Sheriff Joe Arpaio wins pardon from Trump

Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

there's no right to a jury trial in a case where the potential penalty is as low as it was in this case.

Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

Quote Originally Posted by sundance:

I would noy believe any of the numbers indicating a Trump approval decline. They are phony numbers just like the phony poll numbers thrown at us during the election cycle of 2016.  Every poll is bullshiit the only time they try to be accurate is the last few days of the election as that is the number it goes by when it tries to sell itself as a legit pollster firm.  All of these polls mean nothing, base is stronger than ever.  Still haven't met one person who voted for Trump that has regretted it.  In fact most have loved what he has done so far.

Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:



That's right,, no right to a jury trial ...

the potential penalty was low ..because the charge was low..a misdemeanor..

The decision to criminally prosecute "America's toughest Sheriff" only came down while the DOJ was run by AG Loretta Lynch ...as a result they only charged him with a misdemeanor as to avoid a trial by jury... .so as,to deny Sheriff Arpaio a trial in a community were there was a very good chance he would have been found not guilty....and politically they did not want that...no,no,no...


In my best Allen Iverson voice................

I mean listen, we're sitting here talking about a misdemeanor., not a felony, not a felony, not a felony, but we're talking about a misdemeanor...

We're talking about a misdemeanor man.

We're not talking about a felony.

We're talking about a misdemeanor man.


So, Joe Arpaio was found to be guilt of contempt of court...well he's in good company ,,as our 42nd President of the United States,while still in the White House was also found guilt of contempt of court...

Quote Originally Posted by 165yds:

To be fair he also saved the government countless dollars by getting rid of the illegal immigrants that were trying to destroy the region as they continue to give a fake name only to pay taxes so they can then get everything for free after five years from our government.  If you had to deal with scum and the lowest of the low daily you might act differently as well.  Don't see the point of continuing to bash an 85 year old man who was hit with a bullshiit misdemeanor for political purposes.  He saved our government a lot more than it had to pay out.  Let the man be, he's a good American who has done more for his country than you could in a 1000 lifetimes.

Quote Originally Posted by 165yds:

I think we can all agree Joe's heart was in the right place.  Everything he did was for the benefit of our country and a real American hero to many.  Even WSC can agree with this.

Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



a lot of conjecture here but on the issue of the AG's office only charging him with a misdemeanor.  first, it is the judge whose order was violated who initiates these cases.  second, criminal contempt is the only possible charge for what arpaio did and it can only be a misdemeanor.  so, this idea that they only charged him with contempt to avoid a jury trial sounds like some fox news nonsense.  there's no other charge for violating a court's order and it's always a misdemeanor.  at least as far as i know.  i can't say i've had a federal criminal contempt case before, but from what i know, there is no felony criminal contempt in federal court and there's no other crime this could be.
 

Quote Originally Posted by 165yds:

I'm done with you in this thread.  You're fucckked up.

Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:



 It does appear that someone is using guesswork here ..Arpaio was not officially charged till the U.S. District Judge Bolton asked the federal government (DOJ) to write an order to show cause for her to sign a charging document for the case to go forward... .....hence my reference to the decision to criminally prosecute only came down while the DOJ was run by AG Loretta Lynch ..so it may be true,, that the judge whose order was violated is usually the who initiates these cases..in this case it was initiated by Obamas' DOJ Lynch..

..and the federal charges were brought.. coincidentally... the day before early voting for Maricopa County Sheriff in metro Phoenix area had begun...

Criminal contempt is the only possible charge for what arpaio did and it can only be a misdemeanor...........only a misdemeanor due to the fact that U.S. District Judge Bolton ruled that a sentencing cap of six months was appropriate for the charge thus defining the crime as a misdemeanor...had she increased the sentencing cap.I do believe the defense could have requested and won a trial by jury...that's why the cap was set at six months...they did not want a jury to rule Joe Apaio not guilty..

..and I'll leave you with this :Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
wrote in a dissent, "It is high time, in my judgment, to wipe out root and branch the judge-invented and judge-maintained notion that judges can try criminal contempt cases without a jury." 

...and I agree..

Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



 yes, the judge initiated it, as would normally be the case for a contempt charge because the judge is the "victim" so to speak, but only the us attorney's office can file a charge.  that's how criminal law works.  judges cannot charge people.

this makes no sense.  judges cannot rule what a maximum penalty is for a given charge nor can they increase the maximum penalty for a charge. that's set by statute, which congress enacts.  the judge can only tell a defendant what the maximum penalty is (as defined by the statute) and then give the defendant a sentence within the parameters set by the legislature if the person is convicted. 

Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

maybe this will help.  this is the federal criminal contempt law.  like every other federal criminal law, congress enacts this and congress determines the minimum and maximum penalties are if someone is convicted of it.  the judge (nor the prosecutor) has any control over whether this is a felony or misdemeanor and what the minimum and maximum penalties are for this or any other crime. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1995

Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:




Thanks for the clarifying definition...and to think that the Government couldn't come up with anything more than a measly misdemeanor charge against Apaio...all this to do over a petty offense...

The judge is the victim and as the victim gets to solely determine if the offender that offended the court/judge is guilty ... Justice Black was right ...judges should not be able to try criminal contempt cases without a jury.....

Quote Originally Posted by 165yds:

I'm done with you in this thread.  You're fucckked up.