Show HN: Pardonned.com – A searchable database of US Pardons
485
vvidluther 2 days ago 261 comments
ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
https://pardonned.com
Inspired by the videos of Liz Oyer, I wanted to be able to verify her claims and just look up all the pardons more easily.
Tech Stack: Playwright - to sccrape the DOJ website SQLite - local database Astro 6 - Build out a static website from the sqlite db
All code is open source and available on Github.
Discussion (261 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
I wanted to do some stuff with this data so need a raw format.
(process was so easy since its included on a single page load, so I assume you don't mind! thanks for making this )
https://pardonned.com/pardonned.db
> For any nonviolent offenses against the United States which they may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1 2014 through the date of this pardon (JAN 19, 2025).
https://pardonned.com/pardon/details/biden-family/
That’s 11+ years with no detail or description.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-4311-...
> Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Not quite as long, but much more significant. (No violence exception, the criminal was the President, and they were crimes against the entire country, not some random drug/tax charges.)
Pardons have valid uses, but it's wild that a single person can unilaterally pardon donators, family members, former presidents, etc, without needing so much as a simple majority confirmation vote in the House or Senate.
The questionable pardons that we've seen over the last few years (and the Nixon pardon) are just the tip of iceberg in terms of how badly they could be abused.
I'd imagine it won't be long until we see a president issue a preemptive pardon to themself at the end of their term, because there's nothing in the constitution that says they can't.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/22/us/ford-wins-kennedy-awar...
Will have to crunch through the offenses in the db and see if anything else like this shows up.
Compare that to the other list. https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-recipients
This kind of topic is bound to bring up a lot of outrage, but I'd invite people to remember it's the Marc Richs of the old buying pardons that you should be directing that toward. There are plenty of people locked up for a very long time who really don't deserve it. I recall a Chumash woman I worked with at the LA County Museum of Natural History 24 years ago. I gave her a ride home a few times and eventually realized I was taking her to a halfway house, and it came out that the FBI has busted her in the early 90s for criminal conspiracy and her only actual offense was refusing to testify against her husband, who'd been selling marijuana on their reservation under the logic that he didn't believe US law should apply because of the historical treaties about tribal land. She did 10 years in federal prison for that.
That's kind of how I came upon the name for the site, I wanted to see if there is any truth to the rumors that people are selling and buying pardons. In order to investigate that, we needed a set of data to start from, in a manner that was easily queryable as opposed to what's on the DOJ website.
https://campaignlegal.org/update/inside-pardon-playbook-anal...
I'm pretty new to this particular issue so I don't have a ton to offer. It's really interesting, though. Nice site, by the way.
https://pardonned.com/pardon/details/adriana-isabel-camberos...
Adriana Camberos was in fact pardoned twice.
In 2021, convicted fraudster Adriana Camberos was freed from prison when President Trump commuted her sentence. Rather than taking advantage of that second chance, Ms. Camberos returned to crime. She was convicted again in 2024 in an unrelated fraud. In 2026, Mr. Trump pardoned her again.
Full story here: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/16/us/politics/trump-fraudst...
Commutation is ending any punishment for a conviction, but the conviction stands. A pardon wipes out the conviction.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/commutations-granted-presiden...
She only shows up here
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-grants-president-don...
It's just a thought-stopping meme. Thought-stopping because it ends up derailing conversations about policy or governance with dictionary definition arguments. A meme because the eye-rolling implication is that if our country is a republic and not a democracy, then naturally it's Republican and not Democrat(ic).
Furthermore, the fact that there are some anti-democratic elements in the US Constitution doesn't preclude democracy on the whole. Much in the way we consider our economic system to be capitalist despite there being many anti-capitalist components.
In the context of American thought, Federalist No. 10 goes into exacting detail as to why the proposed government was a republic and not a democracy. If a republic were merely form of democracy, then the entire document would have been a waste of time. Instead, this was a point of serious debate. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
The U.S. constitution is explicitly anti-democratic on several points. Judges are appointed rather than elected and serve for life, intentionally intended, although admittedly with limited success, to remove them from partisan pressures and the fickle passions of the day. States have unequal representation in the House. Large states and small states have equal representation in the Senate. The president is not elected by popular vote but by a select group of electors. Executive, legislative, and judicial are co-equal; one may not compel the other even with an appeal to some election. Even a unanimity of voters may not pass certain legislation.
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
Brown v. Board, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
This compulsion to torture both language and history to apply the blessed label democracy to forms of government that do not meet the definition is puzzling. Call things what they are. Democracy is not a worthy end in itself. Majoritarianism and utilitarianism can be highly problematic and downright evil.
If the country didn't learn after the first term, what makes you think they will after the second term?
All signs indicate that the electorate is getting dumber.
It’s in dire need of reform or replacement.
He also revoked a pardon when he discovered that one had his father donate large sums to the RNC.
Maybe removing this pardoning power could be a bipartisan goal... I guess we shouldn't hold our breath.
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-promises-pardon-ev...
The second type became a political necessity, for example to protect Liz Cheney from a vengeful administration.
There is exactly one party in the US that does this, and it's because they have dedicated themselves to blocking the other party from accomplishing much of anything when they get power.
Because I can get you would want to shield some people from persecutions (just or unjust) from your successor, but I see no reason why you would be able to pardon someone charged but waiting for trial. This makes a mockery of justice, the public can't discover the facts but more importantly: why pardon someone that is still considered innocent ?
If they’ll be pardoned anyway, why?
IANACL but surely there are other ways to protect people from politically motivated prosecutions? E.g. jail anybody attempting to direct the DOJ for personal or political reasons?
Congress created the DOJ, It is their job to police it. They can defund or even eliminate it. That's the check on it.
When that person is the president and the Supreme Court has said they are immune from prosecution, you need something else to be a check.
Was it, though? It struck me as more empty political theater around an event largely defined by political theater.
There's no reason to say that unless you know they're actively committing federal crimes in the present day.
There are reasons. For example, you feel the justice system is going to be misused against them. Protection against future witch hunts basically.
I don't think this is what's happening here, and trump is on record talking very explicitly about weaponising the state against his enemies himself, but it's probably an excuse that will be used.
However, the broader context reads
The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.
Ex parte Garland, 371 U.S. 333, 380 (1866) https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
Changing it would require not a mere legislative act but a constitutional amendment.
To the executive alone is intrusted the power of pardon; and it is granted without limit.
United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128, 147 (1871) https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
We're sort of already there. A lot of the Jan 6 rioters were openly trying to murder congressmen. The fact they weren't successful isn't super reassuring.
This single ruling will haunt the United States for the rest of its existence.
Is there evidence of this?
This is one of those things where I’d love to get on board with the popular view but I haven’t found evidence that anything beyond a sit in was intended and the arguments seem to be floating in air if you follow them down to their root. But I haven’t done that much research so I’d appreciate if you could share what makes you think this, thanks!
A pardon is only a protection against a 'vengeful administration' if that administration is not your party.
Pardons are only a miscarriage of justice if those pardoned don't share your ideology.
So to answer your question, seems like Yes, pardons for all!
So child sacrifice and cannibalism are only technically "in the Epstein files;" there's very little evidence that anyone did those things. For other readers, if you hadn't heard about this, that's probably why.
I'm thinking of Carter fulfilling a campaign pledge to pardon draft dodgers. Whether you support that or not, he did what he said he was going to do and I'm sure only some of them had actually been charged in any way. I think that's a perfectly fine use for the pardon power.
Some will point to the Hunter Biden pardon. So two things can be true at once here: it was absolutely political prosecution AND Joe Biden was completely selfish with his action. At least do something for the people by, say, pardoning a whole bunch of low level drug offenders and decriminalize cannabis at the Federal level. But no, it was completely self-serving but his brain was pretty much gone by this point.
Here's the problem: Federal prosecutors have a ton of power. Conviction rates are 98-99%. But it goes beyond that. Federal prosecutors will intentionally bankrupt you to force you to take a plea. They might charge you with 15 felonies, 12 of which are basically bogus. You still have to defend those bogus felonies and that costs you money. And as soon as you run out of money, they'll offer you a plea where you're looking at 25 years on the 3 remaining felonies or you can just take 10.
The power imbalance is insane and the wealthy are essentially immune. If a US attorney decides to make an example of you, you're going to have a bad time, regardless of the facts.
Millions were spent dredging up some crimes for Hunter Biden and pretty much all they could come up with was doing crack and filling out a form incorrectly. Do you think anyone else would get that level of attention?
A very recent example of this is the Karen Read trial or, as I call it, the most expensive DUI prosecution in history. If you didn't follow the case, don't worry, there'll be any number of true crime documentaries. Millions were spent prosecuting Karen Read for killing JOhn O'Keefe with a completely ridiculous theory of the case and all sorts of evidence that went missing (including police officers disposing of their cell phones on a military base the day before an electronics preservation order was issued).
I don't know what we do about this power imbalance and selective prosecution.
This always gets thrown around, but the fact is they should be that high. Prosecutors shouldn't bring cases unless they have evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and DOJ prosectors don't (normally) screw around.
When you see lower rates of conviction, as in the current ethically bankrupt administration, it's often malicious prosecution, aka "You'll beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."
US Attorneys are enormously powerful and because federal law is so vague in many ways, attracting their attention is a kiss of death. Most of federal defense work is highly technical and more about managing pleas and the mandatory sentencing guidelines. They agree to punishment and shape the plea deal to some crime that hits the number.
This weird technical approach to “justice” results in bad outcomes in other ways. The famously self-promoting Preet Bharara ended up letting a bunch of people free who quite obviously were taking bribes and fixing bids go free by abusing the “Honest Services” laws, which were subsequently thrown out on appeal.
The current administration is different - their weaponization of the system means that they literally can’t appoint qualified attorneys, who fear disbarment for what they will be directed to do. AUSAs have quit en masse and they are forced to hire toadies from 3rd tier law schools like Liberty University and make weird interim appointments. It’s a great time to be a criminal.
This high cost and power imbalance is used to force people into plea deals for crimes they didn't commit.
Let me give you an example: 924C enhancements [1]. This is where certain drug or violent crimes being committed with a firearm can add years or even decades to a sentence automatically.
Let's just say you live in a concealed carry state and you have a weapon on you. You're walking home and the police pick you up. You match the description of one of two people who were smoking drugs in an alley as per a 911 call. The other person was already picked up by police. He was unarmed. His story was that you sold him the drugs. He also claims you brandished a pistol.
Was there a drug transaction? Or was this simply two people smoking together? The other person had a small quantity of drugs on him when apprehended.
A 911 call mentioned seeing a weapon drawn. It was dark. You can go through versions of this scenario where you were the other person or it was a case of mistaken identity. Eitehr is bad for you.
What if the other person sold you the drugs and made up this story to avoid a distribution charge? What if as a teenager you had a minor possession charge? What if prosecutors believe the other person and make a deal for a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony?
You have a gun and now 2 witnesses who say you "brandished" the gun. So whatever charge you end up with the "brandishing a firearm" part (under 924(c)) adds 7 years to your sentence to be served consecutively. And they've stopped you with a firearm.
So what was a "he said, she said" situation has now turned into a situation where you could be facing 10 years in jail and defending against that could well cost you $200,000+, which you don't have. Or you can take this plea for 2 years in jail. What do you do?
[1]: https://www.nyccriminalattorneys.com/18-u-s-c-%C2%A7-924c-th...
In 2022 he pardoned ~6500 people with federal convictions for simple possession of marijuana. That didn't actually release anyone from jail because it turned out everyone in jail with a simple possession conviction was also in there for other crimes but for those for whom it was their only drug offense (both currently in prison or not) it wiped it off their record which would restore eligibility for various things that drug offenders are barred from.
Near the end of his term he commuted the sentences of around 2500 non-violent drug offenders.
I'd find that fascinating for seeing deeper patterns.
The sentence reads: “Distribution of satellite cable television decryption devices”
probably run it against something small like haiku and not cost me an arm and a leg.
Why not include the January 6th pardons?
Working on a comparison tool, so we can see # of pardons over admins, it seems the number of pardons has been going up each administration.
https://pardonned.com/pardon/details/ross-william-ulbricht/
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-grants-president-don...
cmd-f trevor milton .. if the text for the sentence column doesn't say anything about a fine or restitution the system is not going to be able to figure that out.
The numbers for the prison time reduced is also technically incorrect, Ross Ulbricht, Rod Blagojevich and many others had already served many years in prison, so technically we should not count that as time reduced.
The pardon system in particular needs a serious overhaul. For every case where a pardon is used to correct an "unjust ruling", it swings just as easily in the opposite direction. Frankly I have more faith in a decision that goes through the proper judicial process than in one made unilaterally by a single person with zero oversight. There's a reason it's been historically called the "royal pardon".
We need a combination of:
- hard caps on the maximum number of pardons a president can issue per term
- congressional review before those pardons take effect
Relegate pardon powers to only amount to commutations, at the bare minimum.
Oh fun fact, Alexander Hamilton thought monarchies were the best form of government.
> 118 of 2,791 GRANTS
Only 118 list marijuana in the pardon text
I haven’t looked into each case here, but I assume these are a bunch of non-violent drug offenders serving years and decade-long sentences. I see 30 years for “possession with intent to distribute”. That’s just crazy.
When the justice system is clearly broken, it’s ok to subvert it.
The recent presidential immunity decision just made the downsides way more likely.