opinion

Montini: Did Donald Trump pardon Joe Arpaio to save … Donald Trump?

Was pardoning former Sheriff Joe Arpaio a trial run for Donald Trump? A way to eventually get himself off the hook?

Was Arpaio’s pardon the president’s attempt find out how much he could get away with later, when he might have to save his own skin by pardoning a bunch of friends and associates caught up in the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller?

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton found Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt for ignoring another judge's order to end his publicity-driven immigration roundups.

Saved from jail but not conviction

The sheriff was facing up to six months in prison when Trump pardoned him. But while Bolton said the pardon blocked the sentencing she didn’t void the conviction.

Arpaio’s lawyers took that decision to 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which will decide if Arpaio’s conviction should be erased.

Others argue that the pardon should be overturned.

If not, they say, Trump will be able to pardon anyone, even someone knowingly violating the constitutional rights of others?

A while back in The Washington Post law professor Laurence H. Tribe, from Harvard, and Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People, compared Trump’s pardon of Arpaio to the anti-integration governors who vowed "massive resistance” to court-ordered desegregation.

They wrote: “Now imagine a president such as Trump pardoning the governor for contempt, while praising him, as Trump lauded Arpaio, for ‘doing his job.’ The message to segregationist officials would have been clear: just ignore federal court integration orders; the president will have your back if the court tries to enforce them through its contempt power.”

In Mother Jones, writer Pema Levy, said if Arpaio’s pardon is upheld it “could send two powerful if ominous messages: that law enforcement officials can violate the Constitution’s protections against things like racial discrimination and still gain presidential absolution, and that people caught up in the Russia investigation can refuse to cooperate with court orders without penalty if they have the president’s backing.”

A reason to feel 'honored?'

We already know Trump has Arpaio’s back, even though the sheriff was guilty of violating the oath he took as a law enforcement officer.

Judge Bolton said of Arpaio, “Not only did defendant abdicate responsibility, he announced to the world and to his subordinates that he was going to continue business as usual no matter who said otherwise.”

Meantime, at a fundraiser not long ago, Vice President Mike Pence spotted Arpaio in the room and said, "I just found out when I was walking through the door that we were also going to be joined by another favorite — a great friend of this president, a tireless champion of strong borders and the rule of law, who spent a lifetime in law enforcement … Sheriff Arpaio, I'm honored to have you here."

Honored?

Just recently Maricopa County paid another million dollars in attorneys’ fees over a lawsuit stemming from Arpaio’s immigration raids.

Since 2007, taxpayers have paid what’s approaching $60 million connected to legal actions regarding Arpaio’s racial-profiling.

Honored?

The former sheriff knowingly violated a lawful court order. If that order had involved integration or voting rights would the vice president have been so proud to welcome him?

Would he have felt honored?

And if Arpaio can violate constitutional rights, ignore the rule of law and be absolved by the president why not those caught up in the Mueller investigation? Particularly those who might implicate Trump?

As a legal strategy, there’s only one thing lacking in such a plan.

Honor.

MORE BY MONTINI: