Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
JamishT wrote:I think that "Sheriff Joe" as Trumpy called him 4 times in 4 consecutive sentences was an awful sheriff and guy. However, I think there is too much harping on his treatment of Hispanic people. Conservatives don't really give a crap about that, so I think it would be much more effective to bring up his corruption and other shady stuff. Otherwise, it will be too easy for people to deflect to "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!". That's all I've got right now.
With a presidential pardon in hand, former Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now seeking to convince a federal judge to erase her finding that he violated a court order.
The step is largely a symbolic one. Arpaio’s pardon ensures that he won’t be sentenced and that the case against him will proceed no further. But the pardon does not instantly undo U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton’s finding that Arpaio is guilty of a crime.
Jack Wilenchik, an attorney for Arpaio, said the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., feels it important that the guilty finding in his case be vacated, even if the pardon prevents him from ever serving time.
“It’s a matter of clearing his name, and removing any legal effects of the conviction,” Wilenchik said.
Canadian government FAQ wrote:What is a pardon/record suspension?
A pardon/record suspension allows people who were convicted of a criminal offence, but have completed their sentence and demonstrated they are law-abiding citizens, to have their criminal record kept separate and apart from other active criminal records. Pardons/Record Suspensions are issued by the federal government of Canada. This means that any search of the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) will not show that you had a criminal record, or that you were issued a pardon/record suspension.
The vast majority of presidential pardons are issued long after people are convicted and sentenced. That is because pardons generally serve to forgive people, rather than to erase what they have done. The Justice Department notes in guidance on its website that pardons do not remove convictions from a person’s criminal record.
“Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record,” the guidance says. “However, a pardon will facilitate removal of legal disabilities imposed because of the conviction, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from the conviction.”
Margaret Love, who served as the U.S. Pardon Attorney between 1990 and 1997 and specializes in clemency cases, said a pardon ordinarily does not expunge the court record, but Arpaio’s case is atypical because a final judgment had not yet been imposed. That might make it akin to a case involving Archibald R. Schaffer III, who was pardoned by President Clinton in 2000 amid intense legal wrangling over his conviction for violating the anti-bribery provision of the Meat Inspection Act.
A federal appeals court in that case wrote that while a pardon on its own did not render Schaffer innocent, the case had become moot, and thus all the lower court judgment’s should be vacated. Arpaio’s attorneys have argued that Bolton should apply the same reasoning.
“Because the President issued a pardon before sentencing and judgment — and clearly, before the conclusion of any appeals — the Court is obligated to vacate its verdict and all other orders in this matter, and to dismiss the case with prejudice,” Arpaio’s attorneys wrote. “Because Defendant will never have the benefit or opportunity to seek a reversal of the court’s verdict through appeal (and a retrial by jury), it is only fair that the Court vacate its verdict and all other rulings in the case.”
blehblah wrote:2) How can the power of presidential pardons be reigned-in?
Unlike almost all presidential pardons, this one did not involve any role for the Justice Department, according to a source with knowledge of the process. Typically an office at the Justice Department reviews clemency applications and gives a recommendation to the President.
"This is the President's pardon," the source said.
cmsellers wrote:A constitutional amendment would be possible if enough people on both sides of the aisle were riled up about it. Right now, while Democrats and independents are unhappy with this pardon, most Republicans are happy with it because it plays to a "law and order" narrative where law and order are both expendable.
cmsellers wrote:But if Trump pardons Flynn more Republicans might turn against him, and if he pardons Edward Snowden for some reason it might get both sides up in arms.
cmsellers wrote:My preference would be to require that anyone pardoned must have been convicted and served one year or one quarter of their sentence—whichever is greater, which I think allows for leniency in cases like Chelsea Manning without allowing the pardons of Richard Nixon, Marc Rich, and Joe Arpaio.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests