Trump, either deliberately lying or just up to his usual, mindless stupidity, re-tweeted that Obama had pardoned Oscar Lopez Rivera. It was not a pardon. It was a commutation after Lopez Rivera had spent 36 years in prison.
Congratulations Procrustus and Icarus on your new positions as official spokespersons for The Anti-Arpaio! I would have congratulated you both sooner, but I had no idea the organization existed until just now!
And don’t forget all the ancillary crimes and indignities that people suffered because of Mr. Arpaio’s illegal policies: people detained illegally (some would call that kidnapping), the terrible conditions at the Maricopa County Jail that people then had to endure, etc.
Overall, I’d say that Mr. Arpaio did more damage to more lives and to more institutions than any of the people that Saint Cad is listing but that misses the point that even tho some of them might deserve their pardon more or less than Mr. Arpaio, that doesn’t mean that Mr. Arpaio deserved his pardon at all.
The solution to which is to change the law and abolish such sentences, not to let the boss free anyone who pays him off.
I’m unpersuaded, for a couple of reasons. First of all, Past Tense specifically mentioned sentences “which turn out to be excessive in particular instances.” This implies that such sentences are not (or at least may not be) excessive in the general case.
I’d prefer to NOT get the discussion sidetracked into a debate on mandatory minimum sentencing laws, but the “solution” you recommend is not an instantaneous process. As for the “particular instances,” the clemency power is not so much a “solution” as a “remedy.”
With regard to the issue of “pay[ing the boss] off,” I struggle to think of anything Hampton Hawes had to offer President Kennedy in 1963.
A session at the White House?
And now I’m off to Ebay, I hadn’t heard of the guy, not that I’ve heard much jazz.
IMHO the Mark Rich pardon is more offensive to jurisprudence than the Arpaio pardon.
Though Arpaio hadn’t been sentenced yet at least he stood trial, submitting to the authority of the judicial process. Rich just skipped the country and relied on, well, I’ll use the words of Jimmy Carter, " I don’t think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts. In my opinion, that was disgraceful."
Disgraceful is a very measured word. Trade with the enemy who is holding US hostages. Get indicted. Avoid the legal system by fleeing the jurisdiction. Make large gifts. And somehow this is worthy of a pardon?
Arpaio is no saint and an affront to the legal process, but not in the same league as Rich.
In terms of a side-by-side comparison of the actions being pardoned, I think you could make the argument that the pardoning of Rich is at least just as bad, if not worse, than Arpaio. Two reasonable people could disagree on that, but I agree that Rich’s pardon was a repugnant one. It exemplified the problem that people had with the Clintons, which was their penchant for cronyism. I think Hillary was probably less inclined to make an extreme pardon like her husband did, but that is the sort of thing that made people despise the Clintons on the right and left for years after Bill left the White House, and it caught up with them in Hillary’s 2016 campaign, no doubt.
I still argue that the timing of Arpaio’s pardon and the context in which it took place make Trump’s behavior more ominous. Maybe if this turns out to be the only pardon of this variety, we can revisit this thread and I might be inclined to reevaluate what I’ve said. But if Trump continues to pardon Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, and others, then I think it’s safe to say that the pardoning of Joe Arpaio was the beginning of an all-out assault by a sitting president on the rule of law, and I can’t imagine a more egregious use of the executive’s power to pardon.
It is a movement towards red neck power.
True but they want to ignore a President pardoning his own brother, a woman who went to court on contempt protecting him and two corrupt Representatives. I suspect the ignore it because either
He was a Democrat or
He wasn’t Trump and the pardonee wasn’t Arpaio or
It was too long ago to be fresh in their minds
I agree that Clinton’s pardons represent political cronyism and corruption at its worst - no argument there. The Clinton’s pardons are certainly among the more problematic in recent memory. But as bad as they are, Clinton allowed investigations against him to continue mostly unfettered, despite the fact that these investigations were themselves motivated not by the public interest but nothing more than naked politics.
An unforeseen consequence of the Rich pardon was that it probably contributed to the election of Trump. It’s hard to top that for consequences.
What does that last part have to do with the pardoning of Arpaio
How did it contribute to Trump’s election? I don’t remember Trump focusing on the Rich pardon last year so much as Bill’s infidelities and NAFTA.
Can we at least agree though that Clinton made a lot of his own problems?
What I mean is, his lack of self-control sexually made him vulnerable for one. I’ve often heard that in politics, the idea is to come out in front of an issue, not evade it. If he had said from the very beginning, “I made my share of mistakes. I may be President, but I’m also only human. I strayed from my marriage, and I deeply hurt my wife and my family in doing so. I have asked for her forgiveness, and now I ask for yours, and God’s.” Something like that. Just come out in front of the Monica issue, admitted it, acted as contrite as possible, had Hillary standing by his side, etc, humbled himself publicly?
Are these things he could’ve done to have stopped it from progressing to the point of a trial and subsequent impeachment? Do you think the public would’ve forgiven him if he used all his charisma to come out in front of it, admit wrong, and ask forgiveness?
The trial came after the impeachment when he was acquitted in the Senate.
What was the testimony where he said “There is no relationship” (the basis of the charge of perjury)? Was that simply a deposition?
I’ve tended to give Ford the benefit of the doubt on the (very tough) decision he made to pardon Nixon. His reasoning was, of course, to spare the nation from the divisiveness of a long, nasty trial.
But I’ve wondered recently if that could have been achieved by Nixon pleading guilty. Would that been as effective as a pardon? If so, it’s harder for me to support the pardon, at least prior to any charges being filed.
I realize there would have also been the not-so-small matter of convincing Nixon to plead guilty.
It was a civil lawsuit brought by Paula Jones, and was dismissed before trial. While the dismissal was being appealed, Clinton settled out of court with Jones for $850,000. It never went to trial. So yes, it was simply a deposition.
Ford hoped that in return for the pardon, Nixon would give a heartfelt statement of contrition. He kind of conned Ford, actually, if you read into the details of it. Basically, it was a bit of extortion on his part. There were issues with Nixon’s tapes and other papers that he would only surrender with a pardon. He used Al Haig to play Ford in the period between August 9th and September 8th. Ford wanted an apology from Nixon, and got a half-assed statement about mistakes being made. Nixon did not, even to his dying day, believe he was guilty of anything. Getting him to admit to guilt would never happen.
Ford’s position was terrible. There were bigger issues than Nixon’s fate, yet that was all the press people would ask him about. A trial of a former President would dominate the news and become a circus. How could any trial even work, really? In such a case, would there be such a thing as an unbiased jury? It would take away from the real issues of the day like inflation. Nixon was using the pardon as a way of him behaving nicely with regard to papers and such. Nixon had also recently almost died of a massive pulmonary embolism just a week or so before the pardon was issued. Mutual friends spoke to Ford of Nixon’s ill physical and mental health; that a trial would kill him. I don’t think Ford wanted that on his conscience. He was in a lose-lose position either way. Watergate would continue to dominate the news for years on end as Nixon either died or went on trial,or he would pardon Nixon and ruin himself.
He once said he knew he would go to Hell when he died because he pardoned Nixon. He carried in his pocket a copy of a legal decision which stated that a pardon was an admission of guilt. That helped him sleep at night later in life.