Speaker 1: As the nation watched Hurricane Harvey barrel toward landfall in Texas.
Speaker 1: Friday night, the White House released a statement announcing President
Speaker 1: Trump had pardoned controversial Arizona County Sheriff Joe R. Pio.
Speaker 1: Bearing the news of Trump's first pardon. Our Pio was
Speaker 1: one of Trump's earliest supporters. He's become a national symbol
Speaker 1: of and criminally convicted for his tough crackdown on illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants and racial profiling of Latinos. Political leaders in Arizona,
Speaker 1: as well as national leaders, condemned the pardon. Congressman ralg Rehalva,
Speaker 1: a Democrat from Arizona, says it was Trump's wink wink nod,
Speaker 1: not to his very extreme basse. Jora Pile became an
Speaker 1: icon to the ultright, became an icon to UH Neo
Speaker 1: Nazis and white supremaciy across this country. You're excusing and
Speaker 1: pardnering their symbol. It's an encouragement and it embolds them more.
Speaker 1: And that's how good. Arizona Republican Senator John McCain in
Speaker 1: a statement, and that pardoning our Pio undermines Trump's quote
Speaker 1: claim for the respective rule of law. As Mr R.
Speaker 1: Pio has shown no remorse for his actions. Joining us
Speaker 1: as guests are Andrew Wright, professor at Havanna at Savannah
Speaker 1: Law School, and Renando Mariotti, a partner at Thompson Coburn
Speaker 1: and a former federal prosecutor. Andrew Trump has criticized federal
Speaker 1: judges and court rulings. He tried to stop a federal investigation.
Speaker 1: According to James Comeby's testimony, is this pardon any different
Speaker 1: any more shocking? Well, in one sense, it's more shocking
Speaker 1: than these other attacks because in this case, our pious
Speaker 1: the specific crime that he was convicted of was his
Speaker 1: willful disobedience from federal court orders to stop violating people's
Speaker 1: constitutional right. So this was a direct attack in the
Speaker 1: sense in one sense the president of the power to
Speaker 1: partner our pile. But the reasons for it are very
Speaker 1: troubling because the president not only didn't expect an admission
Speaker 1: of guilt from our pile, but he actually endorsed the
Speaker 1: conduct by saying that he did a good job in
Speaker 1: his tweets. So I think the message to the judiciary
Speaker 1: is loud and clear that their ruling was not enforced
Speaker 1: and that the president undermines the message they were trying
Speaker 1: to send for respect for their proceedings. We're not. This
Speaker 1: was done in a way that is unusual for presidential
Speaker 1: pardons in that, you know, you didn't have a lengthy
Speaker 1: Justice Department review first, and it's you know, put aside
Speaker 1: at getting announced late on a Friday night. Does the
Speaker 1: procedural difference here from most pardons amplify that message in anyway? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's a great question, I think in and
Speaker 1: of itself, go, you know, doing away with procedure doesn't
Speaker 1: bother me. I mean, you could imagine that, you know,
Speaker 1: for example, they're they have often been cases where civil
Speaker 1: rights leaders were you know, hit with court orders from
Speaker 1: racist judges. For example, you know, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: somebody had been protesting the KKK and got a you know,
Speaker 1: one week sentence, and the president decided to rush to
Speaker 1: get that personal pardon. I would applaud that. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of Americans would. I think what's what's concerning
Speaker 1: here is, as Andy pointed out, obviously the conduct by
Speaker 1: Sheriff Arpeo was essentially flaunting a court order, doing so deliberately,
Speaker 1: showing no remorse whatsoever, something as knows at the law,
Speaker 1: and so when you're in a rush to get that
Speaker 1: guy a pardon. Um, it suggests that you're trying to
Speaker 1: help your your friends, your associates, um, without regard for
Speaker 1: the effect that that may have on the respect for
Speaker 1: the law and the judicial system. Andy, A lot of
Speaker 1: legal experts said it was unlikely that our Pio would
Speaker 1: be sent to prison, and there was about a six
Speaker 1: month sentence ahead, but he had a clean record before that,
Speaker 1: so in his age. So why did Trump do this?
Speaker 1: Is it a signal to those who might be tempted
Speaker 1: to make deals with this special counsel Muller as the
Speaker 1: Russia probe gets closer to Trump that not to worry,
Speaker 1: I'll protect you. Well, it was certainly a message to
Speaker 1: what President Trump considers his hardcore base, to signal to
Speaker 1: them his support of one of their heroes, which is
Speaker 1: unfortunately largely populated by the alt right and white supremacists.
Speaker 1: As as it relates to Russia, you know, it's it's
Speaker 1: it's kind of a dangerous proposition to use this as
Speaker 1: a trial balloon for Russian um pardons because in the
Speaker 1: Russian context, those are self protective and that kind of
Speaker 1: self dealing makes the politics even worse. As bad as
Speaker 1: the politics here were. Um, it will make look you know,
Speaker 1: Trump look like he's doing it for a self interested way,
Speaker 1: I think. Um. And also there are some legal problems
Speaker 1: that come from Russia pardons um for the people involved
Speaker 1: in that. They can to sort a Fifth Amendment right
Speaker 1: not to testify in front of Congress or grand jury
Speaker 1: if they don't face legal jeopardy, uh, for for the
Speaker 1: conduct that they're being questioned about. So, you know, without
Speaker 1: predicting Trump behavior, which I think is a fool's errand
Speaker 1: I would say that there are certainly some arguments that
Speaker 1: would suggest that that might even be worse than this.
Speaker 1: So I wouldn't uh, you know, if I were lawyers
Speaker 1: for those people that might be seeking those pardons, um,
Speaker 1: I would be giving mixed advice to them about the
Speaker 1: nature of this signal nano. As Our Pio's case was
Speaker 1: headed towards trial in the spring, Trump asked Attorney General
Speaker 1: Jeff's Sessions whether it would be possible for the government
Speaker 1: to drop the criminal case against Our Pio, according to
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, and after talking with Sessions, Trump decided
Speaker 1: to let the case go to trial and if Our
Speaker 1: Pio were convicted, he could grant clemency. According to the Post,
Speaker 1: is there a problem with Trump approaching Jeff Sessions in
Speaker 1: that way? All right, that's a very interesting way of
Speaker 1: putting the question. I think let's let me take a
Speaker 1: step back for a minute and say, first of all,
Speaker 1: it's it's highly unusual for the president to ask the
Speaker 1: attorney general to drop a case or to end an
Speaker 1: investigation of an associate or friend of his. I think
Speaker 1: it's inherently problematic. Um. It is um something that at
Speaker 1: the very least is can create a significant um um
Speaker 1: appearance of impropriety. And I believe the Post story said
Speaker 1: that Sessions or and others indicated to the President that
Speaker 1: it was, you know, uh, not appropriate for him to do,
Speaker 1: and that's why he dropped it. And I think it
Speaker 1: is it is especially interesting and especially important because, as
Speaker 1: we know, um, there are allegations made by former FBI
Speaker 1: Director James Comey that the President made a similar request
Speaker 1: of him regarding the investigation of Michael Flynn. And you know,
Speaker 1: there's also been reports that that Mr Muller is investigating,
Speaker 1: um an obstruction charge based upon that conduct. Uh. And
Speaker 1: if I is investigating an obstruction yards based upon the
Speaker 1: president's UH statements regarding ending the Flynn investigation or the
Speaker 1: Russia investigation. This would be a very important data point
Speaker 1: for me because this gives us a second instance where
Speaker 1: the president is asking, uh, the asking law enforcement to
Speaker 1: drop a UM investigation of one of his friends. And
Speaker 1: it brings, uh, you know, it brings to mind, um,
Speaker 1: you know the fact that that UM Mr Mueller is
Speaker 1: going to have to would have to prove to prove
Speaker 1: obstruction the president's corrupt intent, and the best way to
Speaker 1: prove intent is through somebody's words and actions and through
Speaker 1: their pattern of behavior. So I think that this this
Speaker 1: incident could be actually very important for Mr Mueller and
Speaker 1: his investigation. Andy following up on you know, possible consequences
Speaker 1: here UM, Noah Feldman wrote at Call on Bloomberg viewed
Speaker 1: recently about if you know before the part was issued,
Speaker 1: saying if the pardon, if the President pardoned Share for
Speaker 1: a PIO, that it would be the kind of abuse
Speaker 1: of constitutional authority that could conceivably be grounds for impeachment.
Speaker 1: And he noted that you know, James Madison said that
Speaker 1: abuse of the pardon power could be a grounds for impeachment.
Speaker 1: Are is it possible that that you know, there may
Speaker 1: be those kinds of consequences for the presidents as a
Speaker 1: result of this. It's a really good question. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, impeachment power is an argument, a political argument
Speaker 1: about the law, and so the way you know, it's
Speaker 1: not just whatever the Congress decides, um, but it's also
Speaker 1: not a legal technical definition of what high crimes and
Speaker 1: misdemeanors is. And maladministration or abuse of power can rise
Speaker 1: to a sufficient level that that could certainly be grounds
Speaker 1: for you know, the House of Representatives to decide to
Speaker 1: move forward with impeachment hearings as a theoretical matter, and
Speaker 1: you know, I think certainly abuse of the pardon powers
Speaker 1: one of those core abuse is that was within the
Speaker 1: minds of the framers when they drafted the provision, because
Speaker 1: we're supposed to be a country with it's a rule
Speaker 1: of law and not a rule of men, and the
Speaker 1: pardon power can absolve people of their legal violations, and
Speaker 1: so that's why it's such a delicate power to use,
Speaker 1: even though it's quite important power to make corrections or
Speaker 1: meet out mercy in certain cases. So you know, as
Speaker 1: a as a practical political matter, um, there's not a
Speaker 1: lot of appetite for Republicans that hold the gavels to
Speaker 1: move forward with impeachment hearings. However, I will just say
Speaker 1: that the president has been deteriorating his political environment repeatedly,
Speaker 1: and every time the you know, he attacks the Senate leader,
Speaker 1: Republican leader Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan, feels forced to
Speaker 1: put out a statement condemning this or that that the
Speaker 1: president is done. He's definitely not aiding his cause politically. Um.
Speaker 1: And then, of course theeen elections could change the composition
Speaker 1: of the chambers, especially in the House side, and that
Speaker 1: could we could really be talking about something else because
Speaker 1: these issues are going to be remaining there whoever is
Speaker 1: in charge of Congress after twenty eighteen election cycle. So
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, this is the kind of
Speaker 1: thing that is the kind of grave abuse that could
Speaker 1: rise to the level of that kind of consideration. But
Speaker 1: you have to get the tipping point first where Congress
Speaker 1: is motivated to move forward with impeachment considerations. Renato. Many
Speaker 1: presidents have been criticized over their pardons, the pardons that
Speaker 1: they've given, and is basically though the pardon power except
Speaker 1: for what Andy was just discussing unlimited virtually unlimited? Is
Speaker 1: there any is there are there any restrictions on it?
Speaker 1: So the legal matter, the pardon powder power is basically
Speaker 1: unlimited or virtually unlimited. I wrote a piece for the
Speaker 1: Hill a couple of weeks ago in which I argued
Speaker 1: that pardoning yourself I think would not be permissible um
Speaker 1: under the Constitution. I think is just a practical matter.
Speaker 1: I don't think courts were um endorsed. You know, if
Speaker 1: that pardon was ultimately challenged in court, I don't really
Speaker 1: think a court would uphold a pardon where you have
Speaker 1: a president committing crimes and then pardnering himself. Just you
Speaker 1: can imagine the potential consequences that that could come if
Speaker 1: a president could do that. Um. Other than that or
Speaker 1: you know, some sort of absurd result or result that's
Speaker 1: that you can make an argument from the text that hey,
Speaker 1: you have to partner another person. I don't think there's
Speaker 1: any limit, and I think that, you know, really the
Speaker 1: question is what can the president you know, in terms
Speaker 1: of partnering, is what could the president do that that
Speaker 1: that would cause Congress to take action because otherwise, um.
Speaker 1: The only other argument I've heard about limiting pardons would
Speaker 1: be if a pardon was itself part of a scheme
Speaker 1: to obstruct justice. Thank you both so much for being
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Law. That's we're not on. Marianti, a partner
Speaker 1: at Thompson Coburn and Andrew Wright, professor at Savannah Law School.