Ed Markey Asks Advocate: Is Trump's Plan To Pardon 250 People 'A Legitimate Exercise' Of Power?

Ajouté : 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]instead. Next, I'll recognize ranking member Markey. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[00:00:04]Mr. Sherman, you noted in your testimony that it was concerning that today's hearing ignores the dismantling of federal oversight and fraud prevention.

[00:00:17]And the massive corruption taking place right down the street.

[00:00:22]The federal judge The federal judge overseeing Trump's $10 billion lawsuit had been actually considering dismissing the case over concerns of collusion.

[00:00:36]IRS lawyers recommended to the Justice Department that the case be dismissed, not settled.

[00:00:45]The Treasury Department's top lawyer, Brian Morrissey, a Trump appointee, resigned after the slush fund was announced on Monday.

[00:00:56]And just today, two Capitol Hill police officers, Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges, who defended the Capitol on January 6th, thank you, officers, filed suit against Trump to dismiss the fund. Here's what their suit says.

[00:01:13]It correctly points out that the president's slush fund would endanger their and other police officers' lives by encouraging violence and financing rioters under the assumption that they would be subsequently compensated by Donald Trump's slush fund.

[00:01:31]The president simply cannot go around the Constitution to finance his henchmen and political machine by taking money from the American people. So, Mr. Sherman, what does the establishment of an almost $1.8 billion slush fund to reward political allies mean for the presidency and preventing corruption in politics and in government?

[00:01:53]Thank you for the question, Senator.

[00:01:55]The president's slush fund is an unprecedented and stunning example of corruption. Um, particularly as everyday Americans are struggling with groceries, small businesses are struggling to make ends meet, uh, the president is demonstrating that his priority is enabling individuals who engaged in illegal activity to overturn an election. And as you said, um, this is not just an example of grift, but it is an example of grift that will enable political violence in the future.

[00:02:37]So, thank you. So, in your testimony, I just want to highlight this for the committee. You noted that in Trump's second term alone, his pardons and commutations to convicted fraudsters have wiped out over 1.5 billion dollars in restitution, fines, forfeitures, and money otherwise owed to fraud victims and American citizens. And many of these fraudsters have donated directly to Trump and to Republican candidates. One year ago, Trump commuted the sentence of a Florida healthcare executive convicted of the largest therapy-related Medicare fraud in history, stealing 205 million dollars.

[00:03:15]It's now being reported that the president is considering issuing 250 pardons for the 250th anniversary of America, and we should just expect those pardons to be doled out as favors to wealthy donors and political allies and to fraudsters who are friends with the president. So, Mr. Sherman, when a president commutes a sentence or issues a pardon that ends restitution obligations, what happens to those victims? Is there any other way that they can recover what they are owed?

[00:03:47]Well, it's noteworthy that even if the president wanted to pardon these fraudsters, he didn't have to go so far as to then allow these fraudsters to escape paying restitution. So, he went the extra mile for his political allies to the detriment detriment of fraud victims across this country. It enables fraud and it sends a clear signal that if you are engaged in fraud, you can get away with it if you're rich enough to carry influence with the president.

[00:04:19]>> So, you're saying he could have just pardoned them but said, "But you still got to pay the restitution." Exactly.

[00:04:24]>> instead he says, "I pardon you and you don't have to pay back all the people who you defrauded." That's coming right out of the White House.

[00:04:30]That's exactly right. And, you know, it puts it makes everyday Americans it makes small businesses more vulnerable to fraud because the president demonstrates time and time again that he's willing to enable it. So, um so it's in your legal judgment is that a legitimate exercise of executive power or is that something else? It is an illegitimate abuse of power.

[00:04:53]Without question and and I just want to say even in this fund that he has created uh there's going to be a five-person oversight board, but every one of them can be removed by Trump without cause.

[00:05:08]So, there is no oversight over this uh fund and it's all coming out of taxpayer dollars appropriated, by the way, by Congress. We appropriate the money that goes into this fund.

[00:05:19]Okay? So, I'm waiting for those oversight hearings, okay? With There Are there any >> As am I. Are there any standards? Are there any constraints? Are there any restrictions on how this massive, by the way, it's an unlimited fund that can be, you know, dispensed. And now we're learning there are no restrictions on what the Justice Department can put as uh as the standards that are used in dispensing this money. It's an absolute almost it's an invitation to fraud uh that uh Donald Trump is uh absolutely going to accept with the greatest of joy. Thank you.