Discussion: Court Orders Private Attorney To Oppose Arpaio Attempts To Wipe Record

1 Like

Isn’t the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit located in California and NOT New York. The typo is duplicated twice in this article. Correction is requested.


This is deep in Constitutionally uncharted or rarely charted waters. It would be fascinating to watch it play out if I wasn’t so terrified of what may come if these enemies of democracy decide they are just going to ignore court orders.


The Ninth Circuit court of Appeals covers the Western States. The federal Court of Appeals in New York Court is the Second Circuit.
TPM needs to do better editing. This is an obvious error.


It’s a silly mistake: The headquarters of the 9th Circuit is San Francisco; there is no such entity as the USCA 9th Circuit in NY


It is my (limited) understanding that a pardon voids conviction but does not expunge the record. Any attorney’s familiar with pardon who can clarify here?


Try to get the courts to say his feet don’t stink while you’re at it. We’re all still going to know the truth.


It he gets the record cleared, however, he would be able to sue for libel/slander any campaign adds against him that refer to him as a convicted criminal…


Pitching judicial authority to a bunch of judges is one of the better set-ups. However scary, it’s a risk worth taking.


The Party of Law & Order? Nope

The Party of Fiscal Responsibility? Nope

The Party of National Security? Nope

The Party of corrupt MF’s willing to sell out our country for a fistful of dollars? DING DING DING DING!


My question too. If the pardon is an admission of guilt (and from what I know it is) does this attempt to also wipe the criminal conviction mean he goes scot-free, as if it all never happened?


Why even bother having three branches of government any more?
Let’s just have one, and call it: “The Trump Monarchy”.


“…Joe Arpaio’s attempts to wipe his criminal contempt of court conviction from his record…”

I’m guessing that most people think of wiping when they think of Arpaio.


Just change the wording to “…was convicted of a felony…”


Time to wipe the smile off Arpaio’s smug mug.


There is an legal argument to be made that the President’s pardon power would not extend to this set of circumstances. I can’t say that there’s a precedent to cite because – like many things with this moron in office – a president never would have considered pardoning someone for contempt of court. So I think the courts could rule the pardon null and void as being outside the President’s power.

The Constitution says the president can pardon someone for “offenses against the United States”. So it’s clear that state crimes are not within that power. Contempt of court, even criminal contempt, are arguably NOT offenses against the United States, but a penalty applied by the courts for actions taken in violation of a court order. I don’t believe there’s a case caption like “United States vs. Court Order Violator”. The violation of the court order is prefaced by a “show cause” order and the judge summarily rules on whether the order has been violated (his or her own order, BTW) and what penalty the violator must pay. Those penalties can be money or incarcerations. I don’t believe that a defendant in a criminal contempt case has a right to trial by jury. That is, contempt of court is considered a “sanction” not a crime.

Hence, since contempt of court is not a “offense against the United States”, the president doesn’t have the power to excuse it.

The second argument is that contempt of court is a crime that is wholly within the realm of the judicial branch, and that the doctrine of separation of powers prevents the president from excusing such a sanction. This dovetails and supports the notion that contempt in federal court is not a crime against the United States, but a crime committed within the jurisdiction of the federal court itself. In this case, the underlying case was a civil matter where the judge issued an injunction which Arpaio ignored. Hence, the offense is against the other parties in the lawsuit, not the federal government or even the federal courts.

Taken together, I can see the court adopting these or similar arguments to reject Arpaio’s pardon claim and restrain this and future presidents from abusing the pardon power.


To have any street cred with the crazy clowns who populate Trumpville and its environs, you must advocate lawlessness and celebrate cluelessness. Arpaio is a criminal, regardless of what Drumpf does/says. He shouldn’t even be allowed to run for Senate, much less serve if elected. The utter disregard for law and order is shocking, even though not surprising given who’s involved. Gangs often have rites of passage in order to become a member; in Drumpf’s wasted world, you have to be willing to destroy the institution you’re charged with protecting/administering and be willing to break any law you disagree with or that constrains you in any way. It’s gangland thuggery at its worst. Hurry up, Mr. Mueller; get on with the indictments.


Someone needs to buy a billboard on I5 going in/out of Phoenix and alongside a picture of Arpaio just list everything he’s been found guilty of and it should stay up until he’s dead. This guy and the old racists in Sun City that vote for him every year should be reminded of what they’ve done every day.


The Arizona district court at the time requested the Department of Justice’s support in upholding its ruling, but the DOJ refused to defend the decision from Judge Susan Bolton.

A number of times I’d seen comments that if one accepts a pardon, then one accepts guilt for what one is being pardoned for.

Sooooo… is the DOJ being massively unethical in refusing to support a court (who requested DOJ support) in saying “you are not allowed to wipe your record if you are pardoned, implicit in the pardon is acceptance of the guilt” ?

Or is there context I do not grasp going on here?


I maintain that pardon was unconstitutional.

The President is bound by the 4 corners of the constitution. That is where his power comes from and that’s the only place it comes from.

When he sought to pardon someone for violating the constitution he went outside the constitution and it’s illegal and unconstitutional and if it’s allowed to stand, it’s dangerous.