
Dems Push Back On Trump Pardons With Restitution Argument
Trump's pardons have sparked criticism from Democrats, particularly regarding the loss of restitution payments. Critics argue that Trump's pardons, often granted to political allies and high-profile individuals, have harmed victims by wiping out restitution payments that would have otherwise gone to them or the government. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) highlighted several examples, including the case of Todd and Julie Chrisley, claiming that Trump's mass pardons, including those for January 6th felons, canceled $1.3 billion in restitution and fines owed to victims and taxpayers.
However, a closer examination of the restitution process reveals that a significant portion of restitution is never paid, and many of the amounts owed do not accurately reflect the financial losses caused by the crimes. Despite the political outcry, the actual impact of pardons on restitution is overstated, as the enforcement of restitution payments is typically limited, with many offenders unable to pay the full amount.
Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, financial loss plays a crucial role in determining prison sentences for crimes like fraud, theft, and embezzlement. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual assigns offense levels based on the amount of financial loss caused by the defendant. Larger losses result in higher offense levels and, consequently, longer sentences. For instance, a defendant who causes a loss of over $25 million will likely face a significantly harsher sentence than one responsible for a much smaller loss.
Additionally, financial loss affects restitution or forfeiture amounts that defendants must pay after serving their sentences. These amounts are often determined at sentencing but can be unclear in their calculation. In the case of high-profile cases like FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, who was ordered to pay $11 billion in forfeiture, or former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes, who faced $452 million in restitution, the amounts are often unrealistic, as the defendants may never be able to repay such large sums.
Restitution Payback Is Low, Very Low
Research published by George Washington Law School in their report "Debunking Criminal Restitution" reveals that 82% of felony defendants at the state level and about 76% at the federal level are classified as indigent. As a result, many individuals facing restitution lack the financial ability to repay, and those who might are often burdened by legal fees and lost income due to criminal proceedings. Additionally, the barriers individuals face after being released from prison create a cycle of debt that is nearly impossible to break, further hindering their ability to repay restitution.
According to the Government Accountability Office, US Attorneys Offices (USAO) collected $2.95 billion in restitution debt in fiscal years 2014 through 2016. However, at the end of fiscal year 2016, $110 billion in previously ordered restitution remained outstanding, and USAOs identified $100 billion of that outstanding debt as uncollectible due to offenders' inability to pay.
Corporate criminal restitution make up a large amount of what is collected, not individuals. Department of Justice's Fraud Section reported a significant increase in corporate restitution in 2024. The section resolved 13 corporate cases, resulting in over $2.3 billion in total monetary recoveries, a 300% increase from the previous year. These cases primarily involved healthcare fraud, securities violations, and procurement fraud. Whereas corporations can move on with a large restitution payment after fraudulent activities, individuals, who face significant incarceration time, cannot.
The Department of Justice's own website even notes that recovery of full restitution is unlikely, noting on its website, 'While defendants may make partial payments toward the full restitution owed, it is rare that defendants are able to fully pay the entire restitution amount owed.' Some have pegged the recovery at around 2% of the amounts due.
Bill Clinton signed the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) into law on April 24, 1996. The MVRA mandated that federal courts require convicted offenders to pay restitution to their victims, ensuring compensation for financial losses resulting from certain crimes. The MVRA removed judicial discretion, meaning judges could no longer consider a defendant's ability to pay when determining restitution. As a result, prosecutors often seek maximum restitution, aiming for longer sentences with little expectation of recovery. Offenders end up in lifelong debt, while victims face the false hope of receiving compensation for their losses.
That Democrats are now using the loss of restitution dollars as a push back on Trump seems a bit disingenuous since it was their party who pushed for MVRA. It was also Clinton who signed into law the 1994 Crime Bill, which led to a dramatic increase in prison population through longer prison terms around the country.
Although it is housed in the DOJ's Civil Division, the Financial Litigation Unit's (FLU) primary function is 'to litigate and enforce the collection of criminal and civil debts owed to the United States, including criminal restitution . . . .' The FLU has the power to do so for twenty years from the filing of a judgement, on top of any period of incarceration served. For those owing restitution, it amounts to a life sentence.
For many exiting prison, they are on Supervised Release for up to 5 years where they must report a financial statement each month and are required to pay toward their restitution. FLU monitors these assets, often seeking to place liens on assets such as homes and real estate. They also monitor refunds on tax returns and even garnish up to 25% of social security payments.
Dr. Topeka Sam did a prison term for drugs and received a pardon from Trump in 2020. She now heads Ladies of Hope Ministries and has been a tireless advocate for those in prison and those returning to society. Dr. Sam also has taken up the cause of the burden that restitution leaves on those trying to move on with their lives. When I spoke to Dr. Sam, she said it clearly, 'We've turned too many people into lifelong justice-involved individuals - not because they continue to break the law, but because of the weight of restitution debt that never goes away. Bankruptcy can't erase it. The only true pathway to relief is a presidential pardon or remission of fines fees and restitution. And when that happens, it's not just about walking out of prison, it's about being restored, being given a real second chance at life."
Tanya Pierce served three years for conspiracy to defraud banks during the mortgage crisis after going to trial. She said that her reason for going to trial was that she believed the amount of loss to the banks was approximately $25,000. In addition to her sentence, she was ordered to pay $2.5 million in restitution, an amount prosecutors said defined her 'intent' to steal more. Now free from prison and supervised release, she seeks legislative relief, hoping to find a way to escape the lifelong debt she cannot repay.
Pierce told me, 'I've been told that my alleged bank victims have never received one dollar of the small amount that I have been able to pay. The FLU is an organization that needs to be shut down and I'm shocked that Trump's DOGE initiative did not do that.' Pierce is pushing for some sort of amnesty for many who are under unrealistic restitution orders.
Kay Rogers never received any money from the alleged fraud she pled guilty to but felt she had to take a plea to move on with her life. 'The government put me in prison for 2 years and then they said I owed $5 million to a bank,' Rogers told me, 'now I have a piece of paper from the bank that says I don't owe them a thing but I still have to pay restitution." Rogers has a lien on her modest home and her social security is garnished.
Todd Ficeto was once a high-flying investment banker but got involved with a con-man from Germany. Ficeto went to trial and was convicted, resulting in a 6-year prison sentence. Prior to his indictment, he paid over $9 million to avoid prosecution, which represented his entire net worth. Shortly thereafter he was indicted. 'I figured I could pay the money, and be able to move on with life since I believed, and still believe, I did nothing wrong.' Out of prison and now on supervised release, Ficeto has no means to pay his $240 million in restitution, a sum he says represents an amount so outrageous that there is no way to ever pay it back. His former partner, Florian Homm, is a fugitive, living in Germany giving financial advice to the public.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US, China to launch new talks on tariff truce extension, easing path for Trump-Xi meeting
By David Lawder STOCKHOLM (Reuters) -Top U.S. and Chinese economic officials will resume talks in Stockholm on Monday to try to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of a trade war between the world's top two economies, aiming to extend a truce by three months and keeping sharply higher tariffs at bay. China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with President Donald Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary deals in May and June to end weeks of escalating tit-for-tat tariffs and a cut-off of rare earth minerals. Without an agreement, global supply chains could face renewed turmoil from U.S. duties snapping back to triple-digit levels that would amount to a bilateral trade embargo. The Stockholm talks come hot on the heels of Trump's biggest trade deal yet with the European Union on Sunday for a 15% tariff on most EU goods exports to the U.S., including autos. The bloc will also buy $750 billion worth of American energy and make $600 billion worth of U.S. investments in coming years. No similar breakthrough is expected in the U.S.-China talks but trade analysts said that another 90-day extension of a tariff and export control truce struck in mid-May was likely. An extension of that length would prevent further escalation and facilitate planning for a potential meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in late October or early November. A U.S. Treasury spokesperson declined comment on a South China Morning Post report quoting unnamed sources as saying the two sides would refrain from introducing new tariffs or other steps that could escalate the trade war for another 90 days. Trump's administration is poised to impose new sectoral tariffs that will impact China within weeks, including on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, ship-to-shore cranes and other products. "We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," Trump told reporters on Sunday before European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen struck their tariff deal. DEEPER ISSUES Previous U.S.-China trade talks in Geneva and London in May and June focused on bringing U.S. and Chinese retaliatory tariffs down from triple-digit levels and restoring the flow of rare earth minerals halted by China and Nvidia's H20 AI chips and other goods halted by the United States. So far, the talks have not delved into broader economic issues. They include U.S. complaints that China's state-led, export-driven model is flooding world markets with cheap goods, and Beijing's complaints that U.S. national security export controls on tech goods seek to stunt Chinese growth. "Geneva and London were really just about trying to get the relationship back on track so that they could, at some point, actually negotiate about the issues which animate the disagreement between the countries in the first place," said Scott Kennedy, a China economics expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "I'd be surprised if there is an early harvest on some of these things but an extension of the ceasefire for another 90 days seems to be the most likely outcome," Kennedy said. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has already flagged a deadline extension and has said he wants China to rebalance its economy away from exports to more domestic consumption -- a decades-long goal for U.S. policymakers. Analysts say the U.S.-China negotiations are far more complex than those with other Asian countries and will require more time. China's grip on the global market for rare earth minerals and magnets, used in everything from military hardware to car windshield wiper motors, has proved to be an effective leverage point on U.S. industries. TRUMP-XI MEETING? In the background of the talks is speculation about a possible meeting between Trump and Xi in late October. Trump has said he will decide soon on a landmark trip to China, and a new flare-up of tariffs and export controls would likely derail planning. Sun Chenghao, a fellow at Tsinghua University's Center for International Security and Strategy in Beijing, said that a Trump-Xi summit would be an opportunity for the U.S. to lower the 20% tariffs on Chinese goods related to fentanyl. In exchange, he said the Chinese side could make good on its 2020 pledge to increase purchases of U.S. farm products and other goods. "The future prospect of the heads of state summit is very beneficial to the negotiations because everyone wants to reach an agreement or pave the way in advance," Sun said. Still, China will likely request a reduction of multi-layered U.S. tariffs totaling 55% on most goods and further easing of U.S. high-tech export controls, analysts said. Beijing has argued that such purchases would help reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China, which reached $295.5 billion in 2024.

Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hong Kong's CK Hutchison seeks Chinese investor to join Panama Ports deal
HONG KONG (AP) — A Hong Kong conglomerate that's selling ports at the Panama Canal said Monday it may seek a Chinese investor to join a consortium of buyers, a move that could please Beijing but bring more U.S. scrutiny to the geopolitically fraught deal. CK Hutchison Holdings' initial plan to sell its port assets to a group that includes U.S. investment firm BlackRock Inc. pleased President Donald Trump, who has alleged that China interferes with the critical shipping lane's operations in Panama. However, they apparently angered Beijing and drew a review from Chinese anti-monopoly authorities. A Beijing-backed newspaper posted scathing commentaries about the deal, with one describing it as a betrayal of all Chinese. Beijing's offices overseeing Hong Kong affairs have reposted some of these commentaries, widely seen as an indication of Chinese leaders' stance. A Hutchison subsidiary has operated ports at both ends of the Panama Canal since 1997. After months of uncertainty brought by tensions between Washington and Beijing, Hutchison said in a statement that the exclusive negotiations period with the consortium has expired. However, it added 'the Group remains in discussions with members of the consortium with a view to inviting major strategic investor from the PRC to join as a significant member of the consortium,' referring to the People's Republic of China. It said they needed to change the membership of the consortium and the structure of the transaction for the deal to be able to pass reviews by 'all relevant authorities." The awkward position Hutchison found itself in for months highlights the challenges Hong Kong business elites face in navigating Beijing's expectations of national loyalty, especially when relations between China and the United States are strained. Hong Kong has overhauled its electoral system to ensure the city is run by 'patriots.' CK Hutchison is owned by the family of Hong Kong's richest man, Li Ka-shing. It announced March 4 that it would sell all its shares in Hutchison Port Holdings and in Hutchison Port Group Holdings to the consortium that also includes BlackRock subsidiary Global Infrastructure Partners and Terminal Investment Limited, a subsidiary of the Mediterranean Shipping Company. In May, Hutchinson co-managing director, Dominic Lai told shareholders that Terminal Investment was the main investor. Its parent company is led by Italian shipping scion Diego Aponte, whose family reportedly has a longstanding relationship with Li's. The initial deal, valued at nearly $23 billion including $5 billion in debt, would have given the consortium control over 43 ports in 23 countries, including the ports of Balboa and Cristobal, located at either end of the canal. That agreement also required approval from Panama's government. The deadline for their exclusive negotiation period ended on July 27. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data


Fox News
23 minutes ago
- Fox News
'We are bullish about the future because America is back,' says Mike Johnson
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., touts the successes of the Trump administration so far this term on 'One Nation.'