The Checkered History of Presidential Pardons From “Lupo The Wolf” To “Big George” Caldwell to “Sheriff Joe”

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedBelow is my column in USA Today on the Arpaio pardon and its historical context.  While I have been critical of the Arpaio pardon, the history of presidential pardons is quite checkered.  Moreover, I agree with critics that the Justice Department made a major mistake in the timing of its prosecution of Arpaio shortly before the election.  That does not change the fact that Arpaio was in flagrant violation of a court order and warranted the contempt conviction.  I also disagree with New Jersey Christ Christie in aspects of the following statement: 

“I think the pardon power is an extraordinary power for any executive, both the governor, and I’ve used it, and the president. My understanding has always been that one of the prerequisites you look for in giving a pardon is contrition for what you were convicted of. I didn’t see that in Sheriff Arpaio. And so, to me, one of the things that you need an acknowledgment of is an acknowledgment of guilt, first off, is required for pardon.”

While Christie can demand that from individuals as governor, it is certainly not a mandatory requirement for a presidential pardon. Contrition is a common element in presidential pardons in the review of petitions but it is not a threshold requirement.  While a smaller subset of pardons, some pardon beneficiaries, like Richard Nixon, maintain that they were not guilty of any crime.  Indeed, pardons can be used in cases where a president believes that someone was wrongly charged or convicted — as is the case with Trump’s rationale for the Arpaio pardon.  Of course, in such case presidents normally give the courts an opportunity to review the conviction on appeal before executing a pardon.   This is not one of those cases.  Arpaio might have good-faith arguments in favor of his immigration arrests, but those arguments do not give him license to ignore a court order — which he did for 17 months.

Here is the column:

 

Joe_arpaioPresident Trump’s pardon of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been widely condemned across the political spectrum. Arpaio committed flagrant contempt of court in continuing patrols targeting immigrants in Arizona for 17 months. While Trump described Arpaio as a “worthy candidate” for a pardon, Trump’s action flouted both the purpose and process for presidential pardons.

Having said that, Arpaio pales in comparison to some past misuses of pardon authority. In a system of overlapping checks and balances, this is one of the few near absolute powers.  Ironically, the provision has proven the fallacy of self-restraint by politicians in their use of unchecked authority. Left to their own devices and interests, presidents have repeatedly used this power for their personal political and familial interests.

There are a host of troubling elements to the Arpaio pardon. Trump reportedly bypassed his own Justice Department and pardon staff (which would have been unlikely to support clemency for Arpaio). Arpaio was not even sentenced and was looking at either no jail time or less than six months.  Moreover, Arpaio remained defiant in the case and has not accepted responsibility.

The biggest problem with the pardon is the crime itself. The greatest cause for concern is the impact of this pardon on our principles underlying the rule of law. Our legal system depends on compliance with court orders ranging from search warrants to injunctions, particularly for law enforcement officials. Arpaio put himself above the law while claiming to enforce it.

George-W-Bush_jpegIf Trump felt Arpaio warranted clemency, he could have simply negated his sentencing. That is what George W. Bush did with Scooter Libby, a former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.  Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction for lying about his conversations with reporters about the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Bush refused calls for a pardon as inappropriate and instead commuted Libby’s 30-month prison term but not his $250,000 fine. Conversely, Trump negated Arpaio’s entire conviction while proclaiming that he was merely doing his job.

Trump’s hints of a forthcoming pardon at his Phoenix rally last week drew a response illustrating its popularity with his base. If politics did triumph over principle, he would not be the first such president to yield to temptation:

  • official_presidential_portrait_of_thomas_jefferson_by_rembrandt_peale_1800Thomas Jefferson was accused of using the power to pardon his political allies convicted under the Alien and Sedition Act (though, in fairness, Jefferson was opposed to the Act).  He also pardoned Dr. Erick Bollman to allow Bollman to testify against his arch rival Aaron Burr in 1807 for treason. Bollman ultimately refused to accept the pardon and thus did not testify.

 

  • 220px-Warren_G_Harding-Harris_&_EwingPresident Warren Harding and his Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty were repeatedly accused of selling pardons.  One such pardon was given to Ignacio Lupo.  Known as “Lupo the Wolf,”Lupo was one of the top mobs enforcers and suspected in at least 60 murders.  There was a mob war raging that impacted the lucrative bootlegging business that reported funneled money to Daughterty.  Lupo’s release helped Giuseppe “Joe” Masseria win the war.
  • 225px-fdr_in_1933Franklin Delano Roosevelt pardoned Conrad Mann, a close political associate of Kansas City boss Thomas Pendergast. Pendergast made a fortune off illegal alcohol, graft, and gambling.  He is also credited with putting Harry Truman into office.  Roosevelt pardoned Mann for running an illegal lottery.
  • 964px-Harry_S_Truman,_bw_half-length_photo_portrait,_facing_front,_1945Harry Truman pardoned one of Louisiana’s most corrupt politicians George A. Caldwell, a Democrat. “Big George” Caldwell was notorious for skimming money off government projects, including the building fund for Louisiana State University. As State Superintendent of Construction, this public servant made $6000 annually but built one of the biggest mansions in Louisiana with air conditioning and sold gold bathroom fixtures.  He was finally prosecuted for tax evasion and bribery but pardoned by Truman.
  • 220px-Richard_NixonRichard Nixon pardoned the infamous Teamster Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa in 1971 and Hoffa supported Nixon for reelection as president in 1972. The mob later reportedly murdered Hoffa to keep him from disclosing mob control of the union.
  • Gerald_Ford_-_NARA_-_530680.tifGerald Ford pardoned his predecessor Richard Nixon in what many felt was a political payback for his resignation. While there is no evidence of a quid pro quo, the pardon was denounced by many as sparing Nixon (and Republicans) from an impeachment anda trial.
  • 440px-George_H._W._Bush,_President_of_the_United_States,_1989_official_portraitGeorge H.W. Bush issued pardons for individuals involved with the Iran-Contra affair, including Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger.  Both Ronald Reagan and Bush were viewed by some as directly or indirectly responsible for the criminal conspiracy. Various sources indicated that Reagan and/or Bush had prior knowledge of the illegal sale of missiles to Iran to secretly (and unlawfully) fund the guerilla war in Nicaragua.
  • 225px-Bill_ClintonBill Clinton was a serial abuser of pardon authority, using the power to benefit family, friends, and political donors.  Clinton granted a pardon to his own brother Roger Clinton and his friend (and fellow Whitewater business partner) Susan McDougal. Most notoriously, he pardoned a man who is generally viewed as one of the least worthy recipients of a pardon in modern history: the fugitive financier Marc Rich. Rich was a major Democratic donor and entirely unrepentant for his tax evasion, racketeering, fraud, and illegal dealings with Iran.

 

Trump’s pardon of Arpaio looks almost papal in comparison to some of these pardons.  None of that alters the fact that the Arpaio pardon was unwarranted and unwise. Justice Anthony Kennedy once complained that the pardon process had been “drained of its moral force.”  If so, the Arpaio pardon is the dregs left at the bottom of a now depleted and despoiled process.

Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

 

96 thoughts on “The Checkered History of Presidential Pardons From “Lupo The Wolf” To “Big George” Caldwell to “Sheriff Joe””

  1. Am I the only one having a difficult time getting worked up over Arpaio’s efforts to enforce immigration laws while we have state, county and city governments throughout this country with sanctuary policies inhibiting the enforcement of immigration laws?

    1. If America had a judicial branch supporting the Constitution, every official involved in “sanctuary” actions would have been “perp-walked” and thrown in jail by now for subversion, sedition, usurpation and treason.

      How long would this type of corruption and insurrection be tolerated in China or Russia? The only legal action by any officials regarding illegal aliens is deportation.

      This is more liberal lawlessness like Antifa and democrat protester violence.

      Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B):

      “Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable.”

      1. Wrong answer. “undocumented” is the proper term, not “illegal alien.” You’ll need to do better next time. Carry on.

        This is to confused georgie

        1. Wrong answer. “undocumented” is the proper term, not “illegal alien.”

          No, ‘illegal alien’ is the proper term. No one is obligated to subscribe to your cruddy rhetorical games.

        2. Marky Mark,

          Your comments are offensive and utterly stupid; almost as stupid as unfair “Fair Housing” laws, discriminatory “Non-Discrimination” laws, oxymoronic “hate crime” laws or inevitable “racial profiling” regulations, but thanks for reading.

          ILLEGAL ALIEN

          It is illegal to be in violation acts or laws.

          (B) 2/ Present in violation of law.-Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the 2b/ United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 221(i) , is deportable.

          1. Zap! Thanks.

            This is to “why can’t old white guys run everything like in the good ole days” georgie

            1. Marky Mark,

              I’ve located some help for you which you can study after your mom brings your supper down, but remember:

              Acceptance Is The First Step to Recovery:
              ___________________________________

              “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”

              Individuals with this disorder exhibit a lack of ability to empathize with others and an inflated sense of self-importance.

              Definition

              The hallmarks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. They may also concentrate on grandiose fantasies (e.g. their own success, beauty, brilliance) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. These characteristics typically begin in early adulthood and must be consistently evident in multiple contexts, such as at work and in relationships.

              People with narcissistic personality disorder believe they are superior or special, and often try to associate with other people they believe are unique or gifted in some way. This association enhances their self-esteem, which is typically quite fragile underneath the surface. Individuals with NPD seek excessive admiration and attention in order to know that others think highly of them. Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder have difficulty tolerating criticism or defeat, and may be left feeling humiliated or empty when they experience an “injury” in the form of criticism or rejection.

              1. repost. Cut and paste retread counts for zero. Try again.

                this is to tired out georgie

        3. Mark M/ – illegal alien is the correct term. Undocumented subsumes they do not have documents, which is not true.

          1. Presumably, the “documents” they don’t have would prove the legality of their presence in America. The hilarious part is what would happen if they attempted to obtain such documentation. They would show up at a federal building, and declare themselves to be sneaky trespassers in this country. They would have to say, Yes, I am a sneak, I snuck in, and I’m a trespasser in your land, and that’s why I have no documents. I never asked for them; I just broke down your border and decided to stay–but now, after the fact, I want you to confer upon me legitimacy.

            And then, the sneaky trespasser is immediately deported.

            Would that they all volunteered that way, coming “out of the shadows.”

  2. “President Trump’s pardon…has been widely condemned across the political spectrum.”

    How was it that “the political spectrum” WIDELY APPROVED of the mass deportations of Mexicans by Presidents Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower?

    Professor Turley, the entire spectrum to which you refer consists of liberal and RINO globalists. Everybody else sees the destruction of the illegal alien invasion on a daily basis and they vote against it every chance they get. From Prop. 187 in California to the election of President Trump. In Arizona, SB 1070 gave duly elected Sheriff Arpaio the legal basis he needed. It is irrefutably constitutional for states to pass and enforce laws that do not conflict with federal laws. The corrupt “imperial judiciary” arbitrarily and subjectively overturned that vote of the People in Arizona while issuing a subjectively political, not judicial, decision, for which those judges should have been impeached. It is unconstitutional for the judicial branch to act as a political party and that branch is in extreme “judicial overreach,” a condition with which you may be familiar.

    We fully expect criminals to present every lie and fabrication they can conjure as attempts at mitigation. The “racial profiling” defense is a convenient, fraudulent scheme perpetrated by opportunistic liberals in defense of the criminal allies they favor. It has nothing to do with rational or coherent law. “Racial profiling” is ubiquitous and unprovable. Of course, every American law enforcement officer that looks at a person of color is racially profiling. It’s a wonder you didn’t cite the law on “racial profiling?”

    Sheriff Arpaio and law enforcement against illegal immigration has indeed been supported by Arizonans and Americans. Votes of the People have been unconstitutionally oppressed by the courts.

    The political persecution of Sheriff Arpaio is a corrupt political conspiracy maliciously perpetrated by the “imperial judiciary” and its liberal, globalist allies for the benefit of foreign criminals, and to the detriment of actual Americans. The “imperial judiciary” effectively dictates that Americans must give up their country without a whimper. This preposterous charade is distinctly anti-American and not jurisprudence in a republic of majority rule by the People. It is pure corruption as tyranny and oppression.

    The “imperial judiciary” is issuing political edicts and perpetuating the Obama agenda of “fundamentally transforming” America into a globalist totalitarian state of foreign citizens. Not only should Sheriff Arpaio have been pardoned, but the rogue “imperial judiciary” must be impeached.

      1. You had to tell me it’s wrong, right?

        So its erroneous nature is not self-evident.

        Had it been self-evident, you would not have needed to tell me.

        Thus, it is correct.

        Thanks again for reading.

  3. Many people requesting and deserving pardons will, and have in the past, come to the pardon request window with different situations. Why would any person in America think that they all need to fit some frame or category?
    Arpaio is 85 and needs his pardon quickly. He may die in a year or so it might take to get the governments’ BS all tied in a knot.

  4. The fallacy of the NY Attorney General interference along with his buddy Mueller who has delivered less than acceptable so far….

    If the NY AG is correct then every pardon granted in the past stemming from a state law violation will have to be revoked and none in the mill or in the future will be accepted. The Constitution puts no such limits but rather allows an avenue to the very top just as it does for legal complaints going to the Supreme court.

    NY AG fails to consider his whole job in a personnel vendetta in the same manner that NYT and apparentl O’Connell pursure there agenda as right wing OF the LEFT operatives. His cave to the left on command actions are worthy of one response which is vote him out of office. Same thing for the NY AG.

      1. David B. Benson,

        I’ve located some help for you which you can study after your mom brings your supper down, but remember:

        Acceptance Is The First Step to Recovery:
        ___________________________________

        “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”

        Individuals with this disorder exhibit a lack of ability to empathize with others and an inflated sense of self-importance.

        Definition

        The hallmarks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. They may also concentrate on grandiose fantasies (e.g. their own success, beauty, brilliance) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. These characteristics typically begin in early adulthood and must be consistently evident in multiple contexts, such as at work and in relationships.

        People with narcissistic personality disorder believe they are superior or special, and often try to associate with other people they believe are unique or gifted in some way. This association enhances their self-esteem, which is typically quite fragile underneath the surface. Individuals with NPD seek excessive admiration and attention in order to know that others think highly of them. Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder have difficulty tolerating criticism or defeat, and may be left feeling humiliated or empty when they experience an “injury” in the form of criticism or rejection.

    1. Mueller’s is not an objective legal investigation, it is a preposterous furtherance

      of political “opposition research” by the Hillary campaign and its RINO allies.

      Mueller’s actions are nothing less than criminal.

    1. That’s a statement which makes no sense whatsoever outside the space between your two ears.

        1. “Try harder” at what? Inventing a gloss to make sensible whatever gibberish comes out of her mouth? That is not my job.

  5. When the Wacky Left gets up in arms for Obama’s pardon of traitor Chelsea Manning and murderer/terrorist Lopez Rivera, they might have some moral authority to criticize the pardon of misdemeanant Sheriff Joe. Until then, they’re a chuckle fest of hypocrisy.

    1. With few exceptions, the left does not disapprove of what Manning did and is indifferent to what Bergdahl did.

  6. Turley:

    Classic Trumpian defense. Don’t focus on the actual issue (the pardon), but show why it isn’t that bad compared to what others have done. WHAT ABOUT Clinton, WHAT ABOUT Obama, how about focus on the actual act at issue.

    1. The issue is the NY AG wants to revoke all previous pardons, and all pending and future pardons if they are based on violations of state laws. Personnel vendetta overshadows his oath of office to all the people of NY. The 241 year old pardon route was set up the same as the judicial complaint route to SCOTUS.

    2. What about Obama? Not a word about Obama’s political pardons and clemencies!

    1. I’ve been doing this for awhile. Familiar with Global Research. Talk about Fake News
      But Rationalwiki has this

      Globalresearch is an “anti-Western” website that can’t distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both. It’s basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.

      LMAO

      They just need to add NewsMax for the triple and Breitbarf for the Grand Slam.

  7. My understanding has always been that one of the prerequisites you look for in giving a pardon is contrition for what you were convicted of.

    And the Pardon Attorney’s office in the Department of Justice looks for that, which is why the Pardon Attorney is a position that should be abolished. This is a prosecutor’s perspective and executive clemency is not allocated to prosecutors nor should executives faced with these decisions think like prosecutors.

    What the executive should look for is miscarriages of justice due to misconduct by police or court officials, stupid juries, indolent defense counsel, or institutionalized stupidity in the court system’s mundane operations. You don’t need pro forma statements of contrition from defendants, who are often more sinned against than sinning in these circumstances. Every state governor should have a chancery office composed of people who evaluate applications for commutations and pardon in teams of three. You can employ some lawyers in such an office, but most should be people with a background in other subjects, especially subjects where arguing normative questions is part of your education.

    1. Or, the executive could find another unrepentant racist to pardon, so that the unrepentant racists who make up much of his dwindling wingnut unrepentant racists base will stay with him so that he can continue holding ridiculous campaign rallies where said wingnut unrepentant racists will show up and buy those silly hats and cheer their vapid, cornpone-swilling heads off.

      this is a correction to susie

      1. Or, the executive could find another unrepentant racist to pardon,

        Spike Lee hasn’t been subject to any legal process as yet.

        1. Don’t get distracted by the shiny ball going under the couch. Spike Lee’s relationship to anything posted in this thread isn’t coherent.

          this is to “working on focus” susie

  8. It has happened twice now, RIL has stopped sending me notifications of comments and new posts.

  9. LMAO! Thanks JT for helping me win a non-monetary wager with my wife. I told her that if your “quasi” (using quasi is sadly generous) white supremacist legal blog touches on the Arapaio pardon, it would only do so copying the criminal trump’s rationale to contextualize the pardon on the two wrongs make a right theory…………or as conservatives more typically believe multitudes of wrongs make a right.

    If my daughter chooses law (and I hope not)…………it will be no where near where you teach

    1. We get it. You’re a witless political sectary who shouldn’t be put in charge of a Chia pet. Can you be quieter about it?

    2. Bill W, on this site most do not like it when the facts interfere with their opinions.

      1. The two of you might meet us half way and post actual facts from time to time.

      2. Bill W: “most…..on this site” are looking for someone with credentials to mitigate the failures and outrageous conduct of their orange President that all but Fox News report on literally daily. Jon usually delivers, and as you pointed out, it was foreseeable that he would try to explain away or mitigate the outrage of pardoning Arpaio by pointing to other Presidential pardons. It’s the Kellyanne pivot: catch the orange buffoon doing something stupid, wrong or outrageous, or just plain lying and instead of discussing it, pivot to point to something HRC, Bill Clinton, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer or some other Democrat did. Classic, but even some trumpites are now catching on. His numbers continue to go down.

        1. That’s actually called ‘comparative assessment’, and ‘adding historical context’. It’s not a particularly esoteric method of viewing matters but it appears to tax your leeetle grrey cells to the breaking point.

          1. Susan (if that’s your name): didn’t your Mama teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right? Whatever happened in the past with Presidential pardons is irrelevant to the wrongfulness of pardoning Arpaio. We all live in the here and now. Intelligent people with a soul are outraged by Arpaio and the tacit endorsement of his police brutality tactics occasioned by pardoning him and declaring that he did nothing wrong. People who were merely under arrest and not convicted of anything actually died while in custody, and many suffered, all so a short, impotent, balding bully of a white man could claim the title of toughest sheriff of all time. Because the orange buffoon is also a bully and so emotionally immature and unqualified for the job, those of you who support him are desperate for affirmation–something, anything, that somehow makes what he does not so bad after all. You can only claim the media, other than Fox News, are unfair and biased for so long until the argument wears thin. Today’s post is an example of affirmation. No, there is no context to what Tangerine Man did, and whatever questionable pardons were granted in the past does not excuse what fatso did in pardoning Arpaio. It certainly does not make Arpaio not guilty of his crimes against humanity and affronts to human decency. The voters of Arizona voted him out of office, but they still get to pick up the multimillion dollar tab for his civil rights violations.

            1. Susan (if that’s your name): didn’t your Mama teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?

              She didn’t talk in cliches.

              Natacha, if you want a normie to take you seriously, you have to delineate actual principles of action, not just improvisations which are added as verbal trumpery to whatever emotional outburst you’re having in the moment.

        2. Really? I think they are all alt-right trolls who overdosed on Breitbarf Kool-aid. How they can still be alive is a mystery.,

      3. Most of you never bother with facts or objectivity but deal with mystic other worldism subjectivism..

        1. I’m intrigued. Kindly elucidate on this “worldism subjectivism.”

          This is to “found the answer” aarethun

  10. The article is a bit “checkered”. Just what does the author mean by “checkered”? Chubby Checker? Chess and checkers as in games?

    Clinton might have gone too far.

    This pardon of Arpaio is fully rational and timely. First. The guy is 85. No he is not yet sitting in a jail or honky tonk. But no the charges were not per se “criminal” either. They were so called “criminal contempt”.

    What Arpaio did to protect his county, his state and his nation was correct. It is acceptable to stop people who look a certain way to see if they are a certain way. No. I am not saying it is ok to stop African Americans just to harass them. Or to stop Mexican Americans just to harass them. Or to stop Jews or to stop Canadians just to harass them. Arizona is a border state. And London Bridge has fallen down and moved to Arizona. And I know why people in the past administration did not like Arpaio. And I recall 9/11. But the author of this article is up in an ivory tower and cannot see London Bridge and cannot see the full range of pardon power.

    This pardon was not an abuse of power or an abuse of discretion.

    Arpaio needs to be given his own talk show on Fox News Channel.

  11. It seems that the concept of the pardon should focus on the recipient of the pardon, how circumstances that accompany the ‘crime’ mitigate the ‘crime’, how the pardoned has learned and to some degree justice having been done, etc. In most of these cases, the recipient of the pardon has primarily been the President. In Trump’s case, he gets to shove it in the face of his opposition, fuel the ‘I can do anything’ position, and play to the extremists who would see the profiling of minorities as acceptable in the ‘great war against illegal immigration’. No leader is stronger than during a war or when standing up for a cause, regardless of the cause. This pardon serves Trump first and Arpaio secondly. No one gives a sh*t about Arpaio. He is a small fry. The damage done to America by strengthening Trump’s appeal with his extreme right wing base is far greater.

    1. So how do they do it in Canada? And why is a Canadian’s opinion of any great concern?

  12. A sheriff attempting to enforce immigration law in a state bordering Mexico is instructed to halt patrols that “impermissibly target” hispanics? Am I the only one who finds this farcical? Just saying.

    1. Probably, except for the other alt-right trolls who infest this blog. Read the constitution again, or more likely, for the first time.It supercedes state laws. Oh! (Slaps Forehead). You are one of those! An anti-statist and a states rights advocate! Must get awfully confusing. No wonder you have no clue. You are pardoned.

    2. A sheriff attempting to enforce immigration law in a state bordering Mexico — has to use legal and constitutional means. A sheriff must not break the law, to enforce the law.

  13. Sheriff Joe may be the new junior Senator from Arizona. That would boil that judge’s bunny.

    1. That would be a good thing. He is not too old to run for office or hold office.

    2. Probably the the only way the dems could win the seat. The ads about him shackling pregnant women while they were giving birth might get the voter’s attention.

        1. Don’t care about Flake. My point was that the republican nomination of Sheriff Joe would more than likely give the democrats a win.

    3. I wish I had thought to pour that can of gas on the subjectives mystics knee jerks.

  14. So there are a couple of more reasons to think that Bill Clinton was a poor president. On top of letting the PRC into the WTO on outrageously favorable terms and cancelling the EBR-II while ordering the engineers not to talk about it.

  15. I find it ironic that Sheriff Arpaio was prosecuted for enforcing federal immigration law, but his subsequent pardon is being denounced as undermining the “rule of law.” Sorry, Professor, but it is the politicized, leftist federal judges upholding sanctuary cities and protecting persons in the U.S. illegally who are undermining the rule of law and respect for the courts.

    1. A sheriff is not a federal officer. Consider the rule of law, not men.

      1. State and local police and sheriffs assist in the enforcement of federal criminal law all the time. That’s why local cops will respond to reports of bank robberies and kidnappings – both federal crimes. Local cops provide back-up to FBI and IRS agents executing federal search warrants. The Navy and Air Force have been deployed to Houston to assist local law enforcement. My brother-in-law is a Deputy Sheriff in CA and is assigned to the Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce, a multi-agency group with members from local, state and federal LEO organizations. It is ONLY when it comes to enforcing immigration laws that the courts have carved out a bright line between local and federal law enforcement, even though it is the local governments and tax payers who bear the brunt of the massive costs of feeding, educating and providing medical and social and police services to illegals, all because of the federal government’s refusal to effectively enforce the law.

        1. They sure do now. Both going after the whole lot of you. Enjoy your time in prison, state, federal. Who cares.

    2. No, he was prosecuted for violating the law, while enforcing federal immigration law.

    3. Merely consider if you can, why so many respected members of the bar, judges, police officials and other public servants hold contrary to what you profess to believe. Once you accept that those who believe otherwise just might know what they’re talking about, perhaps you will be able to see outside of your echo chamber.

      This is to “Pravda Faux News is good” TIN

  16. Oky1
    August 31, 2017 at 12:58 AM

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation. Yeah Right & Hell will freeze over 1st! G’nite

  17. WoW Prof. Turley,

    I can’t even read this whole article now but what you start out with in your opening comments sounds like total tone deafness again about Trump.

    Are you that out of it that you do not see how foolish you’ve been appearing to others that are reading your material? Do I need your cousins & nephews over in Turley Oklahoma to explain it to you? I will call them for you.

  18. Don’t know what the founding fathers were thinking of when they provided such unrestricted powers to the president. Shouldn’t be possible to pardon contempt of court or of congress.

    1. I agree completely. It’s a travesty that a President can pardon anyone for any reason or no reason. No president should have that power. A president’s pardoning power should be checked by Congress. The country is not served by a president’s untrammeled power to,pardon.

      1. Congress intervening in the Pardon Power of the President is like Chubby Checker.

      2. It is not a travesty. It is a necessity to correct the courts, who produce travesties on a daily basis.

      3. Just curious, Louise – were you this concerned over this particular presidential power prior to 1/20/2017?

      4. I guess everyone on this blog can’t be right. It has been served with the presidents having that power for a couple hundred years.

    2. Possibly the founding fathers could not have imagined such a collection of political hacks as we have these days.

    3. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers for one. The read the Declaration – a mission statement and the Constitution in the Context of the times. In other words if you want to understand get an education. To get an education to quote Frank Zappa get a book go to the library. There thinking is laid out for all to see who care to understand and has been for 241 years.

      1. Their thinking… having corrected that dyslectic finger folly. The pardon like much of the Constitution was based on checks and balances which was attacked along with the attack on citizens by the 16th and 17th amendments. Now this half baked axe grinder in nu yawk sitee wants to use this to get rid of more checks and balances. Well. marxism does call for control by any and all means possible.

Comments are closed.