All Forums | Politics

Sheriff Joe Arpaio wins pardon from Trump

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 2709
Posts: 117
 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 33996
Posted: #76
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.



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...
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2002
Posts: 16321
Posted: #77
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.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 25456
Posted: #78
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:


 Arpaio and his repeated, multi-decade long abuses of power.


What other abuses do you refer to?  All the media is harping on is the profiling issue?

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2007
Posts: 18777
Posted: #79
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:


I am sure why he didnt reply and why I also did not. You completely miss the point and the topic you bring up.

This is not about using profiling in a way that is constructive and effective...the reason this happened over decades of time and to the cost of MILLIONS for the Arizona taxpayer is that Joe ABUSED the concept...he went too far over and over and over. He used the guise of profiling and went so far he was repeatedly rebuked and instructed not to continue. He ignored the court order and that is why he was convicted.

This isnt about profiling in the way you describe at all, it is obvious you are either not up on the topic or you are blinded by the conservative vs liberal garbage again and are excusing Arpaio and his repeated, multi-decade long abuses of power.

That is why I am sure he didnt reply...why bother, you really do not seem interested in the subject and will not change your opinion even with the facts right in front of your face.


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.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2007
Posts: 18777
Posted: #80
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.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2002
Posts: 16321
Posted: #81
I haven't either. Long story short. I run into  friend of mine who I have not seen in a couple of years at a local pizza place. He tells me how he was permanently thrown out of our other local pizza place while sticking up for Trump with someone at the bar. The Dem was allowed to come back and my friend was kicked out. I told him to get his Trump t shirt ready. We are going back! Head shaker from the Left.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #82
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...


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. 
 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2003
Posts: 56862
Posted: #83
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.

I and many people living down here disagree with your glossy summary of Arpaio's reign of terror. I do not think he was a net positive in any way with regards to the immigration situation, and with him gone there has not been any difference I have seen either. The reality is he did not accomplish much of anything and to a massive cost to the taxpayer.

What about even ONE person, that guy who Arpaio framed during the election cycle, outright framed him...the guy spent 4 yrs in jail because he was part of a media scheme Joe and his team cooked up...what about THAT guy?

All the alleged good you think he did is destroyed by this one single act and believe me there is a huge trail of casualties caused by his illegal profiling, innocent legal residents that had their lived damaged because Joe was profiling and pursuing his agenda.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2002
Posts: 16321
Posted: #84
Sheriff Joe is on Alex Jones today. I will have the link tomorrow for anybody that misses the interview.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2007
Posts: 18777
Posted: #85
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.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2010
Posts: 3106
Posted: #86
I have been reading through various threads.  What I noticed is it seems to be that Republicans are bad and wrong and the Democrats are always correct. Why?  The Dem make it seem that Obama was the best of the best and did no wrong.  Trump gets bashed and I see and understand why.  In his first 6 months , over a million jobs created.  Not bad.  The welfare system has to be fixed sooner not later.  Most people do not deserve to be recipients.  They always want more.  Some really do need it, most don't.  Go out and work, stop with the handouts.  The problem is ever statement has to be politically correct.  Profiling works.  We don't live in a perfect world so get over it.  You can't protect if you sit all day on your behind.  It is weapon safer than guns.  People cry about this and that but when in trouble they call police and they respond.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  I am not saying it is perfect and yes you will have some issues but it does work.  Nothing is perfect.  We need to work together.  There is no accountability and responsibility and that needs to be addressed.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2010
Posts: 3106
Posted: #87
There is nothing wrong with immigrants.  Do it the right way.  
 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2003
Posts: 56862
Posted: #88
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.

Uh no...I cannot.

Was his heart in the right place when he framed a guy for something he didnt do and kept him locked up for four years?

Joe is like Trump, massive ego selfish and very power hungry.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2007
Posts: 18777
Posted: #89
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:


Uh no...I cannot.

Was his heart in the right place when he framed a guy for something he didnt do and kept him locked up for four years?

Joe is like Trump, massive ego selfish and very power hungry.



I'm done with you in this thread.  You're fucckked up.
 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 33996
Posted: #90
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.
 


 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..
 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2003
Posts: 56862
Posted: #91
Quote Originally Posted by 165yds:

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

Shocking..

Provide actual truth and you have to reply like this...
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #92
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..



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..

 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. 


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..


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. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #93
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
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2003
Posts: 41287
Posted: #94
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:


Uh no...I cannot.

Was his heart in the right place when he framed a guy for something he didnt do and kept him locked up for four years?

Joe is like Trump, massive ego selfish and very power hungry.

To many Soviet communists, Joseph Stalin was a hero. To many Trump base Joe Arpaio is a hero. But to many more Americans, Arpaio is a federal convicted of contempt of court. He is also a racist who terrorized communities of color. 

https://www.gq.com/story/joe-arpaio-does-not-like-being-called-a-racist
 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 33996
Posted: #95
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. 


Judge Susan Bolton presiding over the criminal trial had the option of allowing a jury trial for a sentence cap of less than six months in jail and refused to do so................ isn't the purpose of the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial process to determining whether a crime was committed ?

 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 33996
Posted: #96
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



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.....
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2009
Posts: 8426
Posted: #97
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:


"Uh no...I cannot".

Was his heart in the right place when he framed a guy for something he didnt do and kept him locked up for four years?

Joe is like Trump, massive ego selfish and very power hungry.
  Score! No rebounds.....
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #98
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.....

So you are also saying that this HRC should be in jail mantra is also silly sincerely her 'crime' would've also been similar behavior. 

Same with her husband for 'lying' to a committee.

I'll be fascinated when you distinguish and support the treatment they received as Democrats vs. your party. 
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #99
Quote Originally Posted by 165yds:

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


Self-professed victories 
 
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2002
Posts: 16321
Posted: #100
Nobody has answered my 1st grade questions. with their Ivy League education. Was the Sheriff a racist before Obama and was he a racist before sancuary cities?
All Forums | Politics
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2025 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.