Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Re: Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

Postby JamishT » Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:15 am

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.
  • 9

JamishT was a heck of a guy,
With a devilish twinkle in his eye.
With his hand-picked flowers,
And his feel-good powers,
He made all the girls blush and sigh.
User avatar
JamishT
TCS ModerBlobber
TCS ModerBlobber
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:31 pm
Location: KC, MO, AMERICA
Show rep
Title: The Wannabe Adult

Re: Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

Postby Learned Nand » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:14 am

I agree that it's important to emphasize the totality of the things that Arpaio has done in order to demonstrate how unjustified the pardon has been. Unfortunately, that can also be lazily deflected with "but he wasn't charged for doing any of those things, so he wasn't pardoned for them either." In order to counter both deflections, I think you need to advance both arguments: that the actions for which he was convicted were wrong, and that the actions for which he was not convicted were wrong.
  • 12

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.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

Postby Absentia » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:29 am

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.


From what I understand that's more or less what caused him to finally lose his last re-election bid. Once people realized how much money he was wasting the tide finally turned against him.

Truth be told, I'm more disgusted by the way he ran his jails than anything else. The fact that he singled out Latinos to fill them with is almost irrelevant; nobody should have to live that way regardless of where they were born or what crimes they committed.
  • 10

User avatar
Absentia
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:46 am
Location: Earth
Show rep

Re: Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

Postby cmsellers » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:32 am

I don't know if this would be more helpful with Arpaio-apologists (I don't know anyone who full-heartedly embraces him), but I feel like stressing the fact that he defied a court order to stop violating the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens should be compelling whether you care about racism against brown people or not.

Now, I also think "racism isn't OK" should be compelling, but given that illegal immigrants in Maricopa Country probably mostly are Hispanic, I get why a lot of people say you can't go after illegal immigrants without targeting Hispanic people, which is a problem if you believe illegal immigration is one of the greatest threats facing our country.

However given that most of Trump's core supporters are the sorts of people who get upset at the slightest possibility that their Second Amendment rights may be restricted, framing it in terms of "Fourth Amendment Rights" seems like the proper approach here. They'll probably still be hypocrites, after all "originalist" judges usually are on this matter, but it seems more fruitful than "Arpaio was racist," because these people are the sorts of people who think that all talk of racism is the boy crying wolf.
  • 11

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

Re: Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

Postby blehblah » Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:36 pm

Arpaio is hoping to have his conviction dismissed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 64ff35baf8

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.


If that strikes you as odd, you are not alone. To me, he was convicted - full stop. A 'normal' pardon may remove a conviction from one's criminal record; I mean the non-presidential kind of pardon that folks seek long after a conviction, and usually for crimes that are toward the nonviolent end of the spectrum. However, a presidential one typically doesn't.

Like this in Canada (normal pardon):

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.


As the Washington Post notes in the article linked above, a presidential pardon is different:

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.”


The same article notes that Arpaio's legal team may have a foot to stand on:

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.”


That last bit is interesting. Arpaio won't be able to appeal because Trump jumped the gun on the pardon. Had Arpaio exhausted all of his chances to, basically, win, it wouldn't be a question.

I wonder, if the verdict is vacated, would Arpaio have grounds to sue, as though it's a wrongful conviction? I should hope not.

In any case, it is all rather tricky. A pardon, in the traditional sense, is a form of forgiveness for someone who was convicted, paid the price, and shows contrition. The presidential pardon has mutated into something which can be applied a priori (in the case of Richard Nixon), or in the midst of the process of conviction, appeals, sentencing, and so-on. Commuting a sentence, as Obama did with Chelsea Manning, is different.

In my opinion, a pardon should not be applicable a priori, as allowing due process to proceed could be considered a public good. I do believe that normal pardons should remove a conviction from one's criminal record, but that must be after one serves whatever sentence or fine is applied, otherwise commuting a sentence is more appropriate. A presidential pardon should not remove a conviction, because if the conditions for a normal pardon are met, that is the more reasonable option.

A pardon is very different from wrongful conviction. If, as in this case, a pardon means halting all legal proceedings, abandoning sentencing, and expunging everything from the record, than it is effectively no different than wrongful conviction (hopefully aside from the suing).

For example, if Canada goes ahead with legalizing marijuana, I should hope anyone convicted of possession offences which become no longer illegal are pardoned, and anyone still serving for those offences has their sentence commuted. Obviously, if the offenses are still illegal (production on a grand scale, related criminal activity including weapons possession, and whatever else) remain. It is not automatically wrongful conviction. Instead, just as one cannot be tried for a crime committed before it is illegal, one should be pardoned for a crime that is no longer illegal.

I would *imagine* that Trump would have been advised by the DoJ of the many considerations of how and when to pardon Apaio or commute his sentence, and his advisers of political fall-out. Instead, he didn't bother consulting DoJ (or, seemingly, his cabinet and sane advisers - if any), and simply pulled the trigger, because Joe loves Trump, and Trump loves people who love Trump.

This is troubling because it really delivers a drop-kick to the DoJ. I'm not saying Trump is legally absolutely outside the bounds, but he is extending them pretty damn far from where Ford and Clinton stretched them, and doing so with an absence of reason aside from doing a bro' a favour, which just happens to be highly symbolic.

In the end, there are a few things:

1) I mentioned the symbolism of this before; it is not less troubling now
2) How can the power of presidential pardons be reigned-in? This is a damn good time to consider it because a pardon-happy POTUS can dismantle a whole lot of shit, blindly, blithely, bitterly, and/or otherwise.
3) What happens if Trump figures he can pardon not just others, but also himself, a priori, even when intending to flaunt the American Constitution?
  • 8

A quantum state of signature may or may not be here... you just ruined it.
User avatar
blehblah
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3895
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:16 pm
Show rep
Title: Error General, Panic Colonel

Re: Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

Postby cmsellers » Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:15 pm

blehblah wrote:2) How can the power of presidential pardons be reigned-in?

Norms and constitutional amendments. And even before Trump, Clinton showed that he could get around norms by waiting for his last day in office. But now that Trump's shown that he can do worse than Clinton ever did and his party will barely blink, there's really no hope of norms having any kind of restraining effect.

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.

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.

Of course if we pass a constitutional amendment we risk going overboard in the other direction, perhaps requiring congressional approval for all pardons.

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.
  • 9

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

Re: Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

Postby mancityfooty » Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:24 am

Trump asked Sessions if he would drop the federal case against Arpaio.

and maybe just draw your attention to this last bit:
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.
  • 10

72% Vanilla
User avatar
mancityfooty
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:16 pm
Location: Olathe, KS
Show rep
Title: Duke Mix a Lot

Re: Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

Postby blehblah » Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:01 pm

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.


That last bit cracked me up, in a sad, frightened, way. Might we be able to add the constitution to the list of expendable things in the pursuit of "<grrr> law and <grrr> order"? We can forget justice; it has a few too many tire tracks across its back.

Then again, the recent 'defenders of The Constitution' don't seem to give a single fuck about the constitution or justice. The former is all about careful quoting - it's akin to selective preaching - and the latter is a concept so outside the narrative, it may as well be Marxist-Communist-ism'ing.

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.


Snowden? I didn't know that was on the table. I'd assume Assange has the first ticket to that paradise. At this point, Assange's biggest problem isn't the USA, it's the UK, who are bit miffed that he skipped on his bail.

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.


I'm okay with that, so long as we recognize that there is a normal route to get a pardon. That normal route is available to everyone, is more powerful - in the criminal record-cleansing sense - than a presidential pardon, and has built-in requirements (not a single one of which Arpaio has achieved).

A presidential pardon should not, no matter when it is applied, expunge a criminal record. The judicial system finding a wrongful conviction should be the only route. On the other hand, if there is a wildly egregious prosecution of someone, there should be the power to step-in, but determining where that power lies is difficult. On the other other hand, the judicial branch is supposed to have multiple fail-safes built-in, like appeals, and so-on. Ultimately, I'm more comfortable with a system where the arbiters of justice lie within the judicial system, except in the most extreme circumstances.

That leads to where my biggest problem with all of this lies. The presidential has clearly become an abjectly political tool. That's noot to say it started with Arpaio; it was was building for quite a long time. It did take an impulsive idiot like Trump to push it the last mile. Obviously, the ultimate court in America land, SCOTUS, is also highly political. The DoJ, which has "justice" in the name, is a political institution (which, again, Trump and Sessions are really driving home). Justice is political, the reading or disregard of the American constitution is political - it is all up for grabs.

That is troubling.
  • 7

A quantum state of signature may or may not be here... you just ruined it.
User avatar
blehblah
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3895
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:16 pm
Show rep
Title: Error General, Panic Colonel

Re: Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

Postby cmsellers » Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:56 am

Apparently, some legal experts think that Trump can't pardon Arpaio because he's guilty of civil rights violations. The argument goes that a president can't pardon all white people for the same crime, but not all black people, because it would violate the 14th Amendment.

I am, shall I say, highly skeptical. Now, I agree with the specific example, because I would think that a president cannot target an entire class of unnamed people by description of class for a certain crime because it would effectively wipe out Congress's lawmaking powers. Imagine if I became president and issued a blanket pardon for all drug crimes, crimes related to prostitution and gambling, and crimes related to nudity, because I believe those are victimless crimes. I could reiterate this periodically and effectively render all federal statutes to that effect moot.

However when it comes to specific individuals, I believe a president's power is limitless except for the enumerated limitations. I could request the names of all people convicted of or charged with what I believed to be victimless crimes in the federal courts, and pardon them individually, and that would be legal. Trump could pardon all police officers charged in federal courts with civil rights violations by name, and that would be legal. A president could even pardon all white people charged in federal courts for crimes against black people, and that would be legal.

The presidential power of pardon is nearly absolute, and since it applies to one person, it cannot be unconstitutionally systematically discriminatory, even if the pattern of pardons is. And just as in the Civil Rights Movement, unjust acquittals of lynch mobsters cannot be overturned, because acquittals simply cannot be overturned, I believe the same is true of pardons. And Arpaio aside, I believe this is a good thing on general principle.

Now, I still think it's deeply problematic that the president can pardon for contempt of court, since this undermines judicial independence; I would still support a constitution amendment limiting or even removing the president's pardon power when it comes to contempt. But I believe he absolutely had the power to pardon Arpaio, and I think attempts to undermine the power by arguing that individual pardons can violate the constitution as written are both ridiculous and slightly frightening.
  • 3

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 26 guests

cron