Trump has pardoned former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio

Potato/potatoe? Or more like, fact and made up claims....

 

I didn't go throught all of the list of people Obama pardonned, but at a quick glance it looks like minor drug infractions and a miscelany of minor economical offences towards institutions.

Nothing about abusing people or their rights, AFAICS.

 

So, your claim is that because judicial orders can be overturned, that means the President is completey insulated from criticism for circumventing the law for political allies?

 

It has always been one of the more disgusting characteristics of deplorables that they make heroes of bigots and opportunists who blatantly play to their prejudices and ignorance.

Joe Arpio accomplished very little as sherriff. But he did become nationally famous for persecuting people for the color of their skin. He used his office to promote prejudice, fear and the idea that the law need not obey the law.

And he built a national reputation as champion of bigots everywhere.

Trump aligns himself with these cretins.

We don't need to hear any of the weak rationalizations about Trump's dog whistle response to Charlottesville, or any more inflating of the role that a few Anttifa clowns played.

Trump pardoned a man who is a lightening rod for bigots everywhere.

There is no doubt where he stands now, and no excuses.

 

Certainly an on topic cite but the case didn't involve an elected office or conflicting and countervailing law. The laws being enforced were not found wanting constitutionally. Nor were the laws commanding the sheriff to enforce the laws questioned.

I doubt the Supreme Court would rule as the Brennan court did, the legal position of the defendant as both sheriff and an elected official create very different questions of law and separation of powers.

 

It's not what he did but how he did it. Do try to thoughtfully focus.

 

-No judicial order was overturned and no law was circumvented.
-President is not insulated from criticism, nor are prosecutors, judges, verdicts
-Legal decisions made by judges, prosecutors, presidents within the limits of their legal authority should be equally respected whether you agree or disagree with them.

 

The Right cheers a conspiracy theorist who targeted judges in trumped up conspiracy investigations, which ended up costing the county MILLIONS in settlements costs after the judges sued. But they're for political witch hunts and costing governments money, right? They stomp their feet for a man who stymied sexual assault investigations, including a 13-yer old girl raped by her uncle that they dropped immediately even though the rape kit showed presence of semen. The Right lauds a man who misused over $100 million dollars of Mariscopa County funds.

This is the Right's hero. Because he takes down brown people. The Right is sick, and Joe deserves to be locked up for the rest of his miserable life.

 

Bigots. Nazis, Fascists, Racists, Russians, Homophobes, Misogynists... did I mention Racists and Nazis?

LOL did I miss any part of the liberal debate playbook?

 

You forgot bigots and sexists.

 

I voted Libertarian, but honestly I think Trump, like the rest of us, has his good points and his bad points. He is going to enjoy himself in the White House, and we can have fun with him or wail, gnash our teeth and pout for the next 3.5 years.

 

It does sends a weird signal.

 

Funny the Obama administration ignored immigration laws and that was OK with the left............The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

 

Can anyone point to where Joe Apiro was tried and convicted by an actual jury?

 

Really not so sure about that. At best, Trump appears to suffer it stoically.

"May you live interesting times" is a curse in China, I believe.

 

He wasn't nor were his appeals exausted.

 

By the time his appeals would have been exhausted, the conviction would have been served. None of which changes that the conviction was apparently done improperly to begin with.

 

Yes. The VIth amendment guarantees the right to jury trial. An exception has been traditionally recognized for petty offenses, where there is no danger of imprisonment. So this was either a petty offense (it wasn't) or the judge erred in denying his attorney's request for a jury trial.

On edit: "The sentencing phase will begin Oct. 5. Arpaio faces up to six months in confinement, a sentence equivalent to that of a misdemeanor." (From USA today.)

There are 3 levels of crime: petty offense, misdemeanor, and felony. If he was facing that much jail time, I think the judge was wrong to deny him a jury trial. Federal judges can be pretty arrogant.

 

Which must lead to another discussion, as to what would amount to a worse precedent: Donald Trump pardoning Joe Apiro for a conviction for violation of a court order that may be politically motivated, or allowing the matter to wind its way through the court system for months of years, and potentially be rejected all the way to and including the united state supreme court?

 

Well, I see now that, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the right to a federal jury trial attaches where the accused is facing more than 6 months incarceration. That's a ruling from 1970, is not supported by the text if the VIth Amemdment, and justices Douglas and Black (strong liberals, mind you) both wrote at the time that it should attach when any indicia of criminality is present.

I don't know about you, but if I were facing a single day's loss of liberty, I'd feel enttled to a jury trial.

 

Actually Trump made a righteous move because he pardoned a righteous man. Obama pardoned a traitor. It's not the same thing.

 

He pardoned a terrorist (FALN'S Oscar Lopez Rivera) and spy Chelsea Manning, along with 1,925 others.

 

He violated the 4th and 14th amendment.

 

85.

Won't have to worry about that worthless POS very much longer.

 

But he did uphold the law. It was the activist Judge who was out of line. That's why the President pardoned him.