endowments. people think they're like savings accounts that sit off to the side. they're not that. they like annuities. they're what pays for your retirement. at princeton, we're currently spending 3.5% every year. to operate across all that we do. and the reason why i was able to answer your first question by saying, look, the affordability, getting better and better. we are employing them aggressively to do things like what is happening at princeton or m.i.t. or the other schools you mentioned, to create scholarship opportunities we didn't before. that's what we ought to be doing. >> all right, christopher eisgruber, he is president of princeton university. also chair of american universities. you can find out more about that organization at aau.edu. thank you for being with us. thank you. it's been a pleasure to be here. welcome back. we are talking about presidents and pardon power with samuel morrison. he's in the office of the

pardoned attorney. sam, welcome to the program. >> thank you. thanks for having me. >> what was your reaction to president biden's pardoning of his son hunter? >> i wasn't surprised at all. i know he said he wouldn't do it. but i expected that he would. just because the impulse of a father to a son. i understand people find it disquieting. but it wasn't exactly invalid. it was a wide use of the power but not illegal. it's very broad. only one could have been ford's pardon of nixon. >> we'll talk about that, but i want to first show a portion of president biden's statement on

his pardopping of his son. it ys no reasonable person who looks the facts of hunter's casn reach the concluhat nter was singled out only because he is my son. thatis wrong. i believe in the justice stembut as i have wresed with this, but i also believe raw politics have led to a miscarriage of justice. and ce i made cision this weekend, there was sense in delaying if further. i hope americans will understand why a father and a president would come to this decision. what i want to ask you about is his line, "raw politics infected the process that singled out hunter biden for this harsher treatment," according to the president. what was your reaction to that? >> i thought the statement was necessary and that it adds to the controversy. he didn't have to sort of attack the justice system in doing this. he could just do it. he doesn't have to explain it at all. and i think people would have understood that a father is

going to help his son. so was hunter singled out? maybe so. he did plead guilty to the tax charge. and he was convicted of the gun charge. and there's no issue or dispute that he got due process in that proceeding. so in that sense, sure. he came to the attention of the authorities because he came from a prominent family. that also comes with lots of advantages that other people don't have. and a lot of people get targeted by the federal government. they have a conviction rate at 98%. so the problem with what he said is that -- is he going to extend that same consideration to anyone else? one hopes that he will. because it doesn't only apply to hunter. >> you said before that only one other person has received a presidential pardon that was so sweeping, which was richard nixon, by gerald ford in '74.

so explain the similarities there and the differences. >> so if i could just step back for a second. people need to understand that the president's authority to pardon people for committing a federal crime is very broad. it applies to any offense that has been committed. it doesn't have to be reduced to a charge or a conviction. so any time the president wants to pardon somebody for an uncharged offense, there's always going to be a problem of how do you frame that grant so that we know what charge you're talking about? in ford's pardon of the nixon, he did it in terms of a date range. he didn't say, in relations to watergate, he said any offense from 1969 to 1974. the purpose was to get watergate behind the country. he wanted to get past that. but on its face, that would have pardoned any crime.

even crimes we didn't know about. that's what president biden did with his son. he said hunter was pardoned not only for the two convictions that we know about. but for any offense that occurred from a date in 2014 to 2024. >> and why do you think he did that? >> it seems obvious that there are other potential crimes out there. and he was afraid that the trump justice department was going to continue investigating hunter for other potential criminal violations. and he wanted this to end. and that was the only way to do it. some people have said -- have questioned, is that a valid use of the power? because he didn't specify the offenses. i personally didn't agree with that. i think as long as they're readily identifiable. the supreme court is never going to constrain the president's exercise of the pardon power in that way. i think it's lawful. and if it were to be challenge the, i think it would be upheld. but it is extraordinarily broad.

>> and if you'd like to join our conversation with samuel morrison, if you've got a question about the hunter biden pardon or presidential pardons in general, you can give us a call. our lines are by party. so republicans and democrats and independents. you can also text us at 202-748-8003. going back to history for a moment. where did this idea -- where did this originate from, that presidents should have the ability to pardon federal crimes? and what were the founders thinking? and were they worried that it coog could be abused? >> it was all of it. it originated in the king's

power to grant pardon. the founders were -- were creatured of the enlightenment. but they understood that no legislature could pass a law in the abstract that covered every single situation that might arise when you try to enforce that law, because the real world is always more complicated than we want it to be. so we understood that it might well be reasons or circumstances that mitigated somebody's guilt. or for public policy reasons, for larger, political reasons, the president might want to exempt somebody, even if they were, strictly speaking, guilty under the letter of the law. so they vested that power in the president, in his discretion. and they assumed that he -- he -- he would care about his reputation. that he wouldn't abuse it. so it's a political power of the president. and the remedy, because the opponents of the pardon power

said when if they actually raise, what if he grants pardons to his cronies or the president or to himself, and the answer was, impeachment power. it's a political power of the president. -- the extraordinarily broad. >> buzz you but you do it right before you leave office is this. >> that's a loophole in the constitution. they didn't think of everything. as marshall said, it's a constitution, not a code. this is the joints there. and this is one of them. so yes. it can be used that way. and there's very little you can do that way. >> and what's your opinion on -- i guess president-elect trump. one doesn't know what to call him, future-president trump, pardoning himself? >> my own view is that he can. although it's sort of like the pardon of hunter. it would be unprecedented, would probably be a bad idea,

but i think he could if heementded to. and the reason is, the supreme court has interpreted the pardon clause to mean exactly what it says. he can pardon any offense in the united states, except for impeachment. so he can't stop impeachment. that's the political check. also said any pardons on political power has to be found in the constitution itself. and i don't see any limits in the text of the constitution that would explicitly prohibit him from pardoning himself if it's an offense against the united states. >> can the president pardon a future offense? could he just say, look, anything that they could do in the next five years? is that possible? >> that's a good question. the answer is no. because the supreme court has addressed that. when it says offenses against the united states, they have interpreted that to mean in the past tense. so a pardon for a future crime, which would be a license to commit a crime --

>> exactly. >> would be void. >> let's talk to anthony. >> good morning. hello, sir. before i ask my question. i find it funny that if they really had evidence against president trump, he would have been in jail already. and how i think so this is president biden -- you correct me if i'm wrong, sir. this is biden's last chance. he covered his son for, i believe, 10 years. 2003 to 2004. i think if they dug, they would have evidence back to him. how can you pardon somebody for a 10-year period, where if he had -- can you bar somebody from a crime that hasn't been charged yet? >> yes. you can actually. the supreme court has said that. it's the commission of the offense not the charge or conviction. >> patsy, democrat. you're next.

>> hi. i think that president biden should pardon his son because, even though he was convicted of such minute crimes, considered that president trump did so hideous crime was indicative, he didn't go to jail. for him to not pardon his son, and here comes the presidency and all the republican houses and the supreme court. and if he calls it -- trump is going to vindicate, you know, have revenge against different people, biden's son would be one if they threw him in jail. and they didn't put trump in jail for his convictions and his convictions was greater of -- of, you know, deeds, you know, of biden's son. so i think he should have pardoned his son. because who would want his son to be convicted under the drugs

and regime and they throw him in jail? i think biden should put -- since he's still got a month or so to go, he should put trump in prison because he's still president. and he has been convicted. like i sure wouldn't leave my son in there. i think he did the right thing. >> all right, patsy. what do you think? >> well, i guess all i would think is, i hope president biden extend the the same consideration to a lot of other people. most accept responsibility and ask forgiveness. they're not challenging the validity of their conviction. i think the only way to take some of the sting out of the political scandal around this pardon is to grant pardons to a bunch of other deserving people. >> i want to show the chart at bbc. bbc.com.

biden has pardoned fewer people than most presidents in recent history. goes back to truman, who apparently had a lot of pardons during his term. but it goes all the way down here. you can see commutations is in yellow. obama having over 1500 commutations, with biden with very little down here. what do you make of those numbers? >> unfortunately, in modern times, with the notable of obama, presidents tend to wait until the end. they sort of neglect this at the beginning. then they run out of time. so they rush to get done what they can at the end. and it's not as easy to do as it sounds because you have to vet the cases. that's why the numbers aren't so great. >> talk about that process of vetting the cases. you were involved in that, weren't you? >> i was. i used to work at the pardon office. so by tradition. the office of the justice

department. getting petitions fors pardons and commutations of sentence, on behalf of the president, investigates them, writes a recommendation, and then advises whether he should write it or not. the problem is, it's very slow and cumbersome. they take a long time. the problem is, this is also the justice department. they have a conflict of interest. so i actually don't think that president trump and his first term was entirely wrong. on to be kept cal. what president trump didn't do is replace it with some other rational way to the cases. it became sort of a free-for- all to whoaferred gets into the white house. that's not a rational way to vet these. so what he could do, and what i advocate that he should do is

simply move the department office out of doj and move into the office of the president. doesn't mean doj wouldn't have a role, of course they would. and it's appropriate for them to weigh in on cases. they just shouldn't control the entire process. >> let's talk to larry in galesberg illinois, good morning. >> good morning. >> i had a question. if somehow they found that there was treason. could anything be done to them? could they be brought into court? or are they just scott-free with whatever they've done in the 10 years? >> anything's within that scope that falls within 10 years hunter is pardoned for. it doesn't apply to the

president. he didn't pardon himself. >> does that answer it, larry? >> no. in other words. i'm a high official at saudi arabia and i gave hunter $10 billion to split with his dad now? neither of them could get in trouble because he's pardoned for the past 10 years? >> no. that's not what i said. i said hunter can't be charge federal the offense falls within that 10 years. stow if it's a crime t completed crime within that 10 years, hey can't be charged. president biden hasn't been pardoned. so if he committed a crime, in theory, there's no reason that he couldn't be prosecuted. >> can any pardon be undone by a future president? act of congress? supreme court? >> the answer is no. if it's a valid pardon and accepted and received by the grantee, it is final. >> here is michael in lynette,

alabama. independent. >> yeah. i'm concerned about the fact that everybody is concerned about president biden giving a pardon to his son. but nobody is concerned about president trump, plect trump, giving a pardon. can he do that? >> i think he can. and there's history of presidents doing that. for example, when jefferson was elected in 1803. he pardoned everyone in prison who were convicted under the alien sedition act. >> what did those people do? >> they were alleged to have engaged in sedition against the united states. and will jefferson thought it was all political and just aimed at the federalist's political opponent. i'm saying it's been done. so he can't -- he could.

he said he's going to. and i wouldn't be surprised if he did. >> and thomas jefferson, was he the first president? the third president. but the first to pardon? >> no. george washington pardoned the participants in the end of the whiskey rebellion. and john adams granted a few pardons. i can't tell you off the top of my head how many. there weren't that many because there weren't that many prosecutions. >> sam in baltimore, a democrat. good morning. >> good morning. here's my point. i think that president biden changed his idea because he has seen what trump is talking about with his vengeful attacks. he's going to use the department of justice to go after people repeatedly. so i think, didn't biden have a plea deal? but they don't care about that. they want to keep him in the parents, they want to keep him in the press. they want to keep continually attacking him. so i understand why they deal

abroad. because trump is vindictive and vengeful and wants to hurt people that have wronged him. could you please comment? >> you're right. that was their concern. that was clearly why they did it. there was concern that there were other, at least potential charges out there, and that trump would pursue them. so this was a way of closing the door to that. >> joe in new jersey. good morning. >> good morning. my question is, about hunter biden. a previous caller said that he didn't commit any egregious crimes. he has all of these images out there that they found on the computer of him and, you know, naked and, you know, drugs and guns and all that. i don't understand how he can be pardoned for that, when other people can't get pardoned for that. they, you know -- it just doesn't make sense to me. >> well, that's the -- that's what i said before.

that's the big question. what does president biden do with the time he has left in office. there's plenty of time. lots of pending petitions. so there's hope that he grants pardons to a bunch of other deserving people. and like i said, that's really the only way to sort of take the sting out of this. >> you mentioned, just wonder what changes should be made to the whole process of pardoning? you mentioned taking the office out of doj and putting it in the executive office of president. what other changes do you think should be made? >> i think that would solve most of the problem. because the independent party would be independent. i'm not criticizing the people in office now. assuming they do everything in good faith, they still have a conflict of interest. and they're still part of doj. and doj definitely uses that office to try to control the

president's office and control. they do that by control the information he gets. the only other thing i would do is make it a little more transparent. right now, a pardon applicant can submit his petition, but he doesn't get to see what doj says about it. which means doj gets to do this in secret. that, to me, is a problem. in any other legal proceeding, doj has to -- there's give and take. both sides get to see what the other side is saying and respond. so i think if the pardoned attorney is doj. it could be digs closed to the petitioner. and the petitioner can respond. and the party's advice to the president would be confidential. but at least the petitioner would have the opportunity.

>> how does one apply for pardon? >> in the normal course, there is a formal pardon application form. and there is a commutation application form. and you download them. you fill them out and submit it to that office. >> how many does the office get per year, let's say? >> thousands. thousands. i would say they get on the order of maybe hundreds to a thousand or so pardons. so the rest of commutations. those are people in prison, trying to get their conviction cut short typically. >> what is the success rate, typically? >> well, for the pardon office, it's extremely low. it's less than 1%. i can give you some concrete numbers that i know personally. when george w. bush was president, the office of the pardoned attorney received about approximately 8500 new commutation petitions that were filed after he took office. of those 8500 roughly, six got

a favorable recommendation. >> okay. that's a really low percent. >> essentially none. >> what they're really saying is everything is perfect. and we never made a mistake, and there's no reason to look at any of these. and of those six, three were almost out of prison anyway. in those three cases, was there any sort of acknowledgment that there should be meaningful relief? that illustrates the problem that i'm talking about. and i don't think anything is really meaningfully changed. numbers might go up better. but they're not going to go up much. but that's essentially what we're dealing with. >> talk to mike in reston, virginia. hi, mike. >> hi. i mean, president has the right to pardon, and it's his legal right. people don't like it? that's fine. democrat -- republican went after hunter for political reason. we all know this. many people commit this crime, never get charge the.

but they did it for political reason. and i don't understand why c- span is focusing on this. how is this affecting our live. >> what is going to change? what happened to inflation and borders and immigration and all of these subjects? and we're talking about hunter biden? this is ridiculous. i mean, come on. come on. trump, a convicted felon is running for -- he became president of the united states again. and he tried to overthrow our government. and we're talking about hunter biden, it just doesn't make sense. our system doesn't work right. >> tell us about the convictions hunter biden was convicted of. >> on the grand scheme of things, i think so they were on the minor end of the scale. and they aren't prosecuted that often. in a tax case, if you pay the money bax, you often aren't prosecuted. at least if you don't lie

during the course of the investigation. that's usually why you get charged. the gun charge, it's there. it was a valid charge. i'm not saying it was an invalid charge. it's just not used very often. so he was one of the unusual people that got prosecuted for that. that's all true. >> neil in cleveland, ohio. republican line. hi, neil. >> hello. from mr. montgomery, and it's interesting, because he just discussed what i was about to ask. the tax case against hunter biden -- well, to begin with, hunter biden had tax issues that were relieved by the statute of limitations. back some years earlier. but then when he was found to have the tax fraud for the current period they -- they

convicted him of this. or charged him with this, i should say. so when you're -- when you're -- charged of this tax fraud. my understanding is you know, when you do something wrong in tax, if you come forward and pay, you're okay. but if they come find that, without you coming forward then you're guilty. and these people who do that, whether they pay or not, my understanding was, they go to jail. so i mean, what mr. montgomery just said is not the case. so he's saying that oh, well, he paid it, including the penalties i know -- >> mr. morison. >> i'm sorry. >> go ahead. >> well, no, actually, i don't agree with that. i didn't say somebody like hunter biden would never get prosecuted.

i was asked what typically is the case. that's all i'm saying. that is very often the case, if you self-report and you pay, and you don't lie to the irs, while they're investigating, you can often work it out. on the other hand, it was a valid charge. he did evade taxes. he admitted it. so in that case, there is nothing wrong with the conviction. >> does the presidential pardon apy to state court jurisdictions or only rulings of federal court? and can you discuss the oliver north pardon? >> it does not apply to state crimes. it's only where the united states has pross cuting authorities. that's military court, d.c. superior court. >> the oliver north pardon, i'm not sure what he's interested in, as far as the oliver north pardon. he was alleged. and i'm not sure oliver north

was pardoned. oliver north got an immunity deal. >> that's samuel morison. thank you for joining us. >> thanks for having me. focus now on new views on american spending ands engagement. roger zachheim is our guest. le a group whose mission is what? >> to advance president reagan's legacy, broadly speaking, in washington, d.c. and i have the honor of being the director of the reagan institute you mentioned. and here, we work on taking reagan's principles, values. and making sure those in leaders here in town. are really looking at this. >> the foundation is a 501c3. since they started the library back