The decision to pardon for Gov. Rod Blagojevich from President Trump can be viewed from so many different perspectives.
Some may view it as Trump trying to correct what they viewed as an overly harsh punishment for Blagojevich, especially considering his time served after being convicted for attempting to sell former President Obama’s Senate seat. While others may view the pardon as a gesture of fairness, giving Blagojevich a chance to return to his family and life. In spite of that, people could also look at the forgiveness as controversial, especially given Blagojevich’s high-profile corruption conviction.
Critics argued that the decision sent the wrong message about accountability for public officials, reinforcing the idea that powerful individuals might escape the consequences of their actions.
Additionally, some saw the forgiveness as politically motivated, since Blagojevich had become a media figure after his release and had expressed admiration for Trump’s political style.
The timing of this move with Blagojevich having served eight years of a 14-year sentence also raised questions about whether it was part of Trump’s broader pattern of granting forgiveness to those he viewed as politically aligned or who had publicly supported him. It certainly did not fit the usual narrative of pardons being granted for individuals who had shown deep remorse or demonstrated significant rehabilitation. I feel that just because someone has money and power, they should not be allowed to shorten their sentence based on the opinion of someone they know, or because that person believes they have served enough time, or that the sentence was unfair. If it were someone without those connections committing the same crime, they would not receive the same treatment, and that is not true justice. It is not right. But, as we all know, this is America—where fairness and freedom are not always guaranteed.
Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois, was convicted of multiple charges related to political corruption. The most notable crime was his attempt to sell Obama’s Senate seat. After Obama was elected president in 2008, Blagojevich was recorded on wiretaps discussing how he could “monetize” the Senate seat by trading it for things like a high-paying job, political donations, or a future cabinet position, which is a high-ranking government position within the executive branch typically appointed by the president. These wiretaps were a key piece of evidence against him, as he was heard openly discussing how he could personally benefit from the appointment.
In addition to the Senate seat scandal, Blagojevich was convicted on charges of extortion. He was found guilty of attempting to extort political contributions from companies in exchange for favorable decisions, such as awarding state contracts. He abused his power as governor by pressuring businesses to contribute to his political campaigns if they wanted to receive government benefits. This was another form of using his position for personal gain, which contributed to his conviction.
Blagojevich also faced charges of fraud and bribery. These charges stemmed from his efforts to use his office to gain personal and political benefits. For example, he sought campaign donations or other favors in exchange for state positions or funding. His actions were a clear violation of the public trust, and the evidence from wiretaps and other investigations showed that he was consistently using his office for illegal purposes. In 2011, Blagojevich was convicted on 18 counts of corruption, including wire fraud, bribery and extortion. The trial concluded with a 14-year sentence, one of the longest sentences ever given to a former U.S. governor for corruption-related crimes. Before the criminal trial, Blagojevich had already been impeached and removed from office by the Illinois legislature in 2009 due to the Senate seat scandal and other corrupt activities.
Blagojevich served about eight years of his 14-year sentence before being granted a quid pro quo by President Donald Trump in February 2017. The transaction reduced his sentence, and Blagojevich was released from prison after serving half of his original term.
Then, in February 2020, Trump went a step further and forgave Blagojevich, meaning his criminal conviction was erased, and he no longer faced any legal penalties from the case. Blagojevich’s case remains controversial. Some people believe his punishment was too harsh, while others argue that he should have faced even tougher consequences for abusing his power. His pardon by Trump sparked debates about the fairness of his conviction and the role of political influence in pardons.