To begin with, a pardon only gets one off the hook for federal criminal matters. The Arpaio contempt order, for example, stemmed from a civil suit brought by the ACLU. Any orders or remedies obtained in that action are unaffected by a pardon. Likewise, as Lawfare blog recounted earlier this summer, there is a “sleeper” civil suit against the Trump campaign and Roger Stone over the Russia scandal:

The suit alleges that the campaign and Stone conspired with the Russians to release information about the plaintiffs—who are not public figures—in a fashion that violates their privacy rights under D.C. law. and intimidates them out of political advocacy. . . . There’s just no question that this complaint alleges injury in fact or that it seeks relief of a type courts normally grant. What’s more, the case does not present in any sense a political question or a matter that courts are likely to duck. And cleverly, it also doesn’t name the President himself as a defendant, so there’s no argument—as there is with some other cases—that the suit cannot proceed because of presidential immunity.

In short, Arpaio may still face civil lawsuits from those he harmed. In the Russia scandal, a presidential pardon won’t prevent the Russia lawsuit (complete with discovery including depositions) from going forward.

AD

AD

In addition, state criminal prosecutions can certainly attach to much of the behavior that may be at issue. Arizona prosecutors so far aren’t proceeding with any state law prosecutions, but it’s not impossible to imagine state indictments for assault, false imprisonment, etc. In the context of the Russia investigation, Trump’s family and associates would be subject to the eagle eye of New York state and city prosecutors for example, who might explore possible financial crimes and state laws prohibiting obstruction of justice, perjury and other potential claims arising out of the subsequent investigation by the FBI and the special prosecutor. According to NBC News, use of state criminal law is already under contemplation:

According to U.S. intelligence and public accounts, Russian efforts included criminal hacking into Democratic National Committee emails, a conspiracy to distribute that stolen material, and separate computer intrusions into state election systems. That activity could form the basis of felony cases in several states, and conspiracy charges if any Americans were found to be involved. Local prosecutors have not disclosed investigations of such conduct. Typically, state and local prosecutors defer to federal investigators, especially in national security cases. But pardons could change that. According to a source with knowledge of one state attorney general’s preparations, the office is already studying its potential state jurisdiction for Russia-related crimes.

Now civil suits and state law prosecutions against those pardoned are one side of the coin, but there are also dire consequences for Trump that may flow if he decided hand out pardons.

For one thing, the courts may push back, as Josh Blackmun writes:

AD

AD

At bottom, the pardon amounts to an executive nullification of a district judge’s finding of criminal contempt of court. There is no allegation that the district court erred, or that Arpaio was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, or that the sentence was unjust (for, indeed, no sentence had even been imposed). To the contrary, as far as I understand, most of Arpaio’s most egregious conduct will go unpunished. Combined with his frequent attacks on the judiciary, this latest episode will no doubt harden Pharaoh’s proverbial heart. The consequences are predictable. This coming term at the Supreme Court is shaping up to be an incredible blockbuster season, with decision after decision affecting the scope of the President’s powers. The Solicitor General’s task becomes even more intractable as a result of this presidential action. Further, lest we forget, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision about whether to retire or not may well be conditioned by the current state of affairs at term’s end.

Moreover, pardoning associates to hide one’s own misconduct is precisely the sort of thing that would fall under “high crimes and misdemeanors,” keeping in mind that impeachment does not require any finding of criminal liability. Certainly if the Democrats take the House majority in 2018, impeachment would proceed. But a flagrant attempt to evade investigation by firing both the FBI director and the special prosecutor (in the vein of the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate) might convince even squeamish Republicans to exercise their constitutional responsibilities.

Congress is not without power to act now — and in this case Democrats have. On Wednesday, all House Judiciary Committee Democrats wrote to the committee’s chairman, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), asking him to hold an oversight hearing:

We ask for several reasons. The pardon sends an unequivocal signal that institutionalized racial profiling as practiced by Sheriff Arpaio is acceptable; 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 the complete absence of any advisory role by the Department of Justice and after the President had already asked Attorney General Sessions to drop the case completely. As you are well aware, although the President has wide constitutional authority to issue pardons, there is also ample precedent for our Committee to review pardons as controversial as this one.

(They of course refer to hearings after President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon and after President Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich.)

AD

AD

The Democrats cite the injury to the rule of law as one reason to examine the pardon. (“The pardon not only disregards the rule of law, it directly flouts the courts themselves by signaling that it is acceptable for parties to ignore court orders. President Trump regularly and needlessly criticizes both the judiciary in general and specific judges on a personal basis.”) But then comes the most important reason, namely that Trump in pardoning Arpaio called attention to his own effort to get the attorney general to drop the case. And that seems awfully similar to Trump’s effort to get former FBI director James B. Comey to lay off Michael Flynn:

Although Department leadership is to be commended for advising the President that his request was inappropriate, the conversation fits into a larger pattern of improper contact between the Trump White House and the Department of Justice. Our Committee has long defended the view that presidents should avoid involvement in specific criminal cases in order to avoid even the perception of politicizing the administration of justice. President Trump regularly ignores that standard. If our Committee is unwilling to even debate the matter, what is to stop this president—or any other president—from doing so again?

Goodlatte is a pro-Trump loyalist so do not expect him to grant the request. But the Senate is another matter. And of course the special prosecutor may find interesting a pattern of attempts to prevent prosecution of the president’s pals.