.“No Sweaty da, Joe. I Got Your Back” –
(Arpaio: Convicted of
criminal contempt for profiling Latinos)
Another crazy-ass Trump stunt to stay out front in the limelight to gain
attention:
WASHINGTON (from
USA TODAY and Washington Post – the highlights)
—
Almost everything about Trump's pardon of former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio is unusual.
(From The Post):
Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman wrote after Trump’s
belligerent Phoenix rally speech that such a pardon would represent
an “assault on the federal judiciary, the
Constitution and the rule of law itself for which the remedy is impeachment.”
Political
scientist Jeffrey Crouch in his book on the pardon
power makes clear, pardons are
granted for two reasons: (1) either
to provide mercy or (2) correct a miscarriage of justice, in an individual
case; or on more general grounds based on public policy.
Trump’s
pardon of Arpaio does not fit either category very well.
As regards to mercy: Alexander Hamilton wrote in the
Federalist that pardons were needed, since otherwise “justice would wear a
countenance too sanguinary and cruel.” Presidents have sometimes pardoned
elderly convicts, for instance, rather than see them die in prison.
Arpaio is now
85, but he had not even yet been
sentenced; that hearing was set for October. As a procedural matter,
the guidelines of the Justice Department’s office of the pardon
attorney — not binding on the president, of course, and not consulted in
this instance — state that petitions for
clemency are normally considered only after five years have passed after a
conviction. And, further, in considering such
petitions, “The extent to which a
petitioner has accepted responsibility for his or her criminal conduct and made
restitution to its victims are important considerations.”
Pardons also
serve as a check against the judicial branch, when the president feels a grave
miscarriage of justice has occurred. At his Phoenix rally, Trump
seemed to make this claim, saying that “Sheriff Joe was convicted for
doing his job.”
(My Note: Another standard and relatively
routine and blatant Trump lie).
(From USA Today):
1. Trump
chose a politically polarizing anti-immigration sheriff as the recipient of
his first pardon — the kind of controversial grant of clemency recent
presidents have reserved for the 11th hour rather than their first act.
2. Arpaio didn't even meet the Justice Department
guidelines for a pardon.
3. His conviction wasn't five years old, he
hadn't expressed remorse, and he hadn't even applied to the Office of Pardon
Attorney.
Plus, and
another White House lie, the day before press secretary *Sarah Huckabee Sanders*
said the president would follow
“a thorough and standard” process in considering the pardon. That process
usually requires seven layers of review and an FBI background check – Note:
None were followed.
[I Note: *This
pitiful lying uninformed and misleading and dumb woman should be canned from
this important job – she is worthless, useless, and disgusting in her job
performance and appearance as major spokesperson for the White House – the public
should demand she be replaced ASAP. The worst part: She knows when she is relaying a lie, if not, then it's even worse].
More media back blast: All
sides blast Trump over Arpaio pardon
But none of
this matters except to generate political hype, etc. – The constitutional authority to “grant pardons and reprieves for offenses
against the United States” is the most-absolute of all the powers any
president has.
So turmoil, public anger, and all that
aside: Almost every president has done this, and some (see the article examples) have been pretty awful and on a president’s last day in office – but, none ever this early like Trump’s.
I conclude: What can the public do? Nothing except
gripe and moan – or just grin and bear it, or whatever.
Also, Trump loves
this kind of power:
It can’t be overturned, is rock-solid authority, and unquestionably all his.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment