Trump pardons Sheriff Arpaio

[Catonahottinroof]

If he's guilty of what is alleged here, there are much bigger problems that just Sheriff Joe. I still don't see how if all that is visible and provable that he wasn't criminally prosecuted.

[Doc]

Arpaio is a monster of the highest order. He is a prime example of what happens when ideology trumps common sense (another being the War On Drugs). Walking proof that for many, as long as ONE of the ends are something they believe in, any and all means attempted are justified and acceptable. For many Conservatives, their hatred of illegal immigrants extends to the point that they view them in essence as human garbage. That because they broke the law by coming here and are still breaking it by being here, they deserve anything that comes to them up to and including death.

Once I got here, I pretty much stopped reading as it was clear that where the bias was. So manyconservatives see illegals as "human garbage" worthy of death? Got it. I know many consevatives but don't know a single one who views illegals as trash worthy of death. I know many who want our borders secure from all illegals regardless of their ethinicity. I'll be sure to let my conservative friends know that rule book we were using was the out dated one. I'll also be sure to inform my brother in law who LEGALLY immigrated here, did all that he was required to do, followed the laws and regulations, etc, that he was an idiot because doing things legally means little and the rule of law is actually the rule of suggestion when it comes to immigration.


Is Joe Arpailo a low life POS? Might be. In fact he problably is. However his conviction was for contempt of a court ruling. Not a big deal in most cases especially compared to the numerous heroin and cocaine dealers that were granted pardons over the last 8 years (and I can give names... or one can google search). I suspect there are many far worse crimminal in Washington right now, several of who criticized Trump for this pardon. Personally I care as much about this as I do all the dope dealers that Obama released (I don't). I just find the massive criticism is 99% driven by the obcessive hatred that 50% of this nation has for Trump based on their being poor losers which is ironic considering how they spent the last 8 years rubbing the noses of the GOP in democratic victory and being poor winners.

[Doc]

If he's guilty of what is alleged here, there are much bigger problems that just Sheriff Joe. I still don't see how if all that is visible and provable that he wasn't criminally prosecuted.

That is something to consider huh. Of course lots of things that most would consider crimes, and would logically be crimes, yet are not seen as crimes. Just aske her

[PedroDaGr8]

Pedro, I don't deny or agree with the allegations, but it does beg the obvious question why none of that was prosecuted. Surely the full power of the DOJ with such a long list of wrongs can get him on more than the profiling charge. Not to mention state and civil options.

He has been national news for decades, and I've seen entire shows on his tent jail and such. It's not like he was hiding, and it's in a big city.

Now it's possible his city or his office was as corrupt as Chicago etc., but Chicago regularly still does have successful prosecutions. Where were his?


My guess is those who really have issue with the pardon see it in a broader scope of his list of wrongs, and that's OK, but it's about more than just this contempt charge. Though they can still have issue with just the pardon, I think it's the fact that Sheriff Joe will walk for all of these things. I get that being a big problem.

You ask an important and provoking question. The answer is that the DoJ almost never levels criminal charges against individuals when dealing with department scale civil rights violations. Pretty much the only cases I have seen in my limited research are when there is a direct and obvious link between a perpetrator and a victim. For example, a police officer who beats a suspect or a government official who harassed an employee. In these cases there is a clearcut link between victim and aggressor. When encountered with a pattern or practice of civil rights violation that appears to be department scale, they tend to go against the organization itself. This is partly due to the difficulty of assigning blame in a departmental setting (in criminal charges, you can't have partial blame, it is the same as no blame), partly due to issues that can arise against a locally popular leader (hard to get a jury to convict) , and partly because rather than lose focus chasinh individual actors they want to excise the problem as a whole and inculcate change to prevent it from ever happening again. This does not prevent aggrieved individuals from pursuing the department and its individuals in civil court, just the DoJ has been mandated with ensuring organizational change when it comes to departmental civil rights violations. Even, the FBI asked for the DoJ to press charges over civil rights violating abuses of power against Arpaio and others as part of the larger investigation. The DoJ declined citing insurmountable burden of proof. Instead, they chose to focus on enacting change within the department. This reluctance to file charges is very common, and not limited just to Arpaio, which is why civil suits are so often used. Any aggrieved party can bring a civil suit, though the DoJ has significantly more power to enact change in theirs than other groups. There have been a high number of civil rights cases brought against him and his office in civil court. An astounding number of verdicts against him, resulting in over $100 million in damages. So in answer to your question, him not being charged is actually pretty normal as a whole. Unlike more traditional criminal charges like bribery (which Chicago prosecutes regularly), if charges were to be filed, it would mainly be against his officers that directly abused someone else. Not him in the high seat controlling the reigns. Not a pleasant thought, that those in power responsible get away easily, but it is what it is.

Truthfully, I can think of some value reasons for handling cases like this in this way. Cases where there is a clear departmental pattern but directly assigning and proving blame is more difficult. A prime one being to avoid encentivizing it as tool to coerce leadership.

My problem was that he pardoned him and called him a great man. This man was, in essence, lauded for the evil he did. Not only was he lauded but the pardon was written in such a way to prevent the government from ever enacting change to enforce peoples civil rights. He wasn't pardoned from this time of contempt, he was pardoned from any future contempt charges relating to this case as well. Certainly his list of wrongs are part of it, in that he is lauded for these wrongs; but the blocking of change and the fallout of this are arguably worse.

Once I got here, I pretty much stopped reading as it was clear that where the bias was. So conservatives see illegals as "human garbage" worthy of death? Got it. I'll be sure to let my conservative friends know that rule book we were using was the out dated one. I'll also be sure to inform my brother in law who LEGALLY immigrated here, did all that he was required to do, followed the laws and regulations, etc, that he was an idiot because doing things legally means little and the rule of law is actually the rule of suggestion when it comes to immigration.

Nice job manipulating my words so that you can conveniently dismiss what I'm saying without thought. Just because you don't like what something says doesn't mean it's wrong. I chose my wording there carefully. I specifically said many, not most, not all. While it is not an uncommon view with conservatives, it is also not a view inherent to conservatism. If you had bothered to read the rest of what I said you would have also seen :

Full disclosure, I honestly believe we need to enforce illegal immigration policies more strongly, but not without losing our humanity. I also am supportive of dramatically increasing the amount of legal immigration. This is a topic I could expand on heavily but now is not the time or place.

That being said, even if I were biased it does not change the factual basis for anything else I said. Doing so is the appeal to bias form of an ad hominem informal logical fallacy. Everything I mentioned was documented fact. Most was covered and detailed in court cases and governmental documents. I specifically attempted to avoid hearsay and sources which were less than reputable. Did I get every single little thing correct? Its possible that I made made a mistake or two. But even a few mistakes would not invalidate the long and tangled pattern of offenses this monster leaves.

Edit: Since you added this:

Is Joe Arpailo a low life POS? Might be. In fact he problably is. However his conviction was for contempt of a court ruling. Not a big deal in most cases especially compared to the numerous heroin and cocaine dealers that were granted pardons over the last 8 years (and I can give names... or one can google search). I suspect there are many far worse crimminal in Washington right now, several of who criticized Trump for this pardon. Personally I care as much about this as I do all the dope dealers that Obama released (I don't). I just find the massive criticism is 99% driven by the obcessive hatred that 50% of this nation has for Trump based on their being poor losers which is ironic considering how they spent the last 8 years rubbing the noses of the GOP in democratic victory and being poor winners.

Do many behave that way, yep without a doubt. Not me. Contempt of court was because he was resisting the punishments on his department and the punishments on himself. As I explained in another post, this pardon prevents him from being charged with contempt ever again for this particular civil rights case brought against him. He is basically free to offend again and again. The judge can say, bring in an independent monitor to oversee retraining. A common ruling and logical one considering the circumstances, which the judge in this case did do. Arpaio can say no and there is nothing else that the judge can do to him. Period. This is what some people, like me, have a problem with. That and Trumps comment calling him a good man and saying he was being charged just for doing Police work. The latter is offensive because either he says all police regularly violate civil rights or he is saying if you are a citizen they are not your rights, it is ok for the police to violate them because they are police.

[Doc]

And I'll choose my word carfully. I know of zero consevatives who view illegals as pieces of trash who are worthy of death, and is that not because I dont live among them. S. Fl is teaming with illegals and I deal with them on a daily basis. The stereo typical labelling is insulting and classic partisian politics at its finest (or worse).

If a conservative dares to say they want to secure our borders to keep the radical faction of the Islamic faith out because MANY of them are terrorist hellbent on killing Americans, and can support that by showing jihadists flying planes into towers, shoving explosives into their underwear, planting bombs at marathon, etc....those people are called Islamaphobes by those on the left. If a conservative wants to tighten our security to keep out illegals who bring in drugs across our southern border, utllize this nations resources, take jobs, and commits crimes such as murder and rape, they are labelled as racist despite there being MANY actual incident where that occurred. Yet it seems perfectly OK for Liberals to lump consevatives into big groups and participate in "conservativaphobia" without batting an eye, even though there are no actual incidents of conservative wanting illegals dead for the simple reason that they are here illegally, or that they are "garbage".

[PedroDaGr8]

And I'll choose my word carfully. I know of zero consevatives who view illegals as pieces of trash who are worthy of death, and is that not because I dont live among them. S. Fl is teaming with illegals and I deal with them on a daily basis. The stereo typical labelling is insulting and classic partisian politics at its finest (or worse).

It is funny how anywhere but on here, I am considered a Conservative, even in southern Virginia I was still a Conservative. Certainly more center-conservative but solidly a conservative. I just don't follow any ideals blindly. As for the comments about conservatives, I say it because I have heard it many times both online and in person. You might not hear it within your local group and if so, you are in with a good group of people. Much like the general population, there are a substantial group that are NOT good people this isn't limited to just conservatives. While they might not explicitly always say that illegal immigrant lives are not valuable, their actions do. For example, when some aid groups were setting up water in the desert, because illegal immigrants were dying of heat exposure and dehydration. I heard quite a few protests, that this was being soft on illegal immigration that it was somehow encouraging it instead. When I asked, if they would rather the illegal immigrants die because they are going to make the trip anyways, the response from many was in essence "Screw em, they are breaking the law and they got what they deserved." This was NOT limited to one or two people, it was a solid number. Similarly, I have heard views that we should cut off all utilities to immigrants, that they should be bared from any housing, etc. All things that are essential needs of a human being (food, water, shelter) and the response is without fail the same: "Screw em, they can either deal with the risk to their life or leave. Nobody is keeping them here." No matter how much someone talks the talk, if their actions actively deny the necessities of life, then they are rejecting the illegal immigrants humanity. You can argue all you want about "well they never said that" but their actions speak louder than their words. Like I said before, crack down on illegal immigration. Increase the fines for employing illegal immigrants, tie verification of ID to biological authentication factors (like fingerprint), etc. If you want to crack down on illegal immigration do it in a smart way, remove the incentive to come here (work) and things will solve themselves. Additionally, increase legal immigration and make it easier to do, encourage it to solve the job needs as they are. Encourage it so that immigrants who have worked here long enough have a path to citizenship if they so desire. You don't have to deny someones humanity to encourage proper immigration and immigration policy. Maybe it is a bit of nostalgia, but the Republican party in the 80s and 90s was dramatically more compassionate and humane than the party of today. Much like the Democrats were much less fatalistic than they are today.

If a conservative dares to say they want to secure our borders to keep the radical faction of the Islamic faith out because MANY of them are terrorist hellbent on killing Americans, and can support that by showing jihadists flying planes into towers, shoving explosives into their underwear, planting bombs at marathon, etc....those people are called Islamaphobes by those on the left. If a conservative wants to tighten our security to keep out illegals who bring in drugs across our southern border, utllize this nations resources, take jobs, and commits crimes such as murder and rape, they are labelled as racist despite there being MANY actual incident where that occurred. Yet it seems perfectly OK for Liberals to lump consevatives into big groups and participate in "conservativaphobia" without batting an eye, even though there are no actual incidents of conservative wanting illegals dead for the simple reason that they are here illegally, or that they are "garbage".

Very few people reject being tougher on those who want to hurt us. They reject painting 1/5 of the worlds population as terrorists until proven otherwise, just because a small number are crazy radical nutjobs. When you are 1/5 of the worlds population, even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction are a lot of people. It still doesn't justify treating the bulk as the fraction of a fraction. This is what most people have a problem with, not the fact we need to find ways to accurately find those who want to hurt us. Blanket bans on certain countries, with no actual changes in immigration procedure or screening, were ENTIRELY hamfisted and did nothing to improve our safety. Hell, you bring up 9/11. How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from countries involved in this ban? Zero. Not even a single one of the 19 were from a country that Trump proposed banning. In fact, how many terrorist attacks on US soil would this ban have prevented in the past? Out of a quick list of more than two dozen radical Islamist attacks since the 80s with over 50 attackers there was ONE attack with ONE perpetrator that this ban would have prevented. This was the attack at Ohio State, where the student drove his car into the crowd on campus and killed no-one but injured 13 people. So in essence, out of over 24 attacks, involving over 50 ppl, resulting in thousands of list lives, Trumps travel ban would have prevented ONE previous attack, prevented one terrorist from entering the country and prevented ZERO loss of life. You want to make a ban, justify it in reality not just because someone is Muslim and from a country you don't like then they are guilty. He intentionally left off most of the countries that are actually responsible for attacking us (there are theories on why, but with him who knows). Just as importantly, they denied people with valid means of immigration discriminating against them strictly because they are Muslim. In the entire time the ban would have existed, nothing major was changed within the USCIS. Either the ban was going to be renewed every 6 months, to make it more palatable, but in reality was intended to be a continuous ban on certain regions of Muslim immigrants or Trump didn't actually know how to fix it when it started and/or it was going to take much longer than he realized. Even now, the changes they have made are a joke. So far, their only changes for immigration have been expanding the number of questions they asked in the I-129F, I-485 and a few other forms. They are now also requiring all employment-based green card holders to go through an interview, 9 times out of 10 these individuals have been living in the USA on an H1b for YEARS before the company sponsors the green card. Kinda too late at that point. Plus none of this is going to stop a terrorist from entering the USA if he wants to. Much like the stupid TSA, it is security theater. Show me real things they are doing, that are NOT hamfisted and can't be summed up as ALL Muslims are evil until we say so. I have said before I agree with cracking down on illegal immigration. I agree in doing it compassionately and improving legal immigration so as to not ham-string farms and other small businesses by preventing them from finding employees.

The only other part I agree with you is that many liberals do engage in "conservativaphobia" it is a complete double standard. It is frustrating and illustrates their closed-mindedness.

As for the other comments about some conservatives OK with the death of illegal immigrants. I already addressed this, just because it is inconvenient for you and you have experienced it in your local group doesn't mean it doesn't exist. maybe you need more evidence: A few years ago, give or take, you had the Texas MinuteMen and the related border groups who said things like and I quote: "You see an illegal, you point your gun right dead at them, right between the eyes, and say, ‘Get back across the border, or you will be shot' " Sounds pretty much like a death threat to me and these guys were the darlings of much of the Conservative movement at that time. So don't tell me that no Conservatives want illegals dead, they actively defended groups that did. Now maybe they didn't want to kill illegal immigrants themselves, but they were fine supporting others who were advocating for it (even if they didn't actually kill any). I think in reality you just chose to interpret my word many as most, which was never my intent, yet you still want to argue like it was. Acting if I was painting ALL conservatives with that brush. My wording was very clear, you interpreted it wrong. I have seen you using your flawed interpretation of what I said elsewhere on here too. Now either you don't want to admit that you were wrong or you don't want to accept that there are members within a group you and I (in my opinion, maybe not yours) belong are pretty crappy human beings.

You can continue to distort my character and manipulate what I said in order to discredit me, just because you don't like the message. I stand by every single fact that I have stated. Especially when it comes to Arpaio, I have done more due dilligence than almost anyone else on here. I have researched and reserached and researched, this man is a MONSTER!

[Doc]

I never considered you either a liberal or conservative. I certainly didn't convey that classification anywhere in my post and would not make such an assumption. I only noted that labelling is a classic partisan political tactic used by both sides. As an example, I'm often called "PRO-ABORTION" because after all I routinely go out and solicite pregnant women to get an abortion. Nothing makes me happier than a women getting an abortion because, hey, an abortion is a great thing to get. Its not about pro-choice. Its about pro-abortion. Its not about me and my wife deciding what we do with our bodies and family (note the sarcasm--but then the left's claim that the government should not be involved medical choices holds no water either with me either since the implimentation of Obamacare which has an incredible amount of intrusion in ones medical choices. See, both sides take out out both sides of this mouth, so much so that they can't get out of their own way)

The idea that we should set up water stand for illegals who are entering this country is mind boggling. The fact that anybody would do anyway to make it easier for illegals to enter this country is an interesting concept. What's next, guns in banks for robbers? Free condoms to rapists? Hey, they are going to do it anyway so we might as well make it easier for them and make sure they don't spread disease!

Now as for terrorist being a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. Oh, I totally agree, which was my point. But then one dope in Texas who proclaims " ‘Get back across the border, or you will be shot' " can't speak for all Conservatives because you see he too is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction, its just that his fraction of a fraction of a fraction isn't a minority in this country. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the actions of a few Islamics DON'T paint the entire group then claim the actions of a few conservative DO paint the entire group. However, I do know the actions of few Islamic terroris killed over 3,000 Americans in a span of 2 hours. I'm not sure that same can be said about the actions of a few conservatives in a span of 20 years.

I'll add that I think the Sheriff is a loser, monster, douchebag, etc... I stated such above. But I also believe what he was convicted of was small beans relatively speaking. The ONLY thing he was convicted of was contempt of a court order. Not murder, not civil rights violations, not anything else. If all these other ALLEGATIONS were true, I'm sure that Obama and his crew would have gone after him fully. I also believe that the heroin and cocaine dealers that were released under Obama simply because they were black, were as evil as Sherrif Joe yet the criticism for their release was not there.