin has a new role as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney, after he failed to win Senate approval to become District of Columbia’s top prosecutor.
For more, we go to Washington, D.C. We’re joined by Bruce Fein, constitutional lawyer, former associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under President Ronald Reagan, author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy.
Bruce, thanks so much for joining us. Why don’t you go through these pardons with us? Talk about the Virginia sheriff, talk about the reality TV couple, what they were imprisoned for, and what it means that they’ve been freed, not to mention fines worth millions of dollars being forgiven.
BRUCE FEIN: Well, in the two cases you mentioned, the sheriff was convicted of basically using his office to raise money through bribes, $75,000, to give favors to friends. The other case concerned tax evasion and fraud, the kinds of crimes that Mr. Trump himself has been under attack for.
I think that if you look in the broader sense, Mr. Trump is trying to create an aura of incredulity about the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, at least with regard to the pardons of these slew of white-collar offenses, and sometimes they’re political allies, as well. We just learned today in the newspapers a former congressman, former governor of Connecticut also pardoned. And I think that Mr. Trump recognizes that he’s losing overwhelmingly in the courts now, and that’s why he’s even turning on the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo, because he believes when he loses in the United States Supreme Court, he’s going to need a political reason for why he’s losing, and he’s trying to cast aspersion, I believe, on the legitimacy of the entire justice system. That’s why these pardons are not indiscriminate, because they’re targeted to help people who are politically his supporters, raise money for him or otherwise, which is very dangerous.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 0455063168
The U.S. Court of International Trade incredibly ruled against the United States of America on desperately needed Tariffs but, fortunately, the full 11 Judge Panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has just stayed the order by the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade. Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of “TRUMP?” What other reason could it be? I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real “sleazebag” named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. He openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court — I hope that is not so, and don’t believe it is!We cannot and must not be satisfied with our pretend-democracy that can be thrown out whenever five justices get together on a fishing boat with Leonard Leo.
-- The Supreme Court Must Be Stopped: The court is fundamentally antidemocratic—and the only way to limit the damage it can do is to reduce its power, budget, and lack of accountability, by Elie Mystal
In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own “thing.” I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten! With all of that being said, I am very proud of many of our picks, but very disappointed in others. They always must do what’s right for the Country!Whistleblower reveals MASSIVE SCANDAL of Chief Supreme Court Justice
by Michael Popok
MeidasTouch
May 1, 2023 Legal AF Podcast - Full Episodes
Michael Popok of Legal AF reports on the brewing ethical scandals on the US Supreme Court embroiling right wing Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Roberts, as the Chief Justice thumbs his nose at the Senate Judiciary and issues a watered down “ethical statement “ that most of them have already violated.
Transcript
This is Michael Popok legal AF. It's time to dive in to the right wing of the U.S. Supreme Court, and determine whether through transparency, we have an ethical corruption problem on the court, primarily by the right wing or are they just playing by the old rules that everybody played by, and there's nothing to see here. I think it's the former. I think we have an ethical problem that light has now been shined on since the Clarence Thomas revelations, but now embroil at least five of the others on the right wing of the Court.
Let's start with Clarence Thomas, and how we got here with the revelations that Clarence Thomas and his wife have accepted millions of dollars of free luxurious vacations around the world on the back of a person on the right wing who has regular business before the court. And that's the key every time I'm talking about something during this hot take. I'm going to talk about the fact that it links to an entity, a lawyer, a professor, a party, who has regular business before the court, and that's the problem. And that's the ethical corruption issue.
A painting that hangs at Camp Topridge shows Crow, far right, and Thomas, second from right, smoking cigars at the resort. They are joined by lawyers Peter Rutledge, Leonard Leo and Mark Paoletta, from left. Credit: Painting by Sharif Tarabay
A lodge at Topridge where Thomas has stayed. Credit: Courtesy of Carolyn Belknap.
So with Clarence Thomas, Harlan Crowe Real Estate Mogul, far right wing, entertains Jenny and Clarence Thomas on yachts, jumbo Jets, and at Resorts of his around the world, and has been doing it for over a dozen years. And that's not all. He also took off of Clarence Thomas's hands his family homestead, and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in that transaction, as if Harlan Crowe couldn't buy any other house but the one that belongs to Clarence Thomas. Harlan Crowe and the entities that he has either founded or provided fundraising dollars to, in the tens of millions of dollars. have regular business in front of the court, and Thomas does not recuse himself, or disqualify himself from listening to these hearings. And that is the problem.
Then you turn to Chief Justice Roberts chief justice Roberts has a wife that has her own career that's nothing wrong with that and in the last five years she's averaged about two million dollars a year working for a major legal recruiter headhunting firm that places lawyers and groups of lawyers at law firms the problem is many of the lawyers and groups that she has placed are at law firms who regularly have business in front of the U.S Supreme Court regularly and there's a reason she is placing obviously these people at these certain firms because it's a gateway to her husband right so we have that then we have Neil Gorsuch, Neil Gorsuch who's also on the right wing he has a cabin in the woods that nobody apparently wants except he sells it to the head of Greenberg Traurig a major Farm based in Miami that regularly conducts business in front of the court and again Gorsuch does not recuse himself but he had no problem with a million dollar transaction with the head of Greenberg trial rig of all the cabins in the remote part of Colorado the Greenberg guy how to buy the one belonging to the one of the Supreme Court justices in in which his firm regularly appears come on and then you have Alito who's got his own ethical dilemmas because it was revealed by Reverend Rob shank several months ago that Alito regularly attended dinners with the founder of Hobby Lobby the right-wing fundamentalist Christian conservative entity and at a dinner in 2014 he talked about a decision he was writing Alito that was against contraception rights and chose religious qualities above the right of a woman to choose and that was in 2014 and that was revealed according to Reverend shank at a dinner hosted by a hosted by The Hobby Lobby people attended by Alito and then you've got Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and Thomas the new reporting for the New York Times today is who are regularly showered with gifts and other luxury items and other perks by being visiting faculty at George Mason University's Scalia law school named after the right wing former Justice who died Antonin Scalia but they are whined and dine Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Thomas regularly they are even sent to far away places and they're allowed to choose the Exotic locales that they want to teach courses in in Italy in Iceland in in London and it's all expenses paid for them and their families and then there's faculty members at George Mason who regularly at that law school Scalia law school who regularly submit Friend of the Court briefs we call him amicus briefs amicus briefs to do business in front of the court in which their co-professor the Supreme Court justice was just their buddy for the summer so 25 of the amicus briefs that are submitted by Scalia law professors are from people who worked side by side co-teaching classes with Gorsuch ,Kavanaugh and Thomas I I mean again business before the court if you're doing business before the court you would think that the justices would stay away from entanglements and appearances of impropriety that make it appear like their current they're being favors be encurried with them to change a result I mean Scalia University Scalia law school who nobody ever heard of 30 years ago 25 years ago and was founded just in the 20 2015s or so has rocketed up the charts from almost uh 50 top 50 ranking to now it's pushing top 30 ranking and they want to have this close relationship with the right-wing justices now look other justices for the Supreme Court have also guest lectured at Scalia law school um Kagan has done it Sotomayor has done it the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was very close to Scalia has also but this incestuous closeness between the far right wing of the court and Scalia law particularly which is basically run by the Federalist Society by Leonard Leo formerly a federalist Society executive who donated 30 million dollars in honor of Anthony Scalia the Koch family who donated uh 10 million dollars to the school and then a 1.6 billion with a B billion dollar donation that was made to uh Leonard Leo's Foundation by a little-known uh electronics Mogul in the midwest who used to own a company called trip light t-r-i-p-p-l-i-t-e and who donated 100 of the shares of trip light to a Leonard Leo for him to go out and do all of his uh campaigning against woke principles critical race Theory and then try to reshape the Judiciary spending now UPS upwards of two billion dollars in order to accomplish that task and what are the funnels for the money is the Scalia Law Center at George Mason with these three law uh Supreme Court Justices sitting there with again business being being performed in front of them well why isn't this a violation of Ethics rules you might be asking because the Supreme Court since time immemorial is not subject and has refused to be subject to the canons of judicial ethics that apply to every other federal and state judge every federal and state judge in America is subject to the Cannons of judicial conducted ethics except the U.S Supreme Court they claim well we're just a co-equal branch of government we have our own article in the U.S Constitution and it wouldn't be right for Congress to pass any type of Regulation against us um we'll do it ourselves we'll self-police but how's that going I just outlined at least four or five potential corruption scandals that were all discovered by investigative journalism and and whistleblowers how's that going Justice Roberts and if we're all looking at Justice Roberts he just gave the middle finger and thumbed his nose at the Senate Judiciary Committee led by Dick Durbin who asked for him to come in to talk about why aren't you imposing an ethical set of cannons an ethical Canon on your court you have a court that's running rampant at least to the public perception rampantly unethical and what are you doing about it come talk to us about it and instead of Chief Justice Roberts took the time to respond by telling Durbin we're not I'm not doing that there's only been two other Chief justices that have come before the senate or the house and it was under very different circumstances and I'm not coming before you because of separation of powers but don't worry we're very ethical because we have just signed on all nine justices to a letter which I'm attaching Senator Durbin that you can read and I'm going to read you parts of this and that letter is a statement on ethics professionalism and practices that the U.S. Supreme Court Justices claim that they follow well you've just heard me in this hot take run through all of the areas where people who have business in front of the court have openly tried to Lobby solicit and curry favor with individual Supreme Court justices in various ways paying Headhunter fees and revenue to a wife of a Supreme Court Justice buying real estate and property from taking it off the hands of a Supreme Court Justice where nobody else apparently wanted it um lavishing them with gifts helping them in Gorsuch's case helping him find housing when he moved to Washington when he became a Supreme Court Justice sending clerks for low cost or almost no cost off of the Scalia law school for instance go work for Gorsuch to show how close an incestuous that relationship is traveling and vacationing all expenses paid on luxurious on luxurious trips for years with somebody who is a right-wing Federalist trying to reshape the court and change policy at the court we've talked about all that so how does uh Roberts handle that well here's you be the judge of it here is I'm going to read for you now from his letter which he claims Justice Roberts claims solves the problem right solves for the equation here's what he says the justices like other federal judges consult a wide variety of Authorities on specific ethical issues they may turn to judicial opinions and treatises and scholarly articles and the historical practice of the court and they may take advice from the Court's legal office and from their colleagues in the note note that the Grabber here he doesn't say they do he says they can he doesn't say in any of the circumstances I just outlined that they're going to he then said that the in 1922 Congress instituted the judicial Conference of the United States to manage the lower federal courts and it binds the lower courts below the Supreme Court nevertheless the conference has contributed to the development of a body of ethical rules and practices which are of significant importance to the justices oh isn't that nice so you know that your brethren below are being ethically managed by Congress and you think that's adorable that's a significant importance to you but you don't say how you how you use it in your daily life how you live the gospel in your daily life um and so it goes on uh it says that the canons of Ethics that are applicable not to the Supreme Court justice but other justices are broadly worded principles that inform ethical practice but they are not themselves rules they are far too General to be used in that manner still the canons as a whole give guidance to the federal Judiciary okay now let's keep going they also went on that the like the lower court judges justices at the Supreme Court in engage in extrajudicial activities which include speaking writing lecturing on both Law related and non-legal subjects the law cannons the court cannons encourage public engagement by judicial officers to avoid isolation Okay now it goes on to say that a Justice of the Supreme Court should consider whether doing any of these things working for a law firm working for a law school vacationing with right-wing people having regular dinner meetings with people on the far right selling property to them and and earning a profit in return they should consider whether any of these things would be considered by an unbiased and reasonable person to be improper an appearance of impropriety okay I'm reasonable I'm unbiased I think it's all shows that an appearance of impropriety the way we've described it especially here on the hot Take and then goes on to say that no such appearance will be created when a justice speaks before a group educational institution a bar group or a not-for-profit that does not regularly does not regularly Lobby or Advocate issues that may be implicated in cases that come before the court I've just described to you at least six examples that are obviously Justice Roberts has buried his head in the sand it doesn't want to acknowledge in which entities and people who regularly have business in front of the court are getting into bed with members of the job of the Supreme Court in various ways financial entanglements and otherwise to Lobby them and if they don't realize that they're being lobbied if they don't realize that their that favor is being curried by spending hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars towards them then their judgment is seriously in doubt and they should be they should be removed from the they should be impeached and removed from the U.S. Supreme Court so that's where we are right now we've got multiple examples and they're almost always on the right it's not because I've edited out on this hot take I don't want to tell you about examples where Sonia Sotomayor or Breyer when he was on the court or or um or a Kagan or Katanji Brown Jackson or any of them did something bad that's similar we don't have this kind of equivalency there's no symmetry it's asymmetrical the right wing do things until they are told they can't and they have as their protector chief justice Roberts who Do's never seen an ethical conflict that he hasn't explained away with a wave of his hand and a paragraph in a self-serving letter patronizing letter sent back to the Senate Judiciary Committee that's where we are we'll follow all of these stories whether it involves Thomas Gorsuch Alito, Cavanaugh, Roberts on hot takes just like this one that I do on the Midas touch Network and I assure you that if one of the other justices from the more moderate wing the Katanji brown Jacksons the Elena Kagans the Sonia Sotomayors if it if it's discovered that they did something wrong I'll be right back here in a hot day and I'll tell you all about it but I got nothing to say as of right now.
In this case, it is only because of my successful use of Tariffs that many Trillions of Dollars have already begun pouring into the U.S.A. from other Countries, money that, without these Tariffs, we would not be able to get. It is the difference between having a rich, prosperous, and successful United States of America, and quite the opposite. The ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade is so wrong, and so political! Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY. Backroom “hustlers” must not be allowed to destroy our Nation! The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly. If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same! This decision is being hailed all over the World by every Country, other than the United States of America. Radical Left Judges, together with some very bad people, are destroying America. Under this decision, Trillions of Dollars would be lost by our Country, money that will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. It would be the harshest financial ruling ever leveled on us as a Sovereign Nation. The President of the United States must be allowed to protect America against those that are doing it Economic and Financial harm. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
May 29, 2025, 6:10 PM
I want to add this: The framers understood the possibility that the pardon power would be abused. There was an exchange in the Virginia ratification debate between James Madison and George Mason. And Mr. Madison, when Mr. Mason said, “Well, what if the president uses his pardon power to help his political friends? That could be very, very dangerous. Why are we endowing the president with such pardon power?” — and Mr. Madison said, “Well, if the president uses pardons to help his political friends or personal friends, certainly the House will impeach, and he will be removed from Congress,” because it’s very difficult for an individual citizen, you or me, to have standing to challenge a pardon.
Unfortunately, Congress has turned into an ink blot. It has no spine. And so, that remedy is gone, which I think underscores the importance, if we’re going to have any kind of pushback, of public opinion saying we need the law to be enforced even-handedly.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about Paul Walczak. In April, President Trump pardoned him, the Florida healthcare executive convicted of tax evasion for stealing nearly $11 million in payroll taxes from the paychecks of doctors and nurses. The jury found him guilty after prosecutors showed he used the money to finance a lavish lifestyle. Walczak is the son of Betsy Fago, a healthcare entrepreneur and Republican Party donor. Trump pardoned Walczak three weeks after Fago attended a million-dollar-a-plate fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago. And he also pardoned or forgave the fine of something like $4 million that he’d have to pay in addition to serving time in jail. The significance of this, Bruce?
BRUCE FEIN: Well, at least it has the appearance of bribery. You’re raising money, and then, shortly after you raise money, then comes the pardon. And we know at least one of the offenses that justifies impeachment is bribery, even if it’s indirect. I think this is very dangerous.
But I want to underscore, Mr. Trump is not the first one who’s abused the pardon power. He’s had to take it a different scale, I think. We have Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. We have, remember, Marc Rich and William Jefferson Clinton and Roger Clinton. And even George H.W. Bush, he pardoned the Iran-Contra defendants, including Cap Weinberger. So it’s been abused before, but it’s taken to a scale now where it threatens to undermine the entire legitimacy of the criminal justice system.
And you mentioned earlier Ed Martin, which is really quite alarming, since Mr. Martin said, “I am going to use my position not to just go after people I think committed crimes, but to stigmatize them. Even if we can’t convict them, we want to harass them, make them lose their reputation.” It’s a danger that Justice Robert Jackson, a former attorney general, warned against in 1940, because the laws are very vague. And here we have a member of the Justice Department saying, “We’re coming after you, even if we can’t prove that you’re guilty of a crime, just to harass you and give you a bad name.” That clearly is an abuse of the obligation to faithfully execute the laws. Typically, you have an obligation in the Justice Department not even to begin an indictment unless you believe you can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And now we have a very, very low threshold for beginning an investigation, that probably will go nowhere other than tarnish reputations.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Bruce Fein, I want to thank you very much for being with us. You mentioned Martin. Politico reports Martin spent his first week on the job reviewing pardon applications of January 6 insurrectionists, including Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, seeking to have President Trump convert their commuted sentences into full pardons. Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer, former Reagan attorney, was associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under President Ronald Reagan.