The pardon itself is Constitutional. The problem is that the crime underlying the criminal contempt charge was that of violating citizens’ Constitutional rights, and this gets Arpaio off the hook for that.
So the pardon may be Constitutional, but it’s effectively invalidated other people’s Constitutional rights by giving a law enforcement officer free rein to violate them without consequence.
Unless it’s possible to add Trump as a party to any suit against Arpaio due to this action, the only remedy is impeachment, and that isn’t gonna happen before 2019. (Removal probably wouldn’t happen even then, but at least make the Senate vote on the growing set of potential charges.)
Arizona has a “Negligent homicide,” law, ARS 13-1102:
I haven’t read the annotations or case law that would be necessary to understand how this is applied, and I am not directly familiar with the factual allegations that relate to the deaths, so I simply don’t know.
You seemed to be alluding to him spending time in prison. It may have already been said, but it hadn’t been cited and it appeared you needed a reminder.
More than likely there was nothing to “let him off” of, other than perhaps a fine and/or some community service. But not prison.
Hmmm… so it was a dumb move on Trump’s part, because Joe may not have served time anyhow.
But mayyyybe a fortuitous move in that it shows Trump’s true colors without really changing the outcome in the case. And maybe helps ‘dem Dems’ in 2018 (and all of Trump’s opponents right now!).
The most widely read newspaper in Arizona, the Arizona Republic, is out with an absolutely scorching op-ed on Donald Trump’s nearly unthinkable pardon of notorious racist Joe Arpaio, who was recently convicted for refusing a federal judge’s orders to cease his racial-profiling operations.
The editorial board of the Arizona Republic did not hold back:
His pardon of Joe Arpaio elevated the disgraced former Maricopa County sheriff to monument status among the immigration hardliners and nationalists in Trump’s base.
This erases any doubt about whether Trump meant to empower them after the violence in Charlottesville. …
The pardon was a slap to those who worked through the judicial system to make Arpaio accountable, too. It robbed the people hurt by his policies of justice – even before a judge could mete out a sentence.
The pardon was a sign of pure contempt for every American who believes in justice, human dignity and the rule of law. …
But Trump spent last week demonstrating that he wants to be president of the few.
By pardoning Arpaio, Trump made it clear that institutional racism is not just OK with him. It is a goal.
There is a “school of thought” that he intends to keep doing everything he can to undermine the courts, and is testing the waters to start handing out pardons to ALL his buddies (and himself?) that might be implicated in Meuller’s Russia investigations.
I suspect that thinking is correct, as that mess will eventually be tied directly to him and his money (all he cares about) and he is worried that he may actually have to finally answer for something.
So there are different flavors of contempt, some of which are unpardonable? I probably missed the post where you explain this; feel free to link if so.
If so, I can imagine a situation in which Trump tries, then rails against and threatens the judge when the subject of his pardon stays in the slammer or what have you.
There is a difference between direct and indirect contempt.
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.
Indirect contempt, as exhibited by Arpaio, takes place outside the court’s walls and may be punished only after a trial.
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?
