Trump Pardons Client After Golf Buddy’s Persuasion
The recent pardon granted by former President Donald Trump has raised eyebrows regarding its implications for ongoing legal battles in the entertainment industry. This decision came after an influential conversation on the golf course.
Details of the Pardon
On November 16, 2022, President Trump played a round of golf with Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor and GOP representative. During their game, Gowdy discussed his client, Tim Leiweke, who was allegedly facing unjust treatment from the Justice Department.
Three weeks later, on December 7, Trump issued a full pardon to Leiweke. This pardon directly undermined the Justice Department’s case against him, which accused him of rigging bids for a $375 million basketball arena built for the University of Texas in 2018.
Implications of the Pardon
The Justice Department’s case against Leiweke had been considered strong. It included allegations of promising business to a company co-founded by NFL owner Jerry Jones in exchange for avoiding bids on arena rights. Live Nation CEO Irving Azoff, also associated with Leiweke, reportedly acted as an intermediary in these dealings.
The DOJ had focused on Leiweke as their sole defendant after granting Azoff immunity. They believed that securing a conviction would compel Leiweke to provide testimony against others involved in anti-competitive practices within the entertainment industry.
Comments from Trey Gowdy
- Trey Gowdy claimed he did not request the pardon but expressed gratitude for discussing Leiweke’s situation with Trump.
- Gowdy noted, “He is the president, and whatever decision was made after that, he was elected to make.”
Future Legal Matters
The pardon alleviates pressure on Leiweke, allowing him to potentially decline cooperation with the Justice Department in the ongoing antitrust case. Specifically, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, alleging they were using their power to elevate ticket prices and reduce competition.
In remarks regarding the industry, Live Nation has consistently denied monopolistic practices, stating that pricing decisions are made by artists and teams.
Context and Background
This situation reflects ongoing tensions between the Justice Department’s efforts to improve pricing in the live event market and the influences of powerful individuals within the industry. The political landscape surrounding the case could evolve as more information becomes available.
