PDA

View Full Version : Sheriff Joe Arpaio pardoned tonight, during a Category 4 hurricane, no less



TomF
08-25-2017, 07:16 PM
Devoted birther, convicted of federal offences to do with targeting Hispanic immigrants.

Helluva comment on race relations.

LeeG
08-25-2017, 07:17 PM
Gotta be Borowitz

TomF
08-25-2017, 07:19 PM
I wish. All over CNN right now.

SKIP KILPATRICK
08-25-2017, 07:20 PM
Who didn't see that coming. The Vulgarian in Chief is not going to share power with the other two, formerly equal, branches of government!

John of Phoenix
08-25-2017, 07:27 PM
"A government of laws and not of men."

He sure flushed that one down the ****er.

Norman Bernstein
08-25-2017, 07:30 PM
This isn't a dog whistle to the white supremacist movement....

... It's a bullhorn.

LeeG
08-25-2017, 07:30 PM
There goes another $200 to the ACLU.

John of Phoenix
08-25-2017, 07:34 PM
A statement issued by the White House Friday night said, "Today, President Donald J. Trump granted a Presidential pardon to Joe Arpaio, former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona."

They think doing this on Friday night in the midst of a huricane will slip it past our noses.

Rockin' the Celebration of Being Stupid.

Dave Gray
08-25-2017, 07:42 PM
He lived up to his promise (or the WH press office's) that he wouldn't do it during his Phoenix visit. What more do ya want?

Playing to the 30% base to whom he can do no wrong.

TomF
08-25-2017, 07:44 PM
Trying to split the GOP. More daring his Congress critics to break with him.

This is how,authoritarianism consolidates power.

Steve McMahon
08-25-2017, 07:47 PM
I can't watch anymore...

oznabrag
08-25-2017, 07:50 PM
I can't watch anymore...

Don't shrug.

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)
08-25-2017, 07:51 PM
A statement issued by the White House Friday night said, "Today, President Donald J. Trump granted a Presidential pardon to Joe Arpaio, former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona."

They think doing this on Friday night in the midst of a huricane will slip it past our noses.

Rockin' the Celebration of Being Stupid.

On the contrary, I think it was meant as an intentional distraction. Same for the transgender service ban, just now implemented, hot off the press. Daring the military to defy him. If I were the military, I would say, "Fine. But since they entered the service under the full faith of our promises, they are all given full honorable discharges, with all commensurate benefits, including the medical benefits. Too bad they get all this without completing their service, but that's your fault, not ours."

I think he wants to be impeached rather than resign, then he can blame it on others. I think it's not fun for him any more. At least I hope.

CWSmith
08-25-2017, 08:01 PM
I hope this is hung around Trump's neck for a very long time to come.

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)
08-25-2017, 08:04 PM
I hope this is hung around Trump's neck for a very long time to come.

And complicit family members. In their case, the sins of the father DO apply.

Duncan Gibbs
08-25-2017, 08:39 PM
Interesting article in the NYT on whether there are limits of the Presidential Pardon Power as it relates to the Fifth Amendment:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/trump-arpaio-pardon-arizona-sheriff.html

It seems that there is a conflict that might be subject to a court challenge. I certainly hope so!

mariner2k
08-25-2017, 08:42 PM
Trump's running the country as a racist thug.

Chris Coose
08-25-2017, 08:42 PM
**** this guy. **** his entire family. **** his friends and **** every person who voted for him.
And a special call out to those who will still defend him.

Daniel Noyes
08-25-2017, 08:44 PM
There goes another $200 to the ACLU.

:D I think I just heard ACLU call in another catered lunch and more booze for the "holiday" party! LMAO! :D

TomF
08-25-2017, 08:46 PM
**** this guy. **** his entire family. **** his friends and **** every person who voted for him.
And a special call out to those who will still defend him.
Sends one helluva message to people about how seriously to take court decisions that challenge Trump's agenda, eh?

Daniel Noyes
08-25-2017, 08:50 PM
Sends one helluva message to people about how seriously to take court decisions that challenge Trump's agenda, eh?

here's hoping! though those extremist Leftist activist judges really are doing their best to re-write law and run the country themselves like dictators, regardless of elected representatives the Congress or President.

Arizona Bay
08-25-2017, 08:55 PM
Scum... one of DFT's people

https://images1.phoenixnewtimes.com/imager/u/original/6500913/arpaiotentcity.jpg

TomF
08-25-2017, 08:59 PM
here's hoping! though those extremist Leftist activist judges really are doing their best to re-write law and run the country themselves like dictators, regardless of elected representatives the Congress or President.Danny boy, those judges exist only in the fevered imagination of your favourite online and radio personalities. America HAS no "extremist Leftist activist judges.". Claiming so would be you telling a lie, if I thought you were capable of knowingly saying such an untruth.

Steve McMahon
08-25-2017, 09:00 PM
here's hoping! though those extremist Leftist activist judges really are doing their best to re-write law and run the country themselves like dictators, regardless of elected representatives the Congress or President.

You have now idea what a "leftist" is. There is no such thing as an "extremest leftist" in the American political or judiciary system. Give your head a shake man.

S.V. Airlie
08-25-2017, 09:03 PM
This isn't a dog whistle to the white supremacist movement....

... It's a bullhorn.No Norman, it's a bloody foghorn!

S.V. Airlie
08-25-2017, 09:04 PM
You have now idea what a "leftist" is. There is no such thing as an "extremest leftist" in the American political or judiciary system. Give your head a shake man.They exist as far as Danny boy is concerned.

Too Little Time
08-25-2017, 09:21 PM
Interesting article in the NYT on whether there are limits of the Presidential Pardon Power as it relates to the Fifth Amendment:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/trump-arpaio-pardon-arizona-sheriff.html

It seems that there is a conflict that might be subject to a court challenge. I certainly hope so!
I agree with the concept that the 5th amendment places some limits on pardons. I don't know how the courts will view the situation. But there is the matter of standing.

Joe (SoCal)
08-25-2017, 09:33 PM
Deplorable :mad:

Daniel Noyes
08-25-2017, 09:38 PM
You have now idea what a "leftist" is. There is no such thing as an "extremest leftist" in the American political or judiciary system. Give your head a shake man.


Danny boy, those judges exist only in the fevered imagination of your favourite online and radio personalities. America HAS no "extremist Leftist activist judges.". Claiming so would be you telling a lie, if I thought you were capable of knowingly saying such an untruth.

really? you think?

shows how out of touch the bilge is.

We have had wierdo Judges writing law and re writing moral and cultural norms here in Massachusetts for decades, one of the real early warning signs was almost 2 decades ago when the Supreme court of Massachusetts made the taxpayers fund a murders sex change operation on the grounds that it was "cruel and unusual... NOT to ! :mad:

CWSmith
08-25-2017, 09:41 PM
:D I think I just heard ACLU call in another catered lunch and more booze for the "holiday" party! LMAO! :D

You are confusing the ACLU with Wounded Warrior Project and I think even the latter has cleaned up their act.

Daniel, you have not a shred of credibility left. "LMAO"

Daniel Noyes
08-25-2017, 09:43 PM
You are confusing the ACLU with Wounded Warrior Project and I think even the latter has cleaned up their act.

Daniel, you have not a shred of credibility left. "LMAO"

uh oh, they just booked another sushi/ yoga retreat for the elitists who frequent their upper management structures! :D LMAO :D as JOP would say :D

Daniel Noyes
08-25-2017, 09:46 PM
still cant believe how wrong the elitist, "FACT BASED" pundits were who said Hillary was SURE to win!!! :D LMAO :D

reassuring to see that the rule of law can't be undone by a few extremist Lefty judges.

George Jung
08-25-2017, 09:48 PM
Danny Boy never had a shred of credibility; he had nothing to lose.

Daniel Noyes
08-25-2017, 09:58 PM
Danny Boy never had a shred of credibility; he had nothing to lose.

Credibility? :D BREXIT will FAIL, Trumpy is sure to lose, Arpaio will do hard time!

Lefty Bilge Brats holding court on others "credibility" https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.UiFd33UZ1UwVekgm6KBgIgDuEF&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300

Keith Wilson
08-25-2017, 10:06 PM
**** this guy. **** his entire family. **** his friends and **** every person who voted for him. And a special call out to those who will still defend him. My sentiments exactly. The man is a piece of loathsome scum, and I'm embarrassed to be a member of the same species.

Sky Blue
08-25-2017, 10:32 PM
Trump offends all the right people

....

L.W. Baxter
08-25-2017, 10:54 PM
Trump offends all the right people

Uranus is probably full of giant diamonds.

George Jung
08-25-2017, 10:58 PM
Uranus is probably full of giant diamonds.

Deeply insightful.

I feel a song coming on (but it could just be gas)

oznabrag
08-25-2017, 11:15 PM
Deeply insightful.

I feel a song coming on (but it could just be gas)

I keep encouraging him, too.

I foresee a Viral Video Phenomenon, once he decides his words are worthy words.

Rock and roll, Mister El-Dub.

You are at the helm.

Gerarddm
08-26-2017, 01:07 AM
On Bill Maher's show tonight, it was pointed out that this was a dress rehearsal for him to pardon everybody and anybody Mueller has the goods on. All roads lead to Russia.

skuthorp
08-26-2017, 01:21 AM
So when is Donald's Coronation as absolute monarch with the GOP dancing attendance at court??

Tom Montgomery
08-26-2017, 06:09 AM
I have no respect for either Trump or his supporters and defenders. None.

LeeG
08-26-2017, 06:12 AM
Why does the Constitution allow such broad power for pardoning?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp13FUd8fkw&ebc=ANyPxKofTpzcqV321ohhHUUcftnmgbrHdJHfVU5xwlFfKs c28Mg7lchrm1dphjoKP09y9QOc_PeF4lyS97ER4B4liM3pi3td vg

PeterSibley
08-26-2017, 06:22 AM
Your first step back to Royalty .

LeeG
08-26-2017, 06:56 AM
Sure smells like obstruction


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp13FUd8fkw&ebc=ANyPxKofTpzcqV321ohhHUUcftnmgbrHdJHfVU5xwlFfKs c28Mg7lchrm1dphjoKP09y9QOc_PeF4lyS97ER4B4liM3pi3td vg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m2Hx3G7BdSo

https://www.lawfareblog.com/problem-donald-trumps-constitution-part-ii-prospect-arpaio-pardon

Nicholas Scheuer
08-26-2017, 07:10 AM
+1 to #18 & #35

Jim Mahan
08-26-2017, 07:20 AM
My money is on the trmp ordeal to climax with him and his cronies in cuffs and perp walked. Sometime after the drama, the very satisfying drama, to be sure, a new administration will take over, however the mechanism is finally ordered. When that happens, theidiot's executive actions may be overturned or reversed. Why and how would an illegitimate president's unilateral decisions stay in place? And so will that include his pardons? Will Arpaio get his pardon vacated, to spend his golden years in a lockup for his crimes?

Considering the overall horrendousness of our so-called criminal justice-penal industry, and Arpaio's conscious and evil contribution to it, what possible excuse could a reasonable person provide for giving him any leniency at all?

Dress him pink underwear, and nothing else, and make him sleep in a tent in the desert behind chainlink. And put his erstwhile saviour in there, too.

John Smith
08-26-2017, 07:29 AM
This is another example that, if you are called to jury duty, you should point out to the judge and tell the judge that as long as the rich, the connected, do no jail time, you will not convict anyone of anything.

It's the only way we, the people, can level the field.

Garret
08-26-2017, 07:49 AM
here's hoping! though those extremist Leftist activist judges really are doing their best to re-write law and run the country themselves like dictators, regardless of elected representatives the Congress or President.

Right...

So - it's a good thing when the president tosses aside what a court has decided?

From Wikipedia (bold mine):


Arpaio has been accused of various types of misconduct, including abuse of power; misuse of funds; failure to investigate sex crimes; improper clearance of cases; unlawful enforcement of immigration laws; and election law violations. A Federal court monitor was appointed to oversee his office's operations because of complaints of racial profiling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling). The U.S. Department of Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history, and subsequently filed suit against him for unlawful discriminatory police conduct.[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]



This is a person worthy of a pardon? Disgusting pandering on the part of Trailer Trash Trump to his white supremacist base. Obviously, you want to see our country ruined. There's a word for that.

Jim Mahan
08-26-2017, 07:56 AM
you should point out to the judge

No. Hold that thought in your mind and heart, and make your jury decision based on your that criteria, but keep those reasons to yourself, or you will be excused from duty, and your opportunity to do be a positive influence will vanish. There is no duty to truth or honor to blab your civic values aloud in court; you serve your idea best if you just vote your conscience and keep your reason to yourself—at least until the case is decided.

woodpile
08-26-2017, 08:03 AM
Right...

So - it's a good thing when the president tosses aside what a court has decided?

From Wikipedia (bold mine):



This is a person worthy of a pardon? Disgusting pandering on the part of Trailer Trash Trump to his white supremacist base. Obviously, you want to see our country ruined. There's a word for that.

Also from Wikipedia, anyone remember these?

On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerzas_Armadas_de_Liberaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_Puerto rrique%C3%B1a), which is a Puerto Rican paramilitary organization that set off 120 bombs in the United States, mostly in New York City and Chicago. There were convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition), as well as firearms and explosives violations.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-5) The 16 were convicted of conspiracy and sedition and sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison. Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials." Clinton offered clemency on the condition that the prisoners renounce violence, seeing as none of the 16 had been convicted of harming anyone and they had already served 19 years in prison. This action was lobbied for by ten Nobel Laureates and the Archbishop of Puerto Rico.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-6) The commutation was opposed by the U.S. Attorney's Office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney), the FBI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation), and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons) and was criticized by many, including former victims of FALN terrorist activities and the Fraternal Order of Police (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_Order_of_Police).[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-7) Hillary Clinton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton), then campaigning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2000) for her first term in the Senate, initially supported the commutation,[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-8) but later withdrew her support.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-9)
Congress condemned this action by President Clinton, with votes of 95–2 in the Senate and 311–41 in the House.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-10)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-11) The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Oversight_and_Gov ernment_Reform) held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) prevented FBI officials from testifying.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-12) President Clinton cited executive privilege (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege) for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.
Among those who accepted clemency are:


Edwin Cortes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Cortes), sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Elizam Escobar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizam_Escobar), sentenced to 60 years in prison.
Ricardo Jimenez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Jimenez), sentenced to 90 years in prison.
Adolfo Matos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Matos), sentenced to 70 years in prison.
Dylcia Noemi Pagan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylcia_Noemi_Pagan), sentenced to 55 years in prison.
Alicia Rodríguez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Rodr%C3%ADguez_(FALN)), sentenced to 55 years in prison.
Ida Luz Rodriguez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Luz_Rodriguez), sentenced to 75 years in prison.
Luis Rosa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Rosa), sentenced to 75 years in prison.
Carmen Valentin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Valentin), sentenced to 90 years in prison.
Alberto Rodriguez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rodriguez_(Puerto_Rican_Nationalist)), sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Alejandrina Torres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandrina_Torres), sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Juan Enrique Segarra-Palmer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Enrique_Segarra-Palmer), sentenced to 55 years in prison; released on 25 January 2004.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-13)[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-14)


Not to mention Marc Rich and the federal investigation over his pardon.
Can anyone here say "double standard"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy

Chris Smith porter maine
08-26-2017, 08:25 AM
Also from Wikipedia, anyone remember these?

On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerzas_Armadas_de_Liberaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_Puerto rrique%C3%B1a), which is a Puerto Rican paramilitary organization that set off 120 bombs in the United States, mostly in New York City and Chicago. There were convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition), as well as firearms and explosives violations.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-5) The 16 were convicted of conspiracy and sedition and sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison. Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials." Clinton offered clemency on the condition that the prisoners renounce violence, seeing as none of the 16 had been convicted of harming anyone and they had already served 19 years in prison. This action was lobbied for by ten Nobel Laureates and the Archbishop of Puerto Rico.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-6) The commutation was opposed by the U.S. Attorney's Office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney), the FBI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation), and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons) and was criticized by many, including former victims of FALN terrorist activities and the Fraternal Order of Police (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_Order_of_Police).[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-7) Hillary Clinton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton), then campaigning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2000) for her first term in the Senate, initially supported the commutation,[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-8) but later withdrew her support.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-9)
Congress condemned this action by President Clinton, with votes of 95–2 in the Senate and 311–41 in the House.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-10)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-11) The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Oversight_and_Gov ernment_Reform) held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) prevented FBI officials from testifying.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-12) President Clinton cited executive privilege (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege) for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.
Among those who accepted clemency are:


Edwin Cortes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Cortes), sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Elizam Escobar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizam_Escobar), sentenced to 60 years in prison.
Ricardo Jimenez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Jimenez), sentenced to 90 years in prison.
Adolfo Matos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Matos), sentenced to 70 years in prison.
Dylcia Noemi Pagan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylcia_Noemi_Pagan), sentenced to 55 years in prison.
Alicia Rodríguez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Rodr%C3%ADguez_(FALN)), sentenced to 55 years in prison.
Ida Luz Rodriguez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Luz_Rodriguez), sentenced to 75 years in prison.
Luis Rosa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Rosa), sentenced to 75 years in prison.
Carmen Valentin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Valentin), sentenced to 90 years in prison.
Alberto Rodriguez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rodriguez_(Puerto_Rican_Nationalist)), sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Alejandrina Torres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandrina_Torres), sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Juan Enrique Segarra-Palmer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Enrique_Segarra-Palmer), sentenced to 55 years in prison; released on 25 January 2004.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-13)[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy#cite_note-14)


Not to mention Marc Rich and the federal investigation over his pardon.
Can anyone here say "double standard"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy

Can anyone say deflection.

LeeG
08-26-2017, 08:31 AM
Ya know, Obama surged troops in Afghanistan too!

S.V. Airlie
08-26-2017, 08:51 AM
Hey Danny Boy, your fav. EX Sheriff has opened a GOFUNDME account to pay his lawyer's fees are you going to donate to it?

woodpile
08-26-2017, 08:58 AM
Hey Danny Boy, your fav. EX Sheriff has opened a GOFUNDME account to pay his lawyer's fees are you going to donate to it?


That's a great idea, will donate the same amount Marc Rich donated to the Clintons to buy his pardon, how Clintonesque that would be.

Too Little Time
08-26-2017, 09:06 AM
Also from Wikipedia, anyone remember these?

Can anyone here say "double standard"
I think those pardons were shameful, but I see a difference.

The Arpaio matter involves a conflict between constitutional provisions. At least some see it that way.

Osborne Russell
08-26-2017, 09:17 AM
Can anyone here say "double standard"

Double standard means a different standard applied to the same thing. But it's not the same thing. AKA false equivalence.

The Puerto Ricans were tried and convicted, had served 19 years, and were no threat to anyone. Donald Trump is a traitor right now, and he's President. Arpaio is out of office but the green light has been given to other aspirants, by Trump. Arpaio is a violator of human rights.

Trump says Arpaio was only doing his job. Arpaio detained people on no basis other than their skin color, violating the Constitution and the rights of man. This violation isn't an opinion, it's a legal judgment, an act of the judiciary, which expresses the sovereignty of the people. He was ordered to stop doing it, he continued, and the sanction was applied. Trump removed the sanction before appeals had been concluded. This is interference in the judicial process, a violation of the separation of powers, and a violation of his oath to see that the law is faithfully executed. The question is

NOT

whether the injunction was right or wrong. The question is whether the established procedure to determine whether it was right or wrong ought to be terminated by executive action.

This is the issue you must face if you claim to support the Constitution. Here. Now.

The order violated by Arpaio was issued in a civil case. By Trump's pardon, the plaintiffs in that case have been deprived of their remedy, despite having established a violation of their rights. What justifies it?


The only effective means courts have to prevent or stop governmental violations of constitutional rights is through injunctions. But injunctions have teeth only when they have the potential of a contempt conviction behind them. In other words, in issuing an injunction, a court is saying, “stop doing that or else.” The “or else” is a criminal conviction for contempt, leading to a fine, imprisonment or both. Absent the “or else,” the injunction is all but meaningless.

But if the president signals to government agents that there exists the likelihood of a pardon when they violate a judicial injunction that blocks his policies, he can all too easily circumvent the only effective means of enforcing constitutional restrictions on his behavior. Indeed, the president could even secretly promise a pardon to agents if they undertake illegal activity he desires.

In short, under the Constitution one cannot be deprived of liberty without a court ruling upon the legality of the detention. The power of courts to restrain government officers from depriving citizens of liberty absent judicial process is the only meaningful way courts have to enforce important constitutional protections. But if the president can employ the pardon power to circumvent constitutional protections of liberty, there is very little left of the constitutional checks on presidential power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/trump-arpaio-pardon-arizona-sheriff.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Osborne Russell
08-26-2017, 09:25 AM
Note to liberals: get your priorities straight. Not racism, "white privilege" or any of your other neologisms in that direction. Not compassion for immigrants. Not the President's character, nor it's impact on national prestige. Not, not, not.

Separation of powers is the guardian of the rights of man: yes or no. If you say no, convince me. Failing that, I don't care what else you say.

C'mon, you're the real Americans -- you keep saying. C'mon, you're the real Americans -- you keep saying. Perhaps you think separation of powers is not something to speak in heightened tones about. Because, truth be known, you barely know more about it than the Reds. You were busy equipping your kitchen to follow your new "passion" -- cooking, which is to say, eating.[/QUOTE]

Jim Mahan
08-26-2017, 09:31 AM
Double standard means a different standard applied to the same thing. But it's not the same thing. AKA false equivalence.

The Puerto Ricans were tried and convicted, had served 19 years, and were no threat to anyone. Donald Trump is a traitor right now, and he's President. Arpaio is out of office but the green light has been given to other aspirants, by Trump. Arpaio is a violator of human rights.

Trump says Arpaio was only doing his job. Arpaio detained people on no basis other than their skin color, violating the Constitution and the rights of man. This violation isn't an opinion, it's a legal judgment, an act of the judiciary, which expresses the sovereignty of the people. He was ordered to stop doing it, he continued, and the sanction was applied. Trump removed the sanction before appeals had been concluded. This is interference in the judicial process, a violation of the separation of powers, and a violation of his oath to see that the law is faithfully executed. The question is

NOT

whether the injunction was right or wrong. The question is whether the established procedure to determine whether it was right or wrong ought to be terminated by executive action.

This is the issue you must face if you claim to support the Constitution. Here. Now.

The order violated by Arpaio was issued in a civil case. By Trump's pardon, the plaintiffs in that case have been deprived of their remedy, despite having established a violation of their rights. What justifies it?


Thank you, Osborne.


...the president could even secretly promise a pardon to anyone if they undertake illegal activity he desires.


Dollars to donuts he included that bit of bait in each instance of recruiting for his campaign, his collusion with the Russians, and the inner circle of his pretend administration. He probably also used it to threaten all the inner circle that got jetisoned from the death spiral. "Mum's the word, deny everything, you weren't there, you didn't see anything, and you know nothing, invoke the fifth, or no pardon for you. And you can't play golf at Maralago."

Osborne Russell
08-26-2017, 09:37 AM
Thank you, Osborne.

Thanks, and thanks for the recommendation of "On Tyranny" which I read and gave to my wife.

Fired me up. One gets weary at times.

woodpile
08-26-2017, 09:46 AM
Double standard means a different standard applied to the same thing. But it's not the same thing. AKA false equivalence.

The Puerto Ricans were tried and convicted, had served 19 years, and were no threat to anyone. Donald Trump is a traitor right now, and he's President. Arpaio is out of office but the green light has been given to other aspirants, by Trump. Arpaio is a violator of human rights.

Trump says Arpaio was only doing his job. Arpaio detained people on no basis other than their skin color, violating the Constitution and the rights of man. This violation isn't an opinion, it's a legal judgment, an act of the judiciary, which expresses the sovereignty of the people. He was ordered to stop doing it, he continued, and the sanction was applied. Trump removed the sanction before appeals had been concluded. This is interference in the judicial process, a violation of the separation of powers, and a violation of his oath to see that the law is faithfully executed. The question is

NOT

whether the injunction was right or wrong. The question is whether the established procedure to determine whether it was right or wrong ought to be terminated by executive action.

This is the issue you must face if you claim to support the Constitution. Here. Now.

The order violated by Arpaio was issued in a civil case. By Trump's pardon, the plaintiffs in that case have been deprived of their remedy, despite having established a violation of their rights. What justifies it?

So are we saying that violating someone's human rights is a worse crime than, "Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for 6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials." Personally I would rather have my rights violated.

Arizona Bay
08-26-2017, 09:55 AM
So are we saying that violating someone's human rights is a worse crime than, "Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for 6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials." Personally I would rather have my rights violated.

NO!

"The question is whether the established procedure to determine whether it was right or wrong ought to be terminated by executive action." - #57

Osborne Russell
08-26-2017, 10:06 AM
Personally I would rather have my rights violated.

That's where you're wrong.

1. You're not in a position to bargain with my rights, which are unalienable, so the perspective of "I, personally . . . " is not on the menu.

2. The rights are implicit in life, i.e. if they are attacked, your life is already under attack. You might consider free speech, for example, as a kind of picket post or guard station for your life. When these outlying sentinels are overrun, you are largely dependent on luck to save your life.

The government can take your rights, including your life, absolutely unwittingly. You know this, as a conservative, right? That's the kind of power they have. So when they attack the outposts with a purpose, it's your azz, if they get through. This is why we have a Bill of Rights and a Constitution to uphold them.

Does the pardon of Arpaio serve these purposes?

Jim Mahan
08-26-2017, 10:08 AM
Personally I would rather have my rights violated.

If the country continues under the current administration the odds are getting better that you will.

Osborne Russell
08-26-2017, 10:31 AM
Why does the Constitution allow such broad power for pardoning?

Vital and urgent question.

More immediately, tell us, Republicans -- I know you believe Trump has principles that will limit his use of the power :rolleyes:.

What are those principles?

Arizona Bay
08-26-2017, 10:32 AM
If the country continues under the current administration the odds are getting better that you will.

Maybe he thinks his right-white privilege will protect him.

oznabrag
08-26-2017, 10:33 AM
Vital and urgent question.

More immediately, tell us, Republicans -- I know you believe Trump has principles that will limit his use of the power :rolleyes:.

What are those principles?

If you don't like his principles he has others!

amish rob
08-26-2017, 10:35 AM
If you don't like his principles he has others!

It's like that movie, "Principles Without A Cause".

What are your principles?
Whattaya got?

Peace,
Robert

paulf
08-26-2017, 10:35 AM
:D I think I just heard ACLU call in another catered lunch and more booze for the "holiday" party! LMAO! :D


See post #18.

CWSmith
08-26-2017, 10:41 AM
If you don't like his principles he has others!

Didn't the Marx Brothers use that joke?

amish rob
08-26-2017, 10:46 AM
Wait, isn't it the ACLU who got those Nazis their permit back?

Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

Peace,
Robert

oznabrag
08-26-2017, 10:51 AM
Didn't the Marx Brothers use that joke?

Yes. That's a Groucho line.

'A Night in Casablanca'?


Wait, isn't it the ACLU who got those Nazis their permit back?

Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

Peace,
Robert

It's like rain on your wedding day.

I never did grasp how that was supposed to be 'ironic', but Onward! Thru the fog!

:D

Arizona Bay
08-26-2017, 10:52 AM
Well now, this may not stand... :)

The Justice Dept. rules requires a five-year waiting period before a pardon.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions


3. Five-year waiting period required

Under the Department's rules governing petitions for executive clemency, 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq., an applicant must satisfy a minimum waiting period of five years before he becomes eligible to apply for a presidential pardon of his federal conviction. The waiting period, which is designed to afford the petitioner a reasonable period of time in which to demonstrate an ability to lead a responsible, productive and law-abiding life, begins on the date of the petitioner's release from confinement.

Alternatively, if the conviction resulted in a sentence that did not include any form of confinement, including community or home confinement, the waiting period begins on the date of sentencing. In addition, the petitioner should have fully satisfied the penalty imposed, including all probation, parole, or supervised release before applying for clemency. Moreover, the waiting period begins upon release from confinement for your most recent conviction, whether or not this is the offense for which pardon is sought. You may make a written request for a waiver of this requirement. However, waiver of any portion of the waiting period is rarely granted and then only in the most exceptional circumstances. In order to request a waiver, you must complete the pardon application form and submit it with a cover letter explaining why you believe the waiting period should be waived in your case.

...and he has not been sentenced or begun any appeals.

S.V. Airlie
08-26-2017, 10:57 AM
Well now, this may not stand... :)

The Justice Dept. rules requires a five-year waiting period before a pardon.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions



...and he has not been sentenced or begun any appeals.I saw this too and then I figure that if Maddog can get a waiver to be Sec. of Defense, this fleabag ex sheriff can get a waiver in this case a lot easier.

Arizona Bay
08-26-2017, 11:08 AM
Rep's don't need no stinkin' rules!

Osborne Russell
08-26-2017, 11:20 AM
Well now, this may not stand... :)

The Justice Dept. rules requires a five-year waiting period before a pardon . . . ..."and he has not been sentenced or begun any appeals."

Zambo !

1. Obama wrote these rules . . . I'm sure of it! Democrats! The Deep State! White people are the most discriminated-against! The election is over, they lost! Benghazi! Private server!

2. What was the opinion of Attorney General Sessions, head of the Justice Department, appointed by Trump? The opinion sought by Trump before he pardoned Arpaio?


The Attorney General is appointed by the President of the United States and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He or she is subject to summary dismissal by the President and impeachment by Congress. The current Attorney General is Jeff Sessions, who assumed the office on February 9, 2017. The Attorney General is a member of the Cabinet and is seventh in the presidential line of succession.

-- wikipedia, United States Attorney General

Tom Wilkinson
08-26-2017, 11:21 AM
Amazing how the supposed "nation of laws" party seems to have no issue ignoring their beloved constitution when it suits their political needs. This was a conviction based on constitutional violations was it not??

Arizona Bay
08-26-2017, 11:24 AM
I don't think he asked anyone other than his own fabulous mind, the best mind!

LeeG
08-26-2017, 12:08 PM
So are we saying that violating someone's human rights is a worse crime than, "Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for 6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials." Personally I would rather have my rights violated.

Which is how "good people" allow authoritarian regimes to take root. You get a circus performance in exchange for your liberty.

Osborne Russell
08-26-2017, 12:31 PM
I don't think he asked anyone other than his own fabulous mind, the best mind!

But that doesn't make him Hitler . . .


On 19 December 1941, Hitler appointed himself Commander-in-Chief of the German Army (Heer), thus taking a direct operational posting usually held by a full German general. Overconfident in his own military expertise following the earlier victories in 1940, Hitler became distrustful of his Army High Command and began to interfere in military and tactical planning with damaging consequences. By late 1942, he began to make disastrous mistakes. The historian who wrote the Wehrmacht war diary concluded that, "... within him the tension between rational insight and emotional delusion was never resolved", and that he was one of the "terrible simplifiers who thought to reduce the complexity of life to the dogmas they had worked out."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Adolf_Hitler#World_War_II

S.V. Airlie
08-26-2017, 12:37 PM
There is a protocol to deal with the issue of any pardon. The President can pardon someone but, not alone.

One of the requirements is that the accused has to show some contrition for his actions, the guy certainly won't.

CWSmith
08-26-2017, 01:26 PM
McCain, others slam Trump over Arpaio pardonPresident Donald Trump is under fire for pardoning the former Phoenix Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday.

Sally Yates, the former acting attorney general whom Trump fired earlier this year, tweeted that the pardon "reveals his own contempt for our Constitution."

But the president also heard criticism from lawmakers in his own party. Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, frequently a thorn in Trump's side, was among the most vocal critics. Trump pardoning the sheriff "undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law," McCain tweeted.

Meanwhile, Arizona governor Doug Ducey and congressman Andy Biggs are supporting the presidential pardon. Ducey said in a statement that Arpaio "deserves credit for helping to reduce crime in Maricopa County over his long career in law enforcement and public office."

As for the residents of Arizona, only 21 percent were in support of the pardon, according to a survey from last week (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/08/21/poll-arizonans-oppose-sheriff-joe-arpaio-pardon-president-donald-trump-phoenix-rally/586957001/).



https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/26/john-mccain-others-slam-president-trump-over-joe-arpaio-pardon.html

Durnik
08-26-2017, 02:26 PM
This isn't a dog whistle to the white supremacist movement....

... It's a bullhorn.

Exactly. The pardon, during a hurricane where ICE is continuing Arpaio's law breaking ways, was a shoutout to the haters that the highest office in the land 'has their backs'.. we are getting more ______ by the minute.

Ian McColgin
08-26-2017, 02:33 PM
It was constitutionally extreme, daring even, when Ford pardoned the as yet unindicted Nixon, but at least that step was taken with the idea of nation healing. Trump has, with this pardon, trivialized the great power he has.

CWSmith
08-26-2017, 02:36 PM
It was constitutionally extreme, daring even, when Ford pardoned the as yet unindicted Nixon, but at least that step was taken with the idea of nation healing. Trump has, with this pardon, trivialized the great power he has.

...and further divided the nation.

oznabrag
08-26-2017, 03:15 PM
Exactly. The pardon, during a hurricane where ICE is continuing Arpaio's law breaking ways, was a shoutout to the haters that the highest office in the land 'has their backs'.. we are getting more ______ by the minute.

Believe it or not, given the info posted above, I won't be surprised if Sessions declines to enforce this sham pardon.

Then dare SCROTUS to fire him.

The Moron King has declared war on the establishment 'Republican' Party, and the ratings of his little reality show are in the toilet.

If you look at all the great despots of the world, most of them came to power with approval ratings in the high, what 70%s? More?

Trump seized control contrary to the old 'derived from the consent of the governed' thing, and he's going to pay for that.

CWSmith
08-26-2017, 03:20 PM
Believe it or not, given the info posted above, I won't be surprised if Sessions declines to enforce this sham pardon.

Then dare SCROTUS to fire him.

You give Sessions far more credit that I will give him.

S.V. Airlie
08-26-2017, 03:23 PM
You give Sessions far more credit that I will give him.Better unlock his office door for a quick getaway. Maybe even leave the door open. Trump would go BALLISTIC if Sessions goes against his wishes again.

CWSmith
08-26-2017, 03:41 PM
Although, if Sessions thinks he's in danger from the Russian investigation, he might want to ingratiate himself with the other powers in DC.

I suspect it is mostly about what is best for Sessions.

oznabrag
08-26-2017, 04:01 PM
Although, if Sessions thinks he's in danger from the Russian investigation, he might want to ingratiate himself with the other powers in DC.

I suspect it is mostly about what is best for Sessions.

The old 'full testimony in exchange for immunity' thing?


Yup.


If just one of those guys goes that route, Mueller drains the swamp.

Phil Y
08-26-2017, 06:06 PM
How long before he does a Dueterte (sp?) , you know the Phillipines president who has authorised his police to just round up drug dealers and shoot them? Saves a whole lot of paperwork. Maybe put a bounty on the scalps of undocumented illegals. Cheaper than a wall, and great sport for the shooting lobby.

Lew Barrett
08-26-2017, 11:51 PM
...and further divided the nation.

And encouraged law breaking at the most venal level.

skuthorp
08-27-2017, 03:58 PM
Heard Tillerson interviewed this morning, separating himself and 'US agencies' from his boss on this affair.
"The President makes his own decisions".

CWSmith
08-28-2017, 02:05 PM
How's this for confidence that he was always right?


Fresh Off A Pardon From Trump, Arpaio Floats A Primary Challenge To Flake

Just a few days after President Donald Trump issued a pardon (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-pardons-joe-arpaio) for Joe Arpaio, the former Maricopa County sheriff hinted that he could mount a primary challenge to Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who’s up for re-election next year.

Arpaio, who was convicted of contempt of court for ignoring a court order to stop holding people solely on suspicion of being undocumented, told the Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/joe-arpaio-may-challenge-jeff-flake/article/2632732) on Monday that he may run for office again.

“I could run for mayor, I could run for legislator, I could run for Senate,” he said.

“I’m sure getting a lot of people around the state asking me” to run against Flake, he added. “All I’m saying is the door is open and we’ll see what happens. I’ve got support. I know what support I have.”

It’s not clear how serious Arpaio is about challenging Flake. He lost his bid for a seventh term as sheriff of Maricopa County last year, and was later convicted of contempt of court. The sheriff was notorious for holding inmates in “tent city,” an open air jail he once referred to as a “concentration camp.”

Arpaio, who is now 85 years old, told the Washington Examiner that despite his age, he does not plan to fully retire yet.

“I’m proud to be my age. I work 14 hours a day. If anyone thinks my age is going to hold me back, I’ve got news for them,” he said. “The bottom line is there’s no way I’m going to go fishing. I have no hobbies.”



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fresh-off-a-pardon-from-trump-arpaio-floats-a-primary-challenge-to-flake/ar-AAqQPe1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Osborne Russell
08-28-2017, 03:15 PM
“The bottom line is there’s no way I’m going to go fishing. I have no hobbies.”

Hm, how is it I seem to have already known that?

Garret
08-28-2017, 03:40 PM
Hm, how is it I seem to have already known that?

Of course he as a hobby: hassling immigrants & ignoring court orders - that makes 2!

SKIP KILPATRICK
08-28-2017, 03:57 PM
How's this for confidence that he was always right?



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fresh-off-a-pardon-from-trump-arpaio-floats-a-primary-challenge-to-flake/ar-AAqQPe1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp


I hope he does run against Flake. Let's see what the Republican Party in Arizona is made of.

genglandoh
08-28-2017, 04:01 PM
It was Trumps secret plan to create a Hurricane just so he can pardon a local Sheriff.

John of Phoenix
08-28-2017, 04:04 PM
I hope he does run against Flake. Let's see what the Republican Party in Arizona is made of.He doesn't have a chance in hell of winning ANYTHING but you'd be sorely disappointed by the level of support he does have. No shortage of scared witless racists around here.

SKIP KILPATRICK
08-28-2017, 04:07 PM
It was Trumps secret plan to create a Hurricane just so he can pardon a local Sheriff.


That's silly! Everyone knows Trump didn't have anything to do with the Hurricane. Hurricanes are God's punishment for gays!

PhaseLockedLoop
08-28-2017, 05:47 PM
Trump's pardon of this ass*ole is utterly digusting.

It's worth mentioning, though, that Joe ran his psychopathic office throughout the entire Clinton, GWB, and Obama administrations. Sure, it's an outrage that when they finally get him (on a misdemeanor count) the demented blowhard springs him. But why did it take so long to get him?

TomF
08-28-2017, 05:48 PM
State's rights, perhaps?

Chris Smith porter maine
08-28-2017, 05:53 PM
that's silly! Everyone knows trump didn't have anything to do with the hurricane. Hurricanes are god's punishment for gays!

bwhaha

Arizona Bay
08-28-2017, 06:24 PM
The dipswitch announced the pardon during the hurricane so he could get higher ratings...


During a news conference with Finnish President Sauli Niinistö on Monday, President Trump was asked to justify his pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (https://thinkprogress.org/trump-pardons-arpaio-3737cd08cae1/) and his decision to announce it as the most serious storm to hit the United States in a decade bore down on the Gulf Coast Friday night.
Trump said the timing of his announcement wasn’t meant to shield his decision from scrutiny. On the contrary, he claimed that doing so amid Hurricane Harvey was done to maximize publicity.
“I assumed the ratings would be far higher than they would be normally,” he said.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-claims-tv-ratings-motivated-his-decision-to-announce-arpaio-pardon-amid-hurricane-harvey-11d3e6d08fd3/

PhaseLockedLoop
08-28-2017, 06:42 PM
State's rights, perhaps?

I suppose. That pretty much makes the whole claim of U.S. "respect for the rule of law" a bunch of nonsense, though, what? Not that such respect was evident in dealing with Wall Street swindling and much else. But I digress. Certainly Trump is an odious monster with plenty of Republican backing.

Osborne Russell
08-28-2017, 07:53 PM
I hope he does run against Flake. Let's see what the Republican Party in Arizona is made of.

Hear, hear. National party as well.

Arizona Bay
08-28-2017, 08:15 PM
Now he wants his conviction overturned. So if accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt, how would that work?
He was never sentenced and never appealed.

Source: Associated Press


Jacques Billeaud, Associated Press
Updated 7:26 pm, Monday, August 28, 2017


PHOENIX (AP) — Fresh off his presidential pardon, an emboldened Joe Arpaio on Monday lashed out at his critics and the judge who found him guilty of a crime as his attorneys went to court to throw the court decision that was the basis for his conviction.

The former Arizona sheriff struck a defiant tone in insisting he "didn't do anything wrong" and questioning whether his judge was fair. His comments came as President Donald Trump took a similar posture in defending his Friday pardon of the former lawman, blaming the Obama administration for Arpaio's troubles and calling him a "patriot" who fought against illegal immigration.

Sky Blue
08-28-2017, 08:29 PM
Hear, hear. National party as well.

Flake is toast.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/345129-poll-flakes-approval-rating-in-arizona-at-18-percent