PINO trump just pardoned kkk, alt right Arpaio

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Trump should appoint Sheriff Arpaio Chief of the INS just to watch the dumb Democrat racist bigot’s heads explode.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Congressman Ruben Gallego is just another dirty racist Democrat who wants to allow mass illegal immigration because he hates Anglos.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

Trump is president. The constitution gives the president the power to pardon.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘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.

 

[JoeMoma]

As Soledad O'Brien just pointed out on Twitter, accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. And once you accept a pardon you no longer can plead the fifth. He is only pardoned for criminal acts, and that admission of guilt will be used in civil cases against him.

Bullshit. It's admission of nothing. Arpaio doesn't even have the choice of whether to accept it or not.

Wrong. It's an admission of guilt. You don't know how this works do you ass lick? Let me help you out. The criminal Arpaio hasn't been sentenced yet in this unprecedented political move in which the pardon powers of the president were never intended. It is complete undermining of the criminal justice system which is an impeachable offense in an of itself. The criminal Apaios lawyers have signaled they will accept the pardon which makes it an admission of guilt. The criminal Arpaio is now open to hundreds if not thousands of civil suits which the criminal Trump cannot pardon. The criminal Arpaio will now spend what is left of his worthless life in civil court of which many rulings will go against him and he is not young enough or rich enough to ever get out from under them. Let's see how well he holds up to years of torture at 85 years old by Latino people who will now be a part of his dreams every night when he goes to bed. Oh yeah? It will be a real shame if some of the wrong people find out exactly where he is on any given night, and there is a lapse in security for just a minute. Pardon that asshole.

You are confused Moon Bat. That is to be expected because most Moon Bats live in a constant state of confusion.

Arpaio was railroad by a filthy ass Obama appointed illegal alien loving judge. That judge who is a great example of the Liberal scum of America. A judge that had somehow or another made it through law school and passed a bar exam without ever reading or understanding the Constitution. Joe asked for a jury trial and was denied. It is in the Bill of Rights, The 6th Amendment to be specific. You and that judge should look it up. Any "crime" that the Obama administration said he committed was illegal because he was not allowed his Constitutional rights.

It is a good thing that Joe rounded up all those filthy ass illegals. He should get a medal for doing it. God bless him for doing his job. God damn Obama and his Libtard thugs for punishing him for doing the right thing. Thank god Trump corrected it. Trump has a lot of work to do to undo all the damage done by that Obama asshole.

As I mentioned previously in this thread, the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that the right to a jury trial does not apply to petty crimes. In Cheff v Schnackenberg in 1966, in Baldwin v New York, in 1970, and in Duncan v Louisiana in 1968, the court ruled "that there is a category of petty crimes or offenses which is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision [n31] and should not be subject to the Fourteenth Amendment jury trial requirement here applied to the States" (Duncan v Louisiana).

Unfortunately, the right to a jury trial has not applied to "petty crimes" for many years now.

Baldwin v. New York 399 U.S. 66 (1970)
Duncan v. Louisiana
Cheff v. Schnackenberg 384 U.S. 373 (1966)

There may well be other USSC cases which decided that petty crimes do not fall under sixth amendment protection before these.

The Supreme Court is the final word on constitutional law; however, they can make some rulings that are full of shit. If being convicted of a particular crime results in 6 months in jail, I hardly consider it petty.

 

[PredFan]

Trump, has just issued an executive pardon the most controversial racist in the country, Sheriff Joe O-Piggo!! We all know the guy wasn't gonna spend a day in jail, but the Duck, with his tiny little itching fingers had to throw his fellow Nazi following gang, their weekend bone....by signing shit!!

We have before us perhaps the most devastating weather headed to our coast, we just got off yet another horrible nightmare with Trump last week and here he goes again.....Lawd, will this guy ever start acting like a human being, instead of this pandering idiot to 39% of the country?

Latino's for Trump, ready to visit Arizona?

It's always interesting to watch how the left, especially racist assholes like you, start with complete lies and build this entire fantasy world around it. the interesting thing about yours here is how you are setting up to add the lies you will invent about Trump and the hurricane.

Fuck off and get a life.

Aawww, sorry I tore down your cute little fantasy world.

 

[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.

You should know, loser

But I do not. I just have to assume.
I'm right though, aren't I?

 

[Montrovant]

As Soledad O'Brien just pointed out on Twitter, accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. And once you accept a pardon you no longer can plead the fifth. He is only pardoned for criminal acts, and that admission of guilt will be used in civil cases against him.

Bullshit. It's admission of nothing. Arpaio doesn't even have the choice of whether to accept it or not.

Wrong. It's an admission of guilt. You don't know how this works do you ass lick? Let me help you out. The criminal Arpaio hasn't been sentenced yet in this unprecedented political move in which the pardon powers of the president were never intended. It is complete undermining of the criminal justice system which is an impeachable offense in an of itself. The criminal Apaios lawyers have signaled they will accept the pardon which makes it an admission of guilt. The criminal Arpaio is now open to hundreds if not thousands of civil suits which the criminal Trump cannot pardon. The criminal Arpaio will now spend what is left of his worthless life in civil court of which many rulings will go against him and he is not young enough or rich enough to ever get out from under them. Let's see how well he holds up to years of torture at 85 years old by Latino people who will now be a part of his dreams every night when he goes to bed. Oh yeah? It will be a real shame if some of the wrong people find out exactly where he is on any given night, and there is a lapse in security for just a minute. Pardon that asshole.

You are confused Moon Bat. That is to be expected because most Moon Bats live in a constant state of confusion.

Arpaio was railroad by a filthy ass Obama appointed illegal alien loving judge. That judge who is a great example of the Liberal scum of America. A judge that had somehow or another made it through law school and passed a bar exam without ever reading or understanding the Constitution. Joe asked for a jury trial and was denied. It is in the Bill of Rights, The 6th Amendment to be specific. You and that judge should look it up. Any "crime" that the Obama administration said he committed was illegal because he was not allowed his Constitutional rights.

It is a good thing that Joe rounded up all those filthy ass illegals. He should get a medal for doing it. God bless him for doing his job. God damn Obama and his Libtard thugs for punishing him for doing the right thing. Thank god Trump corrected it. Trump has a lot of work to do to undo all the damage done by that Obama asshole.

As I mentioned previously in this thread, the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that the right to a jury trial does not apply to petty crimes. In Cheff v Schnackenberg in 1966, in Baldwin v New York, in 1970, and in Duncan v Louisiana in 1968, the court ruled "that there is a category of petty crimes or offenses which is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision [n31] and should not be subject to the Fourteenth Amendment jury trial requirement here applied to the States" (Duncan v Louisiana).

Unfortunately, the right to a jury trial has not applied to "petty crimes" for many years now.

Baldwin v. New York 399 U.S. 66 (1970)
Duncan v. Louisiana
Cheff v. Schnackenberg 384 U.S. 373 (1966)

There may well be other USSC cases which decided that petty crimes do not fall under sixth amendment protection before these.

The Supreme Court is the final word on constitutional law; however, they can make some rulings that are full of shit. If being convicted of a particular crime results to 6 months in jail, I hardly consider it petty.

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.

 

[PredFan]

OMG! OMG! OMG!

You never get smarter do you?

lol, you really think this helps Trump politically?

With WHO?

No you pathetically stupid person, it has no effect at all. You just never get smarter do you?

How would you know? I know it hurts Trump because it hurts him among moderate Hispanics who might have voted for him last November.

No, you don't know that at all. Moderate Hispanics want something done about illegal immigration. Especially those who voted for him last November.

I edited your last statement to send it back in time to before the election: "I know it hurts Trump because it hurts him among moderate Hispanics who might vote for him in November."

Look familiar? It should.

Let's see if you get smarter.

Trump didn't pardon anyone before the election you moron.

OMG you are so fucking stupid. Just go away. Your stupid hurts me.

 

[PredFan]

It's incredible. Profiling is what we all do, we all look at situations and the facts and put them together and assess them in a fitting matter. It's too bad THAT those facts offend people, but you can't afford to overlook them because of fickle politics and sentiments.

So a county cop should enforce federal law he has no jurisdiction in?

Federal law covers his county, dickhead.

The Supreme Court laid out how much latitude local law enforcement has in enforcing immigration law. Arpaio violated those constraints. You clearly do not believe in people's constitutional rights.

No, he did not. That is what the criminal 0bama appointed judge made up.

 

[PredFan]

‘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.

Oh oh oh! A liberal rag doesn't like Trump's pardon? that's unusual. Who would have seen that coming?

 

[forkup]

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.

 

[Montrovant]

As Soledad O'Brien just pointed out on Twitter, accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. And once you accept a pardon you no longer can plead the fifth. He is only pardoned for criminal acts, and that admission of guilt will be used in civil cases against him.

Bullshit. It's admission of nothing. Arpaio doesn't even have the choice of whether to accept it or not.

Wrong. It's an admission of guilt. You don't know how this works do you ass lick? Let me help you out. The criminal Arpaio hasn't been sentenced yet in this unprecedented political move in which the pardon powers of the president were never intended. It is complete undermining of the criminal justice system which is an impeachable offense in an of itself. The criminal Apaios lawyers have signaled they will accept the pardon which makes it an admission of guilt. The criminal Arpaio is now open to hundreds if not thousands of civil suits which the criminal Trump cannot pardon. The criminal Arpaio will now spend what is left of his worthless life in civil court of which many rulings will go against him and he is not young enough or rich enough to ever get out from under them. Let's see how well he holds up to years of torture at 85 years old by Latino people who will now be a part of his dreams every night when he goes to bed. Oh yeah? It will be a real shame if some of the wrong people find out exactly where he is on any given night, and there is a lapse in security for just a minute. Pardon that asshole.

You are confused Moon Bat. That is to be expected because most Moon Bats live in a constant state of confusion.

Arpaio was railroad by a filthy ass Obama appointed illegal alien loving judge. That judge who is a great example of the Liberal scum of America. A judge that had somehow or another made it through law school and passed a bar exam without ever reading or understanding the Constitution. Joe asked for a jury trial and was denied. It is in the Bill of Rights, The 6th Amendment to be specific. You and that judge should look it up. Any "crime" that the Obama administration said he committed was illegal because he was not allowed his Constitutional rights.

It is a good thing that Joe rounded up all those filthy ass illegals. He should get a medal for doing it. God bless him for doing his job. God damn Obama and his Libtard thugs for punishing him for doing the right thing. Thank god Trump corrected it. Trump has a lot of work to do to undo all the damage done by that Obama asshole.

As I mentioned previously in this thread, the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that the right to a jury trial does not apply to petty crimes. In Cheff v Schnackenberg in 1966, in Baldwin v New York, in 1970, and in Duncan v Louisiana in 1968, the court ruled "that there is a category of petty crimes or offenses which is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision [n31] and should not be subject to the Fourteenth Amendment jury trial requirement here applied to the States" (Duncan v Louisiana).

Unfortunately, the right to a jury trial has not applied to "petty crimes" for many years now.

Baldwin v. New York 399 U.S. 66 (1970)
Duncan v. Louisiana
Cheff v. Schnackenberg 384 U.S. 373 (1966)

There may well be other USSC cases which decided that petty crimes do not fall under sixth amendment protection before these.

I am sorry but you are confused Moon Bat.

The 6th Amendment creates an entitlement to a jury trial for any crime. The court allows that petty crimes may be settled out of the jury system as a means for convenience but that doesn't mean that an individual can be denied a jury trial if they insist on it. You are as ignorant of the Constitution as the Obama appointed judge, aren't you? You don't even understand the word "should" do you. "Should" is not the same as "will", is it?

Joe demand a jury trial and was denied it by a filthy ass Obama appointed Libtard judge that was hell bent on denying him justice because Joe was making waves for Obama's illegals immigration policy. As an American you should be appalled by that travesty of justice. Of course being a Moon Bat you don't think that a sheriff should have been allowed to enforce the laws of the US, do you? You wanted those filthy ass illegals to walk, didn't you? You wanted them to walk so that they could vote for the Democrats, didn't you? That is despicable, isn't it?

I'm not confused, nor a Democrat. You seem to be confused, however.

The Supreme Court has ruled that "petty crimes" are not subject to sixth amendment protection, insofar as a trial by jury is concerned. I pointed out 3 cases in which that was true. You or I may disagree, but until either an amendment or another USSC ruling changes it, that is the way it works. Feel free to read the rulings and see for yourself.

Here is an example, should you be unwilling to read any of the links, from Cheff v Schnackenberg:

According to 18 U.S.C. 1 (1964 ed.), '(a)ny misdemeanor, the penalty for which does not exceed imprisonment for a period of six months' is a 'petty offense.' Since Cheff received a sentence of six months' imprisonment (see District of Columbia v. Clawans, supra, 300 U.S. at 627—628, 57 S.Ct. at 663—664), and since the nature of criminal contempt, an offense sui generis, does not, of itself, warrant treatment otherwise (cf. District of Columbia v. Colts, supra), Cheff's offense can be treated only as 'petty' in the eyes of the statute and our prior decisions. We conclude therefore that Cheff was properly convicted without a jury. At the same time, we recognize that by limiting our opinion to those cases where a sentence not exceeding six months is imposed we leave the federal courts at sea in instances involving greater sentences. Effective administration compels us to express a view on that point. Therefore, in the exercise of the Court's supervisory power and under the peculiar power of the federal courts to revise sentences in contempt cases, we rule further that sentences exceeding six months for criminal contempt may not be imposed by federal courts absent a jury trial or waiver thereof. Nothing we have said, however, restricts the power of a reviewing court, in appropriate circumstances, to revise sentences in contempt cases tried with or without juries.

 

[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"?

 

[Freewill]

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.

Really, you think an 86 year old man needs thrown into jail so you can get your pound of flesh. How pitiful. Especially when I am sure you ignored things like Clinton's Marc Rich pardon and all the drug dealers Obama pardoned.

Don't you have more grown up things to do then to attack an old man?

 

[Freewill]

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"?

It is not that is just the liberal left's talking point.

The liberal left just wants to see the sheriff displayed on a petard. Sad really.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘"Regarding the Arpaio pardon, I would have preferred that the President honor the judicial process and let it take its course," Flake tweeted Friday night, in an acknowledgment of the political fallout of Trump's pardoning of Arpaio.

Arizona's senior senator, Republican John McCain, said in a statement on the pardon that "no one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold."

"Mr. Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt for continuing to illegally profile Latinos living in Arizona based on their perceived immigration status in violation of a judge's orders," McCain said. "The President has the authority to make this pardon, but doing so at this time undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law as Mr. Arpaio has shown no remorse for his actions."’

Trump makes a mess for Arizona GOP with Arpaio pardon - CNNPolitics

At least two Republicans get it.

 

[forkup]

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.

 

[PredFan]

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.

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.

 

[forkup]

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.

Really, you think an 86 year old man needs thrown into jail so you can get your pound of flesh. How pitiful. Especially when I am sure you ignored things like Clinton's Marc Rich pardon and all the drug dealers Obama pardoned.

Don't you have more grown up things to do then to attack an old man?

My problem is motive. I hated when Clinton pardoned Matt Rich. Not because of the right of the president to pardon. But because it reeks of preferential treatment

That's the first part of your claim.
-here's to the second.Thinking it's about my pound of flesh is wrong. The thing is no judge nor me wanted him to be locked up. He choose to be locked up. He could have stopped his practices when he first got slapped down, he felt he wanted to make himself more important then the law of the land. When you do that as a law enforcement officer the courts need to respond because it's a direct challenge. It comes down to the danger of being judge, jury and executioner something that is mortally dangerous to any humanist society.