Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

[Rogue 9]

NPR

President Trump Pardons Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio

August 25, 20178:14 PM ET
Amita Kelly

President Trump has pardoned controversial former Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a misdemeanor criminal contempt conviction.

A statement issued by the White House Friday night said, "Today, President Donald J. Trump granted a Presidential pardon to Joe Arpaio, former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona."

Known as "America's Toughest Sheriff," Arpaio gained a reputation for his harsh — his critics would say cruel — treatment of immigrants in the country illegally.

Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt earlier this summer for defying a judge's order that his deputies stop detaining immigrants because they lacked legal status. His deputies carried on the practice for 18 months.

Trump hinted at the pardon last week and again at a Phoenix rally Tuesday night.

Last week, he told Fox News he was "seriously considering" a pardon and that Arpaio is a "a great American patriot" who has done "a lot in the fight against illegal immigration." Tuesday night, he asked the crowd of supporters: "Do the people in this room like Sheriff Joe?"

"You know what, I'll make a prediction: I think he's going to be just fine," he said. "OK? But I won't do it tonight, because I don't want to cause any controversy."

The statement issued by the White House said:

"Arpaio's life and career, which began at the age of 18 when he enlisted in the military after the outbreak of the Korean War, exemplify selfless public service. After serving in the Army, Arpaio became a police officer in Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas, NV and later served as a Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), formerly the Bureau of Narcotics. After 25 years of admirable service, Arpaio went on to lead the DEA's branch in Arizona.

"In 1992, the problems facing his community pulled Arpaio out of retirement to return to law enforcement. He ran and won a campaign to become Sheriff of Maricopa County. Throughout his time as Sheriff, Arpaio continued his life's work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now eighty-five years old, and after more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon."

In an interview with NPR's Wade Goodwyn last Thursday, Arpaio had equally effusive praise for Trump, predicting that he will end up regarded as the greatest president in American history. He also said he thought that, like him, Trump had been unfairly smeared as a racist. "We need him and I feel sad how they're trying to destroy him. It makes me sick," he said. "I'll tell you one thing, he's got guts and courage and that's what this country needs."

Arpaio said he didn't ask for a pardon and, as of late last week, had not spoken directly to Trump about one. The misdemeanor conviction carries a possible sentence of up to six months.

Among his most controversial measures, the sheriff instructed his deputies to detain Hispanic residents and inquire about their legal status. He then disregarded a federal judge's ruling that he didn't have the legal authority to do so.

In the 1990s, at the start of his tenure, Arpaio opened Tent City jail, which housed inmates outdoors in the blistering Arizona sun. For years, activists criticized it as inhumane. But the newly elected sheriff, Sheriff Paul Penzone, said it was voluntary and inmates preferred it. Counter to Arpaio's claims, Penzone said, there was no evidence that the tough reputation of the jail made people less likely to commit crimes. The city began tearing it down earlier this year.

The rule of law is dead. Personal loyalty to the President will get him to casually short circuit the only enforcement mechanism the courts have.

[Ralin]

What the hell did they expect when they gave the president the power to unilaterally grant pardons? Literally from the moment I learned presidential pardons were a thing I've wondered what was stopping the president from sending his minions to kill critics and other enemies and then pardoning them for it.

[ArmorPierce]

So is this constitutional crisis level yet?

[Gandalf]

The rule of law is dead. Personal loyalty to the President will get him to casually short circuit the only enforcement mechanism the courts have.

Why? Wasn't this a perfectly legal thing?

[Rogue 9]

What the hell did they expect when they gave the president the power to unilaterally grant pardons? Literally from the moment I learned presidential pardons were a thing I've wondered what was stopping the president from sending his minions to kill critics and other enemies and then pardoning them for it.

Mainly because that would be a high crime on the part of the President and would result in immediate impeachment, removal, and prosecution.

The rule of law is dead. Personal loyalty to the President will get him to casually short circuit the only enforcement mechanism the courts have.

Why? Wasn't this a perfectly legal thing?

The why is the second sentence. In doing this, Trump has demonstrated that he'll give his cronies a free pass to flaunt the courts. Now if someone on his staff, say, tells Robert Mueller to stick a subpoena on the south end of the National Mall, there's not a goddamned thing the special prosecutor can do about it; if he presses for a contempt charge, Trump will just pardon the offender. The pardon power is absolute, but this really is not what it's for.

[bilateralrope]

What is the presidential pardon meant to be used for if not to let friends of the president be above the law ?

[Gandalf]

The rule of law is dead. Personal loyalty to the President will get him to casually short circuit the only enforcement mechanism the courts have.

Why? Wasn't this a perfectly legal thing?

The why is the second sentence. In doing this, Trump has demonstrated that he'll give his cronies a free pass to flaunt the courts. Now if someone on his staff, say, tells Robert Mueller to stick a subpoena on the south end of the National Mall, there's not a goddamned thing the special prosecutor can do about it; if he presses for a contempt charge, Trump will just pardon the offender. The pardon power is absolute, but this really is not what it's for.

Then what is it for?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why? Wasn't this a perfectly legal thing?

The why is the second sentence. In doing this, Trump has demonstrated that he'll give his cronies a free pass to flaunt the courts. Now if someone on his staff, say, tells Robert Mueller to stick a subpoena on the south end of the National Mall, there's not a goddamned thing the special prosecutor can do about it; if he presses for a contempt charge, Trump will just pardon the offender. The pardon power is absolute, but this really is not what it's for.

Then what is it for?

As a backstop against miscarriages of justice, theoretically.

[Gandalf]

As a backstop against miscarriages of justice, theoretically.

Indeed, and it seems as thought the President thinks that Arpaio has been fucked over by the justice system.

[bilateralrope]

The why is the second sentence. In doing this, Trump has demonstrated that he'll give his cronies a free pass to flaunt the courts. Now if someone on his staff, say, tells Robert Mueller to stick a subpoena on the south end of the National Mall, there's not a goddamned thing the special prosecutor can do about it; if he presses for a contempt charge, Trump will just pardon the offender. The pardon power is absolute, but this really is not what it's for.

Then what is it for?

As a backstop against miscarriages of justice, theoretically.

Has it ever been used that way ?

[Ralin]

Mainly because that would be a high crime on the part of the President and would result in immediate impeachment, removal, and prosecution.

Have any members of Congress who attempt to impeach the president shot/drone bombed.

Pardon the killers.

Repeat.

What is the presidential pardon meant to be used for if not to let friends of the president be above the law ?

Suppose about half of the US rebelled and tried to secede because an anti-slavery politician was elected president. After the rebellion is put down the president decides that the country would be better served by offering the hand of friendship to the states who rebelled and pardons the leader of the rebellion to send the message that we're going to put the war behind us and try to heal the division and proceed without any recriminations or bitterness on either side.

Or suppose some member of the military leaks information about horrible war crimes committed by the US military. She's arrested and sentenced to hard jail time. The next president thinks she deserves mercy because she was acting out of principle even if she broke the law and hurt the country and commutes the sentence on the grounds that she's suffered enough for what she did.

That sort of thing.

[Civil War Man]

The why is the second sentence. In doing this, Trump has demonstrated that he'll give his cronies a free pass to flaunt the courts. Now if someone on his staff, say, tells Robert Mueller to stick a subpoena on the south end of the National Mall, there's not a goddamned thing the special prosecutor can do about it; if he presses for a contempt charge, Trump will just pardon the offender. The pardon power is absolute, but this really is not what it's for.

Though, on the other hand, doing that could be used as probable cause for obstruction of justice charges.

Have any members of Congress who attempt to impeach the president shot/drone bombed.

Pardon the killers.

Repeat.

At that point he better hope that the Praetorian Guard is as loyal as he thinks.

[Rogue 9]

As a backstop against miscarriages of justice, theoretically.

Indeed, and it seems as thought the President thinks that Arpaio has been fucked over by the justice system.

This is, so far as I know, unprecedented, not that that's a surprise with this administration. Bush the Lesser didn't pardon Scooter Libby, for a prominent and fairly recent example. I would say this could have long-term consequences for Trump, but he's already racked up so much fodder for impeachment charges if the Democrats gain Congress that adding more onto the pile is hardly going to matter on that front.

The only silver lining is that a pardoned individual arguably can't assert the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination in testimony, since he can no longer fear prosecution, though I don't know if that argument has ever been tested.

[The Romulan Republic]

Absolutely disgusting, but not unexpected.

Frankly, we need a Constitutional Amendment to repeal or heavily restrict the President's power to pardon.

If Trump does this often enough, it might be one of the very few times that I would support a retroactive law, to retroactively declare his pardons invalid.

Not that I expect either of those things to happen, of course.

Its also very dangerous, particularly in light of the current climate where political violence is becoming more and more accepted in the mainstream. I don't condone vigilantism, but I'm not blind to the fact that if the President's cronies are above the law, more and more people will likely begin to conclude that justice can only be found outside the law. Very, very dangerous.

Ah well, IIRC Presidential pardons don't cover civil suits and violations of state laws. They just need to get Arpaio on something else. Or wait until the orange shit is out of office, then prosecute him again (because I'm sure he'll go right back to doing more of what got him in trouble the first time around, probably even dial it up a notch or two now that he's under the Usurper's protection.

Or just wait until he drops dead of natural causes, I suppose, given that Arpaio is a pretty old fucker. Though that's far less satisfying than prison.

[Flagg]

So is this constitutional crisis level yet?

No?

President can pardon anyone. Constitutional crisis would be over whether or not they can pardon themselves. My guess would be "no", but it depends on what the SCOTUS rules.

Easy way to get around it would be to have a medical procedure like a colonoscopy "requiring" general anesthesia (it normally isn't but can be and you just need a Doctor to order it and I doubt one would be hard to find), which given Trumpzi's age wouldn't be a stretch, so you sign over Presidential authority to Pence, and Trumpzi wakes up with a pardon.

[Flagg]

As a backstop against miscarriages of justice, theoretically.

Indeed, and it seems as thought the President thinks that Arpaio has been fucked over by the justice system.

This is, so far as I know, unprecedented, not that that's a surprise with this administration. Bush the Lesser didn't pardon Scooter Libby, for a prominent and fairly recent example. I would say this could have long-term consequences for Trump, but he's already racked up so much fodder for impeachment charges if the Democrats gain Congress that adding more onto the pile is hardly going to matter on that front.

The only silver lining is that a pardoned individual arguably can't assert the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination in testimony, since he can no longer fear prosecution, though I don't know if that argument has ever been tested.

Yeah, it would depend on if it's what they have been pardoned for. It happens all the time for someone given total immunity.

[Flagg]

I love the hyperventilating in this thread. "The rule of law is dead." Except it's not because there is no real limit (except probably to self-pardon and since it's never been attempted...) on Presidential pardons. By rule of law the President is free to use and abuse the power to pardon.

[Formless]

President can pardon anyone. Constitutional crisis would be over whether or not they can pardon themselves. My guess would be "no", but it depends on what the SCOTUS rules.

Impeachment is specifically excluded from the list of things the President can pardon. That's probably why Nixon stepped down before he could be impeached: any other crimes he might have been found guilty of could be pardoned by his successor, and were... even though he never even went to trial.

In other words, this is hardly the worst usage of the presidential pardon that has ever occurred.

[Flagg]

President can pardon anyone. Constitutional crisis would be over whether or not they can pardon themselves. My guess would be "no", but it depends on what the SCOTUS rules.

Impeachment is specifically excluded from the list of things the President can pardon. That's probably why Nixon stepped down before he could be impeached: any other crimes he might have been found guilty of could be pardoned by his successor, and were... even though he never even went to trial.

In other words, this is hardly the worst usage of the presidential pardon that has ever occurred.

I'm talking about actual criminal prosecution. If the President could pardon away impeachment then there would be no impeachment.

And yeah it's disgusting, but you're 100% correct. I think Clinton pardoning a fugitive whose family gave a fuckton of money to his library is easily worse than this.

[The Romulan Republic]

President can pardon anyone. Constitutional crisis would be over whether or not they can pardon themselves. My guess would be "no", but it depends on what the SCOTUS rules.

Impeachment is specifically excluded from the list of things the President can pardon. That's probably why Nixon stepped down before he could be impeached: any other crimes he might have been found guilty of could be pardoned by his successor, and were... even though he never even went to trial.

In other words, this is hardly the worst usage of the presidential pardon that has ever occurred.

Gerald Ford deserves to be forever damned in the eyes of history for not letting Nixon face the music.

To his credit (albeit too little, too late), I've heard that Ford did later express regret for that decision.

[Terralthra]

Then what is it for?

As a backstop against miscarriages of justice, theoretically.

Has it ever been used that way ?

Routinely. President Obama, for example, granted pardons and clemency to thousands of individuals whom he and the DoJ thought were given unreasonably harsh sentences, usually as a result of drug charges carrying long mandatory minimums. You can find a list of these individuals here.

[SCRawl]

I've also heard opinions that a pardon can't be used to escape obstruction of justice. Here's an example I borrowed from Slate:

If it could be shown that President Trump pardoned his family members and close aides to cover up possible crimes, then that could be seen as acting “corruptly” and he could be charged with obstruction of justice. If, as some commentators believe, a sitting president cannot be indicted, Mr. Trump could still face prosecution after he leaves the White House.

So the presidential pardon can be a double-edged sword, if used to try and escape justice using it. It might be a way out for the underlings, or it might not: if the stooges break the law with the understanding that they would get a pardon if found out, then that's a criminal conspiracy right there.

[The Romulan Republic]

One theory I've heard is that Trump pardoned Arpaio in part to send a message to his underlings who are under investigation: basically "Don't try to cut deals and talk to prosecutors, I'll make sure you're safe."

Don't know if its true, but it would fit what we've seen of Trump fairly well.

Of course, it was also likely meant as a nod to his white supremacists/xenophobe base, and the "tough on crime" authoritarian types.

[Flagg]

As a backstop against miscarriages of justice, theoretically.

Has it ever been used that way ?

Routinely. President Obama, for example, granted pardons and clemency to thousands of individuals whom he and the DoJ thought were given unreasonably harsh sentences, usually as a result of drug charges carrying long mandatory minimums. You can find a list of these individuals here.

He also granted clemency to Chelsea Manning.

[Flagg]

I've also heard opinions that a pardon can't be used to escape obstruction of justice. Here's an example I borrowed from Slate:

If it could be shown that President Trump pardoned his family members and close aides to cover up possible crimes, then that could be seen as acting “corruptly” and he could be charged with obstruction of justice. If, as some commentators believe, a sitting president cannot be indicted, Mr. Trump could still face prosecution after he leaves the White House.

So the presidential pardon can be a double-edged sword, if used to try and escape justice using it. It might be a way out for the underlings, or it might not: if the stooges break the law with the understanding that they would get a pardon if found out, then that's a criminal conspiracy right there.

Yeah, but it wouldn't "count" until it's out of office. So if Trumpzi is impeached and removed, it would would then be at risk. Until whoever sits in the Oval Office pardons Trumpzi to keep the precedent set by Ford so that no former POTUS is subject to prosecution for actions they commit while in office.