Washington, D.C. –Today, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following opening remarks during a Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties hearing on examining the constitutional role and limits of the presidential pardon power:

"Today’s long-overdue hearing examines the constitutional role and the limits of the presidential pardon power.

"Presidents are vested by the Constitution with the awesome power to absolve individuals of federal crimes.  This power should be exercised carefully and responsibly.  Unfortunately, President Trump has ignored the hard work of the career professionals in the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, who carefully scrutinize pardon applications, and who make recommendations for clemency to the president.

"Instead, his exercise of the pardon power has created the perception that pardons are a political tool, a publicity stunt to curry favor with the public, and a favor to bestow on the well-connected. Worse, there are some who believe that President Trump may be signaling the promise of a pardon to those with potentially damaging information about him, to encourage them not to cooperate with investigators.

"It is helpful to review this appalling record when it comes to issuing pardons.

"In August 2017, he pardoned former Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt for defying a federal court order forbidding him and his law enforcement officers from racially profiling Latinos.  Sheriff Arpaio was both a political supporter of President Trump, and a hero to the President’s base.

"The following April, President Trump pardoned Scooter Libby, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in relation to the FBI’s probe into the leaking of covert CIA Officer Valerie Plame’s identity.  And, in June 2018, he pardoned noted conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, who pled guilty to a felony campaign finance violation in 2014.       

"These pardons raise red flags for several reasons. 

"First, none of the individuals I mentioned appear to have had their applications recommended, or even reviewed, by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney.  Since the Civil War, the Justice Department has been responsible for administering petitions for executive clemency, and preparing recommendations for the White House.  While the president is not constitutionally bound to abide by this process, neither President Trump nor the Department has adequately explained why these individuals’ applications had not undergone the usual review.

"President Trump appears to have cut the Pardon Attorney out of his decision-making regarding pardons entirely.  As a result, not only has he made questionable decisions about who he has chosen to pardon, there may be many worthy candidates for clemency that have gone ignored.  And where he has granted a pardon to a worthy candidate, it has generally only been when a celebrity friend, such as Kim Kardashian West or Sylvester Stallone, has lobbied on their behalf.

"There are also serious questions about whether President Trump has considered, or attempted, to use the powers of his office to shield himself or his political allies from legal jeopardy.  Most troubling, there have been media reports that Michael Cohen, the President’s former personal attorney, may have been offered the promise of a pardon by lawyers representing President Trump, in hopes of convincing him not to reveal damaging information about the President.

"There is also a concern that the President may have signaled the possibility of granting pardons to certain other individuals—including his former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn and his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort—as a means of discouraging them from cooperating with investigators. 

"Concerns have also been raised that by pardoning Mr. Libby—for the same crimes several of President Trump’s associates were accused of committing—he may have been signaling to those being targeted by investigators that a pardon may be in the offing if they refuse to cooperate.

"It is these concerns that prompted my request to several individuals, including former White House Counsel Don McGahn, for any documents relating to possible pardons, as part of this Committee’s investigation into potential obstruction of justice, public corruption, and abuses of power by President Trump.

"And this is one reason that we must see the entire report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and all of the underlying evidence, so that this Committee can make an independent judgment about whether the President has obstructed justice by abusing his pardon power to protect himself, or his political allies.

"Contrary to what President Trump may believe, under any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, the President does not have an absolute right to pardon himself, or to use the pardon power in a corrupt manner.  It is true that there are few textual restraints on the President’s pardon authority, and there is little direct guidance from the Supreme Court on this issue, as well as other issues that an exercise of the pardon power may raise. 

"The President’s pardon authority, however, cannot be read in isolation from the rest of the Constitution’s text.  For example, Article II of the Constitution also contains the Take Care Clause, which requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and the mandatory presidential Oath, which requires the President to swear to “faithfully execute the office of President...”

"I find persuasive the argument that the Framers intended this language to impose upon the President a duty to abstain from self-interested conduct and abuses of power or—as one of our witnesses here today terms it—a duty of “faithful execution.” To interpret the Constitution otherwise would be to render any President into an elected tyrant who could wield the powers of the Office to serve his or her personal needs at the expense of the needs of the Nation.

"Given the Framers’ preoccupation with preventing arbitrary and abusive uses of government power, it is simply illogical to interpret the text of the Constitution to permit such an expansive view of Executive power.    

"I thank Chairman Cohen for holding this very important hearing and I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses here today.