“Nauseating” is the word the Washington Post is using this morning to describe the pardons and commutations that President Trump issued as Christmas approached. The Times exclaims that, by pardoning “some of the most deplorable people in the country,” Mr. Trump has “made a mockery of mercy.” It even lists among the undeserving of Mr. Trump’s pardons the Thanksgiving turkey.

Yet the Times takes the occasion to call for yet more pardons. Good for the Gray Lady, we say. She references 74 Federalist, the number of the Federalist papers in which Hamilton sketches why the Founders granted the pardon power to the President alone. Without “an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”

This is why Hamilton, in 74 Federalist, avers that the “benign prerogative of pardoning” is to be “as little as possible fettered or embarrassed.” It strikes us that the pardon of Paul Manafort, which so agitates the Times and the Post, is an example of what the Founders anticipated. It’s hard to recall a case in which the motives of the prosecution were so bluntly questioned as in Mr. Manafort’s case.

That questioning was done by the judge himself, the Honorable (and venerable) T.S. Ellis III. He went so far as to suggest from the bench and in open court that the government’s reason for prosecuting Mr. Manafort was to force him to “sing” against President Trump. It was shocking to us that, after such a suggestion, the judge shrank from dismissing the case. It is sad that it was left to President Trump to step up.

To those who might suggest that Mr. Trump had a conflict of interest, we would, as we have in the past, cite the rule of necessity. It’s the principle that certain circumstances forbid a judge or other official from recusing himself. One circumstance is when no one else can fill in for the official. It is a feature of the pardon power that no one else can wield it. So if Mr. Trump thinks Mr. Manafort deserves a pardon, he can’t dodge it. He has to act.

Democrats are making a megillah out of Mr. Trump’s pardons of Roger Stone. This is rich, coming from the party that hoisted Bill Clinton to the presidency that ended with his pardoning his own brother and a woman, Susan McDougal, who went to the hoosegow for refusing to testify against him in Whitewater. Are Mr. Trump’s pardons related to war crimes more shocking than President Obama’s of a Puerto Rican Marxist terrorist?

Mr. Trump’s pardon of Charles Kushner, Jared Kushner’s father, strikes us as well within the pattern of past practice in respect of the pardon power. We remember, back when Mr. Kushner was being prosecuted, listening to our foreign editor, David Twersky, now gone, alas, explain how ardently admired Mr. Kushner was in New Jersey’s Jewish community. He is one of those whose good deeds tower over his crimes.

The most astonishing line of attack by the Democrats, though, is the one against the president’s mercy toward a number of individuals who were swept into prison under drug laws once pushed by Vice President Biden. Our own inclination is to go easy on both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden on this head. We, too, favored tough on crime measures. Yet we agree with Mr. Trump’s shows of mercy.

As far as we can tell, the individuals whom Mr. Trump has set free come well recommended. We’d like to think that Mr. Biden might tell his camarilla to knock off the effort to put the stink on these pardons. Mr. Biden could instead try emulating Mr. Trump. He has pardoned only a few serving long stretches under Biden-type drug laws. Let Mr. Biden himself start looking for other candidates of the type Mr. Trump has spared.

The Times wants the pardon process taken away from the Justice Department and brought into the White House. That’s constitutionally smart (Justice is often the department to which pardons are a reproof; witness the Manafort case). The Times wants a commission set up. Better simply to encourage our presidents to use the pardon more often. It’s what the Founders meant when they called for it to be as little fettered as possible.