PINO trump just pardoned kkk, alt right Arpaio

[HenryBHough]

Arpaio got convicted when the judicial branch found his racial profiling practices in violation of the fourth amendment. He got convicted because, even after they said you are violating the constitution he persisted, thereby considering himself above the law. Now Trump by pardoning him even before sentencing, something that is unheard of I believe in the history of pardons. In essence Trump is putting Arpaio above the law, making the law irrelevant.

Would ya like a little....

with that whine?

 

[forkup]

How about the Constitution? He pardoned a prick who took the law into his own hands and deliberately violated a court order. This pardon is advocating lawlessness. That it doesn't matter what the courts say, it's okay to break the law, if your heart is in the right place.

If this pardon advocates lawlessness, doesn't every pardon advocate lawlessness? After all, the very nature of a pardon is to forgive someone for a crime they commit.

No it doesn't, usually a pardon means the president decides that justice has been served. This pardon is the president saying the law is irrelevant. They are distinctly different motives.

How is this particular pardon saying "the law is irrelevant"?

Arpaio got convicted when the judicial branch found his racial profiling practices in violation of the fourth amendment. He got convicted because, even after they said you are violating the constitution he persisted, thereby considering himself above the law. Now Trump by pardoning him even before sentencing, something that is unheard of I believe in the history of pardons. In essence Trump is putting Arpaio above the law, making the law irrelevant.

Bull shit. Your whole fairy tale is based in your false belief that the judge in this case was correct. He was not. That's where your entire lie comes apart.

My belief in the right and wrong of the judge is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is that Arpaio doesn't have the right to make that judgement. You are making a case for the police having unbridled powers. It's been tried before. Those police forces go by names as Cheka, KGB, Stasi and Gestapo.

 

[PredFan]

If this pardon advocates lawlessness, doesn't every pardon advocate lawlessness? After all, the very nature of a pardon is to forgive someone for a crime they commit.

No it doesn't, usually a pardon means the president decides that justice has been served. This pardon is the president saying the law is irrelevant. They are distinctly different motives.

How is this particular pardon saying "the law is irrelevant"?

Arpaio got convicted when the judicial branch found his racial profiling practices in violation of the fourth amendment. He got convicted because, even after they said you are violating the constitution he persisted, thereby considering himself above the law. Now Trump by pardoning him even before sentencing, something that is unheard of I believe in the history of pardons. In essence Trump is putting Arpaio above the law, making the law irrelevant.

Bull shit. Your whole fairy tale is based in your false belief that the judge in this case was correct. He was not. That's where your entire lie comes apart.

My belief in the right and wrong of the judge is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is that Arpaio doesn't have the right to make that judgement. You are making a case for the police having unbridled powers. It's been tried before. Those police forces go by names as Cheka, KGB, Stasi and Gestapo.

1. No, it's not irrelevant to the post you made.
2. Arpaio is a L.E.O., enforcing the law is his job and his right.
3. I am not making a case for unbridled police powers, that's just some stupid thing you made up.
4. Now your last statement, THAT'S irrelevant.

 

[easyt65]

What's the difference between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump?

Clinton pardoned an America-hating foreign terrorist who KILLED Americans - who initially REFUSED his pardon - so Hillary could be elected to the US Senate.

Trump just pardoned a US Law Enforcer who combatted Mexican Drug Cartels - who placed a bounty on Arpaio's and his family's heads, who would ensure Arpaio was murdered in prison - and who over zealously acted to protect Americans from illegals ...

...while our President at the time refused to enforce US Immigration law and protected Mexican Drug Cartels, MS-13, violent illegals, human traffickers, and criminal Sanctuary Cities.

 

[Flash]

[Q


I don't know what the original justification for deciding that the sixth doesn't apply to "petty crimes" was. It seems pretty ridiculous to me, I was just pointing out the reality of the situation.

A petty crime is speeding and being subjected to a $100 fine or a $25 fine for not putting money into the parking meter, not something that is subject to spending months in jail. Our Founding Fathers did not want somebody sent to jail without being judged by a jury of peers, did they?

I can understand why the court would say that petty crimes can be settled outside of the jury system but that doesn't apply to Joe being railroaded by the Obama administration for doing his job and being subjected to jail time. The judge refused the request for a jury because of the fear that Joe would be found not guilty, not because of any justice approved petty crime expediency.

It is very clear that the Obama administration was trying to punish Joe for resisting their open borders immigration policy, which by the way, is illegal as hell since Congress is the one that sets the immigration laws.

It was the right thing for Trump to do to pardon Joe. It was wrong for the Obama administration to go after him when he was doing the right thing. His department was even deputized by the Federal government to act at immigration enforcers.

This deal is a great example of Obama's administration being scumbags.

 

[monkrules]

Yea for the good Sheriff.... It's nice to win.

You didn't win. You lost.

You just don't know it yet. How could you win by following an asshole like trump.

Typical lefty stupidity:

up is down, black is white, male is female, right is wrong, winning is losing....God it must suck to be such a loser.

Let's be honest. You know ALL about sucking....AND about being a loser. Isn't that right, loser.

 

[Flash]

This guy's "serious crime" would have resulted in less time in jail than Joe's.

I guess that Obama appointed dufus judge was absent the day this was discussed in law school. Either that or the filthy ass Libtard judge didn't give a shit about the law.


States Must Provide Jury Trials for Serious Crimes - Dictionary definition of States Must Provide Jury Trials for Serious Crimes | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary


States Must Provide Jury Trials for Serious Crimes
Byron R. White

One of the most important constitutional issues is the question of "incorporation." The Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, declares, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Since then, the Supreme Court has used this "due process" clause to "incorporate" some of the provisions in the Bill of Rights into state law—that is, the Court has made it illegal for states to pass laws that infringe on some rights protected in the Bill of Rights. The Court has never given a blanket answer to the incorporation question, allowing states flexibility in some areas while denying it in areas it deemed fundamental to American citizenship. In 1968 the Court faced the question of whether trial by jury was one of those fundamental rights. At the time Louisiana required jury trials only in cases where the defendant could be sentenced to death or to hard labor. When Gary Duncan was convicted by a judge of simple battery and sentenced to sixty days in prison and a $150 fine, he appealed on the basis that his right to trial by jury had been denied. The Court found for Duncan, declaring that anyone accused of a "serious crime" in state or federal court had the right to trial by jury. Justice Byron R. White, who served on the Supreme Court from 1962 to 1993, wrote the following opinion for the majority.

 

[forkup]

No it doesn't, usually a pardon means the president decides that justice has been served. This pardon is the president saying the law is irrelevant. They are distinctly different motives.

How is this particular pardon saying "the law is irrelevant"?

Arpaio got convicted when the judicial branch found his racial profiling practices in violation of the fourth amendment. He got convicted because, even after they said you are violating the constitution he persisted, thereby considering himself above the law. Now Trump by pardoning him even before sentencing, something that is unheard of I believe in the history of pardons. In essence Trump is putting Arpaio above the law, making the law irrelevant.

Bull shit. Your whole fairy tale is based in your false belief that the judge in this case was correct. He was not. That's where your entire lie comes apart.

My belief in the right and wrong of the judge is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is that Arpaio doesn't have the right to make that judgement. You are making a case for the police having unbridled powers. It's been tried before. Those police forces go by names as Cheka, KGB, Stasi and Gestapo.

1. No, it's not irrelevant to the post you made.
2. Arpaio is a L.E.O., enforcing the law is his job and his right.
3. I am not making a case for unbridled police powers, that's just some stupid thing you made up.
4. Now your last statement, THAT'S irrelevant.

1. Yes it's irrelevant, every single post I've made has been about the roles different branches of the government have. These are not interpretations but facts as taught in any civics class.
2. In that class you learn that a law enforcement officer enforces the law, he doesn't interpret it. They don't decide if the judge is right our wrong. If they decide to ignore what the courts say they go way past their right.
3. If you claim that Arpaio has the right to interpret the law you are in fact giving him permission to do anything. Since the whole reason he got slapped down was because he was detaining people on the way they looked.
4. You are making my statement highly relevant because to you the police can detain anybody without the courts being allowed to intervene. This is a power all those agencies I just summed up all had too.

 

[monkrules]

‘Arizona's largest newspaper issued a scathing rebuke of President Trump's decision to pardon former Maricopa Counter Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday, calling the action an "insult" and a "slap to the Latino community."

The Arizona Republic's editorial board argued that the pardoning of Arpaio is a sign that Trump is not backing down from his populist, tough-on-immigration stances.

The editorial calls Trump's Friday pardon of the controversial former sheriff an "insult" to the Latino community, as well as the legal community.

"The vast majority of Latinos in Arizona are not undocumented, yet they all fell under heightened scrutiny as Arpaio honed his image," the editorial reads.

"The pardon was a slap to those who worked through the judicial system to make Arpaio accountable, too. It robbed the people hurt by his policies of justice – even before a judge could mete out a sentence," the piece continued.’

Arizona's largest newspaper slams Arpaio pardon

True.

Hispanic Americans where subject to Arpaio’s bigotry and hate, their only ‘crime’ being Latino.

In a way I'm happy it happened this way. Maybe this disgusting action by our Orange PINO will anger the hispanic community in Arizona, and nationwide, enough to get all of them to register, AND, vote. My hope is that hispanics will be a big help in sending trump back to the sewer, where he belongs.

Incredibly sad to have a thoroughly racist PINO, pardon a thoroughly racist, criminal, has-been sheriff, arpaio.

 

[Picaro]

Please point out the law he didn't follow. I laughed when I asked that question.

Once again, Mexican is not a race. What in the world is wrong with you people?

How about the Constitution? He pardoned a prick who took the law into his own hands and deliberately violated a court order. This pardon is advocating lawlessness. That it doesn't matter what the courts say, it's okay to break the law, if your heart is in the right place.

So do you have any posts whining and sniveling about Obama or the dozens of Federal district Courts making up laws as they went along? If not, is there a reason why we shouldn't just be laughing our asses off at your silly assed diaper wetting?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yea for the good Sheriff.... It's nice to win.

You didn't win. You lost.

You just don't know it yet. How could you win by following an asshole like trump.

Typical lefty stupidity:

up is down, black is white, male is female, right is wrong, winning is losing....God it must suck to be such a loser.

Let's be honest. You know ALL about sucking....AND about being a loser. Isn't that right, loser.

Repeat after me PARDON.

 

[Montrovant]

Please point out the law he didn't follow. I laughed when I asked that question.

Once again, Mexican is not a race. What in the world is wrong with you people?

How about the Constitution? He pardoned a prick who took the law into his own hands and deliberately violated a court order. This pardon is advocating lawlessness. That it doesn't matter what the courts say, it's okay to break the law, if your heart is in the right place.

If this pardon advocates lawlessness, doesn't every pardon advocate lawlessness? After all, the very nature of a pardon is to forgive someone for a crime they commit.

No it doesn't, usually a pardon means the president decides that justice has been served. This pardon is the president saying the law is irrelevant. They are distinctly different motives.

How is this particular pardon saying "the law is irrelevant"?

Arpaio got convicted when the judicial branch found his racial profiling practices in violation of the fourth amendment. He got convicted because, even after they said you are violating the constitution he persisted, thereby considering himself above the law. Now Trump by pardoning him even before sentencing, something that is unheard of I believe in the history of pardons. In essence Trump is putting Arpaio above the law, making the law irrelevant.

While I still disagree with the characterization that this "makes the law irrelevant," if this is the first presidential pardon granted before sentencing, that certainly is a valid argument for viewing this differently than other pardons.

 

[forkup]

How about the Constitution? He pardoned a prick who took the law into his own hands and deliberately violated a court order. This pardon is advocating lawlessness. That it doesn't matter what the courts say, it's okay to break the law, if your heart is in the right place.

If this pardon advocates lawlessness, doesn't every pardon advocate lawlessness? After all, the very nature of a pardon is to forgive someone for a crime they commit.

No it doesn't, usually a pardon means the president decides that justice has been served. This pardon is the president saying the law is irrelevant. They are distinctly different motives.

How is this particular pardon saying "the law is irrelevant"?

Arpaio got convicted when the judicial branch found his racial profiling practices in violation of the fourth amendment. He got convicted because, even after they said you are violating the constitution he persisted, thereby considering himself above the law. Now Trump by pardoning him even before sentencing, something that is unheard of I believe in the history of pardons. In essence Trump is putting Arpaio above the law, making the law irrelevant.

While I still disagree with the characterization that this "makes the law irrelevant," if this is the first presidential pardon granted before sentencing, that certainly is a valid argument for viewing this differently than other pardons.

Actually I just figured out Nixon was never even charged with a crime lol. Don't think it invalidates my argument tough since the Nixon pardon definitely wasn't as per normal. Just glad I found somebody actually willing to judge an argument on its merit. Something surprisingly unusual on a political forum.

 

[Montrovant]

This guy's "serious crime" would have resulted in less time in jail than Joe's.

I guess that Obama appointed dufus judge was absent the day this was discussed in law school. Either that or the filthy ass Libtard judge didn't give a shit about the law.


States Must Provide Jury Trials for Serious Crimes - Dictionary definition of States Must Provide Jury Trials for Serious Crimes | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary


States Must Provide Jury Trials for Serious Crimes
Byron R. White

One of the most important constitutional issues is the question of "incorporation." The Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, declares, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Since then, the Supreme Court has used this "due process" clause to "incorporate" some of the provisions in the Bill of Rights into state law—that is, the Court has made it illegal for states to pass laws that infringe on some rights protected in the Bill of Rights. The Court has never given a blanket answer to the incorporation question, allowing states flexibility in some areas while denying it in areas it deemed fundamental to American citizenship. In 1968 the Court faced the question of whether trial by jury was one of those fundamental rights. At the time Louisiana required jury trials only in cases where the defendant could be sentenced to death or to hard labor. When Gary Duncan was convicted by a judge of simple battery and sentenced to sixty days in prison and a $150 fine, he appealed on the basis that his right to trial by jury had been denied. The Court found for Duncan, declaring that anyone accused of a "serious crime" in state or federal court had the right to trial by jury. Justice Byron R. White, who served on the Supreme Court from 1962 to 1993, wrote the following opinion for the majority.

Based on my reading, length of sentence is not the only factor in determining if a crime is petty or serious. However, anything over a 6 month sentence is automatically considered serious.

I can only guess that battery is considered a serious crime regardless of sentence.

 

[Faun]

Published on Dec 15, 2016
They found the source document! Game Over! This was all orchestrated! Trump knew this was coming and that’s why he stayed out of it! Arpaio was one of the first people Trump met with when he announced he was running. Jerry Corsi of WND showed Arpaio things that shocked him. This is just the tip of the iceberg folks. Arpaio’s goal is not to expose everything he has, but to just get it in the hands of Congress and the State Department.

Arpaio Drops Nuclear Bomb On Obama!

Well that bomb blew up in Joe the Sheriff's face. The idiot actually claimed Obama's BC was copied, in part, from Ah'nee's BC. As evidence, he moronically claimed parts were identical on both....

.... except they weren't ...

 

[PredFan]

Yea for the good Sheriff.... It's nice to win.

You didn't win. You lost.

You just don't know it yet. How could you win by following an asshole like trump.

Typical lefty stupidity:

up is down, black is white, male is female, right is wrong, winning is losing....God it must suck to be such a loser.

Let's be honest. You know ALL about sucking....AND about being a loser. Isn't that right, loser.

Stop projecting. It's creeping me out.

 

[PredFan]

How is this particular pardon saying "the law is irrelevant"?

Arpaio got convicted when the judicial branch found his racial profiling practices in violation of the fourth amendment. He got convicted because, even after they said you are violating the constitution he persisted, thereby considering himself above the law. Now Trump by pardoning him even before sentencing, something that is unheard of I believe in the history of pardons. In essence Trump is putting Arpaio above the law, making the law irrelevant.

Bull shit. Your whole fairy tale is based in your false belief that the judge in this case was correct. He was not. That's where your entire lie comes apart.

My belief in the right and wrong of the judge is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is that Arpaio doesn't have the right to make that judgement. You are making a case for the police having unbridled powers. It's been tried before. Those police forces go by names as Cheka, KGB, Stasi and Gestapo.

1. No, it's not irrelevant to the post you made.
2. Arpaio is a L.E.O., enforcing the law is his job and his right.
3. I am not making a case for unbridled police powers, that's just some stupid thing you made up.
4. Now your last statement, THAT'S irrelevant.

1. Yes it's irrelevant, every single post I've made has been about the roles different branches of the government have. These are not interpretations but facts as taught in any civics class.
2. In that class you learn that a law enforcement officer enforces the law, he doesn't interpret it. They don't decide if the judge is right our wrong. If they decide to ignore what the courts say they go way past their right.
3. If you claim that Arpaio has the right to interpret the law you are in fact giving him permission to do anything. Since the whole reason he got slapped down was because he was detaining people on the way they looked.
4. You are making my statement highly relevant because to you the police can detain anybody without the courts being allowed to intervene. This is a power all those agencies I just summed up all had too.

Dude, spin it all you want to, no one believes any of your shit except other liars like you. You're wasting time trying to push your bull shit on me.

 

[monkrules]

Yea for the good Sheriff.... It's nice to win.

You didn't win. You lost.

You just don't know it yet. How could you win by following an asshole like trump.

Typical lefty stupidity:

up is down, black is white, male is female, right is wrong, winning is losing....God it must suck to be such a loser.

Let's be honest. You know ALL about sucking....AND about being a loser. Isn't that right, loser.

Repeat after me PARDON.

Repeat after me: RACIST trump, pardons RACIST Arpaio. Makes all republicans look like RACISTS.

 

[monkrules]

Yea for the good Sheriff.... It's nice to win.

You didn't win. You lost.

You just don't know it yet. How could you win by following an asshole like trump.

Typical lefty stupidity:

up is down, black is white, male is female, right is wrong, winning is losing....God it must suck to be such a loser.

Let's be honest. You know ALL about sucking....AND about being a loser. Isn't that right, loser.

Stop projecting. It's creeping me out.

The anger and hate in your posts make it seem like your avatar truly represents what you are, inside. Sad, indeed.

Have a nice day.

 

[Rambunctious]

Repeat after me: RACIST trump, pardons RACIST Arpaio. Makes all republicans look like RACISTS

Why repeat something so foolish as that?