Merged Trump Pardons Arpaio

ChristianProgressive said:
The Constitution was never designed to prevent justice.

The man is responsible for gross violations of human rights, suicides, at least and at least one negligent homicide. He has to pay for his crimes!
Click to expand...

he wasn't convicted of any crimes for any of those alleged acts.
 
The Big Dog said:
looket them goal posts goooooo!

It is fine
Click to expand...

Because they can happen, doesn't mean that they do happen. I'd be very surprised to see any Judge toss a guaranteed 6 month contempt sentence into a maybe longer one by sending it to Jury.
 
Giz said:
Pardoning arpaio was wrong. But not as wrong as suggesting the president should, if necessary, be assassinated to prevent it.
Click to expand...

By the time the full bill of particulars on Usurper Trump is known, this pardon will look like a misdemeanor jaywalking charge.
 
Nobody on either side cares about the law, the constitution or any judge's decisions unless they line up with their beliefs and desires.

When those things cease to overlap, we're all prepared to ignore those things.
 
*Sighs* Alright I'm gonna regret this one.

Okay my other big issue here is...

The last 5 or 6 Presidents. All handed out massive numbers (George Bush's pardoning of "only 77" was seen as rather shocking) of pardons/rescinded They all pardoned/rescinded the sentences of people who committed heinous crimes up to murder, terrorism, attempted assassination, and treason/espionage in some cases, all have pardoned members of their political parties or inner political circles, Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother, George Bush pardoned a guy who was arrested for making illegal campaign contributions specifically after agreed to make another, bigger, legal contribution.

Given all that does "racist" really cross some line? "Racist" isn't the worst thing a person can be. It's better than being murderer or a traitor.
 
All heil the goot Sheriff!

.
 

Attachments

  • heil_arpaio.jpg
    heil_arpaio.jpg
    19.1 KB · Views: 274
JoeBentley said:
*Sighs* Alright I'm gonna regret this one.

Okay my other big issue here is...

The last 5 or 6 Presidents. All handed out massive numbers (George Bush's pardoning of "only 77" was seen as rather shocking) of pardons/rescinded They all pardoned/rescinded the sentences of people who committed heinous crimes up to murder, terrorism, attempted assassination, and treason/espionage in some cases, all have pardoned members of their political parties or inner political circles, Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother, George Bush pardoned a guy who was arrested for making illegal campaign contributions specifically after agreed to make another, bigger, legal contribution.

Given all that does "racist" really cross some line? "Racist" isn't the worst thing a person can be. It's better than being murderer or a traitor.
Click to expand...

When terrorists, murderers and traitors are pardoned, it happens after they have served decades in jail. Releasing old men is an act of forgiveness and mercy and exactly how the power should be used, IMO.

Pardoning campaign contributors or brothers is an abuse of the system that smacks of corruption but, at least, it is usually done on the last day of office. The perp gets away with it once, but can't expect to get way with it again.

Pardoning Arpaio is not an act of mercy but an obstruction of justice. And since Trump will be in office for over 3 more years, one can easily see this as a message to all racists in office that they will have a free hand for whatever they do while Trump is president.
 
JoeBentley said:
*Sighs* Alright I'm gonna regret this one.

Okay my other big issue here is...

The last 5 or 6 Presidents. All handed out massive numbers (George Bush's pardoning of "only 77" was seen as rather shocking) of pardons/rescinded They all pardoned/rescinded the sentences of people who committed heinous crimes up to murder, terrorism, attempted assassination, and treason/espionage in some cases, all have pardoned members of their political parties or inner political circles, Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother, George Bush pardoned a guy who was arrested for making illegal campaign contributions specifically after agreed to make another, bigger, legal contribution.

Given all that does "racist" really cross some line? "Racist" isn't the worst thing a person can be. It's better than being murderer or a traitor.
Click to expand...

Joe is responsible for many deaths, negligent of sexual assaults in his jail and other awful things. He's not just a racist, he's a monstrous leader of a criminal operation.
 
JoeBentley said:
The last 5 or 6 Presidents. All handed out massive numbers (George Bush's pardoning of "only 77" was seen as rather shocking) of pardons/rescinded They all pardoned/rescinded the sentences of people who committed heinous crimes up to murder, terrorism, attempted assassination, and treason/espionage in some cases
Click to expand...

Thank you for bringing it up, gave me a reason to look over the listing of pardoned offenses.

For the moment, I just looked through George W. Obama, and George H.W Because Clinton, Regan and Carter's lists are much longer. They may be different, but you did use the word "all" so I think an observation of three lists is pretty valid.

Now I did speed read, so I may have missed something, but I did not see a single murder, act of terrorism or attempted assassination pardoned by those three. It was sort of interesting to see what did get pardoned.

Things that came up repeatedly were various kinds of fraud and dishonesty involving taxes, to be expected. Embezzelment, I figured it would be there, A lot of drug crime, sort of makes sense.

A fair amount of theft of mail by postal workers, huh.

Also a number of statutes specific to the production, distribution, sale and taxation of alcohol, that was surprising.

The vast majority was in the realm of white collar, or at least non-violent crime. There was one involuntary manslaughter, two bank robberies (pardoned by different presidents) and a couple burglaries on indian reservations. If there are other exceptions I missed, there are still very few.
 
PhantomWolf said:
785. Jury Trial

The Supreme Court has adopted the standard set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1(3) regarding the definition of a "petty offense," insofar as it has ruled that imprisonment for no more than six months for contempt is constitutionally permissible without a jury trial. Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (1974). See also Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147 (1969) (sentence of three years probation permissible without jury trial). However, the Court has declined to rule that contempt proceedings, at least as to organizations, resulting in fines of greater than the amount set out in 18 U.S.C. § 1(3) are automatically entitled to jury trials. See Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 477 (1975).

A court may, during the course of a trial, impose successive summary contempt orders resulting in an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of more than six months in the absence of a jury trial. Such sentencing is permissible so long as no one contempt order carries a sentence of greater than six months. If, however, the court chooses to impose a single finding of contempt at the termination of the trial, imprisonment for longer than six months is constitutionally impermissible without a jury trial, even if the judge calculates the sentence of imprisonment for each contempt at six months or less. See Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506 (1974).

If the contempt falls within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 402, contempts constituting crimes, then the contemnor is automatically entitled to a jury trial by reason of 18 U.S.C. § 3691.

There was no requirement for a Jury trial.
Click to expand...

It appears that one controlling factor is the amount of prison/fines at risk. Seems reasonable - my right to a trial by jury is at least partially dependent on what I'm putting at risk (my freedom/money).

One problem is knowing what's actually at risk. Sentencing isn't set in stone, is it? Suppose I don't take the trial (or go with a bench trial) and then get slammed with a double helping of prison?

Are there cases of contempt going to a jury trial?
 
marplots said:
It appears that one controlling factor is the amount of prison/fines at risk. Seems reasonable - my right to a trial by jury is at least partially dependent on what I'm putting at risk (my freedom/money).

One problem is knowing what's actually at risk. Sentencing isn't set in stone, is it? Suppose I don't take the trial (or go with a bench trial) and then get slammed with a double helping of prison?

Are there cases of contempt going to a jury trial?
Click to expand...

Yes there are, and the cases cited specifically discuss that. Why I was gratified to see phantom walk back the obviously false claim that there is no such thing as a jury trial in contempt proceedings, it creates a bigger question why the courts have grafted a six month rule on the right to a jury in the first place, particularly given that a judge is the trier of fact over a contempt of a fellow judge's order.
 
JoeBentley said:
*Sighs* Alright I'm gonna regret this one.

Okay my other big issue here is...

The last 5 or 6 Presidents. All handed out massive numbers (George Bush's pardoning of "only 77" was seen as rather shocking) of pardons/rescinded They all pardoned/rescinded the sentences of people who committed heinous crimes up to murder, terrorism, attempted assassination, and treason/espionage in some cases, all have pardoned members of their political parties or inner political circles, Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother, George Bush pardoned a guy who was arrested for making illegal campaign contributions specifically after agreed to make another, bigger, legal contribution.

Given all that does "racist" really cross some line? "Racist" isn't the worst thing a person can be. It's better than being murderer or a traitor.
Click to expand...

I'd feel differently if Arpaio had gotten a commutation after sentencing rather than a pardon. I'd also feel differently if he'd gotten pardoned after doing a little time. With the exception of the Mark Rich pardon - a truly vile thing that seriously taints Clinton's legacy - I'm not aware of any recent pardons for notorious crime that didn't involve some prison time.
 
In a normal Universe, a pardon obtains after conviction and punishment/restitution.

Here we have Trump rushing in even before sentencing, in effect telling the Courts to butt out, that he knows better.

I can see in this a kind of testing the waters, to see how far he can go in future when looking to circumvent legality concerning cronies and witnesses, all with the aim of dodging responsibility for his own malfeasance. But I don't necessarily credit the dolt with the cleverness to figure this out fully; most likely help from one or more perspicacious players is in play. Although what Orange brainpower could be brought to bear would certainly be directed toward his own immediate and personal needs.
 
Cavemonster said:
For the moment, I just looked through George W. Obama, and George H.W Because Clinton, Regan and Carter's lists are much longer. They may be different, but you did use the word "all" so I think an observation of three lists is pretty valid.

Now I did speed read, so I may have missed something, but I did not see a single murder, act of terrorism or attempted assassination pardoned by those three. It was sort of interesting to see what did get pardoned.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed Oscar Lopez Rivera:

López Rivera was part of a militant group that fought for Puerto Rican independence, called the FALN. "Between 1974 and 1983, the FALN claimed responsibility for more than 70 bombings in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C.," Marlon Bishop and Maria Hinojosa of NPR's Latino USA have reported. "The bombings caused millions in property damage, dozens of injuries and five deaths."
Click to expand...

Of course, he was a terrorist for a "good" cause, and so he's pretty much a hero to the Left:

The AP says López Rivera is expected to be honored in Chicago later this week, and as well as "at the June 11 Puerto Rican Day parade along New York's Fifth Avenue."
Click to expand...

Clinton earlier granted clemency to a bunch of FALN terrorists which was pretty controversial:

Congress condemned this action by President Clinton, with votes of 95–2 in the Senate and 311–41 in the House.
Click to expand...

Lopez Rivera was among those, but refused the offer of clemency; only a full-blown pardon would do for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom