BY MORGAN GSTALTER - 12/11/18 01:03 PM EST

... Arpaio’s suit lists CNN, CNN president Jeff Zucker and its anchor Chris Cuomo; HuffPost and its senior political reporter Kevin Robillard; and Rolling Stone and its staff writer Tessa Stuart, claiming that they falsely referred to him as a "convicted felon" despite his presidential pardon ...

Arpaio argued the reports tarnished his "distinguished" 55-year career in law enforcement and politics and severely damaged his reputation among and with the Republican establishment, which hurts his political chances going forward ...

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/420798-arpaio-files-300m-defamation-lawsuit-against-cnn-other-media-outlets

Accepting a pardon is not the same as being found to be innocent...in fact, it means pretty much the exact opposite.

OCT. 20, 2017
Margaret Hartmann

... Trump issued a “full pardon” to .. Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff convicted of criminal contempt for refusing to honor a court order ... Not content to merely avoid punishment .. the 85-year-old tried to have all record of his criminal conviction wiped out ...

“The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial recordkeeping,” wrote Phoenix-based U.S. District Court judge Susan Bolton, who ruled against Arpaio in July. “To vacate all rulings in this case would run afoul of this important distinction. The Court found Defendant guilty of criminal contempt. The President issued the pardon. Defendant accepted. The pardon undoubtedly spared Defendant from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed. It did not, however, ‘revise the historical facts’ of this case” ...

... Arpaio’s .. lawyers ... argued that he had intended to appeal the contempt ruling, but due to the pardon he has no way of clearing the conviction ...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/10/judge-rules-trump-pardon-doesnt-erase-arpaio-conviction.html

United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 150 (1833), was a case in the United States in which the defendant, George Wilson, was convicted of robbing the US Mail in Pennsylvania and sentenced to death. Due to his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by Andrew Jackson. Wilson, however, refused the pardon. The Supreme Court was thus asked to rule on the case.

The decision was that if the prisoner does not accept the pardon, it is not in effect: "A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it is rejected, we have discovered no power in this court to force it upon him."

Link to tweet

He is or at least was a public figure and wouldn't he have to show that the outlets acted with intent to cause harm?

...took a look, laughed and said "this guy can pan sand, he can't get anything and knows it, he's robbing his client".

the fact he sued three organizations, because he's a greedy bastard, is going to ruin his chances. if there was one organization you tried to show was being unfair to you for nefarious reasons you have a chance. but three? If all three are reporting the same thing it is just because they are facts. sorry loser.