Apparently Joe Arpaio was innocent of the charges - after all

[BobRyan]

Have not done a lot of research on the topic - but I did see this --

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opin...n-only-way-arpaio-can-find-justice/588392001/

(Almost impossible to find in Google search - but comes up at the top on Yahoo search).

Having attended Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s criminal contempt as lead trial counsel, it is now difficult to restrain myself from commenting on the inaccurate statements about the sheriff’s case and our president’s consideration of a pardon. All I hear and read is that this purposefully invokes racism at every turn. Wrong.

Sheriff Joe’s criminal contempt trial had nothing to do with race. He is not a racist or a fascist either. He is a lawman. In fact, the United States Department of Justice admitted before trial that it is “unaware of facts” that would support “that Defendant and other MCSO officers detained plaintiffs on the basis of race.”

Sheriff Joe is not a racist. I have seen racists and he is not one of them. But that is not what the trial was all about.

Arpaio's trial was an 'assault on logic'

No wonder he was up for a pardon from the President.


The Sheriff was enforcing the Law passed by congress. That point does not change.

I love this quote from the quoted text above

"In fact, the United States Department of Justice admitted before trial that it is “unaware of facts” that would support “that Defendant and other MCSO officers detained plaintiffs on the basis of race."


Many/most American citizens (even voters) believe that taking the Sheriff's Oath of Office means that the Sheriff is sworn by an oath - to uphold the Law. To carry out orders "I can lawfully execute" as stated in that oath.

Presumably Arpaio took such an oath of office.

Many have argued that a Sheriff that is condemned because he chooses to uphold the laws in America - violates Constitutional intent and the written law of the land.

"Bolton ruled that Arpaio had willfully violated a 2011 court order issued by another federal district judge, G. Murray Snow, which ordered the sheriff to halt detention based solely on suspicion of a person’s immigration status, when there was no evidence that a state law had been broken."

The idea in that "newly invented law" being that if they are suspected of being guilty of violation of federal LAW (in this case one dealing with immigration) - but NOT ALSO guilty of violation of STATE LAW -- then it will be "illegal" to detain them.

The argument was never "but they were not guilty of violating federal law".

So in this case - A pardon for Law enforcement officer who chose the LAW over leftism is what is being discussed.

==== as opposed to pardon members of domestic terrorist groups like FALN

from Why Did Obama Free This Terrorist?

On January 17, 2017, as one of the final acts of his presidency, Barack Obama commuted the sentence of 74-year-old Oscar Lopez Rivera, the Puerto Rican nationalist who had served 35 years of a 55-year conviction for the crime of “seditious conspiracy,” as well as attempted robbery, explosives and vehicle-theft charges. Thanks to Obama’s intercession, Lopez will be freed in May.
...
Most Americans may not have heard of Lopez, or the organization he helped lead, the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN), a radical Marxist Puerto Rican independence group. With the focus of post-9/11 terrorism falling almost exclusively on Islamist radicals, the violent nationalists of yesteryear—Puerto Rican, Cuban, Croatian and Jewish—have faded into obscurity. But during the FALN’s explosive heyday under Lopez’s leadership, the group was anything but obscure. In fact, from 1974, when the group announced itself with its first bombings, to 1983, when arrests finally destroyed its membership base, the FALN was the most organized, active, well-trained and deadly domestic terror group based in the United States.

The FALN was responsible for over 130 bombings during this period...

 

[mark kennedy]

You don't know how powerful the liberal left is, they dominate the courts and rarely hold those who hold their views accountable. I've seen what they have done to my party and rest assured, it's not enough to convince me the Democratic party is wrong. I think the pardon was a political decision and the states, especially Arizona, have passed some pretty strict laws about illegal immigration. If we don't start protecting our boarder there will be even more tension between the state and federal powers that be. The Federal government is going to lose that one.

 

[BobRyan]

Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt earlier this summer for defying a judge's order that his deputies stop detaining immigrants because they lacked legal status. His deputies carried on the practice for 18 months.
.

hmm so the judge wanted to "make a new law"- one that said that "upholding the actual law as defined by Congress" should be "illegal"???

hmm who "makes LAWs" ?? the Judicial branch or the Legislative one? Some remedial civics classes might be in order.

Seems like both sides may be making the same point on this one.

 

[DaisyDay]

You realize that was an opinion piece from the good sheriff's lead counsel, right?

 

[lasthero]

Almost impossible to find in Google search - but comes up at the top on Yahoo search

That should be a red flag.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Have not done a lot of research on the topic - but I did see this --

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opin...n-only-way-arpaio-can-find-justice/588392001/

(Almost impossible to find in Google search - but comes up at the top on Yahoo search).



No wonder he was up for a pardon from the President.

Indeed the case was over Joe being found in contempt of court. Was he or was he not found in contempt of court?

Joe, who made a name for himself by strictly and unswervingly enforcing the law, even going so far as to denigrate prisoners under his care, should be man enough to take his lumps when he gets them.

Joe proved to be able to dish it out, but thankfully didn't have to take it thanks to his friend, Trump.

So much for those who care about law and order I guess.

 

[Arcangl86]

Sheriff Joe's lawyer wrote an article that he is innocent. Yeah he has no angle.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Liberals with their judges and Laws are destroying America. Where are the “good people” and “Second Amendment People” to make America great again?

 

[tulc]

(snip)

No wonder he was up for a pardon from the President.

Because his lawyer (who lost the case) and President Trump seem to be the only two people who don't care about the law when it comes to the Sheriff?
tulc(sounds legit)

 

[Paulos23]

The pardon doesn't make him innocent. The fact he took it is a admitting that he is guilty, otherwise why take the pardon?

 

[BobRyan]

The pardon doesn't make him innocent. The fact he took it is a admitting that he is guilty, otherwise why take the pardon?

Accepting a pardon is not admitting guilt - it is finding a way of escape from an oppressive unhinged left-wing agenda that had finally cornered a Police Chief for daring to enforce immigration laws already passed by congress.

I think I am just stating the obvious here - someone please point out if I have made a mistake.

 

[BobRyan]

Because his lawyer (who lost the case) and President Trump seem to be the only two people who don't care about the law when it comes to the Sheriff?
tulc(sounds legit)

The Sheriff was enforcing the Law passed by congress. That point does not change.

I love this quote from the OP

In fact, the United States Department of Justice admitted before trial that it is “unaware of facts” that would support “that Defendant and other MCSO officers detained plaintiffs on the basis of race.

================ as opposed to pardon members of FALN

from Why Did Obama Free This Terrorist?

On January 17, 2017, as one of the final acts of his presidency, Barack Obama commuted the sentence of 74-year-old Oscar Lopez Rivera, the Puerto Rican nationalist who had served 35 years of a 55-year conviction for the crime of “seditious conspiracy,” as well as attempted robbery, explosives and vehicle-theft charges. Thanks to Obama’s intercession, Lopez will be freed in May.
...
Most Americans may not have heard of Lopez, or the organization he helped lead, the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN), a radical Marxist Puerto Rican independence group. With the focus of post-9/11 terrorism falling almost exclusively on Islamist radicals, the violent nationalists of yesteryear—Puerto Rican, Cuban, Croatian and Jewish—have faded into obscurity. But during the FALN’s explosive heyday under Lopez’s leadership, the group was anything but obscure. In fact, from 1974, when the group announced itself with its first bombings, to 1983, when arrests finally destroyed its membership base, the FALN was the most organized, active, well-trained and deadly domestic terror group based in the United States.

The FALN was responsible for over 130 bombings during this period...

 

[cow451]

You realize that was an opinion piece from the good sheriff's lead counsel, right?

Dang it! Facts.

 

[szechuan]

Accepting a pardon is not admitting guilt - it is finding a way of escape from an oppressive unhinged left-wing agenda that had finally cornered a Police Chief for daring to enforce immigration laws already passed by congress.

yeah, the oppressive left is so unhinged trying to Enforce Federal Law. How dare they.

There are ways to Enforce Immigration laws Passed by Congress without Discrimination and treating them like animals.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

That should be a red flag.

That seem very logical.

 

[Arcangl86]

Accepting a pardon is not admitting guilt - it is finding a way of escape from an oppressive unhinged left-wing agenda that had finally cornered a Police Chief for daring to enforce immigration laws already passed by congress.

Actually it is an admission of guilt.

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.

Burdick V. US

The Sheriff was enforcing the Law passed by congress. That point does not change.

Except he was violating the constitution in how he did so, and actually didn't have the authority to enforce immigration law for most of the time under question.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I think I am just stating the obvious here - someone please point out if I have made a mistake.

Ok. Right here:

Accepting a pardon is not admitting guilt

What would he be "pardoned" from if he wasn't already guilty of a crime?

 

[Maren]

The Sheriff was enforcing the Law passed by congress. That point does not change.

I love this quote from the OP

Do you realize when this trial started? Or even why it started? The reason for the case is because the Maricopa Sherriff's Department, which was run by Arapio, detained a Mexican National traveling on a legal tourist visa. The man had the visa with him, showed it to the officers but they still detained him. He was released 9 hours later after the sheriff's office turned the man over to the INS.

This suit was started by this man and turned into a class action suit, largely Latinos that felt they had been illegally singled out and detained. In December 2011, a judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs -- that the Sheriff's Department, based on policies of Sheriff Arapio, was violating the Constitution.

That quote you like so much is likely a decade old -- and is cut up in such a way that it may not even say exactly what the editorial makes it say. I'd really like to see the full quote, as well as the context, and when it was actually issued. It isn't surprising, though, that the Justice Department a decade ago was not aware of a case they were not involved in.

================ as opposed to pardon members of FALN

That's some nice whataboutism there, but it would be nice if you got the facts straight. The man was not pardoned. Instead, he served 35 years, was 74 years old, and Obama commuted the remainder of the man's sentence. The man remains an ex-convict and his criminal record remain, just that he is no longer in prison.

 

[Allandavid]

Accepting a pardon is not admitting guilt - it is finding a way of escape from an oppressive unhinged left-wing agenda that had finally cornered a Police Chief for daring to enforce immigration laws already passed by congress.

I think I am just stating the obvious here - someone please point out if I have made a mistake.

You've made a mistake...

 

[morningstar2651]

Accepting a pardon is not admitting guilt

Yes it is. If someone is not guilty, then they do not need a pardon.

Instead of taking this to an appeal, the former Sheriff admitted guilt to get out of jail free.

A pardon doesn't mean the former Sheriff has a clean criminal record - he was still found guilty and it's still on record.