The President can pardon any goddamn person he pleases – provided that he has federal jurisdiction.
Case closed.
Are you sure of this?
I was a little alarmed when I read it here, but, googling, I’m almost seeing the opposite.
It’s a major constitutional defect that this king-like power is given to a political leader. So much for separation of powers.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the kind of non-partisan issue where there is a chance of getting over the very high barrier for a constitutional amendment. Giving the pardon power to some non-partisan non-governmental organization would be seen as something only Democrats like :mad:
Well, better for Arpaio to get the Law & Order treatment instead of, say, Miami Vice. Under *that *paradigm, the guy who gets a walk is always gunned down on the courthouse steps.
Actually it’s more like "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” But it’s not always Republicans who put it that way.
Regards,
Shodan
To the same extent that Obama endorsed dealing in cocaine, methamphetamine, money laundering, theft, and fraud.
Regards,
Shodan
Any of them pardoned before they served a day of their sentences?
Yup, pretty much. If we don’t like, we will have to take to the polls.
Can you provide some details of why those pardons are bad? I’m familiar with Arpaio’s case, I don’t know anything about those that you implied were terrible.
Simpler yet, in which of those cases did the defendant, like Arpaio, not serve a sentence?
When you are an elected officer with influence over the law enforcement agencies and courts in your jurisdiction (and Arizona appears to grant its county sheriffs more authority than most states), one conviction is pretty bad.
It’s more accurate to say that New York recognizes federal prosecutions for double jeopardy purposes. It’s not required to; the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits repeat trials by the same sovereign, so the federal government or a state government can’t prosecute you twice for the same act. It doesn’t present the feds and state from both prosecuting you for the same act.
Because Arpaio was pardoned after his conviction, double jeopardy would attach under the New York rule. Had Trump pardoned him before he was prosecuted* double jeopardy would not bar a subsequent state prosecution. So, for example, New York could have prosecuted Richard Nixon, since he was pardoned before any charges were filed.
*Under federal law, double jeopardy attaches once the jury is sworn. I am not sure if the threshold is the same for NY.
The idea was that Trump was condoning Arpaio’s crime by pardoning him. If that’s the principle, then any President who pardons anyone is condoning the crime. If Trump is condoning contempt of court, then Obama was condoning drug dealing and the other violations. QED.
Now the idea is that they have to serve some portion of their sentence, which strikes me as a fairly obvious case of special pleading. Obama never pardoned a true Scotsman, IOW. If someone wants to lay out a logical case why it makes a difference whether the person served some of his sentence, go ahead.
Regards,
Shodan
No, you’re jumping to conclusions.
In the case of Arpaio, we have statements from Trump that pretty much go to the heart of the issues for which his law enforcement agency was under investigation in the first place. Trump said, “He’s done a great job for the people of Arizona, he’s very strong on borders, very strong on illegal immigration, he is loved in Arizona.” And as far as the prosecution, he stated that “I thought that was very, very unfair thing to do,” though I’m not sure in context whether Trump was referring to the prosecution itself or the timing of the announcement of his indictment.
So I think it is fair to say that Trump generally approved of Arpaio’s law enforcement policies, on the basis that “he’s very strong on borders.” If Trump did not approve of Arpaio’s continued violations of civil rights… then why would he pardon him at all? But in any case, there is direct evidence that Arpaio got his pardon because Trump agreed with his enforcement of immigration laws, because that’s literally what Trump said.
As far as Obama’s pardons, again, I’m not sure what the circumstances are of each case – and it appears that you have no interest in doing anything more than barfing out a link to the pardons.
But it does appear to me that based on your link, most of those listed were clemency for people who had been convicted and completed their prison sentences. I can only assume that those individuals were on good behavior for years after completing their sentences in order to be issued clemency.
The one that I do know more facts about, and that I strongly disagree with, is General James Cartwright, who straight-up lied to the FBI, and will not serve any prison time. I think he got his pardon on the basis of a personal relationship with the President, not on the merits of the case.
But all in all, it sure looks like you’re just throwing up a lot of chaff, and not interested enough in your own argument to even try supporting it.
Right - it was ‘Joe CERTAINLY has been pissing on the law, and Trump endorses that - and thus he pardoned his fellow racist criminal’. It wasn’t ‘Trump pardoned somebody, so absent of any further examination or knowledge of the situation we can know that Trump unilaterally condones every act the person was accused of.’
*Do *you actually think that’s the principle behind the pardon power?
Arpaio’s policies led to people DYING in his custody repeatedly. And he was supposed to be the cop, not the criminal. It’s not comparable in any way to pardoning drug dealers imprisoned under the war on drugs which is bullshit anyway.
No, I am not jumping to any conclusions. I am applying a general principle to see if it applies generally. begbert2 said ‘Joe CERTAINLY has been pissing on the law, and Trump endorses that - and thus he pardoned his fellow racist criminal’ - that pardoning someone endorses the crime for which the person is being pardoned. Or maybe he meant by “pissing on the law” something other than breaking it. But OK - if that is the case, that pardoning someone means you endorse pissing on the law, then Obama endorses pissing on some different laws, because he pardoned people.
Or maybe begbert2 meant it was the certainty of the knowledge that law-breaking had occurred that made it wrong. That’s not much better - I think Obama knew that his pardons were of people at least equally certain of having broken/pissed on the law. Or maybe it is just that pardons cease to condone crimes only after people have served some indeterminate part of their sentence. If that’s the case, some logical basis for the distinction should be made, if possible.
I am interested if others can support their arguments.
Pardoning people means you condone what they did - if it is true of Trump, it is true of Obama (and every other President).
Pardoning people is wrong if you are CERTAIN that they actually broke the law - if it is true of Trump, it is true of every other President.
Pardoning people is wrong if they have not served any of their sentence - that has been asserted, but not supported, and it is that which might benefit from an indication that it is not just special pleading.
It seems to be the principle being suggested in the case of Trump. I don’t think it’s valid, which is why I cited other cases to see if it was going to be applied consistently. Apparently it can’t be, which is why it might help if you can explain or defend the special distinction, if any.
Regards,
Shodan
How about bank fraud, tax fraud, embezzlement, theft, and money laundering? And I assume you know that people die of drug abuse and overdose.
Regards,
Shodan
PS-
Mary Ann Krauser, fka Mary Ann Iron Shield
Offense:
Involuntary manslaughter
District/Date:
District of North Dakota; June 1, 1982
Strawman, and you know it. I already explained this, and you pretending I haven’t is bullshit.
Did anybody say this? I don’t recall this happening. (In fact somebody straight up said that the war on drug’s laws are bullshit which, one would presume, would make it okay to pardon everyone hit by them.) So, another strawman.
Well, for once you’re not just making up complete bullshit - there actually have been arguments made that Joe’s pardon is worse because he didn’t serve a day of jail for his crimes. My read of those comments is that they felt that some punishment might have be merited by the pardoned, but that they’d already served enough of their sentences to be just, whereas Joe is just traipsing off scott free and unrepentant. But in any case I didn’t make those comments and thus can’t truly explain them.
A fair amount of Arizona is under federal jurisdiction.
Just sayin.