Comedian Andrew Schulz and his Flagrant podcast co-hosts criticized President Trump’s pardon of a crypto billionaire accused of facilitating money laundering. Hosts suggested pardons can be favors, a means to mobilize political support, or even paid for, with one co-host citing an unverified allegation involving a Binance-linked figure. The conversation shifted into a broader debate about whether the presidential pardon is a justified check on the judiciary or a power prone to abuse.
Andrew Schulz and Flagrant Co-Hosts Blast Trump’s Crypto Pardon: ‘Straight Paying For It’
Comedian Andrew Schulz and his co-hosts on the Flagrant podcast sharply criticized President Donald Trump’s recent pardon of a crypto billionaire who U.S. authorities had accused of facilitating money laundering and flagged as a possible national security concern.
Schulz — who backed Trump in 2024 and is often associated with the so-called manosphere — opened the conversation by offering two common explanations for controversial pardons: they are either favors for loyal associates who ran into legal trouble or politically motivated moves meant to energize a base, such as pardoning January 6 defendants.
Hosts Raise Possibility Of Paid Pardons
Co-host Alexx Media bluntly suggested a third explanation: 'And I think some people just straight paying for it. I think there’s a price for it.' Schulz pressed for clarification: 'But what’s the price, though?'
Mark Gagnon cited a rumor involving a Binance-linked executive: 'Allegedly it was like he got pardoned and then he has all these funds that he’s able to like reinsert back into Trump’s projects. Yeah, like his crypto projects. Allegedly. I don’t know if this is the case — this is what I’ve heard.'
Schulz responded, 'Yeah. I mean, that checks out. So then you’re paying for it,' to which Gagnon agreed: 'Yeah. Yeah. It’s like a little, you know, you scratch my back type of thing.'
Questioning The Pardon Power
The hosts then broadened the conversation beyond this single allegation into a debate about the presidential pardon itself. Schulz called the pardon power 'crazy' and asked why a president should be able to retroactively authorize or excuse conduct that was illegal under the law: 'Shouldn’t we get rid of that? Why does the president just get to say you’re allowed to do illegal shit? Right? Like, why? That’s weird — the pardon thing. What’s the justification?'
The discussion explored whether the pardon serves as a necessary check on the judiciary or is an authority vulnerable to political and financial influence.
A clip of the exchange circulated online after being shared by media outlets covering the episode.
