I looked around and found that the Supreme Court has, in fact, dealt with the issue of whether the president can pardon for criminal contempt. (He can.)
Edit: The opinion even gets into what should be done if a president is whipping out contempt pardons left and right to block a court from effectively exercising its jurisdiction. (The remedy is impeachment, not wacky constructions of the pardon power.)
Wouldn’t an offense against a federal court be an offense against the against the United States?
A thousand times this!
This is way bigger than a cowboy sheriff - the country is full of Arpaios. But we’ve not had a president who just uses his magic wand to waive away the outcome of a court system just because he feels political kinship. This is the stuff of authoritarian regimes in developing countries or in a bygone era.
They voted against him after years of supporting him, and that was only one county. They still supported Trump and continue to. I will believe Arizona has changed when I see it, but it hasn’t even come close to happening yet.
Conservatives need to be outvoted; they’re not going to learn anything until and unless they end up paying a price for their own conservative idiocy. A great depression or some other national emergency might do it - might.
There might be another purpose to this pardon - to signal to anyone under investigation for the Russia thing that if they hold the line and refuse to cooperate with Mueller, the president is willing to pardon them.
This ties in with what a former Federal prosecutor said on Maddow last night: that the indiscriminate and politically-motivated use of the power of the pardon could seriously hamper prosecutors by undermining one of their more potent tools (the ability to offer leniency in return for cooperation). If Flynn or Manafort felt that His Orangeness would pardon them — perhaps even before they are formally charged — they might be far less likely to share information.
When asked if she thought this could be construed as obstruction of justice, she replied that in her opinion it certainly could. But that just leaves the process bumping up against the same obstacle: the GOP’s unwillingness to look beyond its own short-term benefit for the good of the country.
Or in other words, what iiandyiiii just said much more succinctly.
No, no one will.
Yes. As the Supreme Court has pointed out:
Joe is a murderer. People were killed in his jails, under very suspicious conditions. Scott Norberg for one.
I think it’s deeper and broader.
There is the rule of law and there is the rule of men, and Trump more naturally favors the latter. That’s his comfort zone. He doesn’t like being bound by rules, laws, conventions, and gentleman’s agreements. This is an exercise of raw power. Trump entered the office unaware of the constitutional limits on his powers. In some ways he’s been surprised by the limits of his power in terms of his ability to make things happen on Capitol Hill and in the courts, and yet in other respects he probably didn’t realize how much power he actually does have. Trump is experimenting, testing and pushing his powers as the chief executive to their absolute limits to see what he can get away with. This is how authoritarians work. They keep testing and pushing, daring someone to confront them. If there is a message that we ought to understand from pardoning someone like Joe Arpaio, it’s this: he will use his powers to help his allies…and he will most certainly, over time, use those same powers to create new ones and punish his enemies. Don’t expect the Constitution to save us, either.
Then you’ll be pleased to learn that murder is a state crime. The President cannot pardon him from a conviction of murder.
Nonsense. But maybe I’m missing something. Can you lay out your case (or her case)?
Thank you for weighing in on this issue, and for providing the interpretation and relevant information in layman’s terms.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
I don’t give a damn if he was 185 years old. He made a career out of being a crooked racist asshole and that started way before he was so damn old. So, he tries to hide behind age and maybe “convenient senility” now?
He acted all his life as if he was above the law, as if he was THE law.
Guess what. With this pardon, OUR government is saying he IS.
This pardon says he is above the law, he can act out his racist bullshit, use his office to go after political rivals, and then WALK.
And plenty of US served in the military too, so don’t try to pull that particular bullshit on US.
How the fuck is that the right thing to do?
Yes. This was a big “FUCK YOU” to the entire system of law in this country. But then we already knew Trump has no use for the law except when he can twist it to his advantage.
But only if they can make a murder charge or “conspiracy to commit murder” charge stick.
I agree. As I said above, I’d have supported a Presidential commutation of jail time (if it had ever even been imposed, which I thought was unlikely in the extreme.) That would have left the criminal conviction in place. A pardon makes no sense unless it’s to send exactly the message you imagine.
Correct. And I don’t think that the conduct in question constitutes murder.
Wow. Here’s a summary of that ‘nothing but try to keep the US border secure,’ from the Phoenix New Times, which has been covering Arpaio for 20+ years. I can’t even summarize it. Just read.
You know more than I do about legal details, but wouldn’t you have to prove a direct connection?
Prove he actually gave the order or knew about it and deliberately covered it up?
Given that he didn’t personally “whack” people, and didn’t out and out say “kill that guy” that would be a tough one.
Proving he was simply a gross incompetent would be an easier thing to prove - the old “you were in command so you should have known and done something about it” tactic.
Arpaio’s in awfully good shape for an 85 year old, judging by his public appearances. When the prisons free every last soul who’s in worse physical shape than he is, I’d be good with letting him off the hook due to age.
But until then, I see no reason to cut him any slack just because it took this long for justice to catch up with him.