Transcript:A ex-federal prosecutor is warning that President Donald Trump is "highly likely" to use presidential pardons to protect himself and his allies from criminal charges once he leaves the White House. Glenn Kirschner, founder of the Justice Matters podcast, told the The Daily Beast that Trump is terrified that multiple of his actions leave him open to being hammered by legal authorities as soon as he leaves the White House. He added that Democrats and those who oppose Trump have to be ready for a fight to make sure he faces justice."We have to go into court, and we have to fight corruptly delivered pardons," Kirschner said. He cited former Attorney General Bill Barr's congressional testimony regarding the limits of presidential pardon power. According to Kirschner, "Even Bill Barr testified before Congress that if Donald Trump delivered a pardon to somebody who was covering up evidence of wrongdoing by Donald Trump . put another way, using the pardon to perhaps curry favor with or buy the silence of somebody who could implicate him . Bill Barr said that would be improper. That would be a crime. That would be an impermissible use of the pardon power."Potential pardon recipients could include Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who faces allegations she perjured herself during Senate Judiciary Committee testimony. The DHS denied these claims, stating: "Any claim that Secretary Noem committed perjury is categorically false."Attorney General Pam Bondi could also receive clemency given her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. A DOJ official characterized those concerns as "a tired narrative."Kirschner emphasized the constitutional stakes, stating, "What we have to do is take these things into court and fight them because it's the right and righteous thing to do. And if the courts . trial court, court of appeals, and the Supreme Court. all say no, a president can buy a co-conspirator's silence by delivering a presidential pardon, then we continue to move in the direction of the end of our republic. Because that is not what the pardon power ought to be able to do."Trump previously criticized Biden's pardons handed out days before the end of his presidency, declaring that all of his predecessor's clemency decisions were "null, void, and of no further force or effect" because Biden used an autopen signature. Trump wrote on Truth Social, "Anyone receiving 'Pardons,' 'Commutations,' or any other Legal Document so signed, please be advised that said Document has been fully and completely terminated, and is of no Legal effect."Constitutional experts dispute Trump's authority to do that. Stanford law professor Bernadette Meyler stated, "The Constitution doesn't even require that the pardon be written, so the idea that the signature is by autopen rather than by handwritten signature seems not relevant to the constitutionality because Article II just says that the President has the power to pardon."White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson dismissed Kirschner's analysis, telling the Daily Beast, "Anything said on the Daily Beast podcast is equivalent to screaming into the void. No one listens to this Trump Derangement Syndrome therapy session."Our Analysis:The Misdirection of Presidential Pardon Powers: A Closer LookIn the swirling vortex of political discourse, the topic of presidential pardons, especially in the context of former President Donald Trump, often becomes a lightning rod for controversy, speculation, and fervent opinion. The article in question, focusing on the warning by ex-federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner regarding Trump's potential use of presidential pardons to protect himself and his allies, serves as a ripe example of the complexities and misunderstandings surrounding presidential power and accountability. However, a meticulous dissection of the institutional powers at play, the decisions that led to the outcome, and the framing of the article reveals a nuanced story that demands careful consideration.Institutional Power and Decision MakingWho Holds the Power?The President of the United States holds the institutional power to grant pardons for federal offenses under Article II, Section 2, of the U. S. Constitution. This power is broad and includes the ability to pardon individuals before charges are filed, after conviction, and even posthumously. The decision to grant a pardon rests solely with the president, reflecting the Founding Fathers' intention to provide a mechanism for mercy and justice correction outside the judicial process.Who Made the Decision?In the scenarios outlined by Kirschner, the decisions to grant pardons would be made by Trump, utilizing his constitutional powers. The focus on Trump's potential actions to shield himself and his allies underscores the personalized nature of this power, which, while institutional, hinges on the individual occupying the Oval Office.Misdirection and FramingFraming Misdirects ResponsibilityThe article frames the issue as a dire warning about Trump's potential misuse of the pardon power, implicitly suggesting that this power could be used nefariously. While the concern over using pardons to obstruct justice is valid, the framing risks misdirecting responsibility toward Trump as an individual, rather than addressing the broader question of whether the pardon power itself grants too much unchecked authority to any president.Furthermore, the dismissal of Kirschner's analysis by a White House spokesperson as "screaming into the void" and equating it to "Trump Derangement Syndrome therapy session" attempts to delegitimize concerns about the use of presidential pardons without engaging with the substantive issues at play. This response deflects from the central question of how presidential pardons might be used or misused, further muddying the waters of accountability.Misplaced Criticism and False EquivalenceCriticism of Trump's potential actions must be grounded in a consistent principle that applies to all presidents, not selectively based on political affiliations. The article’s focus on Trump’s criticisms of Biden’s use of an autopen signature for pardons introduces a false equivalence. The legality and constitutionality of pardons are not contingent upon the method of the president's signature, as noted by constitutional experts. This diversion detracts from the more significant issue of the pardons' substance and purpose.ConclusionThe real story behind the controversy over presidential pardons and Trump's potential use of them to protect himself and allies is not just about one man's actions. It's about the immense power vested in the presidential office and how that power is subject to few checks, especially in the realm of pardons. While Trump's actions and intentions merit scrutiny, the broader conversation should focus on whether reforms are needed to ensure that this power cannot be abused, regardless of who is president.The article’s framing, while capturing the immediacy and potential consequences of Trump's alleged plans, inadvertently shifts the focus away from these systemic issues. As critics, our role should not be to engage in partisan finger-pointing but to question the structures that allow such controversies to arise in the first place. Only by doing so can we hope to address the underlying problems within our political system.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com