[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi...
Obama pardoned 1 person for perjury and they weren't even connected to him.
Most of Trump's appear to be pardons of notable people, often aligned with Trump, currently serving their sentence, and in the case of Stone actually convicted for activity relating to Trump. There are a few more traditional cases (eg Jack Johnson), but all in all they're two very different lists, showing a very different use of the power.
To be clear, I'm of the opinion that both are bad and that the power should be restricted to a judicial committee or similar, as elsewhere, but I do think these two cases are _different_.
I'm not saying this is for sure the case.. just that your comment smells of bias to me.
By the way, at the end of his first term, Obama had pardoned _17_ people. Expect a flood of pardons from Donald in January (or, if he's re-elected, in January 2025) as is traditional.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2017/0120/On-Obama-s-l...
Go ahead and review Obama's pardons and check for bias. He had an extra 4 years to fill with a legacy of criminal justice reform and forgiveness. I see 1 entry for perjury, a 3 month sentence, and no entries of past employees, advisors, friends, or contacts who plead guilty to or were convicted of crimes connected to the president. Trump pardoned Stone after he literally threatened the judge involved in his case on social media, an open threat against the entire US justice system. Recently a NJ judge's house was attacked and family members killed by someone who took action on that type of threat.
Trump pardoned someone who threatened a judge AND was convicted of lying to protect Trump. Perhaps he should face a second round of impeachment for such abuses of power.
What about judges though? In Obama's last year, an election year, the Senate held open over 100 judge positions including refusing to even hear a SCotUS pick (Garland). Obama had 324 picks confirmed over 8 years or about 40 per year. Trump has had 194 in his 3.5 years including that open SCotUS seat plus 1 or about 55 per year, a nearly 40% increase over Obama. Also, many of these lifetime justices are young, promoted by right wing interest groups including pseudo campaigns for SCotUS seats, and often rated unqualified or unexperienced by various Bar associations which is not only unprecedented but an incredible overreach by the Senate. McConnell held open over 100 seats for Trump to fill but continues to confirm judges for an impeached president in an election year. These justices may have 40+ year careers as partisan hacks disrupting our legal system which already suffers from insane structural racism and inequality (both things Obama was tearing down until his last day on the job).
Trump has appointed 2 SCotUS justices (one who likes to boof and drink) and 40% more judges than Obama, year to year, even after his impeachment and during an election year.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obst...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/15/how-trump-c...
Even if "most" of Trump's pardons were "blatantly corrupt", the fact that he has pardoned those who could implicate him in crimes and corruption and not those with unjust sentences, evidence of innocence, or convicted of breaking laws no longer on the books is downright indefensible and an indictment of his character and corruption as well as blank check from the GOP to cover up hypocritically instilling partisan justices.
It's important to question things and come to your own, well research and evidence based views on issues and events. Some of us have extensive education or experience in reviewing history and politics so the information is readily available or easy to find and it is important to understand where systems are broken and where people are breaking systems that work well when run by honest citizens, like the USPS. Obama definitely had more pardons but also used the power with humility and a conscience to fight injustice, not to further his own ends and protect himself from investigation.