Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Have any former U.S. presidents or officials been investigated for selling pardons historically?
Executive summary
Investigations into “selling” presidential pardons have surfaced in U.S. reporting, most notably a Justice Department probe in 2020 of an alleged “bribery-for-pardon” or “bribery conspiracy” in which unnamed actors reportedly offered political contributions or used secret lobbying to obtain clemency; DOJ officials said no government official was then a subject or target [1] [2]. Multiple outlets — Time, BBC, The Guardian, AP and OCCRP — documented the unsealed court filing and follow-up reporting but did not publicly name any charged officials arising from that probe [1] [3] [2] [4] [5].
1. Historical headline: the 2020-21 DOJ “bribery-for-pardon” probe
In late 2020 an unsealed court document described a Justice Department investigation into a “bribery conspiracy” in which an unnamed individual or intermediary allegedly offered a “substantial political contribution” in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve; reporting emphasized the filings were heavily redacted and did not name the president or particular White House officials as targets [1] [3] [2]. News organizations recorded that the probe grew out of searches and seizures of digital devices and focused on whether two people acted as unregistered lobbyists to senior White House officials; DOJ publicly said no government official was a subject or target at that time [1] [6].
2. What journalists actually reported — scope and limits
Time, BBC, The Guardian, AP and OCCRP described the same unsealed court order, noting prosecutors sought access to communications and found evidence pointing to secret lobbying and the offer of a political contribution in return for clemency; none of these outlets reported the filing resulted in public criminal charges against a president or senior official based on selling pardons [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Several reports underline heavy redactions in the court papers and quote a DOJ official disclaiming that any government official was then a subject or target — a limitation repeatedly highlighted by the press [1] [2].
3. How reporting and partisan narratives diverged
Major outlets documented the unsealed documents as newsworthy; partisan and advocacy reactions framed the same facts differently. Critics amplified the phrase “bribery-for-pardon” as an extraordinary allegation, while others, including some Republican lawmakers in later coverage, sought to draw equivalences or deflect by raising separate questions about autopen signatures or procedural irregularities on pardons [4] [7]. Journalists across outlets noted the legal standard: while the president’s clemency power is broad, offering or taking money in exchange for official action can trigger federal bribery laws — which is why the alleged scheme prompted prosecutors to open an inquiry [1].
4. Outcomes and unresolved questions in the record
Available reporting shows that the probe produced seized digital media and redacted court findings but — in the items provided — no publicly filed charges accusing a sitting or former president of selling pardons, and a DOJ official said no government official was a subject or target of the disclosed investigation [1] [6]. Later analyses and opinion pieces allege broader patterns or draw political conclusions, but the core contemporaneous reporting leaves unresolved whether the probe led to prosecutable evidence against officials [8] [9].
5. Broader context: pardons, politics and transparency
Investigative outlets, including ProPublica and others, have documented presidents using clemency for allies and donors, raising ethical and transparency concerns even where bribery is not proven; that reporting places the 2020 DOJ inquiry within a longer debate about how presidents exercise pardon power and whether informal or outside channels influence decisions [9]. Commentators and partisan outlets differ sharply on whether such patterns amount to corruption or permissible political clemency; the reporting cited shows facts about an investigation but not a definitive, public legal finding of “selling” pardons by a president or senior official [1] [9].
6. What’s missing from the available reporting
Available sources in this dataset do not provide public indictments or convictions of presidents or senior White House officials for selling pardons; they do not identify named government officials as targets of prosecution tied to the unsealed 2020 filings [1] [6]. Claims that the probe produced definitive proof of presidential wrongdoing, or that prosecutions followed, are not documented in the items provided here [1] [8].
7. Bottom line for readers
There has been at least one high-profile DOJ investigation into an alleged scheme offering money or large political contributions in exchange for a presidential pardon; reporters documented seizures of evidence and secret lobbying claims, and DOJ said no government official was a subject or target in the disclosed filing — but public reporting in these sources does not show subsequent charges or convictions of a president or named senior official for “selling” pardons [1] [6] [2]. Follow-up coverage would be necessary to determine whether investigations later produced prosecutable evidence or named targets beyond the redacted filings.