Trump, Like English King, Pardons Companies

0:00The thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works. At IBM, we've seen this firsthand, but by embedding AI across HR, IT and procurement processes, we've reduced costs by millions, slash repetitive tasks and freed thousands of hours for strategic work. Now we're helping companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business. IBM. When you're running a business, the best days are the ones where priorities stay on track. For midsize and large companies, risk can affect multiple parts of the organization at once, from property and liability to cyber and regulatory challenges.

0:43At that level, managing risk becomes an ongoing discipline. At the Hartford, the focus is on helping businesses manage risk before it turns into something more disruptive. And when losses do happen, that work is paired with insurance coverage shaped by years of underwriting, risk engineering, and claims experience. Learn more at thehartford.com slash risk mitigation. Policies provided by Hartford Fire Insurance Company and its property and casualty affiliates, Hartford, Connecticut. Support for this show comes from public.com. If you're actively involved in your portfolio, you probably catch yourself repeating the same actions.

1:17Buying the dip, manually sweeping idle cash, putting on a hedge. On public, you can now create AI agents that handle all these tasks on your behalf. Just describe what you want to do in plain English. Like, if the VIX hits 25, buy a put option on the S &P 500. Or, if my cash balance goes above$20 ,000, move the excess into my direct index. You approve of the workflow, and your agent handles the rest. Monitoring the market, watching for your conditions, and executing your strategies exactly as defined. An investing platform driven by your intent, not just your clicks. You can also get full read and write access to your account via the public API.

1:58Go to public.com slash market and fund your account in five minutes or less. That's public.com slash market. Paid for by Public Investing. Brokered services by Open to the Public Investing, Inc., member FINRA and SIPC. Advisory services by Public Advisors, LLC, SEC Registered Advisor. Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. So this is January 6th. These are the hostages. Approximately 1 ,500 for a pardon. Yes. Full pardon. Just hours after his inauguration, President Donald Trump signed an order pardoning about 1 ,500 convicted January 6 rioters with six commutations.

2:51Would there be punishment for the people who assaulted law enforcement officers that day? Well, I will say this. They've been in jail for a long time already. I see murderers in this country get two years, one year, and maybe no time. So they've already been in jail for a long time. These people have been destroyed. And the clemency spree has not slowed since then. Trump has liberally used the pardon power to wipe out convictions and end prison sentences, granting clemency to almost 1 ,700 people in the past 18 months. That far outpaces his predecessors. And the grants often benefit allies, donors, and loyalists, such as Republican politicians and white-collar defendants with impressive campaign donation records.

3:40People serving harsh sentences for drug crimes, one-time sports stars, and the former president of Honduras also have been granted relief. And showcasing Trump's willingness to blow past the boundaries of executive authority in his second term without regard for legal norms, he's become the first modern U.S. president to issue pardons for companies, from a Middle American auto supplier to a crypto platform and a media startup. It's a step that presidents before him have considered but never dared to take, a step that's wiped out almost$200 million in financial penalties, some of which were destined for victims of wrongdoing.

4:26Joining me is Bloomberg legal reporter Ava Benny Morrison, who's written about Trump's pardons of companies. Ava, start by telling us about Ryan Lalonde, one of six people Trump said had been persecuted by the Biden administration for fixing their car. Yes, that's one way to put it. Ryan Lalone is a auto parts dealer from Michigan and he was charged a few years ago with tampering with emissions controls devices on vehicles. So these controls, you need to have them on trucks, especially ambulance vehicles, school buses, and it's meant to control the amount of emissions that go out of the vehicle and into the air.

5:15people in the trucking industry say that they are really cumbersome and they break down a lot and that leads to them having to carry out costly repairs. Of course, environmental advocates don't see it that way. And they say, you know, when you don't have these, it leads to greater air pollution. So Ryan, along with many other mechanics around the country, had helped a number of heavy vehicle owners tamper with these controls, essentially. So turning them off in a certain way. And he was charged over this behaviour a few years ago. His business, his company, Diesel Freak, was also charged and together they were facing a fine of about$750 ,000.

5:55But why did Trump pardon him? So Ryan didn't do any jail time. He was sentenced to probation and he pleaded guilty, but he always maintained that he didn't do anything wrong. And then at the end of last year, he heard about President Donald Trump pardoning a fellow diesel mechanic in Wyoming. This mechanic, his name was Troy Lake. And like Ryan, he had a company that worked on diesel engines, and he was also charged for carrying out similar behaviour. And Trump pardoned him. And Ryan thought, wow, I might have a chance here as well. So Ryan got in contact with Troy. He actually went to his pardon party in Wyoming over the winter and ended up teaming up with the same lawyer and lobbyist who helped push for Troy's clemency.

6:46And then a day before July 4 this year, Ryan, along with five other individuals who were charged with similar conduct, all received pardons. So Trump is the first president to issue pardons for companies? That's right. What's particularly unusual about the most recent state of pardons is it included pardons for companies. Each of these mechanics or auto parts suppliers, their companies were prosecuted as well for this conduct. And Trump signed a bunch of these clemency grants, which wiped clean the convictions against the companies and the individuals and any outstanding financial penalties for the companies.

7:29And this is the first time a president, certainly in modern times, has used the clemency authority in that way. Is it legal because former President Jimmy Carter considered it before deciding against pardoning a business that had conspired with the mob to buy a Las Vegas casino because there was a disagreement within his administration about whether the Constitution allowed it? Yeah, it is legal. And the White House told us as part of this reporting that there is nothing in the Constitution that says pardons can only be for people. But I think, you know, in the past, presidents have steered away from it because it's not good from an optics perspective.

8:18I've spoken to a number of academics who've delved into this issue. And one in particular said, there is no way a past president would have touched this with a barge pole. It's one thing to pardon someone who you believe is innocent or has rehabilitated or is remorseful, but it's another thing entirely to get rid of criminal liability of major financial crime. So yes, other presidents in modern times had boy with the idea, but no one's actually done it. So their precedent is Charles II of England? Yes, one of the interesting parts of this reporting process was looking at how this debate even started in the White House after Trump came to power in early 2025.

9:03And we've heard that the parent company of crypto platform BitMEX was discreetly angling for a pardon from President Trump at the time, not only for the individuals who worked there, but for the company itself, which was facing a$100 million fine. And as they were lobbying, the administration advisors at the White House started asking the question, you know, can we even pardon a company? And some advisors there were told saw precedent in King Charles II of England pardoning a corporation some 300 years ago. And that was included in some of the discussion and consideration that went into eventually pardoning the parent company of Bitbex.

9:46When Trump brags about these acts of clemency, he doesn't mention that they've wiped out almost$200 million in financial penalties, which could be going to victims. Yes, and that's a mix of restitution, forfeiture, financial penalties, much of which would have been available through different avenues to victims of crime, particularly the restitution and the forfeiture. And something that's particularly unique about Trump's commutations is that they have also wiped out outstanding financial penalties. So we saw that in the case involving media startup Aussie Media, that company and its founder, Carlos Watson, were on the hook for about$96 million in financial penalties.

10:36And Trump commuted the sentence of both Watson and the company and included in that language of that commutation was that this applies to any outstanding penalties. And we just haven't seen that under previous presidencies. Carlos Watson really worked this to get this before Trump. Yes, Watson was really working the phones in the lead up to the date that he was meant to begin his 10 year prison sentence. And he was reaching out to anyone and everyone that he thought could help push his case for clemency. And based on our reporting, we know that he thought it was possible that he could get a pardon for Aussie media and not just himself.

11:15And in these conversations where he's talking to people to try and get them on board with his clemency push, again and again, he's reiterating, Aussie and me, Aussie and me, the clemency needs to be for both himself and the company. Also in his arguments to the administration about why he deserved clemency, he framed the prosecution of his company as just an extra push by the Justice Department to crush everything that he believed in. Those arguments obviously resonated with the White House and President Trump issued a commutation for Watson and Aussie media on the morning he was due to report to prison.

11:54Are the clemency applicants going through the normal process through the Justice Department's office of the pardon attorney or are they going around the office and straight to the White House? These company pardons in particular, it's been a bit of a mix. We can tell from the Pardon Attorney Office website that BitMEX, for example, didn't apply through the formal channels for a pardon. But the nine diesel mechanics who received pardons, their name pops up in the database. And that shows us that they at least went through one of the traditional channels in applying for a pardon, which is coming up with an application and filing a bunch of supporting material to the DOJ.

12:39So it's definitely been a bit of a mix, which is a pattern that we've also seen with a number of these high profile individual clemencies. I mean, there are lawyers that are connected that specifically put these through or try to put these through. Absolutely. One unique thing we've seen pop up during this Trump administration is this industry of lawyers and lobbyists and consultants and fixers who hold themselves out as having connections and access to people that matter in the White House. And they're marketing those connections to onboard clients who want clemency saying, I can get your case in front of the decision makers, in front of the people that matter.

13:23But that representation is coming with extraordinary fees. We've heard stories of some lawyers charging at a base level a million dollars, and there are plenty of rumours about the fees being much higher than that. So explain the difference between clemency and a pardon. Clemency is the overarching authority that the president has stipulated in Article 2 of the constitution to forgive penalties imposed on individuals. And in this administration, they believe that can also apply it to companies. A pardon wipes clean the conviction and any penalty associated with that, whether it be a prison sentence or financial penalties, whereas a commutation will cut a prison sentence short.

14:15So often we'll see people who are in the middle of a lengthy prison sentence will obtain a commutation and they'll be released from prison 10 years into their 30-year prison sentence day. And where does Trump stand compared to his predecessors as far as these grants of clemency? Well, we had a close look at how many clemency grants Trump has issued in those 18 months, and he far outstrips any president during that same period. If we look back at the Biden administration, President Biden issued 4 ,000-odd clemency grants by the end of his term. And that was certainly a record. But no president has issued as many grants as Trump has in the first 18 months of their term.

15:08And have a lot of them been, I mean, politically charged? Trump certainly set the pace on the first day of his term when he issued mass pardons to people charged in connection with the January 6th riots on Capitol Hill. So that takes up the bulk of his clemency grants. But aside from that, we have seen him issue pardons and commutations to a number of wealthy, well-connected, well-resourced defendants for white-collar crimes and also supporters of his, political allies of his. And Trevor Milton, for example, donated millions of dollars to his political action committees. And it seems like the July 4th pardoning of the six people who were convicted of violating the Clean Air Act might have been connected to Trump's rollback of Biden's environmental legacy.

16:05Did they go through the system? It looks like they all went through the proper process. They filed applications to the pardon attorney's office. Some of them had their home state senators in their corner also lobbying for them as well, and they had their own lobbyists. But it also kind of ties in with these administrations rolling back of certain environmental policies and rules and regulations around emissions. So it fits in with their broader political agenda. And also fits in with Trump's connection to crypto. So tell us about the first company pardon. The first company pardon that Trump issued in early 2025 was to HDR Global Trading, which is the parent company of crypto platform BitMEX.

16:54And BitMEX was in strife for violating anti-money laundering laws. And the company was facing a$100 million fine. BitMEX is an interesting one because one of its co-founders was embracing Trump's softening stance around crypto. The platform was a early launcher of a derivative swap associated with the Trump meme coin. The Trump meme coin has ended up earning the president millions of dollars, as we've seen in some recent reporting. And the co-founder, Arthur Hayes, wrote a essay that was quite widely read by those in the industry, you know, calling Trump's embrace of meme coins, framing it as a move towards political accountability.

17:42And he'd also, in early 2025, he'd been spotted at Mar-a-Lago at an event there talking about the need for crypto deregulation. And crypto, the crypto industry is something that certainly President Trump has leaned into pretty strongly in this administration. It's a great story with a lot of research. Thanks so much for sharing it with us, Ava. That's Bloomberg Legal Reporter, Ava Benny Morrison. Support for the show comes from public.com. If you're actively involved in your portfolio, you probably catch yourself repeating the same actions, buying the dip, manually sweeping idle cash, putting on a hedge.

18:18On public, you can now create AI agents that handle all these tasks on your behalf. Just describe what you want to do in plain English, like if the VIX hits 25, buy a put option on the S &P 500. Or if my cash balance goes above$20 ,000, move the excess into my direct index. You approve of the workflow and your agent handles the rest. Monitoring the market, watching for your conditions, and executing your strategies exactly as defined. An investing platform driven by your intent, not just your clicks. You can also get full read and write access to your account via the public API. Go to public.com slash market and fund your account in five minutes or less.

18:59That's public.com slash market. Paid for by Public Investing. Rokered services by Open to the Public Investing, Inc., member FINRA and SIPC. Advisory services by Public Advisors, LLC, SEC Registered Advisor. Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures. So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need. Now, a global workforce of 300 ,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94 % of common questions. Not noise. Proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business.

19:43Let's create smarter business. IBM. Let's talk about healthcare for a second. It doesn't always work the way people expect it to. If you've ever waited on a prescription refill or had a hard time getting the care you needed, you know the feeling. The system should just work better for everyone. That's exactly what the people at Optum are trying to do every day. They're a healthcare company linking patient care and pharmacy services and using data and technology to drive the whole system so care is connected, not complicated, for patients and providers. Things like making it easier to get care that looks at the whole person, from primary care doctors to mental health support and even in-home care, and then using technology to make sure they all work together.

20:25Technology designed to help doctors spend less time on busy work and more time with their patients. And those prescriptions? Optum is working to bring costs down, save patients money, and make it easier to get refills. Little by little, Optum is helping make healthcare work as one for everyone. Head to business.optum.com to see how. Federal prosecutors went to a grand jury to seek criminal charges against members of the United States Senate for something we said. They tried to have us charged and thrown into jail because we said something that they didn't like. because we repeated what the law actually is.

21:17Four months ago, Democratic Senator Mark Kelly spoke about the effort by D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to get an indictment against six members of Congress who made a video encouraging U.S. troops to disobey illegal orders. But a grand jury refused to indict them. We know the law and the Constitution is on our side. We saw that yesterday when U.S. citizens, the members of a grand jury, they took a stand and said no. A grand jury refusing to indict was once an unusual occurrence, no longer. It's happened in several high-profile cases. For example, Virginia grand jurors twice refused to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James.

22:07and federal grand jurors in Chicago rejected indictments against at least three people last year, all of whom were accused of assaulting federal agents during the anti-immigration crackdown. And now a quiet institutional shift as judges are expressing doubts that prosecutors are bringing cases based on the strength of the evidence. District courts in Chicago, D.C., and Boston are now moving to document the refusal of grand juries to indict. My guest is former federal prosecutor Sharon Faley, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Explain why judges in some jurisdictions are concerned about what's happening in federal grand jury proceedings.

22:58So the grand jury is a really important check on the prosecutorial process. It's actually grounded in the United States Constitution that when you're charged with a serious crime, that you should be charged by way of an indictment that's brought by the grand jury. The purpose of the grand jury is to have an independent group of citizens who look at the evidence of the case and decide if there's sufficient evidence to believe that there's probable cause that a crime was committed and the person that's being charged committed the crime. And the reason why we want to have that independent check is because being charged with a crime is really serious.

23:36It has a lot of impact on people's lives. It can cause public reputational harm. It can cause someone to lose their liberty if they're held in detention pending the trial. They could be held and then lose their family, lose their job, lose their home. So there's a lot of consequences for just being charged with a crime, not even being convicted of a crime. So when the government is going to take that really important step, we do want this independent check, and that's the purpose of a grand jury. So when we have concern that the government's conduct in front of a grand jury is not what it's supposed to be, then that can be really concerning because it undermines that constitutional right to have this protection that the grand jury provides.

24:21Now, normally, proceedings before the grand jury are secret, and they're supposed to be secret. And there's a reason for that, too. When you have a government that's investigating an individual, you know, that can cause reputational harm. If that were to get out, the person might be entirely innocent. So we don't necessarily want, you know, the public to know everything that goes on within the grand jury. And then, of course, also witnesses are called to appear and testify before the grand jury. And we want those witnesses to feel comfortable doing that. And so we want to protect their identity.

24:56And so that's why the proceedings before the grand jury are supposed to be secret. Now, there's evidence that's been appearing over the last few months that gives us concern about the conduct of prosecutors when they're appearing before the grand jury. So tell us what the district court in the Northern District of Illinois, which covers Chicago, is doing to address possible problems with grand jury proceedings. In this case, we have the federal court in the Northern District of Illinois, who I guess had some concerns and made a change to their local rules, which they have the power to do. So they created a rule that says that when the government presents an indictment to the grand jury in a case where the government has already charged someone by way of a complaint or by way of an information, and the grand jury says, no, we don't agree that there's enough evidence here to carry this forward to the trial.

25:53They're going to make that information public. They're going to make that decision by the grand jury public. It's a new rule. So that was the decision that this court made. And we're assuming that it's based on, you know, recent events and activities that were occurring within that particular district. So in Chicago, there was the case where Judge Perry found that there was misconduct at the grand jury, including that the prosecutor dismissed a grand juror who didn't agree. They talked to a grand juror outside of the grand jury. They improperly vouched for the evidence. Now, that kind of information, that kind of misconduct, we're not going to learn from just this reporting that's required now, right?

26:41We're just going to learn the minimal information. Yeah. So like I said, the proceedings before the grand jury, which would include all the testimony by the prosecutors as well as the witnesses, will still remain secret even under this new rule. None of that substantive stuff will come out. This rule merely allows for the court to have a public document that shows that an indictment was presented and it was rejected. And that's all the information that this rule allows to come out about what happens before the grand jury. So why do you think it's important that even that minimum comes out? Well, for example, if you have a situation where the government, you know, is seeking to indict someone without sufficient evidence in a case where the person has already been charged publicly, I think the court is saying we want the public to know that.

27:38And just in case there's concerns, concerns around the government conduct and pursuing the case. And so I think that's the purpose of the rule. I was interested because you always heard that famous expression, you know, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. But according to the federal data, grand juries around the country refuse to indict 15 times a year on average from 2006 to 2016. Is that even a surprising number? Well, I think the thing to understand is that, you know, the whole saying about grand juries will indict a ham sandwich, it's important to understand the dynamics of what happens in a grand jury.

28:17A grand jury is not like a normal criminal trial where you have both sides arguing about the case, where, you know, the government is presenting the evidence saying this person is guilty and the defense counsel is presenting evidence or arguing that he's not. The grand jury is not an adversarial proceeding, meaning only the government is there. So the government is presenting evidence and all they need to do is to put forth enough evidence to prove that there's probable cause to believe that the crime was committed by that person. That's a much lower standard than the proof that we're normally used to seeing in a criminal trial, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

28:58So it's not a terribly high standard. So it's only the government there. The other side's not there to argue against what the government is presenting, and it's a fairly low standard. And so that's why it's fairly rare where the government presents a case where a true bill is not authorized by the grand jury. But the other reason why a no true bill decision is rare is because when you're a prosecutor presenting a case before the grand jury, as I mentioned, to get an indictment, all you have to put forth is enough evidence to prove there was probable cause. But you know, ultimately, if you get the indictment, that you're going to have to try the case.

29:37And so most prosecutors, at least most good prosecutors, are not going to seek an indictment unless they have enough proof to prove the case ultimately, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's another reason why, particularly in the federal system, usually, you know, decisions of no bill are rare, because most Most prosecutors, before the indictment, their case is built out and it's strong and they know they've got proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's why they're pursuing the indictment. And so that's why these no bill decisions usually are somewhat rare. A lot of the high profile cases where grand juries refuse to indict involved political enemies of the president or Democratic lawmakers.