Ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio found guilty of criminal contempt of court

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2017, 01:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: I don't support terrorism.  That's a silly question that has no basis in fact.

Thanks for asking the question and offering no comment on the story.

So the first two sentences didn't comment on the story?  Yet another reading comprehension fail.  Wahhh, wahh.

Why do you support a lack of reading comprehension?

[Vas Deferens]

(08-26-2017, 01:23 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Obama granted clemency to an unrepentant terrorist. Pardoning a person with a long history of public service doesn't look troubling in comparison. Or do you support terrorism?

Arapio is an unrepentant terrorist in his own right. I believe that is what people are upset about. It seems fairly clear he pardoned this POS at this time to limit exposure.

But whatever. Not going to change anyone's mind at this juncture.

[ballsofsteel]

(08-01-2017, 05:58 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: I knew it had to be Obama's fault somehow. It doesn't matter though, Drumph will just pardon him.

Very predictable. Stupid is stupid does.

[Belsnickel]

(08-26-2017, 01:23 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Obama granted clemency to an unrepentant terrorist. Pardoning a person with a long history of public service doesn't look troubling in comparison. Or do you support terrorism?

Commutation for a crime saying "you did wrong, but you have suffered enough for it" is, to me, different than saying "you get a clean slate" to someone found guilty of violating a court order telling him to stop violating the 4th Amendment. I thought about this a good bit while in the shower this morning (best thinking done in the shower and on the shitter), and I would be with you had Obama granted a pardon to Manning. Even then, though, it would be a tough comparison because Arpaio was such a vocal political ally for Trump. This pardon tells us that Trump has no problems with violating the civil liberties of minorities, even the legal ones, and that he is deep into cronyism.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2017, 03:12 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Arapio is an unrepentant terrorist in his own right.  I believe that is what people are upset about.  It seems fairly clear he pardoned this POS at this time to limit exposure.  

But whatever.  Not going to change anyone's mind at this juncture.

Yeah, this kind of post really bothers me.  Using the word terrorist is inane.  I'm mortally sick of people misusing words like terrorist, nazi and racist.  There's certainly an argument against pardoning Arpaio, his being a "terrorist" is not one of them.

(08-26-2017, 07:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Commutation for a crime saying "you did wrong, but you have suffered enough for it" is, to me, different than saying "you get a clean slate" to someone found guilty of violating a court order telling him to stop violating the 4th Amendment.

Absolutely, a pardon is much different than clemency.  An argument could also be made that a man who served his nation in various capacities for over fifty years is different from an unrepentant terrorist or a service member who dumps hundreds of thousands of classified documents on the internet because feelings.

Quote:I thought about this a good bit while in the shower this morning (best thinking done in the shower and on the shitter), and I would be with you had Obama granted a pardon to Manning.

It's not just Manning, although I have a strong suspicion that if Manning was a regular dude and not a trans woman he wouldn't have gotten clemency.  He also released convicted criminals with felony convictions and a complete piece of shit in Oscar Lopez Rivera.  Left wing celebrities ate that one up.  I mean he was only a leader in an active terrorist organization that killed people.  Not only that, he has never shown any remorse and maintains his cause is just.

Quote:Even then, though, it would be a tough comparison because Arpaio was such a vocal political ally for Trump. This pardon tells us that Trump has no problems with violating the civil liberties of minorities, even the legal ones, and that he is deep into cronyism.

You could interpret it that way if you desire to.  You could also see it as pardoning the actions of an 85 year old man with a long history of public service.  At the end of the day we're talking about a misdemeanor he wouldn't have served a day of custody time over.  Be for the pardon or against it, the pardon, in essence, just clears Arpaio of having a criminal record and having to do some community service.  Yes, I get your point about the precedent and the message it sends.  That's why I counter with Obama granting clemency to far more suspect people.

[GMDino]

(08-26-2017, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely, a pardon is much different than clemency.  An argument could also be made that a man who served his nation in various capacities for over fifty years is different from an unrepentant terrorist or a service member who dumps hundreds of thousands of classified documents on the internet because feelings.



It's not just Manning, although I have a strong suspicion that if Manning was a regular dude and not a trans woman he wouldn't have gotten clemency.  He also released convicted criminals with felony convictions and a complete piece of shit in Oscar Lopez Rivera.  Left wing celebrities ate that one up.  I mean he was only a leader in an active terrorist organization that killed people.  Not only that, he has never shown any remorse and maintains his cause is just.


You could interpret it that way if you desire to.  You could also see it as pardoning the actions of an 85 year old man with a long history of public service.  At the end of the day we're talking about a misdemeanor he wouldn't have served a day of custody time over.  Be for the pardon or against it, the pardon, in essence, just clears Arpaio of having a criminal record and having to do some community service.

Who cares how long he did it if he was targeting another race because...race.


In the end he broke the law. If he was pope for 50 years and then broke the law he still broke the law.

 

(08-26-2017, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I get your point about the precedent and the message it sends.  That's why I counter with Obama granting clemency to far more suspect people.

Then why argue the fine point that he "served his nation" when he broke the law and the POTUS, with no recommendation from anyone except the screaming fans and his latest rally, decides to pardon the man?

I'd think we'd law and order to be upheld and not supplanted because the guy said really nice things about the POTUS (who also hates anyone he thinks is Mexican). Especially if he was going to get community service? Heck, he could have appealed and never done any service.

Maybe that's just me.

Of course thinking about it maybe his "community service" could be made retroactive to when he was not doing what the court told him to do. Then he'd more of a hero!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2017, 01:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Who cares how long he did it if he was targeting another race because...race.


In the end he broke the law.  If he was pope for 50 years and then broke the law he still broke the law.

Quote:An interesting point to make seeing as no one is disputing that the man broke the law by disobeying a court order.

 

Quote:Then why argue the fine point that he "served his nation" when he broke the law and the POTUS, with no recommendation from anyone except the screaming fans and his latest rally, decides to pardon the man?

Probably because it's a reason that Trump would pardon him?

Quote:I'd think we'd law and order to be upheld and not supplanted because the guy said really nice things about the POTUS (who also hates anyone he thinks is Mexican).  Especially if he was going to get community service?  Heck, he could have appealed and never done any service.

Law and order was upheld.  The POTUS has the power, under our laws, to pardon federal crimes.  Nothing happened outside of United States law. 

Quote:Maybe that's just me.

I'm sure it's not just you.

Quote:Of course thinking about it maybe his "community service" could be made retroactive to when he was not doing what the court told him to do. Then he'd more of a hero!  

Sure?

[Belsnickel]

(08-26-2017, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely, a pardon is much different than clemency.  An argument could also be made that a man who served his nation in various capacities for over fifty years is different from an unrepentant terrorist or a service member who dumps hundreds of thousands of classified documents on the internet because feelings.



It's not just Manning, although I have a strong suspicion that if Manning was a regular dude and not a trans woman he wouldn't have gotten clemency.  He also released convicted criminals with felony convictions and a complete piece of shit in Oscar Lopez Rivera.  Left wing celebrities ate that one up.  I mean he was only a leader in an active terrorist organization that killed people.  Not only that, he has never shown any remorse and maintains his cause is just.

Honestly, I couldn't have told you who Obama used the power for. I will say that I'm not a fan of the power being used at all unless there is something that comes up after conviction that points to innocence or there are some extreme circumstances. I see it as something that is ripe for abuse, and it has been shown that people are willing to abuse it.

(08-26-2017, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You could interpret it that way if you desire to.  You could also see it as pardoning the actions of an 85 year old man with a long history of public service.  At the end of the day we're talking about a misdemeanor he wouldn't have served a day of custody time over.  Be for the pardon or against it, the pardon, in essence, just clears Arpaio of having a criminal record and having to do some community service.  Yes, I get your point about the precedent and the message it sends.  That's why I counter with Obama granting clemency to far more suspect people.

I can think of quite a few people that have long histories of public service but were shitty public servants. I don't give credit to people for public service that do things like Arpaio because he wasn't serving the public. If you swear an oath to uphold the law of the land, and then violate the civil liberties of those under your jurisdiction, you're a shitty public servant. I know that law enforcement is very often a thankless task. Before he moved from being an officer to being an elected official, maybe he wasn't so bad; I don't know his employment history. But his record as a political figure (because that is primarily what a Sheriff is, and I know you know, but I just like to make things clear) has been less than stellar in that regard and he has not served the public's best interests.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2017, 02:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, I couldn't have told you who Obama used the power for. I will say that I'm not a fan of the power being used at all unless there is something that comes up after conviction that points to innocence or there are some extreme circumstances. I see it as something that is ripe for abuse, and it has been shown that people are willing to abuse it.

You did know about Manning.

I tend to agree with you regarding the pardon/clemency.  It is absolutely ripe for abuse and has been abused extensively in the past

Quote:I can think of quite a few people that have long histories of public service but were shitty public servants. I don't give credit to people for public service that do things like Arpaio because he wasn't serving the public. If you swear an oath to uphold the law of the land, and then violate the civil liberties of those under your jurisdiction, you're a shitty public servant.

I couldn't agree with you more.  My issue is that the outrage of many is highly selective.  I'll preface by saying I don't include you in this group.  If you use the criteria you lay out above then almost the entire Democratic state legislature in CA is guilty of this by blatantly saying they will ignore federal immigration law.  The pro tem of the state Senate, DeLeon, bragged about how has several undocumented family members in the US and is completely opposed to enforcing immigration law in CA.  To me, this is just as bad as Arapaio ignoring a court order he doesn't like and they all swore the same oath to the Constitution.

Quote:I know that law enforcement is very often a thankless task. Before he moved from being an officer to being an elected official, maybe he wasn't so bad; I don't know his employment history. But his record as a political figure (because that is primarily what a Sheriff is, and I know you know, but I just like to make things clear) has been less than stellar in that regard and he has not served the public's best interests.

Oh, he's an extreme right wing blow hard.  We in CA are very familiar with him, Arizona being next door and all.  His tent city jail was (in)famous.  He made the inmates wear pink underwear and boasted that it cost more to feed the dogs that guarded the facility than it cost to feed the inmates.  He's an ideal poster child for people looking for the antidote to today's feel good style of criminal justice (what we gallows humor refer to as "hug a thug").

My whole point in engaging in this thread is to point out the selective outrage of some.  You're very consistent, many others are not.

[Belsnickel]

(08-26-2017, 02:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You did know about Manning.

Only because of the amount of bitching that was done about it. I also have to admit that there was a tiny bit of me that wanted Manning to be pardoned to see Assange have to try to backpedal his way out of his promise.

(08-26-2017, 02:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I couldn't agree with you more.  My issue is that the outrage of many is highly selective.  I'll preface by saying I don't include you in this group.  If you use the criteria you lay out above then almost the entire Democratic state legislature in CA is guilty of this by blatantly saying they will ignore federal immigration law.  The pro tem of the state Senate, DeLeon, bragged about how has several undocumented family members in the US and is completely opposed to enforcing immigration law in CA.  To me, this is just as bad as Arapaio ignoring a court order he doesn't like and they all swore the same oath to the Constitution.

This is where I have so many issues. The law is the law, and it must be followed. If you look at a law and see it as unjust, then you work to fix that, but the law is to be followed. There is wiggle room when you look at spirit v. letter and a number of different avenues, but to outright say you are going to ignore it is doing a disservice to your people. People need to be more creative in their fights. I blame the brain drain that has occurred in our governments.

I'm for good government, first and foremost. If we don't have good government then any policies and programs we try to make happen are failing from the onset.

[Vlad]

(08-26-2017, 05:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Only because of the amount of bitching that was done about it. I also have to admit that there was a tiny bit of me that wanted Manning to be pardoned to see Assange have to try to backpedal his way out of his promise.


This is where I have so many issues. The law is the law, and it must be followed. If you look at a law and see it as unjust, then you work to fix that, but the law is to be followed. There is wiggle room when you look at spirit v. letter and a number of different avenues, but to outright say you are going to ignore it is doing a disservice to your people. People need to be more creative in their fights. I blame the brain drain that has occurred in our governments.

I'm for good government, first and foremost. If we don't have good government then any policies and programs we try to make happen are failing from the onset.

That goes for immigration law currently on the books correct?

[Belsnickel]

(08-26-2017, 11:33 PM)Vlad Wrote: That goes for immigration law currently on the books correct?

Yes. Of course, since being here is undocumented is not a criminal act, how that is handled is a bit different than handling a suspected criminal.

[Belsnickel]

An interesting twist in it all: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/30/legal-challenge-to-arpaio-pardon-begins/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.0c82f200ca24

tl;dr: There are challenges being filed to the pardoning of Arpaio. These challenges argue that the Bill of Rights supersedes the power to pardon. Because of this, the ability for the court to issue an injunction against an official violating the civil liberties of individuals is threatened by the pardon and thus raises a constitutional concern.

There is a lot more to it, but it is an excellent read. Also, in before "teh librul media!!". This is an opinion column written by a conservative for the Washington Post.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 11:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: An interesting twist in it all: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/30/legal-challenge-to-arpaio-pardon-begins/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.0c82f200ca24

tl;dr: There are challenges being filed to the pardoning of Arpaio. These challenges argue that the Bill of Rights supersedes the power to pardon. Because of this, the ability for the court to issue an injunction against an official violating the civil liberties of individuals is threatened by the pardon and thus raises a constitutional concern.

There is a lot more to it, but it is an excellent read. Also, in before "teh librul media!!". This is an opinion column written by a conservative for the Washington Post.

Lol at Washington post conservative.

In other words..... a progressive

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2017, 11:55 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol at Washington post conservative.

In other words..... a progressive

Look at you making assumptions about people. Too bad that all of the actual conservatives and not party-line toers I know of would agree with her.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-31-2017, 11:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: An interesting twist in it all: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/30/legal-challenge-to-arpaio-pardon-begins/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.0c82f200ca24

tl;dr: There are challenges being filed to the pardoning of Arpaio. These challenges argue that the Bill of Rights supersedes the power to pardon. Because of this, the ability for the court to issue an injunction against an official violating the civil liberties of individuals is threatened by the pardon and thus raises a constitutional concern.

There is a lot more to it, but it is an excellent read. Also, in before "teh librul media!!". This is an opinion column written by a conservative for the Washington Post.

On the one hand, I've never been particularly fond of the power of the president to issue pardons, especially considering how it's generally used. With that said, I do NOT think this is a good thing. First off, the power to pardon comes directly from the Constitution and I do not think any judge, even the Supreme Court can or should take that power away in any instance for any reason.

Then, of course, you have the precedent this sets. We all know that if this goes through, guarantee when the next Democrat president pardons someone, some jackass Republican or conservative group will try to do something like this, too.

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2017, 05:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: On the one hand, I've never been particularly fond of the power of the president to issue pardons, especially considering how it's generally used. With that said, I do NOT think this is a good thing. First off, the power to pardon comes directly from the Constitution and I do not think any judge, even the Supreme Court can or should take that power away in any instance for any reason.

Then, of course, you have the precedent this sets. We all know that if this goes through, guarantee when the next Democrat president pardons someone, some jackass Republican or conservative group will try to do something like this, too.

Personally, I am someone that sees the Constitution as a living document. I'm not a literalist for the Bible, or the Constitution, and so I am open to challenges like this. I think this, much like many things we have seen occur in the past, were not things our founding fathers could anticipate happening and so we must contextualize the document with our current times.

All of that being said, the argument being used is that the POTUS has stripped the court of their authority regarding oversight of public officials in violation of the Constitution. So you could say you don't favor a judge or justice doing that to POTUS, but POTUS may have done it to them already. It's going to be an interesting legal debate at the very least.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-31-2017, 05:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, I am someone that sees the Constitution as a living document. I'm not a literalist for the Bible, or the Constitution, and so I am open to challenges like this. I think this, much like many things we have seen occur in the past, were not things our founding fathers could anticipate happening and so we must contextualize the document with our current times.

Yeah, I understand that, but I think an immense deal of care should be taken when making significant changes to the Constitution.

(08-31-2017, 05:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, I am someone that sees the Constitution as a living document. I'm not a literalist for the Bible, or the Constitution, and so I am open to challenges like this. I think this, much like many things we have seen occur in the past, were not things our founding fathers could anticipate happening and so we must contextualize the document with our current times. 

All of that being said, the argument being used is that the POTUS has stripped the court of their authority regarding oversight of public officials in violation of the Constitution. So you could say you don't favor a judge or justice doing that to POTUS, but POTUS may have done it to them already. It's going to be an interesting legal debate at the very least.

I get that, but I don't buy it. All he's doing is saying that whomever - in this case, Arpaio - does not have to be punished for his crime. He's not overturning a conviction or saying that a crime wasn't committed. By Trump pardoning Arpaio, he's not saying that the court, in the future, is prohibited from ever doing what they did in Arpaio's case. The argument, as presented in the article, is vague and you can apply it to ANY person that a president has pardoned. And, like I said, would set a dangerous precedent.

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2017, 06:05 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I get that, but I don't buy it. All he's doing is saying that whomever - in this case, Arpaio - does not have to be punished for his crime. He's not overturning a conviction or saying that a crime wasn't committed. By Trump pardoning Arpaio, he's not saying that the court, in the future, is prohibited from ever doing what they did in Arpaio's case. The argument, as presented in the article, is vague and you can apply it to ANY person that a president has pardoned. And, like I said, would set a dangerous precedent.

A pardon means he voids the conviction. Records expunged, all done. When it comes to things like this, the precedent Trump sets with this pardon is a dangerous one as it does send several messages. One, of cronyism, but the more important one is that the current administration seemingly does not see it wrong for public officials to violate the civil liberties of citizens of this country (forget about the immigrants, both legal and illegal), as well as violating a federal court order to continue doing so. I'm not disagreeing that if they win this case it can be a dangerous precedent, but to me, the precedent set with the pardon is more dangerous. Holding our public officials accountable is extremely important, and a pardon like this undermines the court's ability to do so and tells officials that the administration has their back in it.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-31-2017, 06:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A pardon means he voids the conviction. Records expunged, all done. When it comes to things like this, the precedent Trump sets with this pardon is a dangerous one as it does send several messages. One, of cronyism, but the more important one is that the current administration seemingly does not see it wrong for public officials to violate the civil liberties of citizens of this country (forget about the immigrants, both legal and illegal), as well as violating a federal court order to continue doing so. I'm not disagreeing that if they win this case it can be a dangerous precedent, but to me, the precedent set with the pardon is more dangerous. Holding our public officials accountable is extremely important, and a pardon like this undermines the court's ability to do so and tells officials that the administration has their back in it.

C'mon, Bel, this isn't the first time a presidential pardon has been used like this.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-arpaio-pardon-has-plenty-of-precedents-that-got-other-presidents-in-trouble/

Quote:Pardoning someone who’s violated civil rights. One of the most controversial aspects of the Arpaio pardon is the fact that he was convicted for flouting a judge’s order to stop violating Latinos’ constitutional rights. However, it’s not the first time a pardon has been granted for civil rights violations: In 1981, President Ronald Reagan granted pardons to W. Mark Felt and Edward S. Miller, former FBI agents who were convicted of conspiring to violate the constitutional rights of anti-war radicals in the early 1970s. (Felt was later identified as Deep Throat.) Felt and Miller had authorized government agents to break into the homes of friends and relatives of fugitive members of the Weather Underground, the group that had taken responsibility for bombings at the U.S. Capitol, Pentagon and other government buildings. Reagan said he pardoned them because they acted without criminal intent “to bring an end to the terrorism that was threatening our nation.”



Pardoning a political crony or past associate. Even before it was formally announced, the Arpaio pardon was assailed by critics who said the move would be a clear act of cronyism, since Arpaio is a longtime ally and friend of Trump’s. But this isn’t the first time a president has pardoned a friend. On his last day in office, Bill Clinton issued a pardon for Marc Rich, a billionaire financier and the ex-husband of a major Democratic donor who fled the country after he was indicted on a wide range of charges, including tax fraud. Clinton also pardoned his half-brother, Roger Clinton, who had served time in the mid-1980s for selling cocaine to an undercover police officer.


Granting clemency to someone whose duty is to protect the public. Many people opposed to the Arpaio pardon warn that pardoning someone who broke the laws they swore to uphold sends a dangerous message. Yet in 2009, President George W. Bush commuted the sentences of two border patrol agents who had served less than two months of an eight-year sentence in federal prison for shooting a fleeing, unarmed drug smuggler and then trying to cover up their actions. Bush said he issued the commutations because the sentences were “excessive,” especially given that the agents were being held in solitary confinement for their own protection. Barack Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, a former military intelligence analyst who was convicted of leaking classified information that was distributed on the WikiLeaks website. Critics said Manning’s actions put U.S. lives at risk abroad.


Granting clemency for crimes with a human toll. Over his long tenure as sheriff, Arpaio was accused of promoting or allowing inhumane conditions in his jails, physical abuse of inmates and spiraling suicide rates. In addition to policing tactics that included racial profiling, Arpaio created an outdoor “Tent City” jail, where thousands of inmates were housed in the sweltering Arizona heat and forced to work on chain gangs. This is probably the criterion on which the Arpaio pardon does stand out the most. But there are some similar cases. Obama, for example, commuted the sentence of Oscar Lopez Rivera, a 74-year-old Puerto Rican nationalist linked to a bombing in New York that killed four people, among other attacks.


Clemency as a policy tool. For advocates on both sides of the immigration debate, Arpaio’s pardon represents a clear endorsement of his aggressive tactics against undocumented immigrants, and perhaps a signal to local law enforcement that they can pursue similar strategies with the blessing of the executive branch. Controversial as Arpaio’s methods may be, though, the use of the pardon to further a president’s policy agenda is fairly common. Jimmy Carter gave unconditional pardons to hundreds of thousands of draft dodgers early in his presidency, and Obama pardoned and commuted the sentences of hundreds of nonviolent drug offenders who were serving long prison terms under federal mandatory minimum laws.



Pardoning someone who flouted the legal system. Marc Rich was an international fugitive on the FBI’s “Most Wanted List” when he was pardoned by Clinton in 2001. Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt said that Clinton had “thumbed his nose at the legal system” with the pardon of Rich, who was reportedly living in opulence abroad, had been in exile since 1983, and showed no intention of returning to the country to face justice.


Issuing a pardon before charges or sentencing are imposed. In 1992, George H.W. Bush [/url]pardoned six Reagan administration officials involved in the “Iran-Contra” scandal, including former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, even though he had yet to be convicted or, like Arpaio, sentenced. The scandal involved the covert sale of arms to Iran to support right-wing Nicaraguan rebels, and [url=http://articles.latimes.com/1992-12-25/news/mn-2472_1_iran-contra-affair]Weinberger had been charged with lying to Congress about knowledge of the sales.




Pardoning someone who hasn’t formally petitioned for clemency. Neither Felt nor Miller, the FBI agents pardoned by Reagan, filed a petition for clemency, noted Jeffrey Crouch, an assistant professor of political science at American University and the author of a book on presidential pardons. He added the decision to pardon them came directly from the president, rather than being filtered through the Department of Justice.



Issuing a pardon early in a presidency. A month after Nixon resigned, Ford issued a pardon exempting him from indictment and trial for his role in the cover-up of the Watergate burglary. Carter waited even less time to formally forgive the draft dodgers: that pardon came down one day after his inauguration in January 1977. Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama, on the other hand, all waited until they were more than a year and a half into their first term before issuing their first pardon – perhaps, according to Kalt, because they were aware of the political fallout that tends to accompany controversial pardons.

Essentially, Trump is not really setting any kind of precedent. And while I understand your concerns to how this could possibly effect future situations facing the court, taking away a power from the president that is specifically expressed in the Constitution with anything short of an ammendment is a far more worrisome precendent, IMO.