Sheriff Joe is not out of hot water.

[Atman]

Great story on NPR this morning. Justice Dept. rules require a five-year waiting period before a pardon. And, as has been mentioned before, it requires an admission of guilt. Joe hasn't admitted guilt, and in fact said he would appeal. If he does accept the pardon it is a de facto admission of guilt, which opens him up to myriad civil suits which he'd likely lose because he's technically already admitted guilt.

In short, Trump really didn't do Joe any favors. But, at 85, it is likely Sheriff Joe will be deported from this Earth long before he sees any real punishment.

[C_U_L8R]

1. Trump shot the sheriff

That would something if Sheriff Joe refused it. Trump would look like a double-down fool.

[Egnever]

14. Hah!

[Hortensis]

18. Lol. Great! And thanks, Atman. Loved reading this,

even though it might not be that simple. BUT:

NY Times:

"A Pardon for Arpaio Would Put Trump in Uncharted Territory"

But the Arpaio case is different: The sheriff was convicted of violating constitutional rights, in defiance of a court order involving racial profiling. Should the president indicate that he does not think Mr. Arpaio should be punished for that, he would signal that governmental agents who violate judicial injunctions are likely to be pardoned, even though their behavior violated constitutional rights, when their illegal actions are consistent with presidential policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/trump-arpaio-pardon-arizona-sheriff.html?mcubz=0

This is from The Atlantic:

That breadth (of pardon power) drew some early critics. George Mason, a Virginia delegate who refused to sign the Constitution, worried about its potential for abuse. “The president of the United States has the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason,” he warned in a pamphlet during the ratification debates, “which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt.”

Prez George H.W. Bush did just that, pardoning 6 people involved in Iran-Contra under Reagan, when Bush was, of course, in Pence's place now. The last was Sec Def Cap Weinberger shortly before his trial was to begin, where he would have been asked questions many believe would have implicated Bush in criminal activity.

It seems very likely that this latest Republican misuse of presidential power will have to be challenged in court.

[Cryptoad]

35. Don the Con,,,,,

has never give a shit about JoeJoe,,,,, he is only cares abt how all his bigot and hate monger supports feel!!!!!!

[GoCubsGo]

63. Actually, Arpaio is probably a big hero of his.

The guy got away with running what were essentially concentration camps for brown people, for decades. That's one of Trump's wet dreams. He'd do it, too, if given half the chance.

[Cryptoad]

65. Never make me believe that Don the Con

gives a shit about anybody but himself.......
If God is selfless love, Don the Con is the Anti-Christ!

[malaise]

68. or anyone else

Don the Con cares about Don the Con- PERIOD

[Cryptoad]

80. Exactly,,,,

[CatWoman]

37. LOL

[pangaia]

44. LOLOL

I thought of posting the song, but, thought better of it.. wouldn't want to take advantage of the great Bob Marley for such.

[left-of-center2012]

49. But he did not shoot the deputy

Bob Marley song

[FM123]

72. Love that song!

[uponit7771]

50. +1

[MLAA]

57. Did you hear that? It was a hearty laugh when I read your post. Now that damn song keeps going aro

[calimary]

60. LOVE it! As my ever-astute husband just said -

responding to my "bring on the lawsuits, then!" quip:

"Maybe trump will pay all his legal costs."

[broadcaster90210]

70. Perfect!!

nt

[Madam45for2923]

2. Donald needs Arpaio to implement his "Economic" Final Solution!

Atman
0. Sheriff Joe is not out of hot water.

Great story on NPR this morning. Justice Dept. rules require a five-year waiting period before a pardon. And, as has been mentioned before, it requires an admission of guilt. Joe hasn't admitted guilt, and in fact said he would appeal. If he does accept the pardon it is a de facto admission of guilt, which opens him up to myriad civil suits which he'd likely lose because he's technically already admitted guilt.

In short, Trump really didn't do Joe any favors. But, at 85, it is likely Sheriff Joe will be deported from this Earth long before he sees any real punishment.

[mopinko]

3. and who is gonna uphold these laws?

who's gonna tell trump it was a fake pardon.

[Squinch]

4. Good to hear!

[Princess Turandot]

5. The five year waiting period comes into play when an individual actually applies for a pardon..

for his/herself using the normal Justice Department process. The felon needs to wait 5 years after release from prison (or after conviction, if they didn't go prison) before he/she can submit an application for consideration.

I'm not sure what that has to do with Arpaio's situation.

[Bladewire]

39. Correct. I just read that too

[pangaia]

46. Oh. bummer..........

[mobeau69]

74. Sadly, you are correct. There's a lot of hopeful misunderstandings being posted.

The pardon can have specific requirements if the president so chooses. Or it can be full, free and absolute. It's up to the president. And what I've read indicates that the orange anus mouth granted a full pardon to the despicable racist.

Sorry.

[drray23]

6. the president's pardon power is not subjected to anything

What you are listing are just guidelines. A president can ignore them if they want to which is just what Trump did. The pardon power is defined in the constitution, not with laws.

[greytdemocrat]

7. Yeah

That was my understanding too.

[PatSeg]

12. Wouldn't it still be considered

an admission of guilt?

[Cosmocat]

21. Yes, but

But, as noted, like it or not, POTUS has absolute power with it.

I get what people are saying about opening him up to civil litigation, but that takes time (see OJ) only involves monetary remuneration, lots of ways to bag out of it, and end if the day conservatives are crazy enough to pay this POSs costs if need be.

[PatSeg]

47. At his age,

it is possible he wouldn't live long enough to see those lawsuits come to fruition. Of course, people could still go after his estate once he's dead I suppose, but hardly the same satisfaction as seeing him go to jail, even if only for a short time.

[Cosmocat]

64. YEP

The craven pos will go out a hero to the sickness known as conservatism.

[PoliticAverse]

88. Yes, which is why the Supreme Court found that a pardon could be refused by its intended recipient.

[BBG]

19. Constitutional Conundrum

Can constitutionally defined pardoning of unconstitutional behavior be constitutional?

[Angry Dragon]

48. Good Question

[radius777]

87. Exactly, this is the question, and what

makes it different from other 'controversial' pardons by Dem presidents (Rich, Manning) that blockhead conservatives like to bring up in reponse to this.

Those individuals committed crimes against the federal gov't, and the president as the top federal official can decide to 'forgive' them...

Arpaio, as a state/local official, violated the civil rights of the inmates/suspects in a systematic fashion over a period of many years.

[ancianita]

22. So does this mean that the Supremes can rule on a legal claim of abuse of pardons?

Can a case be made to SCOTUS about how an untrammeled use of pardons can not just overturn but undermine jurisprudence across the country?

It seems that the originalists claims about the parameters of pardons could come into play, yes?

I'll look into this. Just wanted to ask here first.

[Jersey Devil]

8. There is no requirement to accept a pardon or admit guilt

The Constitution says nothing about those issues. Whatever regulations there might be by the Justice Dept, they are overruled by the Constitution.

Arpaio has been pardoned. Nothing can change that, no law, rules set by any department, nothing. Whatever previous Presidents might have done is irrelevant. That was custom, not law.

[former9thward]

9. None of this is true.

The Justice Department can not and does not restrict the power of the President to pardon. Accepting a pardon is not an admission of guilt. When Nixon was pardoned he never admitted anything. When Vietnam War draft evaders in Canada were pardoned they never admitted anything. Any civil suits were long ago filed and settled by Maricopa County which is responsible for them.

[Jersey Devil]

11. correct - there is no limitation to the pardon power

The President can pardon anyone in any manner he chooses and the Constitution has no requirements about what a pardoned individual must do.

[Towlie]

42. That's what I figured - it's just wishful thinking.

Unlike Trump, Arpaio will walk.

[moonscape]

67. This is from a Forbes article, disagreeing with you on

admission of guilt issue:

"The Supreme Court supplied a reason not to accept a pardon just over 100 years ago, in 1915, writing that a person who accepts such pardon is confessing guilt because a pardon carries an imputation of guilt. In other words, the person offered the pardon actually may reject the pardon from the President because he or she does not wish to admit guilt, even if accepting the pardon would extinguish any penalties related to the alleged crime. And, a presidential pardon does not erase or expunge the records of a conviction. So, an individual’s criminal history record will reflect both a conviction, if there is one, and the pardon."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobfrenkel/2017/07/21/president-trump-can-preemptively-pardon-his-advisors-and-family-but-will-he/#205d98736c3b

[former9thward]

73. How does one "accept" a full and unconditional pardon?

[mobeau69]

75. When Ford pardoned tricky dick it was for

all and any crimes he committed or may have committed. He did restrict it to a specific time frame (which he didn't have to do).

[Atman]

10. I guess is was fake news from NPR.

No wonder I so rarely listen to them anymore.

[Towlie]

43. Before you say that let's confirm that NPR actually made that claim and not just some guest speaker.

I couldn't find a claim like that from NPR on the Web.

[JDC]

13. If you go to the DOJ site for pardons, the 5 yrs can be waived

its listed on item 3


https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions

[Ms. Toad]

15. The guidelines are not part of the Constitutional restrictions

Legally, they have zero impact on the president's ability to pardon. Even those guidelines do not require an admission of guilt (although accepting responsibility for the offense is urged to make it more likely the request is granted).

As to the requirement the pardon be accepted, thereby implicitly admitting guilt, that seems to come from a misreading of a case in which the government was trying to compel incriminating testimony from someone pardoned before conviction. He attempted to plead the fifth, to avoid implicating himself. The government contended that the pardon required him to testify, since it was an implicit admission of guilt. The government lost. He was permitted to choose to accept the pardon (and be compelled to testify -or could maintain his Innocence and plead the fifth. Here arpaio has already been found guilty.

Which brings me to my final point. Legally, as to civil suits, there is no difference between a conviction and an implicit admission of guilt - except that a conviction may carry slightly more weight, because it is express, rather than implicit. Once he was convicted, that conviction opened the door a bit wider for related civil litigation.

[yardwork]

17. So Arpaio can still be sued in civil court?

[obamanut2012]

27. Yes, he can, and he will be

[Jim Lane]

79. He already has been.

The question would be, not the pardon, but whether there's any actionable misconduct by him that hasn't already been litigated. I don't happen to know the answer.

Plaintiffs in civil cases against him aren't bound by what happened in a matter to which they weren't parties. The judge could decide that Arpaio was not in contempt, or a contempt citation could be reversed on appeal, r he could be found in contempt and pardoned, and none of those outcomes would preclude a civil plaintiff in a separate action from alleging and proving that Arpaio had violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Arpaio, however, was a party and IS bound. In other words, a finding against him in this case could be used against him by the plaintiffs in another case. The reason for the distinction is the general rule that you can't be bound by a result unless you had a full and fair opportunity to contest it.

The pardon may affect the use that other parties could make of a finding against Arpaio. His full and fair opportunity to contest a finding includes his right of appeal. If he's been pardoned, then arguably he's no longer aggrieved by the contempt finding, therefore he can't appeal it, therefore he hasn't had full opportunity to contest the finding, therefore he's not bound by it, therefore in a separate case he's still able to argue that this judge was wrong. Is that a sound argument? Does it depend on whether he takes some step to "accept" the pardon? I don't know enough about this area of law to even hazard a guess at those questions.

[Ms. Toad]

31. Yes.

I haven't researched the case law to see how the conviction v. Pardon plays out from an evidentiary perspective. I don't believe the conviction can be used to support liability, since the effect of a pardon is to wipe it out. So the question is whether the pardon (and implication of guilt) can be used. Even if neither can be used, he can still be sued civilly or charged with a state crime. It is just that it may be harder to prove, without a conviction, if the pardon can't be used as evidence of guilt to create civil liability.

[yardwork]

40. I see. On the other hand, he wasn't acquitted by a jury.

It sounds like the impact of the pardon might be neutral on a civil case. The pardon wiped out the criminal conviction but doesn't have the impact of an acquittal?

[Ms. Toad]

58. Virtually all of the consequences of conviction are gone.

An acquittal means there was not enough evidence to find the defendant guilty (it doesn't mean he was innocent - merely that the state did not prove its case).

A pardon implies guilt, acceptance of responsibiity, and a forgiveness that in effect winds the clock back so there is not conviction (with a few exceptions - such as the character and fitness investigation for the practice of law, which require disclosure, even if pardoned).

The way a criminal conviction plays out in a civil case is as evidence. A court with a much higher standard of proof already found him guilty (preponderance of the evidence) - so how could a court where you only have to have a feather's weight more evidence for liablity than against NOT find him guilty.

On a quick look, it appears likely that the pardon could be used in a civil trial. There are no cases directly on point, but in a case involving (essentially) a three-strikes law, the Supreme Court held that, " a state may not take cognizance of the offense pardoned in any way which would constitute a ‘punishment’" but that since punishment was being imposed for a new crime (merely enhanced by the prior conviction), it was not new punishment for the old crime.

I didn't see any cases about using the pardon as evidence in a civil trial for matters arising out of the same set of facts.

It's not something that happens every day (Thank goodness)

[spooky3]

53. Thank you. N/t

[IronLionZion]

16. I don't care how old he is, he needs to be held accountable

and the record needs to be set straight for the history books long after he's passed away.

[Tanuki]

20. I agree. He has been abusing people and violating their rights for decades.

Just because he has gotten away with it all this time doesn't mean he should expect special consideration because of his age. Many elderly ex-Nazis were brought to justice after years of living under false identities. Their age when apprehended was no defense.

[Bradical79]

23. I don't think any of this is true

The justice department rules aren't laws that put a real check on the president's pardoning power. It's more like a voluntary process. The admision of guilt thing people bring up over and over also isn't true. This is established with examples of multiple presidents pardoning people who haven't admitted guilt, and even pre-emptive pardons.

Edit: Now something has been batted around where pardoning people related to investigation of himself could result in charges against Trump himself or impeachable offenses. Trump's pardoning power is absolute except in cases of impeachment and possibly pardoning himself. But impeachment also is an extremely broad power.

[George II]

25. The details of a pardon and admission of guilt are fuzzy, and get debated every time....

...something like this happens.

One thing is for sure, though - a pardon doesn't erase the conviction. He's still a convicted felon and, as someone here noted, he is still subject to a number of civil lawsuits.

[George II]

24. Thankfully a pardon doesn't erase a conviction, so he's still a convicted felon...

...and in some states (probably not lawless Arizona) felons are not permitted to carry guns. And they can't vote until a specific waiting period after serving his sentence, which presumably was yesterday.

[Bradical79]

29. Yeah, at least there's some small consolation there.

And as someone else said, there's always the possibility of civil suits.

[Lee-Lee]

56. It was only a misdemeanor charge

And some misdemeanors convictions can make you ineligible to own firearms but that wasn't one that would.

[Ms. Toad]

59. You are thinking of commutations.

A pardon does wipe out all disabilities associated with the conviction (including the right to carry arms and vote).

[no_hypocrisy]

26. So Trump effective "pre-dated the check" and the pardon is prospective?

Does that mean that Sheriff Joe still has to show up for court in October to receive his penalty?

[samnsara]

28. you know thats how i feel.. hes 85 and how is 6 mos in jail going to....

...change his behavior? he probably would have got probation anyway! Now hes living in shame...which is punishment in itself. He will be tied to Trumps bad name for the rest of his days on this earth ( my MIL lived to be 104...so you never know!)

[trc]

32. Joe is not in the least bit ashamed by his conviction

He does not believe he was correctly convicted I am sure, and so this is a badge of honor among his supporters...including 45. He will never admit guilt because in his mind he did nothing wrong. period.

[MrsCoffee]

34. It would be a deterrent to others. What kind of example does it set to have no consequences

for his crimes?

[avebury]

36. The consequence of such actions may have to come in civil court

and bankrupting the racist idiots. I would like to see that any ruling in favor of victims includes garnishment of future victims. Imagine having to send money every month to the people you victimized.

[MrsCoffee]

38. I certainly hope so.

[Jim Lane]

81. Most government agencies have a policy of paying judgments against employees

At least when the employee was acting in the scope of his or her official duties. This would normally apply even if the judgment is rendered after the employee has left government service.

It's generally a sound policy. There are many government positions which a person of average means couldn't accept without risk of personal bankruptcy if he or she would be personally liable on such claims. And don't tell me that you could completely protect yourself just by acting properly. Arpaio's case is unusual in that he was so clearly a miscreant. There are many cases that fall in a gray area.

I don't know Maricopa County's policy. My semi-educated guess, though, is that Arpaio won't have to pay a dime out of his own pocket.

In some jurisdictions, certain kinds of misconduct while in office can affect the employee's pension rights. My guess is that something like that is the best we can hope for in this instance.

[Madam45for2923]

30. Reminder from 2012 about these two: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIHha6vXgAA-KVT.jpg

Reminder from 2012 about these two:

[calimary]

61. Yawn... just another lie.

How many is it by now?
327,489,601,552? Or 327,489,601,553?

[czarjak]

76. Juvie said what?

[avebury]

33. As soon as Sheriff Joe accepted the pardon, per the US

Supreme Court he will have admitted to being guilty to the charges will absolutely opens him up to civil suits. I would love to see the ACLU lining up clients to go after Sheriff Joe in civil court. Maybe racist bigots will think twice about copying him if they learn that their future victims might be able to bankrupt them and take all their assets. The county, as Joe's employer should be included in any lawsuits.

[dae]

55. Trump will $hit on himself. He will then realize pardons mean

guilt followed by civil suits for them all.

[Duppers]

62. Class action suits for wasting taxpayers' money

To enrich himself?

[lambchopp59]

41. I'm not even reading extensively this string without posting my snarky

That Jo PoPo ugliness will no look no bedder in the pink underwear. Only karma that POS deserves.

[avebury]

45. I wonder if this pardon will position Trump to eventually be

subject to civil suit. His actions continue to "legitimize" the actions of racist bigots, some of whom are in law enforcement, to take actions against civilians solely based upon their religious, ethnic background, etc. I could see a class action law suit down the road maybe even including civil RICCO charges. The rot starts at the top.

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. Civil redress is all that will be left for most areas of justice and that will be gone soon as well

so make use of it while you can

Victims of his illegal acts can sue in civil court and make life difficult for him.

Will Trump pay his attorney fees and victims settlements?



When monkeys fly out of my butt while I am being struck by lightning standing next to an alien spacecraft.

[dae]

71. I wish you no harm But if it must happen that way I salute

you for your sacrifice!

[itsrobert]

52. This is a "Justice Department Rule"

Is it in the Constitution or an actual law?

[defacto7]

54. Then bring on the state's criminal charges.

May there be many.

[davsand]

66. Would that admission of guilt leave the county liable as well?

Sheriff Joe is admitting guilt if he takes the pardon. For sure it sets him up for civil lawsuits, but how about the county that allowed it to continue? Are they now vulnerable to civil suit since he's admitting guilt while a paid official?

He's probably a limited pool of funds to pay damages, however that county has deeper packets...



Laura

[onetexan]

69. arpaio couldn't be "deported" to the netherworlds fast enough

idiot 45 will follow him down there as well, hopefully sooner than later

[dalton99a]

78. Will that piece of shit be cremated or buried?

Racists will make his grave a shrine

[chillfactor]

77. great news for this day!

thank you for the post!

[Maraya1969]

82. How did Ford pardon Nixon then? It wasn't 5 years I don't think

[Warren DeMontague]

83. can't he face state charges?

Trump's pardon only applies Federally, correct?

[Javaman]

84. K&R nt

[tandem5]

85. I don't know about the DOJ rules stopping Trump -- rules are nothing to him, but

the technical admission of guilt and the civil lawsuits should definitely cause Arpaio problems!

[BainsBane]

86. No, the constitution overrides DOJ rules

Which are not laws. The president has full power to issue pardons for federal crimes.