Will Trump Pardon Arpaio?

[Lord Jim]

The pardon power is limited to "offenses against the United States," so an answer is probably not.

Guin, you're forgetting the Nixon pardon:

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

http://watergate.info/1974/09/08/text-o ... ation.html

And of course Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who had been charged but not yet convicted (because he had fled the country) :

Marc Rich, a fugitive who had fled the U.S. during his prosecution, was residing in Switzerland. Rich owed $48 million in taxes and was charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, was pardoned of tax evasion. He was required to pay a $1 million fine and waive any use of the pardon as a defense against any future civil charges that were filed against him in the same case. Critics complained that Denise Eisenberg Rich, his former wife, had made substantial donations to both the Clinton library and to Mrs. Clinton's senate campaign.

According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels (640,000 m3) of oil.[26] Longtime Clinton supporters and Democratic leaders such as former President Jimmy Carter, James Carville and Terry McAuliffe, were all critical of the Clinton pardon. Carter said the pardons were "disgraceful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clin ... ontroversy

[Guinevere]

Like I said, LJ, "an answer."

Another crack: i've never linked to or agreed with the Washington Examiner ever, ever, in my life

But "law and order," if the words have any meaning, has to apply to government actors as well. Lawless sheriffs promote disorder, and that's what Arpaio did to get himself convicted.

Arpaio's defiance of a judge's order to stop detaining people simply based on the suspicion that they were illegal immigrants was worthy of punishment. His career as a veteran and a long-time public servant does not change that. As sheriff, Arpaio's office would routinely detain Latinos solely on the suspicion they had broken immigration law, without any evidence whatsoever that a crime had been committed. It was government overreach that was backed up by Arpaio's authority, all while it was supposed to be Arpaio's job to protect the people of Maricopa County from injustice.

As Sen. John McCain said, "No one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold. ... The President has the authority to make this pardon, but doing so at this time undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law as Mr. Arpaio has shown no remorse for his actions."

If judicial decisions are not given their proper respect, the rule of law will break down. That's not to say precedent can't be overturned or convictions can't be appealed, but established judicial processes must be followed.

[MGMcAnick]

Pardon? Hell no.

Well before the contempt thing, I felt that Joe Arpaio should have been locked up in his own tent city jail at 110ºF, and forced to wear one of his stylish pink jump suits. General population would be fine.

[Lord Jim]

From the link to the Bloomberg article Guin posted earlier in this thread:

For Trump to pardon him would be an assault on the federal judiciary, the Constitution and the rule of law itself.

This is really hardly surprising; it's just the latest in a long line of statements and actions Trump has taken that demonstrates his contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. Trump despises the rule of law, and wants very much to replace it with the "rule of Trump"...

And unlike previous Presidents who have sought to undermine the rule of law, he's not the slightest bit subtle or secretive about it; in fact he's very proactive about making sure everyone knows that this is his agenda.

From his racist attacks on the "Mexican judge" who presided over the Trump University lawsuit, to his attacks on the "so-called judge" who first stayed his travel ban EO, to numerous other attacks on judges and appellate courts, Trump clearly bristles under any judicial attempts to check him, and I think that clearly one of the purposes of this pardon was to try to get some sort of "payback". Part of the intent of this pardon was to spit in the face of judicial authority, and flex his muscles in resistance to it.

The worst thing about this pardon isn't related to Arpaio directly. No matter what you think of Arpaio, as an 85 year old first-time-offender convicted of a misdemeanor that carries a maximum six month prison sentence, the odds that he would have been sentenced to even a day in jail were extremely remote. (And also obviously, a criminal record wasn't going to have any meaning in terms of affecting the ability to obtain future employment, when you're talking about an 85 year old.)

The worst thing about this pardon isn't even what was obviously another part of Trump's intent in issuing it; to send yet another reassuring dog-whistle message to the racist and xenophobic factions of his political base. That would certainly be vile and odious enough, but in this case, it's still not the worst thing.

No, the absolute worst thing about this pardon, is another dog whistle he intended to send...

A message to other high-ranking law enforcement officials, (Sheriffs, police chiefs, state attorneys general, etc.) that says, "If you're a supporter of mine, and some meddlesome so-called judge tries to stop you from pursuing policies I approve of, even if those polices are illegal or un-Constitutional, don't worry. You go right ahead, I've got your back."

In other words, not satisfied with just flouting the Constitution and the rule of law himself, the most pernicious intent Trump has with this pardon is to try to create a "multiplier effect" for flouting the Constitution and the rule of law, by encouraging others to do so as well...

That is easily the very worst part of this...

[Econoline]

From the link to the Bloomberg article Guin posted earlier in this thread:

For Trump to pardon him would be an assault on the federal judiciary, the Constitution and the rule of law itself.

Jim, you nailed it in the OP in this thread:

I think pardoning Arpaio is pretty much a political no-brainer for Trump...

(and no-brainer is what he 's best at *IS*)[FTFY]

[Guinevere]

Cracks appearing in all sorts of places:

[Guinevere]

The pardon power is limited to "offenses against the United States," so an answer is probably not.

Guin, you're forgetting the Nixon pardon:

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

http://watergate.info/1974/09/08/text-o ... ation.html

And of course Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who had been charged but not yet convicted (because he had fled the country) :

Marc Rich, a fugitive who had fled the U.S. during his prosecution, was residing in Switzerland. Rich owed $48 million in taxes and was charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, was pardoned of tax evasion. He was required to pay a $1 million fine and waive any use of the pardon as a defense against any future civil charges that were filed against him in the same case. Critics complained that Denise Eisenberg Rich, his former wife, had made substantial donations to both the Clinton library and to Mrs. Clinton's senate campaign.

According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels (640,000 m3) of oil.[26] Longtime Clinton supporters and Democratic leaders such as former President Jimmy Carter, James Carville and Terry McAuliffe, were all critical of the Clinton pardon. Carter said the pardons were "disgraceful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clin ... ontroversy

PS - neither challenged in court (not entirely sure who would have standing to sue), so it's possible there are or could be limits on the presidential power pardon not yet explored.