Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio

[Mister Silver]

Sometimes I wish there was a real life "Dexter" out there meting out the justice to those who escape it.

 

[Nous]

I never said his rights were violated regarding the contempt citation, nor did I say the contempt citation was subject to a trial by jury.

Hello? You said in #153: " . . .he was denied the right of trial by a jury of his peers, WRONG."

He was not and could not have been "denied the right of trial by jury" because he had no such right His rights were not violated.

Grasp it, a single judge stated he was violating the Constitution, the law, In essence, he was ordered to stop a practice this judge concluded was illegal, without his having the right of having a jury

Again, Arpaio had no right to a trial by jury for a charge of contempt that does not constitute a crime. Bench trials are decided by single judges. You need to familiarize yourself with the law, rather than asserting nonsensical falsehoods. Arpaio's rights were not violated. Judge Bolton rightly convicted him of criminal contempt.

 

[idav]

Hello? You said in #153: " . . .he was denied the right of trial by a jury of his peers, WRONG."

He was not and could not have been "denied the right of trial by jury" because he had no such right His rights were not violated.

Again, Arpaio had no right to a trial by jury for a charge of contempt that does not constitute a crime. Bench trials are decided by single judges. You need to familiarize yourself with the law, rather than asserting nonsensical falsehoods. Arpaio's rights were not violated. Judge Bolton rightly convicted him of criminal contempt.

There wa no railroading involved, Arpaio was asked to stop doing things that cause tens of millions of dollars in taxes due to lawsuits. He essentially flipped them the bird.

 

[metis]

Some may find this interesting:

Donald Trump's controversial pardon of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio may not go through due to a US district court judge.

Judge Susan Bolton of the US District Court handling Mr Arpaio's case has cancelled a sentencing hearing for the former Maricopa County sheriff but stopped short of throwing out his conviction.

Instead, Ms Bolton said that because a presidential pardon carries an implication of guilt she wants both Mr Arpaio's lawyers and the US Department of Justice to submit briefs on why she should or should not vacate Mr Arpaio's conviction.

She has scheduled oral arguments for 4 October on the matter and will make a decision at that point... -- Donald Trump's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio may not be upheld by a US court

 

[Mister Silver]

Some may find this interesting:

Donald Trump's controversial pardon of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio may not go through due to a US district court judge.

That has always been one of Trump's problems, thinking he can subvert the law of the courts. I hope the court can teach him another lesson.

 

[metis]

That has always been one of Trump's problems, thinking he can subvert the law of the courts. I hope the court can teach him another lesson.

Yes, and that's why I do believe Trump has fascist leanings. He stated prior to the election that he really likes Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Saddam Hussein because they were/are "strong leaders", and that statement should have sent up a massive number of red flags.

And even since becoming president, he has refused to criticize Putin even though the latter took over Crimea, annexed part of Georgia, and is supporting a Russian overtake of the eastern Ukraine. He has also allegedly had his opponents disappear, one way or another, ...

Trump is trying to run the U.S. like it was one of his businesses, bullying anyone who gets in his way-- like fascists do. And how it is that so many Americans, including those who believe that America is a "Christian nation", still support Trump is beyond me. If I compare what he has said and done with what Jesus said and did, I see no comparison whatsoever. Imagine Jesus saying that he can "grab women by the p***y", for just one example.

As you imply, he has only contempt for the "rule of law" as we've seen several times already. I think we've only seen the surface of how dangerous this man really is and what could be in store for us down the road with him at the helm. There are some really significant issues coming up very shortly, such as with the debt ceiling.

Brace yourself-- this is far from over.

 

[Mister Silver]

And how it is that so many Americans, including those who believe that America is a "Christian nation", still support Trump is beyond me.

They're hoping for a Christianity based sharia law here in America, that's why they support him. It is very very scary.

 

[idav]

They're hoping for a Christianity based sharia law here in America, that's why they support him. It is very very scary.

Fortunately him not being a lawyer like most past presidents is biting the White House in the rear at every turn. Trump just settled on a family suing because of his travel ban. I didn't know presidents can get sued for their executive orders. Immagrants are now free to reapply for visas and this family is happy to be in a safe country fulfilling the American dream.
Trump administration settles in Muslim ban case, allowing blocked immigrants to reapply for visas
"When he was informed of the settlement, Mr Darweesh, said: “It means a lot to me to be in America. The United States is a great country because of its people. I’m glad that the lawsuit is over.
“Me and my family are safe; my kids go to school; we can now live a normal life. I suffered back home, but I have my rights now. I’m a human.”
Trump administration settles in Muslim travel ban case

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ah, you say it is inaccurate, I say it is. I shan't bother posting material from my perspective because the whole thing is over and done. So, my opinion stands, based upon information that is probably totally unavailable to you, i.e. I live in Arizona in a county adjacent to Maricopa, I know what informed people on the issue are saying. The point is moot however

Mostly everything you said is demonstrably inaccurate. As shown.

There is no established procedure spelled out in the Constitution. There is none that is legally binding, I feel your credibility on this subject is tainted both by your ignorance of the Constitution, and your ignorance of the law.

I didn't say it was in the Constitution. However, he has broken with the tradition that involves going through the DOJ after a person has been sentenced and has served for five years. Trump cares not for doing things the normal way, as we well know.

Ignorance of (or maybe just disregard for) the law lies at the feet of your precious Sheriff Arpaio.

This is funny though. You admit to having an opinion that is not informed by facts and then attempt to insult me. Good one.

"I'll triple down on the accuracies I posted."
-Shmogie

"Ah, you say it is inaccurate, I say it is."
-Shmogie

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, and that's why I do believe Trump has fascist leanings. He stated prior to the election that he really likes Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Saddam Hussein because they were/are "strong leaders", and that statement should have sent up a massive number of red flags.

And even since becoming president, he has refused to criticize Putin even though the latter took over Crimea, annexed part of Georgia, and is supporting a Russian overtake of the eastern Ukraine. He has also allegedly had his opponents disappear, one way or another, ...

Trump is trying to run the U.S. like it was one of his businesses, bullying anyone who gets in his way-- like fascists do. And how it is that so many Americans, including those who believe that America is a "Christian nation", still support Trump is beyond me. If I compare what he has said and done with what Jesus said and did, I see no comparison whatsoever. Imagine Jesus saying that he can "grab women by the p***y", for just one example.

As you imply, he has only contempt for the "rule of law" as we've seen several times already. I think we've only seen the surface of how dangerous this man really is and what could be in store for us down the road with him at the helm. There are some really significant issues coming up very shortly, such as with the debt ceiling.

Brace yourself-- this is far from over.

This. ^^^^^^ So much this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is odd that Trump immediately issued a pardon. Kinda like telling the judiciary that they no longer matter. Saving a nobody sheriff with a crappy track record seems like a bad idea considering what his approval is like:

Reasonable Doubt

The link is to a Pulitzer Prize winning series that shows Sheriff Joe is actually really bad at his job. I mean, incompetent bad.

There's other weirdness about it. This article raises some interesting points:

Donald Trump's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio may not go ahead

It seems that the judge's interpretation is that the pardon carries with it the presumption of guilt, but since Arpaio's appeal was still unresolved, his guilt was still something of an open question.

And I wonder if he would have automatically lost his job as sherriff if he was convicted of a felony. Could that have been the reason for the weird timing?

 

[Nous]

Some may find this interesting:

Donald Trump's controversial pardon of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio may not go through due to a US district court judge.

Judge Susan Bolton of the US District Court handling Mr Arpaio's case has cancelled a sentencing hearing for the former Maricopa County sheriff but stopped short of throwing out his conviction.

Instead, Ms Bolton said that because a presidential pardon carries an implication of guilt she wants both Mr Arpaio's lawyers and the US Department of Justice to submit briefs on why she should or should not vacate Mr Arpaio's conviction.

She has scheduled oral arguments for 4 October on the matter and will make a decision at that point... -- Donald Trump's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio may not be upheld by a US court

This case just gets more interesting by the minute. There has never been a refusal by a court to accept a President's pardon, but, then, there has never been a pardon of a government official who was convicted of criminal contempt of a court order. The question of the constitutionality of this pardon might indeed make its way to the Supreme Court, which might recognize a danger in pardoning elected officials for their crimes of defying court orders. Obviously the judiciary only has its orders and opinions to maintain the rule of law. Take that away, as Trump's pardon of Arpaio does, and courts are powerless. That makes those sitting behind the bench nervous.

 

[Nous]

In a further development, the organization Protect Democracy has sent a letter to the DOJ's Public Integrity Section, which brought the case, requesting that the Section oppose the pardon. And Protect Democracy makes a rather cogent argument in this regard, beginning with the fact that the Presidential pardon is “broad . . . but not unlimited.” The provisions of the original Constitution were modified by the Amendments, which enumerates a variety of individual and collective rights (and, of course, the provisions of the original text are clarified by the case law). It is hardly deniable, as Protect Democracy argues, that the pardon power cannot be used to violate these rights set out in the Amendments. They use the example of a President who pardons all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but no Black defendants convicted of the same crime. This would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The organization then notes:

. . . for due process and judicial review to function, courts must be able to restrain government officials. Due process requires that, when a government official is found by a court to be violating individuals’ constitutional rights, the court can issue effective relief (such as an injunction) ordering the official to cease this unconstitutional conduct.​

Accordingly, Trump's pardon of Arpaio renders the Due Process Clause meaningless if the President can pardon anyone who defies court orders that are issued for the purpose of protecting Constitutional rights.

Trump's pardon of someone convicted of defying a court order is definitely different that pardoning someone who was wrongly prosecuted or convicted or given an unusually harsh sentence, as the Framers envisioned for the pardon power.

 

[Nous]

There wa no railroading involved, Arpaio was asked to stop doing things that cause tens of millions of dollars in taxes due to lawsuits. He essentially flipped them the bird.

Arpaio is a hero to racists, and therefore all kinds of lunatic things will be said to try to absolve him of his wrongdoing.

 

[Nous]

Trump just settled on a family suing because of his travel ban. I didn't know presidents can get sued for their executive orders. Immagrants are now free to reapply for visas and this family is happy to be in a safe country fulfilling the American dream.

It is very limited settlement merely requiring what the Administration should have taken care of anyway, as a number of people were harmed (denied entry) as a result of the first “Muslim Ban” executive order, which was retracted (and was held unconstitutional). The settlement requires that those who were denied entry on the basis of that EO are informed of their right to reapply and are provided with a list of free legal services. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/...nt_agreement_darweesh_v._trump_no_exhibit.pdf

 

[Nous]

It seems that the judge's interpretation is that the pardon carries with it the presumption of guilt, but since Arpaio's appeal was still unresolved, his guilt was still something of an open question.

That a pardon implies guilt isn't just this judge's "interpretation". It's noted in the case law.

And I wonder if he would have automatically lost his job as sherriff if he was convicted of a felony. Could that have been the reason for the weird timing?

The "weird timing" of what? Arpaio was not re-elected.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That a pardon implies guilt isn't just this judge's "interpretation". It's noted in the case law.

Fair enough. I'm not a lawyer. My post was an engineer's take on a journalist's take on what happened in the case.

The "weird timing" of what? Arpaio was not re-elected.

Ah - I thought he was still a sherriff. My mistake.

 

[Nous]

Fair enough. I'm not a lawyer. My post was an engineer's take on a journalist's take on what happened in the case.

Fair enough. Actually, a couple of days ago, I did hear a former federal prosecutor say something to the effect that the statement in the case law does not mean what Judge Bolton says it means. But I don't know what that means.

The case, Burdick v. US (1915), involved the city editor for New York Tribune who appeared before a grand jury in a federal fraud investigation and was asked to reveal his sources for certain newspaper articles he had written. He refused to answer these questions, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He had not been charged with any crime and was not under any investigation. He was remanded to testify the next day, whereupon he was presented with a pardon from Woodrow Wilson--it was an unconditional pardon, but only for crimes committed in connection with the topic of the articles or matters the grand jury might inquire into, and, of course, was limited to federal crimes. Burdick would not accept the pardon and again refused to disclose his sources. He was convicted of contempt and fined. At another appearance before the grand jury, he again refused to answer the questions, and was thrown into the slammer. He brought suit.

The Court boiled down the question of the case to what effect an unaccepted pardon has, and sided with Burdick, finding that he was not required to accept the pardon, and that an unaccepted pardon has no effect. In response to arguments made by the government, the Court noted:

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.​

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Thus, given that Arpaio requested that his contempt conviction be vacated and says that he plans to appeal if it isn't, it seems Judge Bolton had no alternative than to ask for briefings on whether she should accept the pardon. If Arpaio wants to appeal that conviction, it's unlikely he will win a different verdict after accepting the pardon. (I love it that Trump, out of stupidity and depraved motives, has put Arpaio in a difficult situation.)

Ah - I thought he was still a sherriff. My mistake.

I did too until a few days ago.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough. Actually, a couple of days ago, I did hear a former federal prosecutor say something to the effect that the statement in the case law does not mean what Judge Bolton says it means. But I don't know what that means.

The case, Burdick v. US (1915), involved the city editor for New York Tribune who appeared before a grand jury in a federal fraud investigation and was asked to reveal his sources for certain newspaper articles he had written. He refused to answer these questions, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He had not been charged with any crime and was not under any investigation. He was remanded to testify the next day, whereupon he was presented with a pardon from Woodrow Wilson--it was an unconditional pardon, but only for crimes committed in connection with the topic of the articles or matters the grand jury might inquire into, and, of course, was limited to federal crimes. Burdick would not accept the pardon and again refused to disclose his sources. He was convicted of contempt and fined. At another appearance before the grand jury, he again refused to answer the questions, and was thrown into the slammer. He brought suit.

The Court boiled down the question of the case to what effect an unaccepted pardon has, and sided with Burdick, finding that he was not required to accept the pardon, and that an unaccepted pardon has no effect. In response to arguments made by the government, the Court noted:

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.​

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Thus, given that Arpaio requested that his contempt conviction be vacated and says that he plans to appeal if it isn't, it seems Judge Bolton had no alternative than to ask for briefings on whether she should accept the pardon. If Arpaio wants to appeal that conviction, it's unlikely he will win a different verdict after accepting the pardon. (I love it that Trump, out of stupidity and depraved motives, has put Arpaio in a difficult situation.)

I did too until a few days ago.

So if he does accept the pardon, would that mean that anyone who sues him civilly in relation to his crimes that establishment of his guilt to make their civil case against him?

Or does the pardon make him immune from civil suits related to his pardoned crimes?

 

[metis]

So if he does accept the pardon, would that mean that anyone who sues him civilly in relation to his crimes that establishment of his guilt to make their civil case against him?

Possibly yes.

Or does the pardon make him immune from civil suits related to his pardoned crimes?

No.

What it does mean is that in a court of law he cannot alter his confession without committing perjury.