Apparently Joe Arpaio was innocent of the charges - after all

[Allandavid]

I judge that says "I make it illegal for you too uphold your oath of office where you swear to uphold and defend the Laws of the land" -- puts a undue burden on Law enforcement.... obviously.

One of those "laws of the land" is to obey legally instituted orders of the court...

Arpaio was guilty of failing to abide by such an order. That guilt was confirmed by him accepting a pardon for his crime. Only guilty people need to be pardoned.

He's a criminal...

 

[Goonie]

There is some alternate reality that just might provide a fact for that conclusion

=============================

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."


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.

A pardon for someone who chose the LAW over leftism is what is being discussed.

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







And this matters "how"???



err.... um... "no" --

Did you have a fact to bring into your point. the contempt argument was in the context of first trying to find a legal way for the judiciary to invent new laws.

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

Even the DOJ has nothing to refute it.

"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."

=================================

And no "NEW" DoJ revelations "since".

Go to the border and you will find " LAW enforcement "detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally"

Arpaio "He was convicted July 31 of criminal contempt for disobeying a federal judge's order on detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally."
Trump asked Sessions to drop charges against Arpaio months ago: report

Sorry but in this reality the Judge made no such order. judge arpaio was ordered to cease stopping people on the basis of the colour of their skin, he refused and last month was found guilty of contempt. Please stop defending this racist criminal.

 

[AirPo]

what guilt??

Of the crime he was convicted of. You know, the one he needed to be pardoned for.

 

[AirPo]

I judge that says "I make it illegal for you too uphold your oath of office where you swear to uphold and defend the Laws of the land" -- puts a undue burden on Law enforcement.... obviously.

Good thing that didn't happen. Obviously.

 

[TLK Valentine]

what guilt??

Guilt of the charge of contempt of court -- don't you even know what Joe was found guilty and (by accepting the pardon) admits to?

 

[FreeinChrist]

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."

Source? You need a link.

Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia - regarding a Federal class action suit against Arpaio

In his September 2009 deposition in the case, Arpaio testified he had never read the complaint in the case, was unfamiliar with the details of the allegations of racial profiling therein, didn't know the content of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and had never read the Department of Justice's guidelines concerning the use of race in investigations, which would have applied to his deputies in the field when they were still operating under a 287(g) program agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He insisted, however, that his deputies didn't profile based on ethnicity or race.[137]

In a December 2011 order, Judge Snow sanctioned Arpaio and the MCSO for acknowledged destruction of records in the case.[138][139][140] Judge Snow also stated:

"Sheriff Arpaio has made public statements that a fact finder could interpret as endorsing racial profiling, such as stating that, even lacking 287(g) authority, his officers can detain people based upon 'their speech, what they look like, if they look like they came from another country'... Moreover, he acknowledges that MCSO provides no training to reduce the risk of racial profiling, stating 'if we do not racial profile, why would I do a training program?'"[129] Judge Snow expanded the complaint into a class-action lawsuit, including all Latino drivers stopped by the Sheriff's Office since 2007, or who will be stopped in the future. He also enjoined the MCSO and all of its officers from "detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States, because as a matter of law such knowledge does not amount to a reasonable belief that the person either violated or conspired to violate the Arizona human smuggling statute, or any other state or federal criminal law." [129]​

No training, didn't know the 14th amendment, never read the DOJ guide about race.....that is classic Joe.

Joe operated outside what he was authorized to do. That was the problem. From the same link:

On December 15, 2011, the Justice Department released their findings after a 3-year investigation of Arpaio's office amid complaints of racial profiling and a culture of bias at the agency's top level. The report stated that under Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has "a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos" that "reaches the highest levels of the agency."[185]

The Justice Department accused Arpaio of engaging in "unconstitutional policing" by unfairly targeting Latinos for detention and arrest, and retaliating against critics.[186] In the report, a Justice Department expert concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history.[187]

Based on the Justice Department report on discriminatory policing practices within the MCSO, on December 15, 2011, the United States Department of Homeland Security revoked the MCSO's federal authority to identify and detain illegal immigrants.[188]​

 

[Maren]

There is some alternate reality that just might provide a fact for that conclusion

=============================

No, as this thread has clearly shown, it is reality. I can't help it if you are trying to live in some fantasy world.

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 I've pointed out, it would be interesting to see the full quote, not the two snippets that the defense lawyer has quote mined from the full quote. I strongly suspect that the full quote does not match what you are trying to portray them as saying. In fact, I'm guessing the full quote alludes to the fact they were not involved and because of that "unaware of the facts." It is also worth pointing out, yet again, "before trial" was over a decade ago.

The statement becomes completely meaningless when you realize 1) this quote is a decade old and 2) that the DoJ was not involved, in any fashion, in the trial.

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.

This is merely argumentum ad populum, that "many" argue it does not make it any more correct, just as your repeatedly making the assertion after we keep proving you incorrect does not make the statement any more true.

A pardon for someone who chose the LAW over leftism is what is being discussed.

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

Again, no FALN members were pardoned (though some non-violent offenders had their sentences commuted) after serving years of their sentence. Though this is merely whataboutism, it has nothing to do with the topic and does not change that Arapio is guilty of the charges.

And this matters "how"???



err.... um... "no" --

Did you have a fact to bring into your point. the contempt argument was in the context of first trying to find a legal way for the judiciary to invent new laws.

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

Even the DOJ has nothing to refute it.

"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."

=================================

Repeating this does not make it any more true that when you posted it the first time in this post. It is still quote mined segments of a statement made a decade ago by the DOJ.

And no "NEW" DoJ revelations "since".

And this is totally false. But thanks for helping me show how the DOJ statement is not only old but no longer relevant, since the DOJ sued Arapio for exactly this reason in 2012. Quit trying to claim the DoJ was unaware of facts that Arapio and the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department was detaining people based on race.

Go to the border and you will find " LAW enforcement "detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally"

Arpaio "He was convicted July 31 of criminal contempt for disobeying a federal judge's order on detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally."
Trump asked Sessions to drop charges against Arpaio months ago: report

And, again, the issue wasn't Arapio detaining people suspected of being in the US illegally; the issue was Arapio illegally finding reasons to stop people of Hispanic origin and often detaining them, even turning them over to INS, even after they had provided documentation of being in the US legally.[/QUOTE]

 

[TLK Valentine]

And, again, the issue wasn't Arapio detaining people suspected of being in the US illegally; the issue was Arapio illegally finding reasons to stop people of Hispanic origin and often detaining them, even turning them over to INS, even after they had provided documentation of being in the US legally.

Documentation, schmocumentation -- this is the same Joe who swore Obama's birth certificate was a doctored fraud. They were Hispanic; that's all the evidence Joe ever needed.

 

[Maren]

Documentation, schmocumentation -- this is the same Joe who swore Obama's birth certificate was a doctored fraud. They were Hispanic; that's all the evidence Joe ever needed.

Well, except for Obama, but he still didn't have white skin.

 

[BobRyan]

Good thing the judge did not do that.

There is some alternate reality that just might provide a fact for that conclusion

=============================

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."


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.

A pardon for someone who chose the LAW over leftism is what is being discussed.

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


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

Even the DOJ has nothing to refute it.

"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."

=================================

And no "NEW" DoJ revelations "since".

Go to the border and you will find " LAW enforcement "detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally"

Arpaio "He was convicted July 31 of criminal contempt for disobeying a federal judge's order on detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally."
Trump asked Sessions to drop charges against Arpaio months ago: report

And, again, the issue wasn't Arapio detaining people suspected of being in the US illegally; the issue was Arapio illegally finding reasons to stop people of Hispanic origin and often detaining them, even turning them over to INS, even after they had provided documentation of being in the US legally.

1. "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."

Go to the border and you will find " LAW enforcement "detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally"

Arpaio "He was convicted July 31 of criminal contempt for disobeying a federal judge's order on detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally."
Trump asked Sessions to drop charges against Arpaio months ago: report

Which means in the case of the "conviction" stated above - a few months time in prison.

 

[BobRyan]

And, again, the issue wasn't Arapio detaining people suspected of being in the US illegally; the issue was Arapio illegally finding reasons to stop people of Hispanic origin and often detaining them, even turning them over to INS, even after they had provided documentation of being in the US legally.

Which is not the July 31 conviction.

 

[AirPo]

what guilt??

Which is not the July 31 conviction.

Glad to see you are catching up.

 

[Maren]

Which is not the July 31 conviction.

True, but it is the reason for the conviction. Arapio illegally arrested and detained various people, and the court used the order, which Arapio refused to obey, in an attempt to prevent others from being similarly illegally arrested and/or detained. When Arapio showed multiple times that he would not obey orders of the court, he was then brought to trial, and convicted in another court, for not following a lawful order issued by a judge.

 

[lasthero]

True, but it is the reason for the conviction. Arapio illegally arrested and detained various people, and the court used the order, which Arapio refused to obey, in an attempt to prevent others from being similarly illegally arrested and/or detained. When Arapio showed multiple times that he would not obey orders of the court, he was then brought to trial, and convicted in another court, for not following a lawful order issued by a judge.

I feel like this point has been repeated multiple times. I don't think it's getting through.

 

[Arcangl86]

I feel like this point has been repeated multiple times. I don't think it's getting through.

He just keeps responding with the same post. It's not even the same argument, but the literal same post.

 

[szechuan]

He just keeps responding with the same post. It's not even the same argument, but the literal same post.

most people without a good argument or who don't want to accept fact tend to do this all the time.

They act like Bots more then anything.

 

[jgarden]

The Supreme Court ruled in 1915 that when it comes to pardons, the “acceptance” carries “a confession of” guilt. Burdick v. United States (1915).

That interpretation has continued to the present - Arpaio and Trump can argue over his innocence, but the Supreme court ruling states otherwise.

If Sherriff Arpaio truly wanted to establish his innocence, as a matter of principle, he would have refused the presidential pardon and appealed his conviction through the courts!

 

[Non sequitur]

Pretty sure the 28th Amendment solves this.

"Whichever political party holds office, at the time in question, is correct, as well as their supporters. The 'other side' is categorically wrong. Stop complaining, about whatever, and wait until it is your turn to be right. QED."

Looks like dems need to wait until 2020 or 2024, to be on the winning side of facts

 

[TLK Valentine]

There is some alternate reality that just might provide a fact for that conclusion

=============================

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."


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.

A pardon for someone who chose the LAW over leftism is what is being discussed.

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


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

Even the DOJ has nothing to refute it.

"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."

=================================

And no "NEW" DoJ revelations "since".

Go to the border and you will find " LAW enforcement "detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally"

Arpaio "He was convicted July 31 of criminal contempt for disobeying a federal judge's order on detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally."
Trump asked Sessions to drop charges against Arpaio months ago: report



1. "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."



Which means in the case of the "conviction" stated above - a few months time in prison.

Again, why did Joe limit himself to Arizona?

 

[grasping the after wind]

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)

But they aren't supposed to care about the law when it comes to being here illegally.