Merged Trump Pardons Arpaio

Brainster said:
There are certainly arguments to be made that Arpaio was doing his job.
Click to expand...

Nope. There really aren't. Or at least, not any remotely rational ones - I'm sure some people out there could string together some absurdist "The sky is green because ham isn't made of cornfish" kind of thing that might technically count as an argument.

The specific thing he focused on and that was most directly related to the crime that he was convicted of:
1. Wasn't his job.
2. Violated the law.
3. Was done at the expense of doing his actual job.

I think #3 is important to recognize if anyone talks about Arpaio "doing his job" - all reasonable metrics of his job performance were not just bad but atrocious. Response time, cases cleared, crime rate, etc. were all terrible when compared to similar areas. So even if we completely ignored the thing he was pardoned for, in no way was Arpaio doing his job.

Except in the most basic sense that we paid him while he did all that stuff. Of course by that logic if I came into work, deleted all our files, and then took a dump on my boss' desk that would be me doing my job.

Also, for anyone who isn't fully versed in Sheriff Joe's career please know that the things you've been seeing are just the tip of the iceberg. They don't even begin to scratch the surface. I could tell you all about the time they arrested my brother for clapping (that was a big payout for wrongful arrest, the judge was PISSED) or the Space Tourism scam that Arpaio ran, or the time when he falsely accused his political opponent of murdering his (the opponent's) mom right before the election, or a million other things.

Brainster said:
Looking at the thread, a lot of people want to sentence Arpaio over crimes for which he has never been tried. Guess what? Unless Trump issued a blanket pardon, you can still go after him for those things.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in theory. I mean honestly he should have been in jail a long time ago. But that's the thing, it hasn't happened. This was like finally getting Capone on tax evasion. And even if we did manage to get him for one of his many, many, many other crimes - why wouldn't Trump just pardon him again?

Argumemnon said:
So do non-racists.
Click to expand...

Obviously this is anecdotal, but in my experience non-racists are way more likely to be aware of all the subtle ingrained types of racism in society and be willing to be introspective about it. That means that in the cases where I've personally seen what I would call a non-racist person be accused of racism they say something like "Sorry! Um... what part was racist, though? I certainly didn't intend any of it to be." and there's a conversation and things get sorted out. Meanwhile, racists often go right to being pissed off because how dare you accuse them of being racist, I bet *you're* the racist and I'm being oppressed by... etc. Again, I acknowledge that this is anecdotal.
 
This was posted on Twitter by the judicial clerk for the judge who cited Arpaio:
Judge Murray Snow was appointed by George W. Bush. He quoted Scalia favorably. He had a Romney Institute blotter on his desk...Arpaio now calls him “liberal” – this is flatly false. He is ideologically conservative and deeply devoted to the rule of law. Link
Click to expand...


This is the danger of people like Trump and Arpaio. They have no ethics. Opposed by a conservative Republican they'll smear them as quickly as they'd smear the most liberal Democrat. During the proceedings Arpaio also investigated the judge's wife because of comments she was alleged to have made. Arpaio received the information in "an email from a tipster."

The sheriff admitted that his former attorney had hired the private investigator to look into a tipster's allegation that Snow's wife had told someone at a restaurant that Snow wanted to prevent Arpaio from being reelected. Arpaio's amazing rationalization: "We weren't investigating you. We were investigating some comments that came to our attention." Link
Click to expand...
 
Argumemnon said:
Well that's the point; what makes him a racist is the stuff that distinguishes him from non-racists, obviously.
Click to expand...

He must not be a racist, he was only appealing to racist voters who demanded he violate the civil rights of the lesser races.
 
Stacko said:
Arpaio got a pardon after deleting thousands of emails.


I seem to recall this being a huge offense during the campaign.
Click to expand...
During one of Arpaio's campaigns or Trump's presidential campaign? Because the Orange Führer has also destroyed countless documents that were requested in his (civil) litigations.

Whenever I hear that a party destroyed relevant documents, personally I conclude that the point that the other party wanted to prove with those documents is apparently true. IMHO, that would also be the correct sanction in litigation.
 
ddt said:
During one of Arpaio's campaigns or Trump's presidential campaign? Because the Orange Führer has also destroyed countless documents that were requested in his (civil) litigations.

Whenever I hear that a party destroyed relevant documents, personally I conclude that the point that the other party wanted to prove with those documents is apparently true. IMHO, that would also be the correct sanction in litigation.
Click to expand...

During Arpaio's trial. He was ordered to preserve emails and deleted them in response. They were able to recover many after this. They mostly contained a cornucopia of racist memes.
 
SOdhner said:
I think #3 is important to recognize if anyone talks about Arpaio "doing his job" - all reasonable metrics of his job performance were not just bad but atrocious. Response time, cases cleared, crime rate, etc. were all terrible when compared to similar areas. So even if we completely ignored the thing he was pardoned for, in no way was Arpaio doing his job.

Except in the most basic sense that we paid him while he did all that stuff. Of course by that logic if I came into work, deleted all our files, and then took a dump on my boss' desk that would be me doing my job.
Click to expand...

Which is ironic, because allegedly, reactionaries object to an overreaching government bureaucrat wasting taxpayer dollars on personal empire building. But hey, if he's beating up the brownies, well, that's not waste then I guess.



SOdhner said:
Also, for anyone who isn't fully versed in Sheriff Joe's career please know that the things you've been seeing are just the tip of the iceberg. They don't even begin to scratch the surface. I could tell you all about the time they arrested my brother for clapping (that was a big payout for wrongful arrest, the judge was PISSED) or the Space Tourism scam that Arpaio ran, or the time when he falsely accused his political opponent of murdering his (the opponent's) mom right before the election, or a million other things.
Click to expand...

This is the silver lining. There's potential for other cases to be brought forward. This crook was not very famous outside his state, so the national exposure means more funds for new plaintiffs.



SOdhner said:
Yeah, in theory. I mean honestly he should have been in jail a long time ago. But that's the thing, it hasn't happened. This was like finally getting Capone on tax evasion. And even if we did manage to get him for one of his many, many, many other crimes - why wouldn't Trump just pardon him again?
Click to expand...

Ideally, any future conviction might be state criminal code, which the president can't pardon. He only has the power to pardon federal convictions.
 
SOdhner said:
<snip>

Obviously this is anecdotal, but in my experience non-racists are way more likely to be aware of all the subtle ingrained types of racism in society and be willing to be introspective about it. That means that in the cases where I've personally seen what I would call a non-racist person be accused of racism they say something like "Sorry! Um... what part was racist, though? I certainly didn't intend any of it to be." and there's a conversation and things get sorted out. Meanwhile, racists often go right to being pissed off because how dare you accuse them of being racist, I bet *you're* the racist and I'm being oppressed by... etc. Again, I acknowledge that this is anecdotal.
Click to expand...

First off, if "racist" encompasses everything from not being up to speed on the latest changes to approved vernacular all the way to KKK Grand Dragon, the word starts to lose its punch.

My anecdotal observation is nearly every time I or another accused person ask for clarification/unpacking, that request itself is portrayed as hostile/micro-aggression/gaslighting/invalidating.

Believe it or not, some people have no interest in conflict resolution or social justice, they are just amused by emotionally blackmailing people.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
First off, if "racist" encompasses everything from not being up to speed on the latest changes to approved vernacular all the way to KKK Grand Dragon, the word starts to lose its punch.

My anecdotal observation is nearly every time I or another accused person ask for clarification/unpacking, that request itself is portrayed as hostile/micro-aggression/gaslighting/invalidating.

Believe it or not, some people have no interest in conflict resolution or social justice, they are just amused by emotionally blackmailing people.
Click to expand...

While I think you're right, it gets further complicated in that some people who ask for clarification/unpacking are themselves being disingenuous.

Anecdotally I've found myself on the the other end, trying to patiently explain why for instance asking an Asian person "No where are you really from?" may not be cool and getting JAQing off in bad faith.

In fact, more recently on a lot of issues where there tends to be a liberal/conservative divide I've found myself in a position where I see someone in disagreement with who is asking questions and seems open to discussion, but it quickly gets somewhere like this-

"So we both agree that if A is true then B is true, right?'
"Yes."
"And we both agree that A is true right?"
"Yes."
"So then B is true"
"What? No, of course not."

One part of dealing with racism, is that it's kind of unfair that people of color often get tasked with the huge emotional and real labor of explaining racism, often to people who aren't communicating in good faith. It can be exhausting and irritating, so it isn't too surprising that some people don't want to assume good faith in people who don't do their own work in learning about racism and expect people affected by it to fight them into it.
 
Joe Arpaio saga isn't over: Judge to decide if his conviction stands

I'm guessing the judge will ultimately capitulate, but she's going to get her pound of flesh first.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton canceled former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's upcoming sentencing hearing for his criminal contempt-of-court conviction, telling attorneys not to file replies to motions that were pending before his recent presidential pardon.

However, Bolton on Tuesday stopped short of throwing out the conviction based solely on Arpaio's request. Instead she ordered Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is prosecuting the case, to file briefs on why she should or shouldn't grant Arpaio's request.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
Seems to indicate?

What case?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't buy that either. Would an innocent person be expected to remain in prison on principle instead of accepting a pardon? I wouldn't hold anyone to that standard of integrity.
 
Babbylonian said:
Yeah, I don't buy that either. Would an innocent person be expected to remain in prison on principle instead of accepting a pardon? I wouldn't hold anyone to that standard of integrity.
Click to expand...


Doesn't it happen all the time for prisoners who would be eligible for parole but maintain their innocence so they're not released on license?

EDIT: Or what others have said above.

There's a whole Wikipedia page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_prisoner's_dilemma
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom