The Constitutionality of Non-Specific Pardons
As I have explained elsewhere, a self-pardon is very probably unconstitutional. But the point is untested, and it seems quite likely Trump will try it. As for family and friends, a president can pardon any and all federal (but not state) crimes.
There is no requirement that the offense have already resulted in a conviction, or even an indictment. It is sufficient that the criminal conduct occurred before the issuance of the pardon.
A pardon issued for provably corrupt reasons – for example, in return for a bribe or for the express purpose of obstructing investigation of wrongdoing by the president himself – might itself be a crime. But handing out a pardon to a relative or political supporter just because you like them, or as a political reward, though sleazy and perhaps a proper ground for impeachment, is neither a crime nor a basis for revoking the pardon. Indeed, although others disagree, I think a pardon, once issued and accepted, is irrevocable. . .
The objective of a Trump pardon spree would be to block federal prosecution on all conceivable grounds.
If there is a specificity requirement for pardons, it might preclude issuance of a blanket pardon for “all violations of federal criminal law” or even for general categories of crime, and require instead a detailed enumeration of all the crimes or acts intended to be covered. Drafting a pardon under such a specificity constraint would pose a dilemma for Trump. If it were insufficiently specific, it would leave open avenues of prosecution. If it were truly comprehensive, it could constitute a roadmap for state prosecutors, federal civil regulatory authorities, congressional investigators, and private litigants to all of Trump World’s vulnerabilities – and, perhaps equally important for Trump, undermine his public narrative of “perfect” conduct both in and out of office.
Sadly,
I do not believe there is a meaningful constitutional specificity requirement for pardons. . . .
. . . But in the case of pardon specificity, there is no evidence in the record of the Constitutional Convention or subsequent ratifying debates that anyone thought the grant of pardon power was qualified by a specificity limit. The point was never raised directly or by implication.
= new reply since forum marked as read
