| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19850
Back to top |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
 Posted: 08/25/17 9:30 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| pussy did it on a friday news dump.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9816
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/25/17 9:55 pm ::: Re: Breaking News: Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio |
Reply |
|
The divisive politics of enforcing immigration law. Everyone is in favor of infinite or unbounded legal immigration - full sacred cow status. There is a minority who want immigration law enforced - only partial sacred cow status for illegal immigration.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/25/17 10:24 pm ::: Re: Breaking News: Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
The divisive politics of enforcing immigration law. Everyone is in favor of infinite or unbounded legal immigration - full sacred cow status. There is a minority who want immigration law enforced - only partial sacred cow status for illegal immigration. |
It has nothing to do with "enforcing immigration law" and everything to do with the fundamental rule of law.
It was not Arpaio's or Trump's job or right to interpret the Constitution or the statues, and once the courts ruled against him, he was bound by his duty, his oath of office, and the rule of law, to follow their orders.
He wasn't convicted of an immigration offense. He was convicted of contempt of court - of thumbing his nose at the valid court order. The jury didn't buy for a second his crap that the court order was "ambiguous". He was guilty as hell. Neither he nor Trump have any respect for the rule of law or the courts. It's shameful.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9816
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/25/17 11:03 pm ::: Re: Breaking News: Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
The divisive politics of enforcing immigration law. Everyone is in favor of infinite or unbounded legal immigration - full sacred cow status. There is a minority who want immigration law enforced - only partial sacred cow status for illegal immigration. |
It has nothing to do with "enforcing immigration law" and everything to do with the fundamental rule of law.
It was not Arpaio's or Trump's job or right to interpret the Constitution or the statues, and once the courts ruled against him, he was bound by his duty, his oath of office, and the rule of law, to follow their orders.
He wasn't convicted of an immigration offense. He was convicted of contempt of court - of thumbing his nose at the valid court order. The jury didn't buy for a second his crap that the court order was "ambiguous". He was guilty as hell. Neither he nor Trump have any respect for the rule of law or the courts. It's shameful. |
I was responding to what was quoted from the article - "divisive politics of immigration" - not the pardon.
But with regard to presidential pardons - as used by Barack Obama, etc - they are designed to overturn the courts. This is no different. You can't criticize Trump for it when that is a power they give presidents for whatever reason, and they all use it. Even the sainted ones. We should respect the rule of law with regard to presidential pardons.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/25/17 11:24 pm ::: Re: Breaking News: Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
The divisive politics of enforcing immigration law. Everyone is in favor of infinite or unbounded legal immigration - full sacred cow status. There is a minority who want immigration law enforced - only partial sacred cow status for illegal immigration. |
It has nothing to do with "enforcing immigration law" and everything to do with the fundamental rule of law.
It was not Arpaio's or Trump's job or right to interpret the Constitution or the statues, and once the courts ruled against him, he was bound by his duty, his oath of office, and the rule of law, to follow their orders.
He wasn't convicted of an immigration offense. He was convicted of contempt of court - of thumbing his nose at the valid court order. The jury didn't buy for a second his crap that the court order was "ambiguous". He was guilty as hell. Neither he nor Trump have any respect for the rule of law or the courts. It's shameful. |
I was responding to what was quoted from the article - "divisive politics of immigration" - not the pardon.
But with regard to presidential pardons - as used by Barack Obama, etc - they are designed to overturn the courts. This is no different. You can't criticize Trump for it when that is a power they give presidents for whatever reason, and they all use it. Even the sainted ones. We should respect the rule of law with regard to presidential pardons. |
No one is arguing that Trump doesn't have the constitutional power to grant pardons.
But you can absolutely criticize Trump for who he chooses to pardon and for what reasons. Just like Obama was criticized for Chelsea Manning, or Clinton was criticized for Marc Rich. Having the legal authority to do something is a far cry from it being the right thing to do. In this case Trump pardoned an asshole who decided he was above the law and not beholden to lawful court orders. Pardoning this pile of excrement disguised in a man-suit is disgusting, but not surprising. Like takes care of like.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/25/17 11:47 pm ::: Re: Breaking News: Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
But with regard to presidential pardons - as used by Barack Obama, etc - they are designed to overturn the courts. |
You're entirely wrong. They have nothing to do with "overturning the courts". Indeed, the Supreme Court has said a pardon embodies an acknowledgement of guilt for the underlying offense. It's an affirmation of the court's judgment. The overwhelming share of pardons are made long after the persons have completed their sentence and are granted in order to restore voting and other rights, not to avoid punishment. As the DOJ Pardon Attorney standards provide: "In general, a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence. The Department's regulations require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application (28 C.F.R. § 1.2). "
Most of Obama's commutations of sentences had to do with fixing excessive sentences imposed for drug crimes during the era of mandatory minimum sentences. Obama looked at what people would have been sentenced to under current law and released many low level drug offenders who had already served a sentence considered adequate under modern sentencing standards. In many cases Obama shortened the jail time but left intact the period of probation and all other terms of the sentence.
This one is very unusual in terms of timing, effect, and lack of merit. Indeed, under the accepted standards, "acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement" is a key element. Obviously that's completely absent here.
This pardon is not business as usual.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9816
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/17 12:02 am ::: Re: Breaking News: Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
But you can absolutely criticize Trump for who he chooses to pardon and for what reasons. Just like Obama was criticized for Chelsea Manning, or Clinton was criticized for Marc Rich. Having the legal authority to do something is a far cry from it being the right thing to do. In this case Trump pardoned an asshole who decided he was above the law and not beholden to lawful court orders. Pardoning this pile of excrement disguised in a man-suit is disgusting, but not surprising. Like takes care of like. |
You can criticize who he chooses, but the criticism I was responding to was "Trump has no respect for the rule of law". That statement could be applied to every presidential pardon even done, even by the sainted presidents.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9816
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/17 12:04 am ::: Re: Breaking News: Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
But with regard to presidential pardons - as used by Barack Obama, etc - they are designed to overturn the courts. |
You're entirely wrong. They have nothing to do with "overturning the courts". Indeed, the Supreme Court has said a pardon embodies an acknowledgement of guilt for the underlying offense. It's an affirmation of the court's judgment. The overwhelming share of pardons are made long after the persons have completed their sentence and are granted in order to restore voting and other rights, not to avoid punishment. As the DOJ Pardon Attorney standards provide: "In general, a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence. The Department's regulations require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application (28 C.F.R. § 1.2). "
Most of Obama's commutations of sentences had to do with fixing excessive sentences imposed for drug crimes during the era of mandatory minimum sentences. Obama looked at what people would have been sentenced to under current law and released many low level drug offenders who had already served a sentence considered adequate under modern sentencing standards. In many cases Obama shortened the jail time but left intact the period of probation and all other terms of the sentence.
This one is very unusual in terms of timing, effect, and lack of merit. Indeed, under the accepted standards, "acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement" is a key element. Obviously that's completely absent here.
This pardon is not business as usual. |
Then I said it wrong. They are designed to overturn the rule of law.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/17 10:51 am ::: Re: Breaking News: Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
But with regard to presidential pardons - as used by Barack Obama, etc - they are designed to overturn the courts. |
You're entirely wrong. They have nothing to do with "overturning the courts". Indeed, the Supreme Court has said a pardon embodies an acknowledgement of guilt for the underlying offense. It's an affirmation of the court's judgment. The overwhelming share of pardons are made long after the persons have completed their sentence and are granted in order to restore voting and other rights, not to avoid punishment. As the DOJ Pardon Attorney standards provide: "In general, a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence. The Department's regulations require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application (28 C.F.R. § 1.2). "
Most of Obama's commutations of sentences had to do with fixing excessive sentences imposed for drug crimes during the era of mandatory minimum sentences. Obama looked at what people would have been sentenced to under current law and released many low level drug offenders who had already served a sentence considered adequate under modern sentencing standards. In many cases Obama shortened the jail time but left intact the period of probation and all other terms of the sentence.
This one is very unusual in terms of timing, effect, and lack of merit. Indeed, under the accepted standards, "acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement" is a key element. Obviously that's completely absent here.
This pardon is not business as usual. |
Then I said it wrong. They are designed to overturn the rule of law. |
Strike two.
You get one more swing.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16393
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8291
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/17 6:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
This pardon culminates 10 years of complex legal and political maneuverings by leftist groups and a politicized Obama DOJ against Arpaio. It's all about the differing politics concerning the enforcement of illegal immigration.
The President has absolute Constitutional authority to pardon anyone for any reason. He is not bound by "DOJ guidelines", which only apply when it is the DOJ itself that is initiating a pardon recommendation. Regardless, both Clinton and Obama had no problem orchestrating "DOJ initiated" pardons when they needed them from their pet DOJ gunslinger, Eric Holder.
As liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said about Trump's pardon power last week, "He has the right to look at all the facts and if he thinks it's political, then he obviously should issue a pardon."
And the legal proceedings against Arpaio have been mostly political in nature for 10 years.
Ten years ago Arpaio was sued by leftist groups in front of federal judge Snow for supposedly racially profiling Mexican immigrants who were unquestionably illegally present in the U.S. Judge Snow should have recused himself under judicial guidelines. His brother was a partner in the law firm that was bringing the suit, and there was testimony that Judge Snow said in front of witnesses that he “hates” Arpaio and “will do anything to get [Arpaio] out of office.” Nevertheless, Snow refused to recuse himself, found on very weak facts that there was racial profiling, and issued an order that Arpaio's department should stop it. Snow was seen by many to be personally politicized against Arpaio.
At the time, both federal and Arizona law required local law officers to cooperate with ICE and the border patrol and to turn over illegal immigrants to one of those federal agencies. But then came Obama's politicization of immigration enforcement. Obama didn't want to enforce the borders. So his highly politicized Holder DOJ brought suit against Arizona to stop cooperating with federal authorities on illegal immigration. The DOJ was partially successful in this suit and then Obama, by (often unconstitutional) executive orders, directed the federal authorities to stop most of the remaining federal immigration enforcement.
Arpaio said he was constitutionally bound to follow federal and Arizona law and to arrest and turn over illegal immigrants to ICE or the border patrol. The Obama DOJ argued that Judge Snow's order said that Arizona law enforcement couldn't do that unless the illegal immigrant had violated some other Arizona law in addition to federal immigration law.
Arpaio agreed to consent to civil contempt because he felt that judge Snow's order didn't say that and was illegal even if it did. Snow refused Arpaio's offer of civil contempt and, saying he was “interested in sending a message” to Arpaio, Snow referred Arpaio for a criminal contempt charge, with obvious political timing, 11 days before Arpaio's primary election.
Arpaio survived the primary election but, with timing that was obviously political, the DOJ publicly announced on October 11, 2016 — the day before early voting began in Arizona — that the Obama administration would prosecute Arpaio on criminal charges.
The DOJ could have prosecuted Arpaio for "contempt" of Snow's order under two different statutes. Arpaio and three co-defendants in his Sheriff's department were initially charged under a statute that would have provided them with a jury trial, but the court held that statute to be barred by a one year statute of limitations, so all of Arpaio's co-defendants went free.
So the DOJ charged Arpaio, alone, under an arguably improper statute for which the statute of limitations had not expired. Conveniently, this statute did not require a jury trial because it is a misdemeanor statute that provides for a maximum sentence of less than six months. There is Supreme Court law that a judge doesn't have to offer jury trials in such misdemeanor cases, but can if requested.
Arpaio consistently requested a jury trial, and filed interlocutory appeals on this basis, but Judge Susan Bolton (a Democrat judge appointed by Clinton) consistently ruled that she alone would decide whether Arpaio had in fact and in law violated Judge Snow's allegedly ambiguous order.
Judge Bolton, on her own, decided that Judge Snow's order was not ambiguous and that Arpaio had violated it, even though court observers and (not surprisingly) Arpaio's lawyers said all the trial testimony was to the contrary.
Arpaio's lawyers wrote to Attorney General Sessions about all these politicized legal proceeding and declared that they would appeal Arpaio's contempt conviction, particularly on the failure to provide a jury trial. Understand that if one juror out of 12 did not feel that the DOJ had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, Arpaio would not have been convicted.
Arpaio believes -- and probably so does Trump, his White House counsel and AG Sessions -- that the politicized Obama DOJ had orchestrated a questionable statute, no-jury, Democrat-judge bench trial purely for political reasons: namely, to send a message to local law enforcement agencies in Arizona and elsewhere that open borders was the political policy of the Obama administration.
Trump's pardon was a constitutional-political act to remedy a ten-year long series of legal-political political acts concerning the disputed political policies that swirl around the issue of how, and by whom, the laws against illegal immigration will be enforced.
All the legal experts I've read predicted that Arpaio would have gotten no jail time and just a misdemeanor slap on the wrist. He is 85 year old, has no criminal record of any kind, and spent 55 year in the service of federal and state law enforcement. That's not the kind of person who get jail time for a misdemeanor. Hence, the Trump pardon was not a vehicle to affect the duration or intensity of a judicial punishment, but rather a vehicle to remove a partisan political stain on Arpaio's long law enforcement career, which Trump and tens of millions of Americans admire. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/17 7:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Well that was certainly a ridiculous tirade.
All Arpaio has is a 55 year record of disdain and contempt for the rule of law.
Of course Trump has the power to pardon him. That doesn't make it any less disgraceful. All he's done is demonstrate again this own disdain for the rule of law and his sympathy for racist tyrants.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 9048
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/17 8:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Been on the road again today and so I took time out to sit down at a restaurant and eat.
I'm looking through my phone for something to read while I'm waiting for my dinner. OMG, I struck GOLD!!!!!
| Quote: |
The reactions Friday to Arpaio's pardon differed among people questioned in each community.
"It's a little hard for me to understand why he would do that," said Guadalupe resident Roberto James, a cook at restaurant Del Yaqui, to a reporter in Spanish. "It's a bad use of his power." |
| Quote: |
| "He (Arpaio) was upholding the laws the way he saw best," Couch said. "Granted, I might not have made all those choices as harshly as he (Arpaio) did, but he didn't have the intent to be as illegal as some people think he was." |
| Quote: |
Kuzell said she believes the court was trying to punish Arpaio for upholding the law.
"Illegals here are spending our health insurance, aren't paying taxes, and here you have families that need health insurance," Kuzell said, adding that she's not anti-immigrant. "I love a lot of the illegals that are out here, they're hardworking people. I think there should be more citizenship given." |
| Quote: |
Kuzell said she believes racism in the country worsened under former President Barack Obama's leadership, but that racism "does not exist like everyone sees it" today.
"It's not like it was 50 years ago, 60 years ago," Kuzell said. "It's totally not like that, and I think people need to realize that. We really do love everyone, and I really do think Trump loves everyone too." |
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/26/2-arizona-towns-10-miles-apart-2-very-different-views-joe-arpaio-pardon/605428001/
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9816
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/17 8:37 pm ::: Re: Breaking News: Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
But with regard to presidential pardons - as used by Barack Obama, etc - they are designed to overturn the courts. |
You're entirely wrong. They have nothing to do with "overturning the courts". Indeed, the Supreme Court has said a pardon embodies an acknowledgement of guilt for the underlying offense. It's an affirmation of the court's judgment. The overwhelming share of pardons are made long after the persons have completed their sentence and are granted in order to restore voting and other rights, not to avoid punishment. As the DOJ Pardon Attorney standards provide: "In general, a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence. The Department's regulations require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application (28 C.F.R. § 1.2). "
Most of Obama's commutations of sentences had to do with fixing excessive sentences imposed for drug crimes during the era of mandatory minimum sentences. Obama looked at what people would have been sentenced to under current law and released many low level drug offenders who had already served a sentence considered adequate under modern sentencing standards. In many cases Obama shortened the jail time but left intact the period of probation and all other terms of the sentence.
This one is very unusual in terms of timing, effect, and lack of merit. Indeed, under the accepted standards, "acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement" is a key element. Obviously that's completely absent here.
This pardon is not business as usual. |
Then I said it wrong. They are designed to overturn the rule of law. |
Strike two.
You get one more swing. |
The umpire would need to be a neutral third party. You said Trump showed he has "no respect for the rule of law". And yet no one is challenging what he did as illegal. So my statement is right on per your own words - he has the power to do what you say is "disrespectful to the rule of law". The presidential pardon is designed to defy the rule of law, even if you claim that it is not the intent.
Last edited by tfan on 08/26/17 9:04 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/17 10:43 pm ::: Re: Breaking News: Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| The presidential pardon is designed to defy the rule of law, even if you claim that it is not the intent. |
Where do you come up with nonsense like that?
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15765
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19850
Back to top |
|
Ay Mate
Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Posts: 1280
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/27/17 2:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| He's a woman hating, racist, gay hating, nazi loving white supremisist. What did you all expect? This came to no surprise to me!
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9816
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/27/17 7:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
Trump would (literally) throw Ivanka AND Melania under a bus if he thought it would guarantee him a second term. |
Not Ivanka.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/28/17 7:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
This pardon culminates 10 years of complex legal and political maneuverings by leftist groups and a politicized Obama DOJ against Arpaio. It's all about the differing politics concerning the enforcement of illegal immigration.
The President has absolute Constitutional authority to pardon anyone for any reason. He is not bound by "DOJ guidelines", which only apply when it is the DOJ itself that is initiating a pardon recommendation. Regardless, both Clinton and Obama had no problem orchestrating "DOJ initiated" pardons when they needed them from their pet DOJ gunslinger, Eric Holder.
As liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said about Trump's pardon power last week, "He has the right to look at all the facts and if he thinks it's political, then he obviously should issue a pardon."
And the legal proceedings against Arpaio have been mostly political in nature for 10 years.
Ten years ago Arpaio was sued by leftist groups in front of federal judge Snow for supposedly racially profiling Mexican immigrants who were unquestionably illegally present in the U.S. Judge Snow should have recused himself under judicial guidelines. His brother was a partner in the law firm that was bringing the suit, and there was testimony that Judge Snow said in front of witnesses that he “hates” Arpaio and “will do anything to get [Arpaio] out of office.” Nevertheless, Snow refused to recuse himself, found on very weak facts that there was racial profiling, and issued an order that Arpaio's department should stop it. Snow was seen by many to be personally politicized against Arpaio.
At the time, both federal and Arizona law required local law officers to cooperate with ICE and the border patrol and to turn over illegal immigrants to one of those federal agencies. But then came Obama's politicization of immigration enforcement. Obama didn't want to enforce the borders. So his highly politicized Holder DOJ brought suit against Arizona to stop cooperating with federal authorities on illegal immigration. The DOJ was partially successful in this suit and then Obama, by (often unconstitutional) executive orders, directed the federal authorities to stop most of the remaining federal immigration enforcement.
Arpaio said he was constitutionally bound to follow federal and Arizona law and to arrest and turn over illegal immigrants to ICE or the border patrol. The Obama DOJ argued that Judge Snow's order said that Arizona law enforcement couldn't do that unless the illegal immigrant had violated some other Arizona law in addition to federal immigration law.
Arpaio agreed to consent to civil contempt because he felt that judge Snow's order didn't say that and was illegal even if it did. Snow refused Arpaio's offer of civil contempt and, saying he was “interested in sending a message” to Arpaio, Snow referred Arpaio for a criminal contempt charge, with obvious political timing, 11 days before Arpaio's primary election.
Arpaio survived the primary election but, with timing that was obviously political, the DOJ publicly announced on October 11, 2016 — the day before early voting began in Arizona — that the Obama administration would prosecute Arpaio on criminal charges.
The DOJ could have prosecuted Arpaio for "contempt" of Snow's order under two different statutes. Arpaio and three co-defendants in his Sheriff's department were initially charged under a statute that would have provided them with a jury trial, but the court held that statute to be barred by a one year statute of limitations, so all of Arpaio's co-defendants went free.
So the DOJ charged Arpaio, alone, under an arguably improper statute for which the statute of limitations had not expired. Conveniently, this statute did not require a jury trial because it is a misdemeanor statute that provides for a maximum sentence of less than six months. There is Supreme Court law that a judge doesn't have to offer jury trials in such misdemeanor cases, but can if requested.
Arpaio consistently requested a jury trial, and filed interlocutory appeals on this basis, but Judge Susan Bolton (a Democrat judge appointed by Clinton) consistently ruled that she alone would decide whether Arpaio had in fact and in law violated Judge Snow's allegedly ambiguous order.
Judge Bolton, on her own, decided that Judge Snow's order was not ambiguous and that Arpaio had violated it, even though court observers and (not surprisingly) Arpaio's lawyers said all the trial testimony was to the contrary.
Arpaio's lawyers wrote to Attorney General Sessions about all these politicized legal proceeding and declared that they would appeal Arpaio's contempt conviction, particularly on the failure to provide a jury trial. Understand that if one juror out of 12 did not feel that the DOJ had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, Arpaio would not have been convicted.
Arpaio believes -- and probably so does Trump, his White House counsel and AG Sessions -- that the politicized Obama DOJ had orchestrated a questionable statute, no-jury, Democrat-judge bench trial purely for political reasons: namely, to send a message to local law enforcement agencies in Arizona and elsewhere that open borders was the political policy of the Obama administration.
Trump's pardon was a constitutional-political act to remedy a ten-year long series of legal-political political acts concerning the disputed political policies that swirl around the issue of how, and by whom, the laws against illegal immigration will be enforced.
All the legal experts I've read predicted that Arpaio would have gotten no jail time and just a misdemeanor slap on the wrist. He is 85 year old, has no criminal record of any kind, and spent 55 year in the service of federal and state law enforcement. That's not the kind of person who get jail time for a misdemeanor. Hence, the Trump pardon was not a vehicle to affect the duration or intensity of a judicial punishment, but rather a vehicle to remove a partisan political stain on Arpaio's long law enforcement career, which Trump and tens of millions of Americans admire. |
All the verbosity in the world doesn't change the fact that JA is a piece of shit who illegally profiled latinos; faked his own assassination attempt for sympathy votes; denigrated prisoners by housing them in tents he bragged were concentration camps, wasted taxpayer money sending investigators to Hawaii as the #2 Birther asshole in Amercia; had reporters critical of his actions falsely arrested in the middle of the night and lost lawsuits galore for that and a higher injury/death rate among prisioners.
Arpaio is a piece of shit human being and his defenders hardly register higher on the decency scale.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/28/17 8:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Most of the people he profiled, hassled and arrested were US citizens or held valid visas. They weren't undocumented. They simply looked Hispanic. He wasn't enforcing the law; he was just hassling Hispanics. He's an unrepentant bigot.
Besides. It wouldn't even have mattered if he was correct in the way he interpreted the law (which he wasn't). He wasn't entitled to blow off a perfectly valid federal court injunction. It's called the rule of law. If the courts issue an injunction, you need to comply with it unless and until you get it reversed by a higher court (which he never did).
He's a lawless racist asshole. Why should anyone be surprised he's Trump's buddy. They're two peas in a pod.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
|
|
