Donald Trump's controversial pardon of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio may not go through due to a US district court judge.

Judge Susan Bolton of the US District Court handling Mr Arpaio's case has cancelled a sentencing hearing for the former Maricopa County sheriff but stopped short of throwing out his conviction.

Instead, Ms Bolton said that because a presidential pardon carries an implication of guilt she wants both Mr Arpaio's lawyers and the US Department of Justice to submit briefs on why she should or should not vacate Mr Arpaio's conviction.

She has scheduled oral arguments for 4 October on the matter and will make a decision at that point.

A civil suit was originally brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for Mr Arpaio's alleged racial profiling for detaining Arizonans who looked to be of Mexican or Latin American descent under suspicion of being in the US illegally.

For more news videos visit Yahoo View, available now on iOS and Android.

"The judge trying that case not only found that Arpaio's policies constituted racial profiling, he also found Arpaio to be in civil contempt of court and referred him to [Ms Bolton] for the criminal contempt," USA Today reported.

Ms Bolton then asked the US Attorney in Arizona to try the case for Mr Arpaio's allegedly disobeying the order to stop the racial profiling, but that office declined. That is when the US Department of Justice stepped in.

Washington DC-based lawyer Kimberly Curtis told The Independent that a presidential pardon does not necessarily "imply" guilt in the way Ms Bolton's decision may suggest.

However, Mr Arpaio's case is a little more complicated. Presidential pardons only cover federal crimes, so technically Mr Trump has not pardoned his racial profiling but the alleged contempt of court charge.

"The issue with [Mr] Arapio is he was actively appealing his conviction when he was pardoned. So there is an unknown question about which takes precedence- the pardon or the appeal," Ms Curtis said.

Normally, with a presidential pardon the defendant waives the right to an appeal however, Mr Arpaio's lawyer Mark Goldman has not indicated as yet whether his client will drop the appeal.

Ms Curtis said Mr Trump may have "jumped the gun" on pardoning Mr Arpaio before the appeal was dropped.

So, even with the pardon Mr Arpaio's conviction is still on the record at this point. But, a presidential pardon is a " "the most common way a convicted felon can regain full civil rights and only way they can regain their gun rights."

Mr Trump said Mr Arpaio has been treated "unbelieveably unfairly."

"He's done a great job for the people of Arizona, he's very strong on borders, very strong on illegal immigration, he is loved in Arizona," Mr Trump said.

However, according to a recent poll the majority of Americans - around 60 per cent of respondents in a poll conducted by NBC News/SurveyMonkey - said it was "wrong" to pardon the former sheriff.

Additionally, around 64 per cent of the over 10,000 respondents also support the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme, which allows people brought to the US illegally as children, so-called "Dreamers," a repreive from deportation.


webpage

I'm still watching the whole situation as best I can, precisely because of this area of concern.

The problem of this sheriff, and with ANY law enforcement representative deciding that they should be allowed to "adjust" the laws that they are supposed to enforce, according to their own personal opinions about them, is that if they are allowed to do so by the legal system, then the rule of law itself is at an end, and we all go back to living in feudal fiefdoms.

Personally, I prefer the United States rule of law, rather than rule of local whim. And that's true even when I explicitly support the attitude of the local honcho.

I often find myself wishing, for example, that anyone who decides to start using their private vehicle to "teach someone a lesson" on the highway, should be arrested and jailed, and lose their driving privileges. But that's not the law of the land, so I have to cope with what S the law.

I'm still watching the whole situation as best I can, precisely because of this area of concern.

The problem of this sheriff, and with ANY law enforcement representative deciding that they should be allowed to "adjust" the laws that they are supposed to enforce, according to their own personal opinions about them, is that if they are allowed to do so by the legal system, then the rule of law itself is at an end, and we all go back to living in feudal fiefdoms.

Personally, I prefer the United States rule of law, rather than rule of local whim. And that's true even when I explicitly support the attitude of the local honcho.

I often find myself wishing, for example, that anyone who decides to start using their private vehicle to "teach someone a lesson" on the highway, should be arrested and jailed, and lose their driving privileges. But that's not the law of the land, so I have to cope with what S the law.

well,nice posturing,Susanne Bolton,nice posturing!

I guess they polled only Mexicans to get that 60%..

Hmmmm lock those in charge of sanctuary cities should be locked up too

Drop the appeal and accept the pardon. Either way he walks.

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

Deal with it.

Exactly, Arpaio was enforcing the law. Sanctuary Cities do not.

The Left is losing its collective mind over President Trump's pardon of former Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio over the weekend.

The outrage comes after Trump allowed the 85-year old Korean War veteran and long-time sheriff to avoid potential prison time due to a case that began with a simple traffic stop of a Mexican citizen in Arizona.

In all of the Democrats' outrage, they fail to remember their leaders have a history of forgiving terrorists and traitors alike.

Let's take a walk down memory lane, shall we?

President Bill Clinton pardoned not one, but 16 members of the dangerous terrorist organization Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional (spanish for "Armed Forces of National Liberation"). Among the FBI's most wanted, the group was responsible for the 1975 bombing of a New York City restaurant where prominent businessmen dined, as well as NYPD police headquarters on New Year's Eve in 1982, and other incidents that terrorized the nation.

Unlike Trump's pardon, Clinton's pardons of the FALN terrorist group members were opposed by the U.S. attorney's office, the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Fraternal Order of Police, just to name a few. Congress also nearly unanimously condemned the matter. (About 20 years later, President Barack Obama would commute the sentence of the group's unrepentant leader, Oscar Lopez Rivera, to be lauded a hero by Democrats.)

It was later reported that an advisor from the White House Working Group for Puerto Rico had advised the Clintons that the pardon would help them win the Latino vote.

Shameless.

Always up to the task of shameless political posturing, Clinton pardoned some of his political donors. Marc Rich was wanted for $47 million in back taxes and 51 counts of tax fraud, in addition to his suspected activity in an Iraqi "oil for food" kickback scheme where the U.S. government suspected he served as the middle man for the illicit sale of 4 million barrels of oil.

In that case, a federal prosecutor by the name of, wait for it, James Comey decided that there was no illegality in the Rich pardon and cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing.

Long before Clinton, President Jimmy Carter pardoned three members of a terrorist gang who shot 30 rounds from the visitor's balcony into the chamber of the House of Representatives in a suspected attempt to mass-murder members of Congress.

More recently, Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, the Army intelligence officer who was convicted of leaking classified information that revealed sensitive military and diplomatic positions around the world. Manning was released from military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

In that case, Obama commuted a whopping 35-year prison sentence, whereas Arpaio faced just up to six months in prison. Today, Manning can be seen Tweet-trolling Trump on issues from transgender rights to illegal immigration.

But Obama didn't stop there.

During his final week in office, Obama also commuted the sentences of more than 1,700 prisoners in two batches of clemency grants; 504 of his pardons were for inmates serving life sentences including armed robbers and drug dealers who had convictions for the distribution of cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and heroin.

Perhaps a pardon from Trump this early in his term might seem unusual. But at least this Republican's pardon wasn't on behalf of someone who sought to drug, harass, rob, and terrorize the public.

Jennifer Kerns (@JenKernsUSA) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. A GOP communications strategist, she served as spokeswoman for the California Republican Party, recalls in Colorado, and California's Prop. 8. Previously, she served as a writer for the 2016 U.S. presidential debates for FOX News.

No, again, go check. Arpaio was explicitly ignoring the law. Hence the prosecution for doing so.

As for the MANY pardons by Republican and Democratic Presidents over the years, there have ALWAYS been controversies about them. As should be expected,, since in order to BE pardoned, someone has to have been convicted of a crime. And there has always been games played by the opposition to each President by the opposing party, with pretenses that THEIR side never frees really BAD people, but the other side is amoral and vile.

In reality, a criminal is a criminal, and a pardon is a pardon. People can play all the political games they like, however, every time they do, they open the door and lay out the welcome mat for their opponents to make the exact same charges against them, when the time comes.