SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Joe Arpaio, pardoned last week after being convicted of contempt of court, was one of President Trump's most loyal surrogates while he campaigned for the presidency in 2016. (Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr/cc)
'A Gross Injustice': House Democrats and Legal Group Challenge Arpaio Pardon
Trump's pardon of sheriff, found guilty of racially profiling Latinos, "is disrespectful to the rule of law"
Aug 30, 2017
House Democrats and a nonpartisan legal advocacy group are both pushing the federal government to challenge President Donald Trump's pardon of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted last month of flouting a judge's order to end his practice of racially profiling Latinos.
Trump announced last week that he would pardon Arpaio, who was one of the president's biggest supporters on the campaign trail and who faced a maximum penalty of six months in jail for contempt of court.
Over Arpaio's 24-year career as sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, he frequently detained Latinos under the suspicion that they were undocumented immigrants, with no evidence that they had committed any crimes, and established a detention center called Tent City, which he compared favorably to a Nazi concentration camp.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and 16 other House Democrats sent a letter Wednesday to Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asking him to a call a hearing on the pardon, which they called "a gross injustice."
"The pardon sends an unequivocal message that institutionalized racial profiling as practiced by Sheriff Arpaio is acceptable," the representatives wrote. "The pardon is disrespectful to the rule of law in general and to the federal courts in particular; and the president issued the pardon in complete absence of any advisory role by the Department of Justice."
While presidents do have the power to issue pardons, the letter notes that Trump ignored "DOJ policy calling for a waiting period of five years or more before considering a pardon application," and did not issue the pardon through the Pardon Attorney at the Justice Department, as has been done by presidents for 125 years.
Meanwhile, the group United to Protect Democracy, formed by a group of former White House lawyers to "monitor, investigate, report on, organize, and litigate against" illegal actions taken by the Executive Branch, sent a letter to the Justice Department's Criminal Division on Tuesday, asking the office to oppose Arpaio's motion to dismiss his conviction following his pardon, noting:
President Trump has not issued a pardon after an acknowledgement by Arpaio (or Trump) of his guilt in the matter, as is the case with most pardons. Rather, President Trump has made clear that he believes Arpaio should never have followed the court's order to begin with, and was right to ignore it. That factual context raises grave questions about this pardon's potential to lead to other due process violations.
Arpaio's ability to have his conviction dismissed following the pardon has also been met with scrutiny by the Arizona judge who was set to sentence him in October. The Arizona Republic reported on Tuesday that U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton cancelled his sentencing hearing, but "stopped short of throwing out the conviction based solely on Arpaio's request. Instead she ordered Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is prosecuting the case, to file briefs on why she should or shouldn't grant Arpaio's request."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
House Democrats and a nonpartisan legal advocacy group are both pushing the federal government to challenge President Donald Trump's pardon of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted last month of flouting a judge's order to end his practice of racially profiling Latinos.
Trump announced last week that he would pardon Arpaio, who was one of the president's biggest supporters on the campaign trail and who faced a maximum penalty of six months in jail for contempt of court.
Over Arpaio's 24-year career as sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, he frequently detained Latinos under the suspicion that they were undocumented immigrants, with no evidence that they had committed any crimes, and established a detention center called Tent City, which he compared favorably to a Nazi concentration camp.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and 16 other House Democrats sent a letter Wednesday to Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asking him to a call a hearing on the pardon, which they called "a gross injustice."
"The pardon sends an unequivocal message that institutionalized racial profiling as practiced by Sheriff Arpaio is acceptable," the representatives wrote. "The pardon is disrespectful to the rule of law in general and to the federal courts in particular; and the president issued the pardon in complete absence of any advisory role by the Department of Justice."
While presidents do have the power to issue pardons, the letter notes that Trump ignored "DOJ policy calling for a waiting period of five years or more before considering a pardon application," and did not issue the pardon through the Pardon Attorney at the Justice Department, as has been done by presidents for 125 years.
Meanwhile, the group United to Protect Democracy, formed by a group of former White House lawyers to "monitor, investigate, report on, organize, and litigate against" illegal actions taken by the Executive Branch, sent a letter to the Justice Department's Criminal Division on Tuesday, asking the office to oppose Arpaio's motion to dismiss his conviction following his pardon, noting:
President Trump has not issued a pardon after an acknowledgement by Arpaio (or Trump) of his guilt in the matter, as is the case with most pardons. Rather, President Trump has made clear that he believes Arpaio should never have followed the court's order to begin with, and was right to ignore it. That factual context raises grave questions about this pardon's potential to lead to other due process violations.
Arpaio's ability to have his conviction dismissed following the pardon has also been met with scrutiny by the Arizona judge who was set to sentence him in October. The Arizona Republic reported on Tuesday that U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton cancelled his sentencing hearing, but "stopped short of throwing out the conviction based solely on Arpaio's request. Instead she ordered Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is prosecuting the case, to file briefs on why she should or shouldn't grant Arpaio's request."
House Democrats and a nonpartisan legal advocacy group are both pushing the federal government to challenge President Donald Trump's pardon of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted last month of flouting a judge's order to end his practice of racially profiling Latinos.
Trump announced last week that he would pardon Arpaio, who was one of the president's biggest supporters on the campaign trail and who faced a maximum penalty of six months in jail for contempt of court.
Over Arpaio's 24-year career as sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, he frequently detained Latinos under the suspicion that they were undocumented immigrants, with no evidence that they had committed any crimes, and established a detention center called Tent City, which he compared favorably to a Nazi concentration camp.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and 16 other House Democrats sent a letter Wednesday to Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asking him to a call a hearing on the pardon, which they called "a gross injustice."
"The pardon sends an unequivocal message that institutionalized racial profiling as practiced by Sheriff Arpaio is acceptable," the representatives wrote. "The pardon is disrespectful to the rule of law in general and to the federal courts in particular; and the president issued the pardon in complete absence of any advisory role by the Department of Justice."
While presidents do have the power to issue pardons, the letter notes that Trump ignored "DOJ policy calling for a waiting period of five years or more before considering a pardon application," and did not issue the pardon through the Pardon Attorney at the Justice Department, as has been done by presidents for 125 years.
Meanwhile, the group United to Protect Democracy, formed by a group of former White House lawyers to "monitor, investigate, report on, organize, and litigate against" illegal actions taken by the Executive Branch, sent a letter to the Justice Department's Criminal Division on Tuesday, asking the office to oppose Arpaio's motion to dismiss his conviction following his pardon, noting:
President Trump has not issued a pardon after an acknowledgement by Arpaio (or Trump) of his guilt in the matter, as is the case with most pardons. Rather, President Trump has made clear that he believes Arpaio should never have followed the court's order to begin with, and was right to ignore it. That factual context raises grave questions about this pardon's potential to lead to other due process violations.
Arpaio's ability to have his conviction dismissed following the pardon has also been met with scrutiny by the Arizona judge who was set to sentence him in October. The Arizona Republic reported on Tuesday that U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton cancelled his sentencing hearing, but "stopped short of throwing out the conviction based solely on Arpaio's request. Instead she ordered Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is prosecuting the case, to file briefs on why she should or shouldn't grant Arpaio's request."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.