Trump has pardoned Joe Arpaio

[SMOGZINN]

The president definitely can't pardon state crimes.

I agree, but I'm almost certain that we are going to hear arguments otherwise if Mueller convinces state AGs to charge his staff with crimes. The argument is going to be that these crimes could have been charged in federal court, and based on the Ex parte Garland (1867) case where SCOTUS said that a Presidental pardon does not just commute the sentence of the charges it actually absolves him of the crime altogether, '....so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence." They will then argue that the State can not charge him with a crime that he has already been found innocent of.

It is pretty shaky legal grounds, but I have no doubt it will be argued.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, the way I'm seeing this whole disaster of an administration that Trump built, is that he is dirty right down to the marrow in his bones and anyone who would jump into his nest to get a share of the spoils that Trump is lining his pockets with is as dirty as he is. He reeks of the stuff that is heinous and despicable.

That he and his Wall Street flavored cabinet and staff are hard wired for pursuing greed driven riches at the highest levels of society and gov't just makes things that much more worse due to the fact that they have been put in charge of the nation's resources and its people and guess what? They're the same asshole crooks with the same goals and attitudes but now have the ability to ransack the nation unabated, pardons in hand, feverish with the thought of how stupid rich they can get if they just have enough time to loot and scoot before the walls come crashing down again.

There is no moral defense that can be rationalized for what Trump and his cabal of hired profiteers have or are about to legislate for themselves into what amounts to legal theft of the nation's wealth and treasonous behavior in all but the fancy deceptive titles they just love to brand their get rich quick legislation with.

Trump's supporters can hem and haw all they like as to Trump's intentions, but the guy is who he is and his sordid track record speaks for itself. There is no getting around the fact that when stripped of the facade he wears so proudly and boastfully, he is nothing but a greed driven narcissist looking to place himself in the most profitable position he can, all while he bathes himself in the adoration and false sense of respectability that his lies and deception have garnered for himself.

The guy is dirty through and through and the people he surrounds himself with are as dirty or worse simply for the fact that they want a share of the treasures Trump and his fellow asshole "politicians" in the GOP are going to bless themselves with from the legislation they are about to pass into law.

This is what it's all about. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Jaskalas]

I would suggest reading this. Come back after doing that and tell me you wouldn't be willing to build an entirely new prison just to throw him in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio#Tenure_as_sheriff_1993-2016

Realibrad shared that link. So.. I have read it, and while it's certainly scumbag behavior and/or mistreatment of various prisoners, does it constitute torture or abuse? I'd say the tent city, the poor food, and loud music are easily abuse. The only crime derived from all of it is contempt of court. Why is that? Why not charge him with abuse or torture? Maybe much of what is described is actually legal.

I will say this though, Trump should have waited until sentencing, and should have instead commuted the sentence. While a technicality, there is some meaning to be found.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree, but I'm almost certain that we are going to hear arguments otherwise if Mueller convinces state AGs to charge his staff with crimes. The argument is going to be that these crimes could have been charged in federal court, and based on the Ex parte Garland (1867) case where SCOTUS said that a Presidental pardon does not just commute the sentence of the charges it actually absolves him of the crime altogether, '....so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence." They will then argue that the State can not charge him with a crime that he has already been found innocent of.

It is pretty shaky legal grounds, but I have no doubt it will be argued.

But states/feds can and do charge people who have been found innocent by the other. It's happened many times in the past and is well established precedent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_v._Alabama

This case dealt with two different states prosecuting a man for the same crime but the same holds true for the feds.

 

[Jaskalas]

This willingness to make an affirmative determination on Trump's action without even an casual familiarity the circumstances of the case or the person involved's history is quite something.

Agent00f asked, and I gave my take on it as a previously uninterested party. Contempt of court does not impress me. What's an 85 year old going to do, give you the finger on the way to a nursing home? I'm looking for guilt of a worse crime.

 

[fskimospy]

Realibrad shared that link. So.. I have read it, and while it's certainly scumbag behavior and/or mistreatment of various prisoners, does it constitute torture or abuse? I'd say the tent city, the poor food, and loud music are easily abuse. The only crime derived from all of it is contempt of court. Why is that? Why not charge him with abuse or torture? Maybe much of what is described is actually legal.

I will say this though, Trump should have waited until sentencing, and should have instead commuted the sentence. While a technicality, there is some meaning to be found.

It was the only crime charged, but hardly the only crime. It's all about what DAs are willing to charge and public officials rarely get charged in this way. Usually it ends up in civil courts, which is why Maricopa County has had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments against its police department for people who have been killed by the conditions in the jails, etc.

If Joe Arpaio doesn't belong in jail I don't know what public official does.

 

[fskimospy]

Agent00f asked, and I gave my take on it as a previously uninterested party. Contempt of court does not impress me. What's an 85 year old going to do, give you the finger on the way to a nursing home? I'm looking for guilt of a worse crime.

You're looking for guilt of a worse crime than refusing to obey court orders to stop using your official powers to attack your own constituents in a flagrant violation of the Constitution that you swore to uphold?

How is that not an extremely, EXTREMELY serious offense? That's about as serious an offense as you can commit while discharging official duties. It literally means that citizens under his jurisdiction lost the protections of the Constitution.

 

[K1052]

Agent00f asked, and I gave my take on it as a previously uninterested party. Contempt of court does not impress me. What's an 85 year old going to do, give you the finger on the way to a nursing home? I'm looking for guilt of a worse crime.

Willful violation of a court order by a member of the law enforcement community should not be allowed and not punishing those responsible for it puts said LEO above the law (and arguably the constitution in this case). This cannot be allowed to happen and age is no excuse. The pardon issued by the president validates this behavior.

 

[fskimospy]

Willful violation of a court order by a member of the law enforcement community should not be allowed and not punishing those responsible for it puts said LEO above the law (and arguably the constitution in this case). This cannot be allowed to happen and age is no excuse. The pardon issued by the president validates this behavior.

Yep. As I think I mentioned earlier in this thread if you want to put it in conservative friendly terms sheriffs/governors/whatever in place run by Democrats could have gone through and confiscated every firearm in the state, violating people's 2nd amendment rights. When the courts told them to stop, they could just ignore it and keep confiscating them. When contempt of court convictions happen, Obama could have just pardoned them and kept confiscating.

Does that sound like a precedent anyone wants to endorse?

 

[bshole]

You're looking for guilt of a worse crime than refusing to obey court orders to stop using your official powers to attack your own constituents in a flagrant violation of the Constitution that you swore to uphold?

How is that not an extremely, EXTREMELY serious offense? That's about as serious an offense as you can commit while discharging official duties. It literally means that citizens under his jurisdiction lost the protections of the Constitution.

Wasn't there some country clerk who refused to hand out marriage licenses to gays because it offended her Christianity? Did she ever go to prison?

 

[K1052]

Yep. As I think I mentioned earlier in this thread if you want to put it in conservative friendly terms sheriffs/governors/whatever in place run by Democrats could have gone through and confiscated every firearm in the state, violating people's 2nd amendment rights. When the courts told them to stop, they could just ignore it and keep confiscating them. When contempt of court convictions happen, Obama could have just pardoned them and kept confiscating.

Does that sound like a precedent anyone wants to endorse?

This situation is sort of another example of the strongman fetish a not insubstantial amount of Republicans seem to have....when it's their strongman doing the things.

 

[fskimospy]

Wasn't there some country clerk who refused to hand out marriage licenses to gays because it offended her Christianity? Did she ever go to prison?

Yes, she was imprisoned for contempt of court. They let her out on the condition that she no longer would block marriage licenses for gay couples.

 

[emperus]

I agree, but I'm almost certain that we are going to hear arguments otherwise if Mueller convinces state AGs to charge his staff with crimes. The argument is going to be that these crimes could have been charged in federal court, and based on the Ex parte Garland (1867) case where SCOTUS said that a Presidental pardon does not just commute the sentence of the charges it actually absolves him of the crime altogether, '....so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence." They will then argue that the State can not charge him with a crime that he has already been found innocent of.

It is pretty shaky legal grounds, but I have no doubt it will be argued.

Sounds pretty shaky.

 

[Thebobo]

You mean exactly like the Democratic party opposing federal immigration law, right? LOL

No lol but lol you lol use lol to lol many lols, lol.

 

[interchange]

I don't have the time or patience at the moment to read through all the comments and Trumps words on this pardoning, but perhaps someone could answer something: has Trump at any point condemned the abuses of power that were the basis of Arpaio's conviction in the first place? I would think it safe to assume not, but it's worth asking. I could tolerate though not agree with a stance where Trump condemn's his behavior but pardons him based on his age, service [sic] to the country, remorse, disproportionate punishment, lack of present threat to society, etc.

But it seems more likely that Trump pardoned him because he supports abuse of power.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I don't have the time or patience at the moment to read through all the comments and Trumps words on this pardoning, but perhaps someone could answer something: has Trump at any point condemned the abuses of power that were the basis of Arpaio's conviction in the first place? I would think it safe to assume not, but it's worth asking. I could tolerate though not agree with a stance where Trump condemn's his behavior but pardons him based on his age, service [sic] to the country, remorse, disproportionate punishment, lack of present threat to society, etc.

But it seems more likely that Trump pardoned him because he supports abuse of power.

No, he's actually reinforced them by a) the pardon itself, and b) personally extolling the virtues and actions of Arapaio.

 

[interchange]

No, he's actually reinforced them by a) the pardon itself, and b) personally extolling the virtues and actions of Arapaio.

That's the impression I got. And my strongest feelings have nothing to do with Arpaio and his actions themselves. It is a big huge deal that Trump actively encourages through his presidential powers abuses of power in any sort, didn't seek legal counsel to even attempt to understand the basis and facts of any conviction he would overturn, either didn't seek rational advice in how to present it to the media, wasn't presented it, or otherwise disregarded it.

The man is not afraid to show us his pitchfork, and it seems the public is more concerned with how he chooses to use it than the mere fact that he possesses it in the first place.

 

[Jhhnn]

Agent00f asked, and I gave my take on it as a previously uninterested party. Contempt of court does not impress me. What's an 85 year old going to do, give you the finger on the way to a nursing home? I'm looking for guilt of a worse crime.

He commanded the Maricopa County Sheriff's Dept to follow his illegal & unconsitutional orders ever after a federal judge ordered him to cease & desist. He held real power & abused it badly.

 

[J.Wilkins]

He commanded the Maricopa County Sheriff's Dept to follow his illegal & unconsitutional orders ever after a federal judge ordered him to cease & desist. He held real power & abused it badly.

Yeah, but those were just Latinos... Innocent citizens or not doesn't matter since it's worth anything that doesn't inconvenience the people for it. I mean, it's worth it for them since they only pay with the freedom of the nation that doesn't specifically apply to them.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Agent00f asked, and I gave my take on it as a previously uninterested party. Contempt of court does not impress me. What's an 85 year old going to do, give you the finger on the way to a nursing home? I'm looking for guilt of a worse crime.

Yeah. Fuck the rule of law/independence of the courts in the United States.

 

[agent00f]

Contempt of court? The guy will no longer be Sheriff, right? I'm assuming his ouster will not be undone. Therefore I consider it settled and Trump probably did the right thing here. An 85 year old, who is not violent, will not be wasting his last years in prison. Maybe he can pay for his own nursing home.

You have a problem with that? It wouldn't surprise me to learn that you hold yet another Republican trait if you think we need to increase our prison population over this.

Great job proving that conservatives will defend dear leader and his racists for anything. I bet the democrats who used to stick up for you feel pretty dumb now.

 

[Jaskalas]

It was the only crime charged, but hardly the only crime. It's all about what DAs are willing to charge and public officials rarely get charged in this way. Usually it ends up in civil courts, which is why Maricopa County has had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments against its police department for people who have been killed by the conditions in the jails, etc.

If Joe Arpaio doesn't belong in jail I don't know what public official does.

You're looking for guilt of a worse crime than refusing to obey court orders to stop using your official powers to attack your own constituents in a flagrant violation of the Constitution that you swore to uphold?

How is that not an extremely, EXTREMELY serious offense? That's about as serious an offense as you can commit while discharging official duties. It literally means that citizens under his jurisdiction lost the protections of the Constitution.

Abusing or torturing the prisoners would be far worse than mere racial profiling, or telling a Judge to go shove it. And again, much of my agreement is purely based on the guy's age. The rest is based on no other crimes than contempt of court. He is not guilty of other crimes. We do not throw people in jail for what we want, we do it based on what they are found guilty of in a court of law.

So in some respect Trump has made a mockery of it by not waiting until after sentencing, and maybe even a period of time after that. End of his term would have been "standard".

OTOH, you are also wanting to argue for ending the rule of law and holding people accountable for crimes of which they have not been found guilty. I'm not about to stand for that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Abusing or torturing the prisoners would be far worse than mere racial profiling, or telling a Judge to go shove it. And again, much of my agreement is purely based on the guy's age. The rest is based on no other crimes than contempt of court. He is not guilty of other crimes. We do not throw people in jail for what we want, we do it based on what they are found guilty of in a court of law.

So in some respect Trump has made a mockery of it by not waiting until after sentencing, and maybe even a period of time after that. End of his term would have been "standard".

OTOH, you are also wanting to argue for ending the rule of law and holding people accountable for crimes of which they have not been found guilty. I'm not about to stand for that.

Gawd. In the official statement, Trump praised Arpaio for usurping the power of the federal govt wrt immigration, which is why the court ultimately found him in contempt. Commanded by higher authority to cease & desist, he refused.

Read it again-

Throughout his time as Sheriff, Arpaio continued his life’s work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration.

What's the message to other wannabee fascist crusader top cops? "Fuck the federal judiciary & the rule of law. I've got your back."

That's how strongman rule takes over.

 

[fskimospy]

Abusing or torturing the prisoners would be far worse than mere racial profiling, or telling a Judge to go shove it. And again, much of my agreement is purely based on the guy's age. The rest is based on no other crimes than contempt of court. He is not guilty of other crimes. We do not throw people in jail for what we want, we do it based on what they are found guilty of in a court of law.

I never said we should throw him in jail for crimes he hasn't been convicted, in believe he should be prosecuted for those as well. His age is irrelevant, he's an unrepentant criminal and he should be in prison.

OTOH, you are also wanting to argue for ending the rule of law and holding people accountable for crimes of which they have not been found guilty. I'm not about to stand for that.

You're literally arguing for the end of the rule of law. You're trying to say that people can abuse their power, be convicted of a crime, and suffer no consequences. I'm not about to stand for that.

Do you understand just how badly this undermines the constitution?

 

[Puffnstuff]

You're literally arguing for the end of the rule of law. You're trying to say that people can abuse their power, be convicted of a crime, and suffer no consequences. I'm not about to stand for that.

Do you understand just how badly this undermines the constitution?

Nyet! I had a discussion with my father a few weeks ago and he got upset when I tried to explain to him that under common law interpretations of law change with societal norms. If society continues to decay morally and ethically then pretty much anything goes. Studying constitutional law really woke me to up the sad legal reality we live in.