The Lobbyist’s Persistence: A Tale of Two Pardon Attempts
In the early hours of January 6, 2021, a lobbyist assured a high-ranking White House official that his client’s pardon application would be considered by President Trump before his term ended. However, the day took a dramatic turn as Trump supporters attacked the Capitol, and the lobbyist never heard back. His client, Greg E. Lindberg, an insurance mogul embroiled in a North Carolina bribery scandal, remained imprisoned, leaving thousands of retirees without access to their annuities. Fast-forward to 2025, the lobbyist is back, advocating for Lindberg’s pardon under a new administration that has restructured its clemency process early in Trump’s second term. This time, the focus is on clemency grants that highlight Trump’s grievances about the justice system’s politicization. Lobbyists and lawyers connected to Trump are capitalizing on this shift, charging hefty fees to clients who bypass the traditional, apolitical Justice Department system. These clients emphasize loyalty to Trump and echo his claims of political persecution, hoping to sway his decisions.
An Unconventional Clemency Process
Trump’s approach to clemency deviates significantly from the traditional Justice Department process, which prioritizes remorse and low recidivism risk. Both Trump and Biden faced criticism for disregarding the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s guidelines. Trump’s sweeping pardons, including those for January 6 attackers, and Biden’s pardons for family members, like Hunter Biden, drew intense scrutiny. The marginalization of the pardon attorney’s office under Trump shifted clemency operations to the White House Counsel’s Office. Elizabeth G. Oyer, the U.S. pardon attorney appointed during Biden’s term, was recently fired, further centralizing control under the White House. The new process formalizes Alice Johnson’s role as “pardon czar,” focusing on nonviolent offenders and people of color, while also opening doors for high-profile, well-connected applicants who align with Trump’s narrative of victimhood.
Shared Grievances: Trump Allies Turn Prosecutorial Misconduct into Clemency Arguments
Alex Little, a former federal prosecutor turned lobbyist, represents clients seeking clemency by framing their cases around themes of prosecutorial misconduct and political persecution, mirroring Trump’s grievances. Little’s clients include reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, sentenced for bank fraud and tax evasion, and insurance mogul Greg Lindberg. He portrays the Chrisleys as targets of a justice system biased against conservatives, linking their prosecutors to Fani Willis, who charged Trump in Georgia. Similarly, Lindberg is depicted as a victim of overzealous prosecutors. Little’s strategy involves bypassing the Office of the Pardon Attorney, presenting his cases directly to White House officials. This approach reflects a broader trend where Trump allies use shared grievances to advocate for clemency, suggesting a co-opted justice system sympathetic to their narratives.
High-Priced Clemency Advocacy
The clemency process under Trump has become a lucrative industry, with well-connected lawyers and lobbyists charging substantial fees to clients seeking pardons. Alex Vogel’s firm, for instance, received $100,000 for lobbying on behalf of Lindberg’s companies. Vogel and other high-profile lawyers, including Alan Dershowitz, leverage their connections to Trump to advocate for clients, often framing their cases as examples of political persecution. Dershowitz, who defended Trump during his first impeachment, emphasizes his commitment to meritorious cases. This high-priced advocacy underscores concerns about unequal access to clemency, favoring those with wealth and political ties. The involvement of lawyers like Jonathan Fahey, who secured a pardon for a police officer convicted in a fatal chase, further illustrates the influence of Trump-aligned legal strategists in shaping clemency decisions.
Clemency as a Political Tool: Risks of Corruption and Inequality
Critics warn that Trump’s clemency process risks becoming a tool for political favoritism, disproportionately benefiting wealthy or well-connected individuals. Margaret Love, a former U.S. pardon attorney, cautions that the system may overlook ordinary applicants who demonstrate genuine remorse in favor of those who can afford high-priced advocates. The cases of figures like rapper Prakazrel Michel, who claims harsher treatment due to his race, and cryptocurrency mogul Sam Bankman-Fried, positioning himself as a victim of biased prosecution, highlight these concerns. While advocates argue that individuals like Michel’s case might resonate with Alice Johnson, who understands systemic injustices, the broader implications suggest a clemency process increasingly aligned with political agendas rather than fairness and equity.
Conclusion: The Implications of Trump’s Clemency Strategy
Trump’s clemency strategy reflects a calculated approach to advance his political narrative, emphasizing grievances about the justice system while centralizing decision-making within the White House. The involvement of high-profile lobbyists and lawyers, the lucrative fees, and the focus on clients who align with Trump’s vision of political persecution raise significant ethical concerns. As the administration continues to prioritize clemency requests that reinforce these themes, the risk of corruption and inequality in the justice system grows. The persistence of lobbyists like Vogel and the return of figures like Dershowitz highlight the ongoing challenges in ensuring a fair and equitable clemency process. Ultimately, Trump’s approach to clemency underscores the broader debate about the politicization of justice and the balance between mercy and accountability.