TRUMP PARDON OF ARPAIO DRAWS FIRE

By Miriam Raftery

August 27, 2017 (Washington D.C.) -- President Donald Trump’s pardon of former Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is drawing a firestorm of controversy.  Arpaio had been convicted of abusing his authority through racial profiling and was also found guilty of contempt of court for defying two judges’ orders to stop the illegal and unconstitutional actions. 

In his pardon statement, Trump praised Arpaio for “admirable service to our nation.” One aide told media that Arpaio’s age, 85, also weighed in on the President’s decision to issue a pardon before Arpaio’s October sentencing date. 

The statement, which has not been published on the White House website but has been reported by the White House press corps members, reportedly makes no mention of Arpaio’s crimes, his history of illegally targeting Latinos for stops,  or his decades-long history of practices found abusive including housing prisoners in desert tent cities, where temperatures rose into triple digits in summer and frigid lows in winter. Those facilities have since been closed.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Latino residents in Mariciopa County, which includes Phoenix, filed the lawsuit challenging Arpaio’s policies of racial profiling and illegal detentions, which resulted in victory in court as well as both civil and criminal contempt rulings against the Sheriff, though Arpaio’s tactics drew approval from anti-immigrant groups and some right-wing politicians.

ACLU  Legal Director Cecillia Wang says, “With his pardon of Arpaio, Trump has chosen lawlessness over justice, division over unity, hurt over healing. Once again, the president has acted in support of illegal, failed immigration enforcement practices that target people of color and have been struck down by the courts. His pardon of Arpaio is a presidential endorsement of racism,” she added.

The pardon has drawn criticism not only from liberals but also conservatives, including Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan. Ryan’s spokesman Doug Andrew told the Wall Street Journal the speaker disapproves of the pardon, adding, “Law enforcement officials have a special responsibility to respect the rights of everyone in the United States. We should not allow anyone to believe that responsibility is diminished by this pardon.”

California Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the pardon shows “flagrant disregard for the rule of law in this country,” the Hill reported.

Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake, both conservative Republicans, also denounced the pardon.

Arizona Congressman Trent Franks, however, also a republican, tweeted, “The president did the right thing,” saying Arpaio “lived an honorable life serving our country, and he deserves an honorable retirement.” 

Many other Republicans have been mum on the matter, including local Congressmen Duncan Hunter and Darrell Issa.

But  United Farmworkers President Arturo Rodriguez called the pardon “shameful” adding, “The President should not be pardoning someone who has been so vicious towards immigrants and who has openly flouted a federal judge’s order to stop his racial discrimination.”

Francisco Chairez, who spent a year in Arpaio’s jail as an inmate, wrote in the Washington Post, “How ironic it is, that the immigrant who committed a minor criminal act has to live with a conviction on his record for the rest of his life, while a criminal like Arpaio gets to walk away unscathed for his crimes, which are greater in scale and severity.”

Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman has suggested that pardoning Arpaio is an “assault on the federal judiciary, the Constitution and the rule of law itself” adding that he believes the remedy should be impeachment—though with a Republican controlled House of Representatives, impeachment is a political football.

The pardon is unusual in several respects. Justice Department guidelines for pardons normally require that at least five years have passed after conviction and that the criminal has accepted responsibility for his her her actions and made restitution to victims. None of those things have occurred with Arpaio, who has remained defiant and has not yet even been sentenced. 

Trump claimed that “Sheriff Joe was convicted for doing his job” but in fact the opposite is true; he was convicted for abusing his authority as a law enforcement officer sworn to uphold the law, violating both the U.S. Constitution and judicial orders.

Other Presidents have issued controversial pardons for what they considered the good of the nation, most notably President Gerald Ford’s pardon of his predecessor, Richard Nixon, for Watergate crimes.

Political payback may also be a factor in Trump’s pardon of Arpaio, who supported Trump’s campaign and Trump’s effort to falsely accuse Barack Obama of having a fake birth certificate. 

Some critics view the pardon as a dog whistle to white supremacists in the wake of the Charlottesville march which included Ku Klux Klan and Nazi members. The President blamed “both sides” despite the fact that while there were skirmishes involving both protesters and counter-protesters, only one side had leaders openly calling for death and discrimination targeting minority races and Jews, and only one side had a member ram a car into a crowd, killing a woman and injuring 19 others.

A Washngton Post article reveals that Trump asked Attorney  General Jeff Sessions months ago to drop the criminal case against Arpaio, but Sessions told the President this would be inappropriate. So Trump waited for the verdict to be issued, then issued the pardon. His effort to interfere with the criminal justice case against Arapaio is consistent with other attempts by Trump to impede justice, including his reported efforts to influence a federal investigation of Michael Flynn, the former national security advisor, and his firing of FBI director James Comey amid the investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Ironically, the President’s pardon of Arpaio conveys guilt, which legal experts say could open the door to civil lawsuits against Arpaio for his crimes. Although he won’t face jail time for his actions, the aging and outspoken former Sheriff may yet be held accountable financially for his illegal actions.