Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, delivered the following opening remarks during the Committee markup of  Rep. Ted Lieu’s resolution of inquiry, H. Res. 928, which requests information on President Trump’s pardons:

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The power of the pardon is vast.  Alexander Hamilton told us in Federalist No. 74 that “the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed.’

“The power of the pardon is broad.  Article II of the United States Constitution tells us that the President “shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

“But the power of the pardon is not a get-of-jail-free card—and both President Trump and his private attorneys have said some crazy things about the pardon power over the past few weeks. 

“I thank Mr. Lieu and Mr. Pascrell for making this issue a priority and sponsoring the resolution before us today.  Our Committee should support this resolution and investigate the issue without delay. 

It may be useful to review some of the individuals pardoned by President Trump so far:

• Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio—a serial human rights abuser convicted of lying to a federal court about his use of racial profiling in defiance of a federal court order.

• Scooter Libby—a Bush Administration official convicted of lying to federal authorities in an investigation about the outing of an undercover CIA agent.

• Dinesh D’Souza—a conservative activist convicted of lying to federal authorities and defrauding the Federal Election Committee.

“What do these individuals have in common, other than popularity in certain conservative circles?  They have all, in one way or another, lied to federal investigators or otherwise refused to cooperate with a federal investigation.

“Taken against this pattern, the President’s comments about the pardon power are particularly troubling.

“Specifically, President Trump has indicated a willingness to pardon individuals—including, perhaps, himself—in order to obstruct the work of the Special Counsel.

“He has declared via tweet: ‘As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do so when I have done nothing wrong?’  

“And on the same day that a federal judge revoked Paul Manafort’s bail—on allegations that Mr. Manafort had attempted to influence the testimony of two key witnesses—the President’s new lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, assured the President’s supporters that they shouldn’t have to worry.  He said: “When the whole thing is over, things might get cleaned up with some presidential pardons.”

“Earlier this month, every Democratic member of this Committee wrote to White House Counsel Don McGahn requesting information related to the Trump Administration’s view of the pardon power.

“As is too often the case, the Administration has ignored our request.

“We have also written to the Chairman three times to ask for hearings on the pardon power.  Again, as is too often the case, the Chairman has ignored these requests as well.

“I urge my colleagues to support the Lieu-Pascrell Resolution because this information is critical to our ability to do our jobs.  I believe that if we do not demand this information now—if we do not push back even a little bit when the President threatens to pardon himself—then we will have set ourselves up for a constitutional crisis in the days to come.

“And I know that this request for information is reasonable because I have reviewed the transcript of the last time Judiciary Committee Republicans discussed in the pardon power, back in 2001—when, despite our political differences, we all agreed that the discussion was a public service.

“Mr. Chairman, in 2001, at a hearing of the Constitution Subcommittee, you had this to say about the pardon power:

“‘Many executives have [the pardon] power for the purpose of accomplishing justice or mercy as a last resort, where fairness simply has not taken hold in other aspects of our judiciary process.  However, I believe the immediate past President, Mr. Clinton, has abused this power and has not used it for the purposes that I and others here today have described.’

“You continued:

“‘I agree with those who say that there is probably nothing that Congress can do to overturn those pardons.  I would be interested in hearing from the panel what recourse law enforcement and others might have if the power was abused in a criminal fashion.  If there is indeed proof of a quid pro quo, I presume everybody involved could be prosecuted under our laws.’

“So, in closing, Mr. Chairman, let me borrow your sentiment from that hearing.

“I believe that the current President has abused the pardon power and threatens to abuse it further.  I agree with those who say that there is probably nothing that Congress can do to overturn those pardons—although I believe the courts may have something more to say about Joe Arpaio. 

“Nevertheless, I would be interested in information that may aid us in our oversight responsibilities.  If there is indeed proof of criminal activity here—including, but not limited to, evidence of obstruction of justice, then I presume everybody involved could be prosecuted under our laws.

“I urge my colleagues—all of my colleagues, especially those so recently concerned about transparency—to support this resolution.  It is as important now as it was back when the Chairman wanted information on the same subject. I thank the Chairman and I yield back.”

###