Trump Was Right To Let Sheriff Joe Go
EDITORIALS
Trump Was Right To Let Sheriff Joe Go
12:04 PM ET
Justice: President Trump's pardon of former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio continues to infuriate many, especially those on the open-borders left, who badly wanted to sacrifice the 85-year-old lawman on the altar of illegal immigration. But Trump was right to pardon Arpaio, and not just for political reasons.
"I am pleased to inform you that I have just granted a full Pardon to 85-year-old American patriot Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He kept Arizona safe!" Trump tweeted, after pardoning Arpaio.
Arpaio's crime? He had been found guilty of misdemeanor contempt and ordered in 2011 by a federal judge to stop his anti-illegal immigrant patrols. The court alleges that he instead continued them for 17 months. Even after Arpaio consented to civil penalties, the Obama administration doubled down, seeking criminal charges instead — a clearly political move having nothing to do with the concept of justice.
The reaction to Trump's pardon, of course, was swift — and predictably hysterical and hypocritical — as columnist Ruben Navarette, who's not exactly a fan of either Trump or Arpaio, has noted.
Democrat Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona repeated the left's talking points about Trump: "Donald Trump is a racist, and he's pardoning another racist."
Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut called it a "loud, proud declaration that this administration supports racism."
"Once again, the president has acted in support of illegal, failed immigration enforcement practices that target people of color and have been struck down by the courts," the American Civil Liberties Union, which was part of the original federal suit against Arpaio, wrote in a statement. "His pardon of Arpaio is a presidential endorsement of racism."
Even Republican never-Trump Sen. John McCain, who himself campaigned in 2010 on a get-tough against illegal immigration platform when it was politically expedient to do so, had the temerity to criticize Arpaio for "continuing to illegally profile Latinos living in Arizona based on their perceived immigration status."
This is how the left argues now. No attempt at crafting a debate, or even adducing evidence in support of your own argument. Just call someone names and impugn their integrity over and over again, and hope some of it sticks.
That Arpaio should have been standing before a judge was a travesty of our justice system, in which political holdovers in the judiciary with a deeply held bias are able to convict people for what are largely political crimes.
Arpaio had already consented to civil penalties in the case, but the Department of Justice wanted to make an example of him, and so pursued criminal charges.
As Breitbart's Big Government has noted, the case was riddled with conflicts from the very beginning.
The original judge in the case, G. Murray Snow, had a clear conflict of interest that required him to recuse himself from the case. The judge's brother in law worked for the law firm that represented the other side of the lawsuit brought against Arpaio.
But Snow didn't step down. He found Arpaio guilty of civil contempt, and referred the case for charges under the far harsher criminal contempt statutes.
It gets worse. Court documents quote the judge's wife telling a friend that Snow "hates" Arpaio and "will do anything" to get him out of office. And it was confirmed by two people who overheard it.
What most people don't know is that Arpaio and his attorneys agreed to accept a civil contempt charge for allegedly not following the court's orders.
But that wasn't enough. On election day of last year, as Arpaio once again was running for sheriff of Arizona's Maricopa county, the Obama Department of Justice announced it would try him for criminal contempt of court. This was clear meddling in an election, the kind you see in cheap dictatorships.
Going even further, the DOJ asked for just six months in jail for Arpaio. But that's not leniency. Anything less than six months gets your case heard by a judge, not a jury. And Obama's federal lawyers feared that a jury would find Arpaio innocent.
There's room for debate about immigration laws of this country. But one side doesn't want a debate. They want to call the other side names, demonize them, and deny them their rights under the law. The Washington Post even holds out hope that Trump's entirely constitutional pardon can somehow be overturned. Well, good luck with that.
And this is why Trump was not only right to pardon Arpaio, but was dutibound to do so. Deeply political Obama administration judiciary and justice holdovers, with assists from the far-left media, were seeking to criminalize a man who, whether you agree with him or not, truly felt he was enforcing federal law. http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-was-right-to-let-sheriff-joe-go/
Trump Was Right To Let Sheriff Joe Go
12:04 PM ET
Justice: President Trump's pardon of former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio continues to infuriate many, especially those on the open-borders left, who badly wanted to sacrifice the 85-year-old lawman on the altar of illegal immigration. But Trump was right to pardon Arpaio, and not just for political reasons.
"I am pleased to inform you that I have just granted a full Pardon to 85-year-old American patriot Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He kept Arizona safe!" Trump tweeted, after pardoning Arpaio.
Arpaio's crime? He had been found guilty of misdemeanor contempt and ordered in 2011 by a federal judge to stop his anti-illegal immigrant patrols. The court alleges that he instead continued them for 17 months. Even after Arpaio consented to civil penalties, the Obama administration doubled down, seeking criminal charges instead — a clearly political move having nothing to do with the concept of justice.
The reaction to Trump's pardon, of course, was swift — and predictably hysterical and hypocritical — as columnist Ruben Navarette, who's not exactly a fan of either Trump or Arpaio, has noted.
Democrat Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona repeated the left's talking points about Trump: "Donald Trump is a racist, and he's pardoning another racist."
Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut called it a "loud, proud declaration that this administration supports racism."
"Once again, the president has acted in support of illegal, failed immigration enforcement practices that target people of color and have been struck down by the courts," the American Civil Liberties Union, which was part of the original federal suit against Arpaio, wrote in a statement. "His pardon of Arpaio is a presidential endorsement of racism."
Even Republican never-Trump Sen. John McCain, who himself campaigned in 2010 on a get-tough against illegal immigration platform when it was politically expedient to do so, had the temerity to criticize Arpaio for "continuing to illegally profile Latinos living in Arizona based on their perceived immigration status."
This is how the left argues now. No attempt at crafting a debate, or even adducing evidence in support of your own argument. Just call someone names and impugn their integrity over and over again, and hope some of it sticks.
That Arpaio should have been standing before a judge was a travesty of our justice system, in which political holdovers in the judiciary with a deeply held bias are able to convict people for what are largely political crimes.
Arpaio had already consented to civil penalties in the case, but the Department of Justice wanted to make an example of him, and so pursued criminal charges.
As Breitbart's Big Government has noted, the case was riddled with conflicts from the very beginning.
The original judge in the case, G. Murray Snow, had a clear conflict of interest that required him to recuse himself from the case. The judge's brother in law worked for the law firm that represented the other side of the lawsuit brought against Arpaio.
But Snow didn't step down. He found Arpaio guilty of civil contempt, and referred the case for charges under the far harsher criminal contempt statutes.
It gets worse. Court documents quote the judge's wife telling a friend that Snow "hates" Arpaio and "will do anything" to get him out of office. And it was confirmed by two people who overheard it.
What most people don't know is that Arpaio and his attorneys agreed to accept a civil contempt charge for allegedly not following the court's orders.
But that wasn't enough. On election day of last year, as Arpaio once again was running for sheriff of Arizona's Maricopa county, the Obama Department of Justice announced it would try him for criminal contempt of court. This was clear meddling in an election, the kind you see in cheap dictatorships.
Going even further, the DOJ asked for just six months in jail for Arpaio. But that's not leniency. Anything less than six months gets your case heard by a judge, not a jury. And Obama's federal lawyers feared that a jury would find Arpaio innocent.
There's room for debate about immigration laws of this country. But one side doesn't want a debate. They want to call the other side names, demonize them, and deny them their rights under the law. The Washington Post even holds out hope that Trump's entirely constitutional pardon can somehow be overturned. Well, good luck with that.
And this is why Trump was not only right to pardon Arpaio, but was dutibound to do so. Deeply political Obama administration judiciary and justice holdovers, with assists from the far-left media, were seeking to criminalize a man who, whether you agree with him or not, truly felt he was enforcing federal law. http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-was-right-to-let-sheriff-joe-go/
Tags
Who is online
82 visitors
After
EDITORIALS
Trump Was Right To Let Sheriff Joe Go
12:04 PM ET
FacebookLinkedInTwitterShare
... I kinda lost interest...
Bumping your own seed again?
Naughty,
The sheriff was following the laws on illegal immigration. His pardon was the proper thing to do.
Good old Joe was in direct opposition to a court order he didn't like. If I'm ever ordered by a judge to do anything I 'll call the president and see if my particular judge has any power either or if I may do as I like too.