# Joe Arpaio's trial starts today **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 26, 2017, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923 "2017-06-26T16:08:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/161 "2017-08-27T14:31:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Can’t link right now, but the Washington Post reports that Trump asked Sessions to stop the prosecution against Arpaio (during the case, obviously). > > If so, is that legal? Is it impeachable? Not that I think it would mean impeachment. Anything is impeachable if the House of Representatives thinks it is; they don’t have to match any hypothetical articles of impeachment up against any criminal code. If the President is seen to be abusing the pardon power or the operation of the Justice Department, that’s probably about as good a reason for impeachment as any. The converse, of course, is that any conduct is _not_ impeachable if the House of Representatives doesn’t think that it is. As matters currently stand, I don’t believe there’s anything that Trump has done that would cause the House to impeach him right now. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/162 "2017-08-27T15:03:32Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Just out of curiosity does that mean that Trump **cannot** pardon someone for that, or just that no president ever has, and we wouldn’t think that he would, until he does? > > I guess, is there a specific rule that says that someone cannot be pardoned for direct contempt of court, or is it just one of those unwritten, self evident rules that we used to think meant something? Yeah, I’m wonder the same thing. Let’s say Arpaio is somehow (can’t imagine how, but let’s not worry about that) back in court and pleads the 5th. The Judged says: Off to jail with you!! The court officer takes Arpaio to jail and a few minutes later Trump issues a pardon. What happens? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/163 "2017-08-27T15:13:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yeah, I’m wonder the same thing. > > Let’s say Arpaio is somehow (can’t imagine how, but let’s not worry about that) back in court and pleads the 5th. The Judged says: Off to jail with you!! The court officer takes Arpaio to jail and a few minutes later Trump issues a pardon. > > **What happens?** With any luck, someone will follow Arpiao’s lead and ignore the pardon. Old Joe will be “lost” somewhere in the prison and not “found” for several weeks. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2017, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/164 "2017-08-27T15:30:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yeah, I’m wonder the same thing. > > Let’s say Arpaio is somehow (can’t imagine how, but let’s not worry about that) back in court and pleads the 5th. The Judged says: Off to jail with you!! The court officer takes Arpaio to jail and a few minutes later Trump issues a pardon. > > What happens? Slightly more plausibly, let’s say Manafort is testifying before a grand jury and refuses to speak. He’s granted immunity, so he can’t plead the fifth. He still refuses to talk, so he’s declared in contempt and sent to jail. Can Trump pardon him there and order is release? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/165 "2017-08-28T00:12:41Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Just out of curiosity does that mean that Trump **cannot** pardon someone for that, or just that no president ever has, and we wouldn’t think that he would, until he does? > > I guess, is there a specific rule that says that someone cannot be pardoned for direct contempt of court, or is it just one of those unwritten, self evident rules that we used to think meant something? Bricker said something about no EFFECTIVE pardon, which is the interesting part to me, because of what it hints at. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/166 "2017-08-28T00:47:38Z")
Something I just thought of: in the above scenarios, assuming you can pardon someone out of refusing to testify without legal consequence, is there anything preventing the judge or prosecutor from issuing another subpoena for the pardoned person? You can’t pardon a subpoena, after all. Could the court just keeping the loop going until it becomes politcally unfeasible for Trump to continue (or, more likely, it frustrates him into doing something stupid, like trying to have the judge arrested)? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/167 "2017-08-28T00:55:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Direct contempt occurs when the disregard of the court’s order is seen and heard by the judge, and the offense constituting the disregard of the order occurs in the actual presence of the court. This type of offense may be punished summarily, and typically the prisoner is said to have the keys to his own cell: that is, he may at any time purge himself of contempt by complying with the judge’s order. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Just out of curiosity does that mean that Trump **cannot** pardon someone for that, or just that no president ever has, and we wouldn’t think that he would, until he does? > > I guess, is there a specific rule that says that someone cannot be pardoned for direct contempt of court, or is it just one of those unwritten, self evident rules that we used to think meant something? I’ve always thought that in cases of direct contempt, there is literally _no one_ who can countermand the court’s order that the contemnor be placed in custody (or fined). Unless I am mistaken, and a higher court has the authority to find that the lower court judge exceeded his authority and orders that judge to rescind the order pending the finding of a valid cause for the declaration of contempt. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/168 "2017-08-28T00:58:19Z")
> [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](#): > > Anything is impeachable if the House of Representatives thinks it is; they don’t have to match any hypothetical articles of impeachment up against any criminal code. If the President is seen to be abusing the pardon power or the operation of the Justice Department, that’s probably about as good a reason for impeachment as any. > > The converse, of course, is that any conduct is _not_ impeachable if the House of Representatives doesn’t think that it is. As matters currently stand, I don’t believe there’s anything that Trump has done that would cause the House to impeach him right now. Can’t they impeach him for being a ham sandwich (or alternatively, for not being a ham sandwich)? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/169 "2017-08-28T02:19:45Z")
Maybe it has to do with it being an order of the court and not “a crime”, as specified by the constitution. Suppose the court orders someone to be silent during the proceedings because they are being disruptive. The president can’t “pardon” that person and allow him to continue to be disruptive. Right? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/170 "2017-08-28T02:24:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes! > > But it’s the kind of contumacious conduct that can be summarily punished by a judge-- no trial, no conviction. . . and no effective pardon. I keep reading that word as cuntamacious. Is that Freudian or something? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/171 "2017-08-28T03:59:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Can’t link right now, but the Washington Post reports that Trump asked Sessions to stop the prosecution against Arpaio (during the case, obviously). > > If so, is that legal? Is it impeachable? Not that I think it would mean impeachment. In my view, it’s legal. And since anything Congress wants to be impeachable is. . . then yes, it’s impeachable. But no, from a practical standpoint, not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/172 "2017-08-28T04:05:31Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Just out of curiosity does that mean that Trump **cannot** pardon someone for that, or just that no president ever has, and we wouldn’t think that he would, until he does? > > I guess, is there a specific rule that says that someone cannot be pardoned for direct contempt of court, or is it just one of those unwritten, self evident rules that we used to think meant something? I’d say it’s evident from the way exiting rules work. Even the President’s supposed pardon cannot insulate the witness from the requirement to testify: remember that a pardon cannot excuse future offenses. And remember that the judge doesn’t send the recalcitrant witness to jail to punish him, but to compel his testimony. He has the keys to his own cell, as the saying goes. So even if the President purported to “pardon,” the extant “offense,” that merely places the witness back in the position of refusing to testify and subject to the identical sanction by the court. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/173 "2017-08-28T04:09:44Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I’ve always thought that in cases of direct contempt, there is literally _no one_ who can countermand the court’s order that the contemnor be placed in custody (or fined). > > Unless I am mistaken, and a higher court has the authority to find that the lower court judge exceeded his authority and orders that judge to rescind the order pending the finding of a valid cause for the declaration of contempt. Yes, a higher court can order the lower court to release the reluctant witness by finding that the lower court abused its discretion in ruling that the refusal was contemptuous. Imagine, for example, a judge who orders a Catholic priest to testify to matters revealed during confession. The priest refuses and the court holds him in contempt and jails him. Doesn’t it make sense that there’d be some effective review by a higher court? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/174 "2017-08-28T04:11:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Maybe it has to do with it being an order of the court and not “a crime”, as specified by the constitution. Suppose the court orders someone to be silent during the proceedings because they are being disruptive. The president can’t “pardon” that person and allow him to continue to be disruptive. Right? Correct - a pardon cannot excuse future crimes. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/175 "2017-08-30T18:59:12Z")
“Joe Arpaio saga isn’t over: Judge to decide if his conviction stands” > **[Joe Arpaio saga isn't over: Judge to decide if his conviction stands](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/08/29/judge-wont-vacate-former-sheriff-joe-arpaios-contempt-conviction-without-oral-arguments/614854001/)** > > The judge in former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's contempt case wants oral arguments before she decides whether to throw out his conviction after his pardon. It sounds like he still has to go to court to get the conviction thrown out. However, I thought that when a pardon was issued it automatically cleared away the conviction. So can someone with a bit of legal knowledge explain what’s going on? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2017, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/176 "2017-08-30T19:48:52Z")
As I understand it, the conviction is moot either way, but it can still be a sort of “conviction of record”. In other words “he was convicted but pardoned” as opposed to “the conviction was thrown out.” This sounds like a distinction without a difference, but it could be important in the ACLU’s civil suit. At least that’s my non-lawyer understanding of it. Hopefully one of our resident lawyers will comment on this. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/177 "2017-08-31T17:44:10Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > As I understand it, the conviction is moot either way, but it can still be a sort of “conviction of record”. In other words “he was convicted but pardoned” as opposed to “the conviction was thrown out.” > > This sounds like a distinction without a difference, but it could be important in the ACLU’s civil suit. > > At least that’s my non-lawyer understanding of it. Hopefully one of our resident lawyers will comment on this. Kind of like a guy being convicted but not doing time? ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2017, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/178 "2017-08-31T19:35:27Z")
Presidential pardons don’t expunge the criminal record. Arpaio will still have to answer “yes” on any form that asks if he has a criminal record. Arpaio is asking a judge to vacate the whole thing so that he can get out of having a record. He’s really pushing the line that just because he’s been pardoned, it doesn’t mean that he admits he’s guilty - which is not how presidential pardons have traditionally worked. The Judge is perfectly in her power (and in line with previous pardons) if she chooses to say, “nope - your criminal conviction is a fact that happened and the pardon doesn’t wipe that out.” But Arpaio insists that if she denies him, he’ll take it to the Supremes. See here - > **[Pardon After Completion of Sentence](https://www.justice.gov/pardon/apply-pardon)** > [@DOJ](#): > > **10. Effect of a pardon** > > While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction. Therefore, even if you are granted a pardon, you must still disclose your conviction on any form where such information is required, although you may also disclose the fact that you received a pardon. In addition, most civil disabilities attendant upon a federal felony conviction, such as loss of the right to vote and hold state public office, are imposed by state rather than federal law, and also may be removed by state action. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2017, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/179 "2017-08-31T19:39:58Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Presidential pardons don’t expunge the criminal record. Arpaio will still have to answer “yes” on any form that asks if he has a criminal record. There goes his job prospects at McDonalds. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2017, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923/180 "2017-08-31T21:36:00Z")
From the similarly themed GD thread: > [@Does Trump's pardon of Arpaio really stand out from past pardons?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-trumps-pardon-of-arpaio-really-stand-out-from-past-pardons/795026/186): > > It might be helpful, to understand what he’s arguing, to consider this possibly alarming fact: if you’re convicted of a crime, but die during the pendency of an appeal, the conviction is vacated. > > Why? Because your death basically moots the appeal, and since the appeals process is part of the guarantees of fairness that our system provides, it would be unfair to saddle the dead man’s records with a possibly flawed conviction. > > So, as far as I can tell, Arpaio is trying to apply that logic to his present circumstance. He says, in effect, that he intended to appeal his conviction, and the appeal would have vindicated him, but now that the pardon exists, there’s no point in any appeal, because the pardon makes it moot, so the conviction itself should be erased from the memories of humankind. > > But in my view, this motion is doing what you said: trying to have it both ways. Arpaio seeks the foreclosing effect on prosecution a pardon has, but also wants to avoid the admission of guilt that comes with accepting it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joe-arpaios-trial-starts-today/789923.md?page=10)