But there is good news. If the Biden administration’s Department of Justice wants to rectify some of Trump’s abuse of the pardon power, there are now options at its disposal.

Some of the pardons Trump issued were exceedingly broad, such as that given his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who admitted in federal court when he pleaded guilty that he had lied to the government about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador to the United States, but then later claimed he had lied — this time to the court — when he swore that he was guilty. Flynn’s pardon (on Nov. 25, 2020) covers most any crime one can imagine, clearly seeking to leave no room for now holding Flynn to account for his past felonious conduct.[1]

But, oddly, not all of Trump’s pardons followed the Flynn model. Indeed, many are narrowly drawn.

The pardon for Paul Manafort (on Dec. 23, 2020), is illustrative. By its own terms, the pardon covers only the crimes “for his conviction” on specific charges and not any other crimes (charged or uncharged). Specifically, the pardon is solely for the crimes of conviction — eight in the Eastern District of Virginia and two in the District of Columbia. That leaves numerous crimes as to which Manafort can still be prosecuted, as in Virginia there were 10 hung counts. In Washington, the situation is even more wide open. In that district, Manafort pleaded to a superseding information containing two conspiracy charges, while the entire underlying indictment — containing numerous crimes from money laundering, to witness tampering, to violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act — now remains open to prosecution as there was no conviction for those charges.

Only days after Donald Trump returned to private life, The New York Times published a blockbuster new story on his efforts to overturn the election.

"The Justice Department's top leaders listened in stunned silence this month: One of their peers, they were told, had devised a plan with President Donald J. Trump to oust Jeffrey A. Rosen as acting attorney general and wield the department's power to force Georgia state lawmakers to overturn its presidential election results," The New York Times reported Friday evening.

"The unassuming lawyer who worked on the plan, Jeffrey Clark, had been devising ways to cast doubt on the election results and to bolster Mr. Trump's continuing legal battles and the pressure on Georgia politicians. Because Mr. Rosen had refused the president's entreaties to carry out those plans, Mr. Trump was about to decide whether to fire Mr. Rosen and replace him with Mr. Clark," the newspaper reported. "The department officials, convened on a conference call, then asked each other: What will you do if Mr. Rosen is dismissed? The answer was unanimous. They would resign."

"Their informal pact ultimately helped persuade Mr. Trump to keep Mr. Rosen in place, calculating that a furor over mass resignations at the top of the Justice Department would eclipse any attention on his baseless accusations of voter fraud. Mr. Trump's decision came only after Mr. Rosen and Mr. Clark made their competing cases to him in a bizarre White House meeting that two officials compared with an episode of Mr. Trump's reality show "The Apprentice," albeit one that could prompt a constitutional crisis," the newspaper explained.

This Friday, the Texas Supreme Court rejected InfoWars host Alex Jones' request to throw out four defamation suits against him from parents of children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School back in 2012, the Austin American-Statesman reports.

The lawsuits were filed in Travis County, where Jones' media empire is based, and argued that Jones' comments suggesting that the shooting was staged caused the parents emotional distress. Friday's ruling upheld rulings by two lower courts that allowed the lawsuits to continue.

"Our clients have been tormented for five years by Mr. Jones' ghoulish accusations that they are actors who faked their children's deaths as part of a fraud on the American people. Enough is enough," said Mark Bankston, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in 2018 after filing lawsuits against the pro-Trump conspiracy theorist.

This Friday, the Texas Supreme Court rejected InfoWars host Alex Jones' request to throw out four defamation suits against him from parents of children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School back in 2012, the Austin American-Statesman reports.

The lawsuits were filed in Travis County, where Jones' media empire is based, and argued that Jones' comments suggesting that the shooting was staged caused the parents emotional distress. Friday's ruling upheld rulings by two lower courts that allowed the lawsuits to continue.

"Our clients have been tormented for five years by Mr. Jones' ghoulish accusations that they are actors who faked their children's deaths as part of a fraud on the American people. Enough is enough," said Mark Bankston, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in 2018 after filing lawsuits against the pro-Trump conspiracy theorist.