"MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski asserted on Tuesday morning, with zero evidence, that President Donald Trump’s pardoning of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is the first of many such pardons and that they will do untold damage to the country. Brzezinski, the co-host of “Morning Joe,” claimed that Trump has embarked on a slippery slope that began with an Arizona sheriff but may end with Russian intelligence collaborators."

That is the left's new narrative: that Trump pardoned Arpaio in order to convince his "Russian co-conspirators to stay silent."

So now Trump is a genius with this elaborate scheme?  No mention of the 2,000 criminals Obama pardoned on his way out the door (he left like the cable guy who just clogged up your toilet)

There is only one person Trump is REALLY anxious to pardon, should it become "necessary".

(he left like the cable guy who just clogged up your toilet)

One of the best descriptions I have read!

An Arizona Sheriff pardoned for contempt of court vs. releasing terrorists.  Hmmm.....a constitutional crisis?  I think not. 

A contempt citation created by a liberal judge.

In a way I wish he had been able to appeal and beat the judge.

A contempt citation created by a liberal judge.

Actually a contempt citation for refusing to obey a judge's lawful order to stop discriminating against U.S. citizens. 

Or are you okay with a sheriff telling his deputies to harass citizens purely because of their appearance?

Or are you okay with a sheriff telling his deputies to harass citizens purely because of their appearance?

The police can stop for other violations.  At that time they can ask for identity.  That would be a legal stop.  Do you want the police to ignore crime? 

Are you OK with open borders?

Under the Constitution is the standard of "Probable Cause" ... Racist politicians and law enforcement equivocators ... and WORSE ... In recent years have unconstitutionally tried to weaken, if not totally bastardized that standard to the bullshit, so-called nebulosity of "reasonable suspicion" ...

America is sinking to deplorable levels of bigotry and xenophobia to the delight of willing dupes, and because of the lazy, dead ass fool who sits home on Election Day and bitches about politicians on the other 364.

Ignorance, hatred and outright stupidity have put a lying, pussy-grabbing ego-maniac in charge ... 

... and far too many religionists piss in the flood waters in Houston by cheering Ann Coulter who says the flood is "God's way of punishing its citizens for electing a Lesbian as mayor"!

WTF is wrong with some of you?

Amac, you misrepresented the meaning of what she said.

Please explain Coulter's meaning ... particularly which part I misrepresented.

I insist!

The police can stop for other violations.  At that time they can ask for identity.  That would be a legal stop.  Do you want the police to ignore crime?

Except that's not what they were doing.  Arpaio was successfully sued more times than any other sheriff for harassment and discrimination of US citizens because they "looked" hispanic. 

He and his deputies did not wait for crimes to be committed, they either stopped them for no other reason than their appearance, or followed them for hours or even days waiting for them to give them an excuse to arrest them.  Just do a little research about the many lawsuits against him.

He was sued by the open border PC crowd for made up charges.

If one is looking for illegals from central America you don't look for blonde blue eyed people from MN.

Now why do you not want the border enforced?  Are you an open border supporter?

If one is looking for illegals from central America you don't look for blonde blue eyed people from MN.

Meanwhile the blonde blue eyed illegal from Canada, UK or other parts of the world is living here freely and giving a second glance!

Now why do you not want the border enforced?  

Why do you not want police to abide by the 4th Amendment?

Are you an open border supporter?

Are you against the Constitution?

The police can stop for other violations.  At that time they can ask for identity.  That would be a legal stop.  

Except investigations showed that's not what Arpaio and his deputies were doing

Do you want the police to ignore crime? 

Do you want police to ignore the 4th Amendment?

Do you want police to ignore the 4th Amendment?

I support the constitution and the law.

Why do you support those who break the law?  Why do you want the police to not investigate illegal activity?

Why do you approve of police who investigate illegal activities doing so in Illegal fashion?

I don't.

That is the fine line that must be drawn.  Illegal aliens are violating the law.  The tools used must also not violate the law.

Officers can stop, ask and frisk.  That has been through the court in Terry v Ohio.  If the stop doesn't violate the parameters of Terry it is legal.

That is another reason the judge could be on shaky ground in her ruling.  She also must keep her ruling in compliance with Terry or it will be overturned.

The pardon came too soon.

caselaw.findlaw

" The tools used must also not violate the law."

Someone should have told old Joe. He didn't see o understand that.

Now maybe he does after he was voted out of his job and criminally charged. 

I doubt it though, he like many other can't seem to admit or take responsibility if and when they are wrong.

Someone should have told old Joe. He didn't see o understand that.

Had the premature pardon not happened the judge could easily be shown to not understand SCOTUS rulings on the way police can legally stop, ask and frisk.

Terry v Ohio

Officers can stop, ask and frisk.

Not while driving they cant, nor can they go door to door asking for papers, or going into private businesses.....all of these things are in violation of a Terry Stop

And they still need reasonable ARTICULABLE suspicion of an illegal act.....now please articulate for everyone why you think this brown person walking down the street is an illegal immigrant thereby breaking the law

Not while driving they cant, nor can they go door to door asking for papers, or going into private businesses.....all of these things are in violation of a Terry Stop

The police can stop a car if they suspect a violation.  They can go to a door based on a tip. They can't enter without a warrant but for exigent circumstances.  Private business can't exclude the police if they are also open to the public.  A warrant will get the police in private places.  

Illegal aliens are violating the law.

But not in any way that would tell the police that they were in country illegally.  That is why there is no way to use that fact to create probable cause for the police.  Arpaio's department was stopping people based purely on outward appearance, with no other evidence to support many of the stops.

An officer can stop and talk to anyone they want to for any reason they want to.  Detention of a person beyond conversation requires probable cause.

Terry v Ohio

If you STOP a person to force them to talk to you, they are being DETAINED by you.  That does not however give you any legal right to question them about their legal status.

That stop is covered in Terry.  It is legal.

Not without probable cause for the stop.  Plus you would be asking them for a self incriminating statement, without reading them their Miranda rights.

So in a nutshell:

You have imposed yourself on someone, thus stopping them from doing what they were doing, effectively putting them in custody (even if only temporarily).

You have questioned them about a crime you think they may have committed, but without having read them their rights.

You have no probable cause for the original contact other than "they look Mexican".

You feel this is legal???

You feel this is legal???

As long as the stop complies with Terry v Ohio it is.  Terry has stated that a cop can stop and talk to you for any reason.

Have you even read Terry vs Ohio???

392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

Terry vs Ohio speaks only to a police officer checking for weapons for their own safety, IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THEM TO STOP AND QUESTION A PERSON WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.

I have read it all!

It goes beyond that section.  A cop can stop and talk to anyone they want.  To go beyond that there needs to be reasonable suspicion.

Why do you support those who break the law?  Why do you want the police to not investigate illegal activity

I have no problem with police investigating illegal activity........as long as it's done the right way and legally

So when a police pulls someone over for absolutely no reason other than to check their immigration status that a violation of their 4th Amendment right....i.e. breaking the law! Which means YOU are the one supporting those who are breaking the law NOT me!

So when a police pulls someone over for absolutely no reason other than to check their immigration status that a violation of their 4th Amendment 

It could be but under proper procedure it isn't

I suggest you read Terry v Ohio.

With reasonable suspicion of illegal activity the police can stop, ask and frisk.  Being in the country illegally is illegal activity.

caselaw.findlaw

It could be but under proper procedure it isn't

I suggest you read Terry v Ohio.

No, I suggest you read it,

With reasonable suspicion of illegal activity the police can stop, ask and frisk.  Being in the country illegally is illegal activity.

You see, the key word is reasonable suspicion....and just being brown and with an accent doesn't not make that a reasonable suspicion, but yeah you're right a police can ASK all they want....now once they are stopping and frisking, and detainment then maybe you need to read up Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District, in which you need REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION on why you think this brown person with an accent is committing an illegal act justifying detainment......

Care to reasonably articulate why you are stopping and detaining this man/woman walking down the street?

No, I suggest you read it,

I did.

A cop can stop and talk to anyone they want.  If something in the conversation hits their radar and rises to reasonable suspicion then the stop can escalate to arrest.

  The court and the cops must also abide by SCOTUS rulings

A cop can stop and talk to anyone they want.

So a cop can just pull over a car just to talk to them? A cop can go to anyone house knock on the door and demand the people talk to them?.......really?

 If something in the conversation hits their radar and rises to reasonable suspicion then the stop can escalate to arrest.

An accent maybe? The fact that they cant speak English or very little English? So you think those are reasonable articulable suspicion to justify detainment, not to mention probable cause for an arrest? Please explain how you can glean that a person is an illegal immigrant by just talking to them?

A contempt citation created by a liberal judge.

Who was upholding a ruling done by a Bush appointee!

In a way I wish he had been able to appeal and beat the judge.

So the investigation revealed that he was violating peoples 4th Amendment right by racial profiling.....but yet you wanted for him to find a way to beat that?!

So much for law and order

Bush was not a conservative.  Like Trump I voted for Bush because the dems put up a worse candidate.

Bush was not a conservative.  

Suureee he wasn't!.....but the judge that made the ruling certainly was!

Much to do about nothing.

Even if you don't think Arpaio is particularly worthy of a pardon, his "crimes" are certainly a lot more defensible than the pardons for terrorists, family members  and the billionaire  tax cheat who essentially bribed his  way to a pardon that recent administrations have issued. 

Really?  Refusing a lawful order by a federal judge on a case that was based on violation of the Constitution?

Yes, really.

Refusing a lawful order by a federal judge

It might be a lawful order but how that order is or isn't carried out is subjective.  That is why I opposed the pardon at this time.  The appeals process had not been finished.

It might be a lawful order but how that order is or isn't carried out is subjective.

Subjective?! How can "Stop violating peoples 4th Amendment Rights!" be subjective?

Because the SCOTUS ruling controlling the way police stop, ask and frisk are found in Terry v Ohio.  All a cop needs is reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.

Please stop.....in order for you to do a Terry Stop you need reasonable ARTICULABLE suspicion of a crime.....so please tell me what reasonable suspicion can you articulate that would justify that you think someone is an illegal immigrant?

In other words you can see someone jaywalking and that's reasonable suspicion, you can see someone coming from behind a store at night and that reasonable suspicion, but someone walking down the sideway during the middle of the day, or a passenger in a car going down the street no breaking any traffic infractions....what reasonable suspicion can you glean from that?

I have posted that fact three times ... We talk to the wall some times.

Here's the question. Apart from the court case, if a cop stops somebody lawfully, then why shouldn't he be able to ask if the person is legally in the country? 

If the stop complies with Terry v Ohio he can.

I believe they can. I also believe the person being question has the right to remain silent.

How well ya think that goes over...LOL 

You are apparently oblivious to the reality that Arpaio and deputies made unlawful detentions and at times would rape detainees, deny water and medication ... In some cases resulting in wrongful deaths.

How many steps is that removed from how the Third Reich got started?

If cops routinely ask that of everyone, regardless of external features, that might be okay.  But then the question becomes:  How does anyone then prove one's here legally?  A DL is not proof and that's the only sort of ID that's required for driving.  Ordinary police officers are not qualified to determine citizenship status.  

If cops routinely ask that of everyone, regardless of external features, that might be okay.  But then the question becomes:  How does anyone then prove one's here legally?  A DL is not proof and that's the only sort of ID that's required for driving.  Ordinary police officers are not qualified to determine citizenship status.

So if they have no drivers license and can produce no paperwork of any kind, is that a reasonable basis for holding them briefly until federal authorities arrive?

So if they have no drivers license and can produce no paperwork of any kind, is that a reasonable basis for holding them briefly until federal authorities arrive?

If they're driving without a license, they've committed a misdemeanor "crime."  Unless they showed signs of DUI or there was other evidence found in the car (and a search of the car in this situation would be legal, I would think) what usually happens if someone is stopped for a traffic violation and doesn't have a DL?  Do they all get arrested and are the feds contacted?   As far as I know it's not a crime to not having any ID.  On what basis should the federal authorities (ICE) be called for such a person?  Because he/she spoke with an accent?  Again, many people in this country speak with accented English so would that alone be a justification for calling ICE in?   Making cops the first arbiters of who's a legal resident of this country is a damned foolish and dangerous idea. And that's why many police forces in this country do not want to have anything to do with it.  They have plenty of other good reasons for not wanting to as well. 

If they're driving without a license, they've committed a misdemeanor "crime."  

The case that started everything was about a Mexican tourist who was a passenger in a car that was pulled over, they detained him for over 8 hours trying to check his immigration status....he had committed no crime and was here in the country legally.

he had committed no crime and was here in the country legally.

Then all he had to do was show his legal entry and go on his way.

Then all he had to do was show his legal entry and go on his way.

And that's the part where you're not understanding according to the 4th Amendment HE LEGALLY DIDNT HAVE TO! They detained this man for over 8 hours for something he had no legal obligation to do because he committed absolutely no crime and they couldn't reasonable articulate what crime they suspected him of committing to detain him!

btw a judge believed him and made him and his attorneys 4 million dollars richer because of it!

Actually he did.  He is not a US citizen and must show either a passport or the entry card given at the border.

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/572/~/entering-the-u.s.---documents-required-for-foreign-nationals-%28international

Then all he had to do was show his legal entry and go on his way.

So, you'd like us all to have mandatory ID "papers" on our person at all times so we can prove that we're legally entitled to be here.  Golly, that sounds awfully fucking close to a very highly monitored population by a very highly intrusive central government.  It appears that would be fine with you and I'm not a bit surprised by that. 

What documents do you regularly carry around with you that prove you're a US citizen, or even a legal imigrant?

Then all he had to do was show his legal entry and go on his way.

Or, maybe we can just tattoo forearms …

For those whose myopia may cause them to miss the point … my comment is sarcasm.

I started laughing when I saw it.  You do have a way with words.  great post!

Or, maybe we can just tattoo forearms …

Or, right after they jump the fence, tell them laws are just a suggestion over here and that they should feel free to do as they please. 

So, you'd like us all to have mandatory ID "papers" on our person at all times so we can prove that we're legally entitled to be here.  Golly, that sounds awfully fucking close to a very highly monitored population by a very highly intrusive central government.  It appears that would be fine with you and I'm not a bit surprised by that. 

If that's what we have to do to get illegal aliens out of here, then I'm for it. 

He was a legal visitor.  Every country I have visited gave me an entry stamp on my passport.  Why would anyone be in a foreign country without ID or a passport.

He had to have had paperwork if he were a legal visitor.

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/572/~/entering-the-u.s.---documents-required-for-foreign-nationals-%28international

So if they have no drivers license and can produce no paperwork of any kind, is that a reasonable basis for holding them briefly until federal authorities arrive?

No, because once again that falls into a violation of the persons 4th Amendment right. You have no requirement to carry ID or any type of identification and last time I checked I don't carry around my birth certificate....so unless a cop can reasonable articulate why he suspects me of being an illegal immigrant.....they have no reasonable basis to hold me

is that a reasonable basis for holding them briefly 

I wanted to address this specifically.  Of course police have the discretion to detain someone in your scenario.  But detaining for the sole purpose of turning this person over to ICE (an agency notorious for lax adherence to policy and procedure such as really verifying the status of people they haul off as well as taking  days, sometimes weeks, to show up when they are called which has resulted in people lingering in city or county jails with no charges) should be a big no-no if all they're going on is some vague notion.   

But detaining for the sole purpose of turning this person over to ICE

Who should they turn them over to?

Who should they turn them over to?

Now I think you're being blatantly disingenuous, this isn't about immigration this was about the fact that Arpaio was violating American citizens rights....yeah that's right the majority of people they stopped and detained were American citizens hence all the lawsuits that was filed. You ask who should they be turned over to? Noone because these American citizens should have never been stopped in the first place.

Who should they turn them over to?

I just have to believe even you knew how stupid that comment is. 

I just have to believe even you knew how stupid that comment is. 

It was a  question for you that instead of answering you call my comment stupid.  That means you have no answer so you go to insult.  What's the matter?  Just couldn't say the obvious "let them go"?  Why not?

MAGA!!!!

If the stop is done based on "probable cause" a police officer has the legal authority to ask for valid I D; that has never been the issue.

The issue has always been and still is, the constitutionality of the stop.

The bastardizatiom of probable cause down to the wholly subjective, racist/xenophobic delight called "reasonable suspiciona" opens the door to abuse of power, racial profiling, unlawful detention and all the abusers of Arpaio types and the haters that love those types.

I thing we at least have some common ground here,1ofmany.

Refusing a lawful order by a federal judge on a case that was based on violation of the Constitution?

One has to keep in mind that rightwing shitbags and their toadies don't have to obey the law.  They're above the law.  

Really?  Your proof?

MAGA!!!

GAGA!!

You sure are a fan of hers!

MAGA!

You sure are a fan of hers!

The CoC restrains me from telling you what that makes you of Trump. 

Darn!

MAGA!

Even if you don't think Arpaio is particularly worthy of a pardon, his "crimes" are certainly a lot more defensible than the pardons for terrorists, family members  and the billionaire  tax cheat who essentially bribed his  way to a pardon that recent administrations have issued. 

Yessir! Constitutional violations, Rape and murder,  … much more defensible.

Good right-wing values.

Since you have to make things  up about Arpaio, you are making my argument for me.

Since you have to make things  up about Arpaio, you are making my argument for me.

You ignorance of the facts define you.

As Arpaio’s officers were  harassing ,  detaining , and  beating  citizens and non-citizens alike, with jail employees routinely calling inmates “ wetbacks ” or leaving them to  die on the floor , Arpaio let  hundreds  of serious sexual abuse cases go uninvestigated, in one case resulting in a child being  continually raped . He was not just a “tough” sheriff, but a cruel and incompetent one,  faking clearance reports for serious crimes  while abusing the power of his office to arrest and intimidate journalists, judges, and county officials. Some of Arpaio’s acts bordered on the psychopathic: in a  deranged re-election plot , Arpaio oversaw a scheme to pay someone to attempt to assassinate him, even supplying the man with bomb-making materials, so that he could entrap the fake “assassin” and send him to prison, ruining the hapless man’s life. Arpaio treated the Constitution with contempt, inflicting what the Mayor of Phoenix called a “ reign of terror ” upon the city’s Latino community. Anybody with a hint of a conscience should be revolted by both Arpaio’s record and Trump’s pardon.

Wow, when was he charged with all those crimes you list? 

When was he convicted of rape or murder?

Does the pardon prevent him from being charger for rape and murder?

If Arpaio raped and murdered people and committed all those other crimes you list, why didn't the Obama DOJ charge him with those crimes during their years long investigation into Arpaio?

Again, your need to simply make up criminal charges against Arpaio undercuts whatever argument you were trying to make. He received a pardon because he refused to follow a judicial ruling he believed unconstitutional. That's all we are talking about.  

google

Nothing in that article demonstrates a conviction or even an indictment for any crime other than the misdemeanor he was pardoned for.    You can make all the wild allegations you want, but the pardon was for a misdemeanor failure to follow a judge's order he believed unconstitutional.  

I remember the amac of a few months ago who waxed indignant anytime a Democratic politician was accused of breaking a law without a conviction.   In your histrionic style, you accused anyone of suggesting  criminal activity without a conviction  as unamerican. Now you go around accusing Arpaio of murder and rape without so much as an indictment. Sad!

Unlike you boys, I have never used the "when you disagree with me, you're unAmerican" dismissive comment.

You fail to distinguish between a conviction, and a conviction that never comes because evidence is prevented via local politics, from being adjudicated.

Only a rigged, corrupt system could prevent an Arpaio from being formally indicted for murdering individuals under his charge by denying them water and medicine, by being the "law enforcement officer" who allowed his deputies to rape and brutalize without arresting and bringing charges.

I know you're not naive ... but looking the other way because a xenophobic, racist, piece-of-shit of a crooked cop has won your heart  ...  makes you worse than naive ... It makes you an enabler.

So Democratic Governors  and Attorney Generals like Obama cabinet official Janet Napolotino created a rigged, corrupt system to prevent  Arpaio from being formally indicted for murdering individuals.

Sure. 

Seems every time something goes against crybabies, it's because it's rigged.  

Twist and shout, Sean; I was totally specific and clear that the rigged system I referenced was Arpaio's.

Let's have some integrity in these debates.

No one made anything up....Arpaio and his department has been sued (and lost) numerous amounts of times from failing to fully investigate rape and sex crime allegations, targeting political opponents that got an accomplice of his disbarred, election law violations, misuse of power, to wrongful death...in total he cost the county almost 150 million dollars in lawsuits

When Arpaio started he was OK as time when on the power went to his head. He became unreasonable and that's why he was not reelected !  Replaced ! 

Arpaio's time came and went.  He should pay the price for breaking the law like everyone else.

If I disobeyed a judges ruling and the flaunted it how soon ya think trump would pardon my ass ?

Never !

He should have done the same for Arpaio.

If I disobeyed a judges ruling

He violated a judge's opinion of an ambiguous law.  I wish he hadn't been pardoned now but only if he lost the appeal.  The appeal process is how judges get slapped down for overreach.

"He violated a judge's opinion of an ambiguous law."

........................

He violated a judge's opinion of a law. He should pay the price like anyone else. period.

National marijuana laws are bull shit, if I violate them I still go to jail. Your answer was just as much bull shit as he marijuana laws of America are. 

He should have been able to appeal the PC leftist judge's ruling.  The pardon came too early in the process.

"The pardon came too early in the process."

............................

Sheriff Joe should never have bee n pardoned.

He broke the law, he is no better that than thousands of criminals Arpaio locked up for breaking other laws.

NO ONE should be above the law in America ! period 

NO ONE should be above the law in America ! period 

I agree.  Pardon's are a part of the law.  So he is not above the law.

Pardon's are a part of the law.  So he is not above the law.

Not quite a correct interpretation; despite what some INCORRECTLY fail to accept …

THE ACCEPTANCE OF A PARDON IS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT.

… the  Supreme Court's decision in Burdick v. United States , 236 U.S. 79  ( 1915 ), in which the Court explained the implications of acceptance. A pardon, the Court found, "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it."

Indeed, President Gerald Ford cited  Burdick  extensively in explaining his pardon of Richard Nixon, and at President Ford's instruction, President Nixon was briefed about the  Burdick  decision and the implications of accepting the pardon.

The defendant "may accept it or not, as he pleases," and thus the "escape by confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy."

Burdick  thus states repeatedly that acceptance of a pardon amounts to a confession, which would not be consistent with Arpaio's assertion that he is "100 percent not guilty."

njlawjournal

_________________________________________________________

I am pretty sure that I was first on NT to raise the possibility of charges of "Obstruction of Justice" against Trump … and was mocked for that … I was also first to raise the "Pardon/Admission of Guilt" equivalency … mocked for that too (by the same member).

I don't make such statements from the seat of my pants … and while I invite anyone to rebut any/all of my comments … an unsubstantiated "correction" is no correction at all … 

Let's have discussions instead of pissing contests!

I think ausmth is right. Saying that the pardon is an admission of guilt is meaningless in this context because the president has the legal right to grant a pardon. Even if Arpaio has impliedly admitted guilt to accept a pardon, the only thing to which his guilt applies is that he defied a court order prohibiting him from racially profiling to catch illegal aliens. He will still say he's innocent even if others say his guilt is implied. There was no conviction and there's no legal consequence to implied guilt. In any event, if it's OK for sanctuary cities to act as hideouts and accomplices for illegal aliens then its OK to pardon a sheriff who was overzealous in rounding up the illegal aliens attracted by sanctuary cities. 

He will still say he's innocent even if others say his guilt is implied. There was no conviction and there's no legal consequence to implied guilt.

Others doesn't say he's guilty, the court says he's guilty, so Arpaio can scream to high heaven that he's not the facts are he is

Others doesn't say he's guilty, the court says he's guilty, so Arpaio can scream to high heaven that he's not the facts are he is

It's not that cut and dry. They're in court arguing whether the conviction has to be vacated in light of the pardon.

That's not what the settled law allows.

The pardon may be vacated, but for reasons that it is contrary to the laws applicable to POTUS pardons.

I explained this in a previous post.

That's not what the settled law allows.

The pardon may be vacated, but for reasons that it is contrary to the laws applicable to POTUS pardons.

I explained this in a previous post.

The law on this point is not settled which is why the judge scheduled a hearing on the point. Arguably the pardon nullifies the conviction and, if it does, the conviction has to be vacated. 

It's not that cut and dry. They're in court arguing whether the conviction has to be vacated in light of the pardon.

Burdick v United States basically makes it cut and dry.....so they can argue all they want, until something overrides it, Arpaio basically admitted his guilt by accepting that pardon

Arpaio is a guilty, convicted criminal who received a pardon which carries with it the admission of guilt.

And I personally contend that the pardon will be ruled moot as it only applies to conditions as I have posted in an earlier comment.

The pardon becomes moot?  How?  The only thing a president can't pardon is impeachment.

Not so; the POTUS can only pardon Federal crimes and more specifically, crimes against the U.S. Government.

That's the law.

Arpaio is a guilty, convicted criminal who received a pardon which carries with it the admission of guilt.

And I personally contend that the pardon will be ruled moot as it only applies to conditions as I have posted in an earlier comment.

His attorneys will argue that the pardon nullifies the conviction so it's the conviction that may be moot not the pardon. Lower court judges aren't usually jumping to be under scrutiny by the Supreme Court so the judge may throw the conviction out. 

"I agree.  Pardon's are a part of the law.  So he is not above the law."

Absolutely correct despite the deflection attempts.

A pardon does not negate the crime for which it is granted; it de facto acknowledges its recipient is a (pardoned) criminal, carries in its acceptance an imputation of guilt, and, allows the criminal it pardons to go unpunished!

Equivocation pisses me off!

A pardon does not negate the crime for which it is granted

Very true!  A pardon does not place the recipient above the law. The recipient just doesn't bear the penalties of the law violation.

The pardon came too soon in the appeal process.  Until SCOTUS hears it or refuses to the pardon is too soon.

A pardon does not negate the crime for which it is granted; it de facto acknowledges its recipient is a (pardoned) criminal, carries in its acceptance an imputation of guilt, and, allows the criminal it pardons to go unpunished!

Isn't that the obvious point of any pardon?

Good to know you understand that Arpaio is a pardoned CRIMINAL.

We're making progress!

Good to know you understand that Arpaio is a pardoned CRIMINAL.

Until the conviction is vacated because it was nullified by the pardon. 

The conviction is never vacated and nullified; a pardon bypasses punishment and not the verdict of guilt!

He should have been able to appeal the PC leftist judge's ruling.  The pardon came too early in the process.

THE TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT UPHELD THE DENIAL!

After which Trump pardoned him!

Facts matter, my friend.

The DOJ can't prevent an appeal.

The DOJ can't prevent an appeal.

The DOJ is not preventing the appeal, it is upholding a denial (it did not, itself, impose).

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton denied Arpaio the right to a jury trial in the case earlier this month. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her ruling last week.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton denied Arpaio the right to a jury trial in the case earlier this month. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her ruling last week.

And he should have appealed that as well.  Given the ninth's track record he had a good chance of winning.  We all have the right to be judged by a jury of our peers.

Trump was hasty since the appeal process had not run it's course.

Again .., The Trump Adminstration's Attorney General upheld the denial ... Think about it, the same administration that upheld the appeal denial, then pardons the criminal it deemed properly found guilty.

Think about it, the same administration that upheld the appeal denial, 

That was over a judicial  process and not about innocence or guilt or his right to appeal his conviction.  I would have appealed the denial beyond the ninth.  That ruling goes against having a jury of one's peers sit in judgement.

And he should have appealed that as well.  Given the ninth's track record he had a good chance of winning.  We all have the right to be judged by a jury of our peers.

Not in federal contempt of court cases where the penalty is 6 months or less in prison you don't. In Arpaio's argument regarding having a jury trial he fully acknowledged that fact

It can be appealed and should have been.   Found lots of them with a google.

Any ruling that takes away a person's freedom can be appealed. 

It can be appealed and should have been.  

You really should research.....Arpaio did appeal it and was denied, he even petitioned the SCOTUS back in May with no results, it was a done deal

 Found lots of them with a google.

Yeah Arpaio's was one of them, all ended with the same results, in a federal contempt of court case where the penalty is 6 month or less in prison, you have no right to a jury trial

Any ruling that takes away a person's freedom can be appealed. 

Kind of like arbitrarily taking away someone's 4th Amendment Right under the guise of keeping our borders safe?

Stay tuned.

A President’s Pardon power is confined,  by the words of the Constitution , to crimes against the United States.

But criminal contempt of court may be a different kind of crime.  

Criminal contempt only arises within the framework of civil law cases and exists only to protect the power of a civil court to enforce its will .

Criminal contempt of court is like any other crime, in most ways, but it is also, importantly, different. Because of the difference, it could be that a conviction for criminal contempt of court lies beyond the power of a Presidential Pardon.     

Actually only impeachment is the only thing the president can't pardon.

Article 2 section 2.

Incorrect, my friend; only federal crimes are pardonable.

  All state court rulings can be appealed to federal court.  Any conviction that can result in incarceration can be appealed.  A president can pardon any federal crime except impeachment.

Joe's conviction was in federal court and the president can pardon him.  He should have waited but it is what it is and nothing can change that.

Make that commutations

I hear you A-Mac!

The best spell check letdown I have read was in Golf magazine talking about handicap verification for the US Open.  Instead of "in a room of bare beige walls" it came out "in a room of bare beige balls"  Oops!

That's just nuts!

Legal analysis by the Dailykos!

Good luck with that. 

Only a damned fool rejects reality by shooting the messenger without providing viable rebuttal.

Do you really need it explained that ignoring the ruling of a FEDERAL judge with a sentence of six months is jail is a crime against the US?

even you know it's bullshit. Look how many times you called him a criminal in this seed. 

By ignoring a judge's order, he committed a crime.

A crooked cop who avoids indictment and prosecution by virtue of his crooked department, is a criminal nevertheless ... 

A criminal who has not been officially designated as such for crimes for which he failed to arrest himself and deputies under his command ... Is the worst kind of criminal.

But you are certainly free to worship your heroes, Sean.

I'm just asking you to stay consistent. IF he's a criminal, he can be pardoned.

You call him a criminal and then turn around and say he can't be pardoned because he committed a civil offense, which is not a criminal offense.

Between making up facts (he's a murderer but the Obama administration covered it up!) and flip-flopping about whether he actually committed a crime, it must be difficult to remember your own name sometimes. 

I'm just asking you to stay consistent. IF he's a criminal, he can be pardoned.

For Federal crimes against the U.S. only.

You call him a criminal and then turn around and say he can't be pardoned because he committed a civil offense, which is not a criminal offense.

I explained myself thoroughly  … go back and read it.

Between making up facts (he's a murderer but the Obama administration covered it up!) and flip-flopping about whether he actually committed a crime, it must be difficult to remember your own name sometimes. 

I never made that assertion … next time you state or imply I'm a liar … I'll flag it!

Get your reading comprehension or memory up to speed … I ALWAYS EXPLAIN MY POSITIONS!

For Federal crimes against the U.S. only.

So violating a FEDERAL judge's order is a state crime then? 

 never made that assertion  ext time you state or imply I'm a lia

I didn't call you a liar, I'm calling you unhinged. 

You asserted that he raped and murdered inmates despite the obvious reality of his never even being criminally charged for those crimes by either  state or federal authorities  during  Obama's term of office. I thought you blamed it on corruption, or something.

 But go ahead and post your crazy theory explaining why the Obama administration, the democratic Governor of Arizona and the Democratic Attorney Generals of Arizona all turned a blind eye as Arpaio murdered and raped away his time in office.  

1. Racially profiling Latino communities

In traffic stops, workplace raids, and neighborhood sweeps, Arpaio ordered deputies to target residents solely based on their ethnicity, often detaining people without reasonable suspicion that they were violating any laws that his office was allowed to enforce.

In the civil rights case against Arpaio, the federal court found that Arpaio systematically targeted Latinos for traffic stops and illegally detained them.

After he was ordered to stop his illegal immigration policies, Arpaio deliberately left his unconstitutional practices in place, leading first to a civil contempt proceeding and then to his contempt conviction.

2. Failing survivors of sexual abuse

The people of Maricopa County paid the price for Arpaio’s pursuit of illegal immigration enforcement policies, suffering damage to community safety. In 2011, the Associated Press  found  that Arpaio’s office ignored hundreds of sex crime cases, including cases of alleged child abuse. One officer told the AP that many of those cases involved the children of undocumented immigrants

A Justice Department civil rights complaint similarly stated that the county  failed  “to adequately respond to reports of sexual violence, including allegations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse of girls,” noting that county’s single-minded focus on immigration arrests led to an increase in the rate of violent crime.

3. Creating brutal jail conditions for detainees

Arpaio is best known for establishing Tent City, a sprawling, outdoor detention center which he once positively compared to a “ concentration camp .” Temperatures in  Tent City , which is surrounded by an electrocuted fence, could reach up to  141 degrees ; one detainee said life in Tent City felt “ like you are in a furnace .” People held there were  primarily Latinos  — he called it “ the tent where all the Mexicans are ” — and were put into chain gangs and subjected to  humiliating practices  like public parades.

Women of color in Arpaio’s jails were particularly mistreated. The Justice Department  discovered  cases where Latina detainees were “denied basic sanitary items” and were “forced to remain with sheets or pants soiled from menstruation” or were put into “solitary confinement for extended periods of time because of their inability to understand and thus follow a command given in English.”

In what was called “the biggest misspending of state funds in the history of Arizona,” Arpaio’s department  misappropriated  tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars meant to improve the county’s jails and used the money to conduct immigration sweeps, investigate Arpaio’s critics, and pay for personal travel.

4. Undermining the health of detainees

People in Arpaio’s jails were subject to substandard health care, sometimes to the point of extreme suffering, even death. The ACLU challenged Arpaio over his failure to meet the health needs of the people in his jails, and won in court when a federal judge  agreed  that the deficient and dangerous health care system violated detainees’ constitutional right to adequate care. Detainees with mental illnesses were  especially victimized  in Arpaio’s jails.

Neglect appeared to be standard procedure in Arpaio’s jails. When a diabetic detainee who had not received insulin shots began vomiting and having seizures, she was  roundly ignored  by jail staff. Eventually, one guard simply moved her into another room to muffle her cries for help.

The Phoenix New Times also  discovered  that “people hang themselves in the sheriff’s jail at a rate that dwarfs other county lockups,”  comparing  the medical care found at county jails to those of prisoner-of-war camps .

5. Abusing public office

Arpaio was known to intimidate supposed enemies, including a  judge’s spouse ,  a political rival ,  a county official , and a  reporter . The Justice Department also  found  that his office “engaged in a pattern or practice of retaliating against individuals for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech,” as deputies tried “to silence individuals who have publicly spoken out and participated in protected demonstrations” against Arpaio.

In one infamous case, people working under Arpaio  staged an assassination attempt  against him in order to  boost his popularity  — framing an innocent man in the process. He spent four years in jail waiting to clear his name and eventually received a $1.1 million settlement.

The president cannot obviate the court’s powers to enforce its orders when the constitutional rights of others are at stake.  

“The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights,” says one of the lawyers who authored the letter, Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People.

Clearly, there is a larger concern here that goes beyond Arpaio. “After repeatedly belittling and undermining judges verbally and on Twitter, now President Trump is escalating his attack on the courts into concrete actions,” says Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy. “His pardon and celebration of Joe Arpaio for ignoring a judicial order is a threat to our democracy and every citizen’s rights, and should not be allowed to stand.”

Murder and rape mean something. You called Arpaio a rapist and a murderer. 

I'm still wondering why he was wasn't criminally charged for such heinous crimes by Democrats in a position to do so. Just explain why Democrats overlooked rape and murder.  

Murder and rape mean something. You called Arpaio a rapist and a murderer. 

I'm still wondering why he was wasn't criminally charged for such heinous crimes by Democrats in a position to do so. Just explain why Democrats overlooked rape and murder.  

LAST TIME, Sean!

When the perpetrators comprise the "law enforcement" entity responsible for beginning the process of justice against the very same perpetrators … that heinous, unconscionable and criminal conflict-of-interests will assist you in ending your disingenuous "wondering why (Arpaio) wasn't criminally charged!"

Further hint … it's similar to why the Third Reich and other tyrannical entities fail to charge themselves with picky shit like "crimes-against-humanity".

We are finished in this one, Sean.

Just so everyone's clear. You believe  Arpaio to be virtuoso criminal mastermind who raped and murdered so cleverly that the State and Federal governments led by his political opponents couldn't find even enough evidence to justify a grand jury on these matters. 

But you, in Philly, have enough proof of these heinous crimes to call him a murderer and rapist.

 An off topic NT question A-mac.  If a poster implies I am a liar I can flag that?  I have a couple of posters that are dancing closely to that.

Because you characterize it as "implies" as opposed to outright "accuses/calls", etc., it would depend on how close to the line the implication comes without crossing it.

Should you flag such an item, a moderator would have to decide. I tend not to delete comments because I like all to see where a member stands ... Good, bad or ugly.

Use your judgement.

Thanks

That's because you act like a dick towards Trump.  Why would he pardon you? 

"That's because you act like a dick towards Trump.  Why would he pardon you?"

Because pardons aren't supposed  to be used for personal reward. In this case trump likes arpaio and is throwing him a lifeline that in my opinion isn't deserved. 

If pardons are to be used that way, WTF would keep a president from pardoning anyone who is loyal to the president's cause regardless of the crime. soon we could have a crime family running the show.

O wait,  we already have that now. Never mind.

"Arpaio pardon may be opening act of a constitutional crisis," 

Wake up partisans and low-information know-nothings!

July 2017 : Bolton found Arpaio  guilty of criminal contempt  after a bench trial.

While Arpaio requested a jury trial, the Justice Department opposed it,  and maintained that position   even under Trump and the new Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Since some of you Trump-lovers played the "hair-split" card …

Learn first … then you'll avoid having your asses handed to you down the road.

Do your own research on the various pardons granted by past presidents … the details reveal the legitimate and misrepresented comparisons.

The pardon came too soon.  Trump should have let the process play out.  He may not have needed one.

"Wake up partisans and low-information know-nothings!"

Name calling. Sad. Well, no reason to read further...

If the shoe fits wear it ... or remove it from the mouth.

How's it fitting? Comfy?

Construct your own insults ... The Pee Wee Herman defense is weak.

Another cop out. No surprise. Enjoy your name calling. Kindergarteners love it.

He broke the law, he is no better that than thousands of criminals Arpaio locked up for breaking other laws.

He broke no laws.  That was a subjective decision of a liberal judge.  What he was convicted of was violating a judges order.  If the stop were made for a reason other than the race of the person being stopped it is a legal stop.

There is where the ambiguity comes in.  The judge has no authority to stop an officer from enforcing the law.  When traffic violations become illegal then the judge can order an end to stopping for traffic violations.

I wish he had not been pardoned yet because this judge in AZ needs to get slapped down by the new court.

Are you an open borders advocate?

I live in Phoenix and have for years I repeat sheriff joe let shit go to his head and became unreasonable and abused his power. That's why he was voted out of office and convicted of disobeying a judge's ruling.  

He is not a hero to many of us who live here any longer, he become a thug. He should pay the price.

PS: Before he was through good old sheriff Joe also cost this country millions and millions of taxpayer dollars that we sure could have used elsewhere.  Let him sit a few weeks in tent city in september, I'm sure the fat old dude would shed a few extra pounds. 110 degrees here today. Yey if it was OK for his inmates for all these years, certainly it's good enough for him for a few weeks.

Are you an open borders advocate?

"Are you an open borders advocate?" 

Why ?

Because it would help me understand your lack of desire for enforcing immigration law.

You are assuming I am against immigration laws, I am not. I am against terrorizing immigrants who may or may  not be here legally. That is what Arpaio was doing and why he is no  longer a sheriff. 

I guess we have to remind our little trumpies that it was their dear tiny-handed crybaby temper-tantrum-throwing criminal in the WH who started this whole talk of pardons a couple of months ago by tweeting about his "complete power" to pardon, including himself.  So, it's perfectly reasonable to discuss whether the little sniveler-in-chief is using the Arpaio pardon to "test the waters."  

He is doing an excellent job!

MAGA!!!

"He is doing an excellent job!"

You seem to like to ask questions, how about answering one ?

He is doing an excellent job... HOW ?

From what I've seen trump is having one hell of a time working with anyone to get anything accomplished.

This is not a one man show no matter how much president trump wishes it was. He does not have the power of a dictator and he does need to work with many others to accomplish anything worth accomplishing.

So if you feel like it I'd be interested in just HOW you believe trump is doing such a bang up job of anything ?

All I've seen him do is a cock walk and write executive orders, consolidate power and generally make an ass of himself on the world stage. 

Perhaps i'm missing something, clue me in will ya ?

Here's what Arpaio's attorneys have said and makes clear that the media is leaving out a lot of detail.

files.constantcontact

The media has not contended Arpaio was convicted (in this particular case) of racial profiling; that does not imply he is not guilty of same.

Arpaio's attorney attempts to cloud the issue as attornies who know their case is a loser, are wont to do.

. . . Arpaio's attorney attempts to cloud the issue as attornies who know their case is a loser, are wont to do.

I'm not particularly concerned with use or omission of the word "race." The statement was interesting to me because the media leaves out Arpaio's complaint that he wasn't sure about the limits of his authority.  As for clouding the issue, you don't think it clouds the issue to raise crimes for which Arpaio has never been charged or convicted (like rape and murder) and have nothing to do with a finding of either civil or criminal contempt? 

As for clouding the issue, you don't think it clouds the issue to raise crimes for which Arpaio has never been charged or convicted (like rape and murder) and have nothing to do with a finding of either civil or criminal contempt? 

When The Perpetrators Comprise The "Law Enforcement" Entity Responsible For Beginning The Process Of Justice Against The Very Same Perpetrators … That Heinous, Unconscionable And Criminal Conflict-Of-Interests Will Assist You In Ending Your Disingenuous "Wondering Why (Arpaio) Wasn't Criminally Charged!"

Further hint … it's similar to why the Third Reich and other tyrannical entities fail to charge themselves with picky shit like "crimes-against-humanity".

. . . Further hint … it's similar to why the Third Reich and other tyrannical entities fail to charge themselves with picky shit like "crimes-against-humanity".

Or maybe it's because they don't have the evidence to prove he's guilty of a crime. I'll have to assume that he's innocent until proven guilty as opposed to guilty because he's part of some Third Reich-like conspiracy to avoid justice. On the other hand, maybe that explains how Hillary avoided prison. 

When the law enforcers become the law breakers people get voted out of office.

sheriff Joe losing his job is the result. His conviction should have stood. Trump denied justice. 

Sad day for the country. Watching justice being thrown to the side for political reasons sucks for us who must abide by the laws or suffer the consequences. 

 .....................

IF I am ever order by a judge to do anything , I may call president trump and ask him if I have to comply. What BS !

Under certain circumstances, pardoned criminals may be subpoenaed to testify on issues related to the events leading to their conviction and pardon.

When that happens, having accepted the pardon, they are not permitted to plead the 5th ... and if they commit perjury, the go to jail.

Arpaio would be wise to take his pardon and STFU ...  

This whole mess started with the federal government not doing its job and deporting illegal aliens. Arpaio stepped in to help and entered into a 287(g) agreement that deputized local law enforcement to assist in immigration. Obama suspended the program and it looks to me like Arpaio ignored obama's action and kept doing what he was doing. Perhaps it was unclear to him how far he could go without 287(g) authority.

He ended up in court and was found to be in civil contempt of a previous court order directing him to stop profiling latinos (it had nothing to do with raping and killing people or concentration camps). According to the judge, Arpaio publicly announced that he was going to keep doing what he was doing and then kept doing it. The judge referred the matter to another judge to consider finding Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt rather than just civil contempt (that's highly unusual). Because prosecutors asked for no more than 6 months in jail, Arpaio didn't have an automatic right to a jury trial. Arpaio challenged being denied a jury trial because he thought no jury would convict him. The second judge convicted Arpaio of criminal contempt and then Trump pardoned him.

The effect of a pardon is not crystal clear. The Supreme Court has said that accepting a pardon implies guilt (as Amac keeps saying) but it has also said that "A pardon reaches both the punishment for the prescribed offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense." Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 149. 

Arpaio has requested that the judge vacate the conviction and the judge has scheduled a hearing on the matter because the law is not cut and dry on the point. The easiest thing to do is vacate the conviction but we'll see.

Here was one of POTUS Trump's relies in re: the pardoning of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. It's done, put a fork in it.

Just like every other president

By intentionally denying water to individuals Arpaio incarcerated, each of those who died of dehydration constitutes at least, criminal negligence, and, had Arpaio not been in the position to avoid charges, a valid investigation may have been able to make a case for murder.

Apologists and equivocators for Arpaio are bringing shame to America; crimes are crimes even when perpetrated against criminals and those detained without legal protocols.

And on this comment ... See you after Labor Day.

By intentionally denying water to individuals Arpaio incarcerated, each of those who died of dehydration constitutes at least, criminal negligence, and, had Arpaio not been in the position to avoid charges, a valid investigation may have been able to make a case for murder.

Apologists and equivocators for Arpaio are bringing shame to America; crimes are crimes even when perpetrated against criminals and those detained without legal protocols.

And on this comment ... See you after Labor Day.

I would like to know how many died of dehydration under Arpaio?

Of course you would ... 

gq

gq

I went there and found 2 articles on Arpaio written by Jack Moore. Neither had any mention of inmates dying of dehydration.

But no dismissive comments, please.

I need you to do the same

I haven't left any dismissive comments ... So let's keep the dialogue flowing ... If you google it, among other Arpaio atrocities is the women who died in a locked cage in the excessive Arizona heat ... Wild guess ... Heat stroke, dehydration, murder ...

At some point, the obtuse responses to inhuman cruelty ought to end with capitulation to reality taking over.

I was not going to do any more political stuff until after Labor Day, but you have every right to question anything I post so I owed you a response.

Now ... Enjoy Labor Day, Vic.

If you google it, among other Arpaio atrocities is the women who died in a locked cage in the excessive Arizona heat ... Wild guess ... Heat stroke, dehydration, murder ...

Then why did you send me to the GQ articles?

At some point, the obtuse responses to inhuman cruelty ought to end with capitulation to reality taking over.

If you look at my comments & my original premise you will find that I havent defended anything Arpaio did or didnt do. I simply defended the presidents right to pardon him. He does have that right

Now ... Enjoy Labor Day, Vic.

You too, be careful with the grill - too much red meat is not good at our age 

Right, it's over, the 85 year old Arpaio was legally pardoned by POTUS Trump, TYVM great job! #MyPresident #TrumpTrain.

And another leftist judge overruled