Posted on 08/30/2017 11:55:43 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
After President Trump’s pardon of ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio, who had been convicted of criminal contempt for violating a court order designed to stop the violation of the constitutional rights of suspected illegal immigrants, conventional wisdom — and certainly the Trump administration — would have us believe that Trump’s pardon powers are unlimited. However, never before has someone stretched the pardon power so beyond its original intent. Trump has now drawn scrutiny not simply from critics of his racist rhetoric but from the court itself.
The Arizona Republic Reports:
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton canceled former Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s upcoming sentencing hearing for his criminal contempt-of-court conviction, telling attorneys not to file replies to motions that were pending before his recent presidential pardon.
However, Bolton on Tuesday 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.
In other words, this is no slam dunk.
Lurking in the background is the potential for Trump to pardon associates involved in the probe of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials and the possible obstruction of justice that followed. The Arpaio pardon may well have been an attempt to signal to those officials and ex-officials that they can resist inquiries with the assurance that Trump will pardon them.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
See Wiki on Mark Felt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Felt
“Despite their pardons, Felt and Miller won permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to appeal the conviction so as to remove it from their record and to prevent it from being used in civil suits by the victims of the break-ins they ordered.[66] Ultimately, Felt’s law license was returned by the court in 1982, which cited Reagan’s pardon.”
100%
I hope Bolton tries to sentence and jail Arpaio.
There is no Sheriff in Arizona or Federal Marshal who would execute such a court order.
And if there was, there would be a shoot out.
They have already been proven correct at the end of the day before yesterday! Unfortunately honor among our leaders is gone. Now the MSM determines what is "truth."
Indeed. And this issue has a number of times.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."
Three key Supreme Court decisions in 1886, 1896 and 1903 laid the 14th Amendment basis for the consistent ruling of the court that aliens, legal and illegal, have constitutional protection in criminal and certain civil affairs in the justice system.
In summary, the entire case of illegal aliens being covered by and protected by the Constitution has been settled law for 129 years and rests on one word: "person." It is the word "person" that connects the dots of "due process" and "equal protection" in the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution.
Again, not my opinion, but fact. I wish it were the opposite of what the SCOTUS has interpreted/ruled but I don't get a vote.
“They have already been proven correct at the end of the day before yesterday!”
Sheriff Arpaio is a lawman to the core and has prepared his evidence to be presented in a court of law! That is the only place where we can hope that the MSM can be brought to their knees, and they know it.
They are desperately fighting to avoid that possibility. Why else would they fight so hard, such as pulling the plug on his pressers or boycotting them and making him promise not to discuss “birther” issues when on TV?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.