• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump has pardoned Joe Arpaio

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jhhnn said:
Also false-

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...ge-declines-to-hold-holder-in-contempt-196650
Click to expand...
You're right, i was wrong to say a judge found Holder was guilty of contempt.

"But the judge also said she saw no reason to allow the Justice Department to withhold unprivileged documents until the case was complete. She ordered those records turned over to the committee by Nov. 3, along with a log of the records claimed to be privileged."

It wasn't a Judge, it was just Congress.
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988

"
The House has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal, the first time Congress has taken such a dramatic move against a sitting Cabinet official.

The vote was 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting in support of a criminal contempt resolution, which authorizes Republicans leaders to seek criminal charges against Holder. This Democratic support came despite a round of behind-the-scenes lobbying by senior White House and Justice officials - as well as pressure from party leaders - to support Holder."
 
Jackson called the House contempt motion "entirely unnecessary" and said it was evident that she was considering the government's motion to lift her prior order. "Under those circumstances, the Court finds no basis to hold defendant in contempt," she wrote.
Click to expand...

Swiiiiinnnnng and a miss.
 
fskimospy said:
Corruption is irrelevant. Let's put it in a way you might understand better: what if there was a sheriff who went around town confiscating everyone's guns? Say a court orders him to stop and he refuses, the court holds him in contempt, and Obama pardons him. What's to stop that sheriff (and every other sheriff) from confiscating everyone's gun? Impeachment? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

But guns are protected by the US Constitution. Had Arpaio merely gone around checking the legal status of everyone who carried guns, perhaps focusing on those who appeared to be druggies and known felons, and confiscating illegal firearms, that would have been just fine...ILLEGAL immigration is not a right. Law enforcement everywhere should be trying to eliminate (not kill, just capture and return) these illegal invaders.
It shouldn't be unconstitutional to stop some brown people (the most common type of illegal immigrant in the area) living near the border and question their status. If they're citizens or legal immigrants, (LEGAL immigrants are required to carry their green cards at all times, so that should be easy)
 
BoomerD said:
But guns are protected by the US Constitution. Had Arpaio merely gone around checking the legal status of everyone who carried guns, perhaps focusing on those who appeared to be druggies and known felons, and confiscating illegal firearms, that would have been just fine...ILLEGAL immigration is not a right. Law enforcement everywhere should be trying to eliminate (not kill, just capture and return) these illegal invaders.
It shouldn't be unconstitutional to stop some brown people (the most common type of illegal immigrant in the area) living near the border and question their status. If they're citizens or legal immigrants, (LEGAL immigrants are required to carry their green cards at all times, so that should be easy)
Click to expand...

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is the classic Orwellian argument used to justify all kinds of abuses.

If you're targeting people simply because of their skin color, it's wrong. No exceptions. You're degrading the quality of life for those innocent people who did things by the book by treating them with perpetual suspicion. Oh sorry, you're brown and live near the border? You will never be allowed to just live your life in peace; you must accept that white people will demand your papers at random simply because their paranoia was deemed more important than your civil liberties.
 
BoomerD said:
But guns are protected by the US Constitution. Had Arpaio merely gone around checking the legal status of everyone who carried guns, perhaps focusing on those who appeared to be druggies and known felons, and confiscating illegal firearms, that would have been just fine...ILLEGAL immigration is not a right. Law enforcement everywhere should be trying to eliminate (not kill, just capture and return) these illegal invaders.
Click to expand...

Not being stopped for no reason other than your race is also protected by the Constitution. That was the whole point of the contempt order, Arpaio violated the constitution and refused to obey the law or the courts.

The examples are identical, so how would you feel about confiscating all the guns with no penalty? Maybe the next time Democrats win the White House they should take a play from Trump's book and do just that.

It shouldn't be unconstitutional to stop some brown people (the most common type of illegal immigrant in the area) living near the border and question their status. If they're citizens or legal immigrants, (LEGAL immigrants are required to carry their green cards at all times, so that should be easy)
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be unconstitutional for police to stop someone based solely on their race?

Holy shit.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Which means he wasn't guilty. Innocent until proven guilty.......well in your mind unless it's a conservative or a Republican which means they're guilty without a trial by jury.
Click to expand...
Our courts are supposedly set up so that ten guilty parties go free so that one innocent does not get convicted, so what is your point?
 
brycejones said:
No challenge is possible in court in this case.
Click to expand...

Yeah...The pardon itself is Constitutional. The problem is that the crime underlying the criminal contempt charge was that of violating citizens' Constitutional rights, and this gets Arpaio off the hook for that.

So the pardon may be Constitutional, but it's effectively invalidated other people's Constitutional rights by giving a law enforcement officer free rein to violate them without consequence.
 
BoomerD said:
But guns are protected by the US Constitution. Had Arpaio merely gone around checking the legal status of everyone who carried guns, perhaps focusing on those who appeared to be druggies and known felons, and confiscating illegal firearms, that would have been just fine...ILLEGAL immigration is not a right. Law enforcement everywhere should be trying to eliminate (not kill, just capture and return) these illegal invaders.
It shouldn't be unconstitutional to stop some brown people (the most common type of illegal immigrant in the area) living near the border and question their status. If they're citizens or legal immigrants, (LEGAL immigrants are required to carry their green cards at all times, so that should be easy)
Click to expand...

Your transformation into boomerang is becoming apparent.



That said, I believe trump is within his constitutional power to pardon Joe. I just find it hypocritical that the "law and order" president saw it fit to pardon someone who refused to follow the law.

Its par for the course though. Its funny watching trump cult members justify it though. Their use of "b...bb... But Obama" is hilarious, especially because these same people complained about Obama not enforcing the law.
 
VRAMdemon said:
Yeah...The pardon itself is Constitutional. The problem is that the crime underlying the criminal contempt charge was that of violating citizens' Constitutional rights, and this gets Arpaio off the hook for that.

So the pardon may be Constitutional, but it's effectively invalidated other people's Constitutional rights by giving a law enforcement officer free rein to violate them without consequence.
Click to expand...

God bless their little black fascist hearts...
 
ivwshane said:
Your transformation into boomerang is becoming apparent.



That said, I believe trump is within his constitutional power to pardon Joe. I just find it hypocritical that the "law and order" president saw it fit to pardon someone who refused to follow the law.

Its par for the course though. Its funny watching trump cult members justify it though. Their use of "b...bb... But Obama" is hilarious, especially because these same people complained about Obama not enforcing the law.
Click to expand...
I find it hypocritical that people that defend the violence and lawlessness that BLM or antifa routinely practice has anything at all to say about law and order.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Tell it to your antifa thugs.
Click to expand...

Antifa doesn't hide behind badges. It's one thing for them to break the law, entirely another for Arpaio or any other servant of the courts to do so, particularly when instructed to cease & desist.

Trump endorses the arrogant stupidity of defying a federal court order & the fascism driving it.
 
Jhhnn said:
Antifa doesn't hide behind badges. It's one thing for them to break the law, entirely another for Arpaio or any other servant of the courts to do so, particularly when instructed to cease & desist.

Trump endorses the arrogant stupidity of defying a federal court order & the fascism driving it.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. He pissed in the Obama's justice department Cheerios for good reason. Hypocrites like you that support lawlessness and political violence have no leg to stand on.
 
I'm sure this is 'teaching your grandma to suck eggs' territory. Or maybe 'Euro-splaining'. In that you all know all this already better than I did. So apologies for that.

But this was mostly new to me - I didn't realise just how unpleasant this guy is. And it's possible some of it might be new to some people here. So will just leave the link anyway. If it's all famiiar stuff there's no need to click on it.

And there is something generally disturbing about how central prisons and prison culture are to US culture and society.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/08/wait-do-people-actually-know-just-how-evil-this-man-is
 
FelixDeCat said:
You mean Bradley Manning kind of crook or Hillary Clinton kind of crook? 😱
Click to expand...
Just the walking in on underage girls in what is supposed to be the privacy of their dressing room and grabbing unconsenting women by the pussy lying about contact with a hostile government nepostical kind of crook.
IronWing said:
Show us on the doll where the Constitution touched you.
Click to expand...
Seeing that he's a catholic I don't think that was the constitution touching him.😱😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top