In a functioning constitutional democracy, allegations of corporate corruption would ordinarily invite immediate investigation. Congress would demand documents, summon executives and expose wrongdoing to public scrutiny.

With Democrats having won control of both houses of Congress, the expectation will be that they exercise these oversight powers vigorously. In Donald Trump’s America, however, there is a compelling argument for doing precisely the opposite.

If the objective is criminal accountability rather than political theatre, the incoming Democratic majorities might be better advised to preserve the evidence but postpone public congressional investigations and disclosures concerning potential criminal wrongdoing by Trump’s corporate allies until he leaves office in January 2029, thereby avoiding the possibility of presidential pardons that could place those responsible beyond the reach of federal criminal prosecution.

This may sound absurd, but it follows from the extraordinary breadth of the presidential pardon power. Under the US Constitution, a president may pardon individuals for federal crimes before they have been charged, investigated or convicted. What was conceived as an exceptional power of mercy can become an instrument for protecting political associates, wealthy benefactors and corporate executives from criminal accountability.

A Washington Post investigation published on October 26 reveals that powerful technology and defence companies that cultivated close relationships with Trump are increasingly anxious about the prospect of a Democratic Congress. Companies including Palantir, Anduril, OpenAI and Meta face possible congressional scrutiny over government contracts, political contributions and their relationships with the administration. Some executives are reportedly scrambling to establish relationships with Democratic politicians as the prospect of congressional investigations approaches.

The financial stakes are considerable. The Post reports that 15 companies backed by Trump’s sons received $3.2bn in federal contracts, investments and loans, most after Trump returned to the White House. Congressional Democrats have raised questions about potential conflicts of interest and whether politically connected companies received preferential treatment. These relationships provide legitimate grounds for investigating how public resources were allocated.

Ordinarily, such investigations would be welcomed as an essential exercise of congressional oversight. But consider what might happen if congressional hearings uncovered evidence of fraud, bribery or corruption. The findings could identify those responsible and establish compelling evidence of........

© Al Jazeera