The President's pardon power, a gaping hole the Constitution. [View all]
"treason should be excepted for fear that the President could otherwise frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself"
'The [pardon] power vested in the President by the Constitution traces its origins to authority held by the English Crown ' The Constitution Convention heard argument about placing limits on powers of a president to grant pardons; All were voted down. It was accepted that impeachment itself was enough of a safeguard.
ArtII.S2.C1.3.2 Historical Background on Pardon Power
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-2/ALDE_00013317/
Edmund Randolph proposed reincorporating an exception for cases of treason, arguing that extending pardon authority to such cases was too great a trust, that the President may himself be guilty, and that the Traytors may be his own instruments.
George Mason likewise argued that treason should be excepted for fear that the President could otherwise frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself to stop inquiry and prevent detection, eventually establish[ing] a monarchy, and destroy[ing] the republic.
James Wilson responded to such arguments by pointing out that if the President were himself involved in treasonous conduct, he could be impeached. Randolphs motion was defeated by an 8-2 vote, with one divided.Another proposal would have made reprieves and pardons available only after conviction. However, when James Wilson pointed out that pre-conviction pardons might be needed to secure accomplice testimony, the motion to add the language was withdrawn.
And there you have it, the J6 pardons, game set and match.
If you give the President the power of an English King, he or she might like to act like one. The founders were aware the danger, a president pardoning crimes that he or she instigated, but dismissed it out of hand, tearing a gaping hole in the Constitution.