Two days after Donald J. Trump left the White House, The New York Times published a story revealing that one of his final acts as president had been to commute the 10-year sentence of Jonathan Braun, a notorious marijuana smuggler with a reputation for violence and ongoing legal problems. This decision was part of a series of pardons and commutations granted by Trump, many of which were for loyalists and individuals who were not high-profile political figures. However, Braun's case stood out due to his involvement in predatory lending practices and the ongoing investigations against him.

At the time of his commutation, Braun was under investigation by the Justice Department for gouging small businesses through high-interest loans. Both the New York State attorney general and the Federal Trade Commission were also pursuing him for making predatory loans and threatening borrowers who owed him money. Braun's family had even expressed their willingness to spend millions of dollars to secure his release from the prison sentence he had just begun serving for drug charges.

With Trump hinting at another presidential run and the possibility of using his pardon powers once again, The New York Times conducted an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Braun's commutation and what it revealed about the standards for clemency in the Trump White House. The investigation was based on documents, interviews with current and former officials, and individuals familiar with Braun's case.

One of the main takeaways from the investigation was that Trump's decision to commute Braun's sentence had undermined a federal criminal investigation into predatory lenders in the merchant cash advance industry. The U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan had been leading this ambitious investigation and had been in negotiations with Braun about cooperating with them. Prosecutors believed that Braun, who was desperate to get out of prison, would be an ideal candidate to flip on others in the industry and provide crucial information. However, Trump's commutation of Braun's sentence instantly deprived prosecutors of their leverage and undermined the progress of the investigation.

Furthermore, the case exposed shortcomings within the justice system, with failures at multiple levels to fully consider Braun's criminal activities. Prosecutors had longstanding concerns about Braun's violent tendencies and believed that he was a significant threat. Despite fleeing the country when he was about to be apprehended in the drug case, Braun was later released from jail while awaiting sentencing in exchange for his cooperation in other ongoing investigations. However, during his years of freedom, Braun established himself as a predatory lender, engaging in intimidating tactics. The Trump White House seemed to overlook this record when granting him clemency. Former federal prosecutors and defense attorneys expressed astonishment at the fact that Braun had been allowed to remain free for nearly a decade while awaiting sentencing, engaging in further criminal behavior.

The investigation also revealed that Braun's family had used their ties to Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, to influence the pardon process. Braun had attended Kushner Yeshiva High School, which was funded by Kushner's family, and had a personal connection with Jared Kushner's youngest sister. Braun's family reached out to Charles Kushner, Jared Kushner's father, for assistance in securing the commutation. Jared Kushner's White House office was involved in drafting the language used in the news release announcing the commutations, including Braun's. The family also hired Alan Dershowitz, a pro-Trump lawyer with connections to Jared Kushner, to advocate for Braun's pardon. Individuals who interacted with Braun later mentioned that they had been told the Braun family had used their connections to the Kushner family to secure the commutation.

In conclusion, The New York Times' investigation into Jonathan Braun's commutation shed light on the impact of Trump's use of pardon powers and the potential influence of personal relationships in the pardon process. The commutation undermined a federal criminal investigation, exposed shortcomings in the justice system, and suggested that personal connections played a role in securing clemency. As Trump contemplates another presidential run, the investigation serves as a reminder of the need for transparency and accountability in the exercise of presidential pardon powers.