PINO trump just pardoned kkk, alt right Arpaio

[radical right]

Sheriff Arapio was railroaded by Obama's operatives. Joe was just doing his job.

Same with Saddam Hussein.

 

[Leo123]

Sheriff Arapio was railroaded by Obama's operatives. Joe was just doing his job.

Same with Saddam Hussein.

HUH?

 

[Faun]

This was a good pardon hands down. We have seen some shady pardons from Clinton, Obama and even Bush done at night at the end of their administration like the cowards they all are.
Trump did it in broad daylight like a bold leader would. Three cheers for Trump!

Trump did it for purely political reasons. There was no legal justification for it, especially since Arpaio hadn't even been sentenced. The judge could have thrown the book at him, or the judge could have given him probation. Now we'll never know.

This is also one of the earliest pardons in a presidents term. They normally let the DOJ research pardon applications for a year or more, before hand. This case, Trump did it on his own, without asking the DOJ, the US Attorney, the Pardon attorney, or the judge for the specifics in the case.

This amounts to nothing more than birthers sticking up for each other.

 

[Leo123]

Joe Arpaio vows to go public about 'abuse' he endured during Obama administration's investigation[/QUOTE]
Yes I am aware of that and it was done for a reason you dope....To allow him to appeal and have it dropped..Duh...But a local cop unless certified to do INS work, has no authority to do as such..Plain and simple..Joe was ordered by a court to cease and desist which he did not..So Joe broke the law, was in contempt of court and you applaud that sort of behavior out of people that are suppose to be a model for others to follow...And cops wonder why they have low approval ratings and have people who dislike them..and Joe was no novice about giving abuse..[/QUOTE]

Way to spew lefty talking points.....Post proof or pound salt. You dope.

 

[radical right]

Way to spew lefty talking points.....Post proof or pound salt. You dope.

Arpaio already cost Arizona around $44 million in fines, legal fees and civil judgments.

That a hell of a lot of guilty.

 

[Leo123]

Way to spew lefty talking points.....Post proof or pound salt. You dope.

Arpaio already cost Arizona around $44 million in fines, legal fees and civil judgments.

That a hell of a lot of guilty.

Can you provide a link to support that claim?

 

[bripat9643]

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

Nothing was made up. You cannot ask someone for their papers based of their ethnicity. Their constitutional rights were violated. Even conservatives like Justin Amash agree.

That's what was made up. He didn't ask them for their papers based on their ethnicity. The judge made that up. Illegals have no constitutional rights and no American Citizens rights were violated. that was fabricated by a corrupt judge.

Yes he did. He targeted Hispanics. There are many Hispanics in this country that are American citizens. The only thing that is made up is what you say.

It's idiotic to accuse him of "targeting" Hispanics. Who else would he be suspected of being an illegal alien in AZ?

How about 40k Poles in the country illegally?

Are they all in Maricopa county?

 

[bripat9643]

Way to spew lefty talking points.....Post proof or pound salt. You dope.

Arpaio already cost Arizona around $44 million in fines, legal fees and civil judgments.

That a hell of a lot of guilty.

No, Obama cost AZ $44 million in fines, legal fees and civil judgments.

 

[Moonglow]

Nothing was made up. You cannot ask someone for their papers based of their ethnicity. Their constitutional rights were violated. Even conservatives like Justin Amash agree.

That's what was made up. He didn't ask them for their papers based on their ethnicity. The judge made that up. Illegals have no constitutional rights and no American Citizens rights were violated. that was fabricated by a corrupt judge.

Yes he did. He targeted Hispanics. There are many Hispanics in this country that are American citizens. The only thing that is made up is what you say.

It's idiotic to accuse him of "targeting" Hispanics. Who else would he be suspected of being an illegal alien in AZ?

How about 40k Poles in the country illegally?

Are they all in Maricopa county?

Who knows he never profiled them..

 

[bripat9643]

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.

As always, you have no fucking clue what you're slobbering over.

UNITED STATES v. GEORGE WILSON

1. That the court cannot give the prisoner the benefit of the pardon, unless he claims the benefit of it, and relies on it by plea or motion. The form in which he may ask it, is not material to this inquiry; but the claim must be made in some shape by him. It is a grant to him; it is his property; and he may accept it or not, as he pleases. The ancient doctrine was, that his plea of 'not guilty' waived it, and that he could not afterwards rely on it; that a general plea of not guilty, was equivalent to a refusal to accept it. This doctrine is not meant to be contended for. It is admitted, that he may avail himself of it, at any time, by plea, before or after verdict or confession. But is insisted, that unless he pleads it, or in some way claims its benefit, thereby denoting his acceptance of the proffered grace, the court cannot notice it, nor allow it to prevent them from passing sentence. The whole current of authority establishes this principle. 2 Hawk. P. C. ch. 37, § 59, 64, 56; 4 Bl. Com. 402; Arch. Plead. & Ev. 55; 5 Bac. Abr. 292-3, tit. Pardon, E; Comyn's Dig.; 13 Petersd. Abr. 82; Kelyng 24; Radcliffe's Case, Fost. 40; 1 Wils. 150; King v. Haines, Ibid. 214; Jenk. Cent. p. 12, ca. 62. The necessity of his pleading it, or claiming it in some other manner, grows out of the nature of the grant; he must accept it.​

It's still admission of nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

That's what was made up. He didn't ask them for their papers based on their ethnicity. The judge made that up. Illegals have no constitutional rights and no American Citizens rights were violated. that was fabricated by a corrupt judge.

Yes he did. He targeted Hispanics. There are many Hispanics in this country that are American citizens. The only thing that is made up is what you say.

It's idiotic to accuse him of "targeting" Hispanics. Who else would he be suspected of being an illegal alien in AZ?

How about 40k Poles in the country illegally?

Are they all in Maricopa county?

Who knows he never profiled them..

I think we know.

 

[Faun]

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.

As always, you have no fucking clue what you're slobbering over.

UNITED STATES v. GEORGE WILSON

1. That the court cannot give the prisoner the benefit of the pardon, unless he claims the benefit of it, and relies on it by plea or motion. The form in which he may ask it, is not material to this inquiry; but the claim must be made in some shape by him. It is a grant to him; it is his property; and he may accept it or not, as he pleases. The ancient doctrine was, that his plea of 'not guilty' waived it, and that he could not afterwards rely on it; that a general plea of not guilty, was equivalent to a refusal to accept it. This doctrine is not meant to be contended for. It is admitted, that he may avail himself of it, at any time, by plea, before or after verdict or confession. But is insisted, that unless he pleads it, or in some way claims its benefit, thereby denoting his acceptance of the proffered grace, the court cannot notice it, nor allow it to prevent them from passing sentence. The whole current of authority establishes this principle. 2 Hawk. P. C. ch. 37, § 59, 64, 56; 4 Bl. Com. 402; Arch. Plead. & Ev. 55; 5 Bac. Abr. 292-3, tit. Pardon, E; Comyn's Dig.; 13 Petersd. Abr. 82; Kelyng 24; Radcliffe's Case, Fost. 40; 1 Wils. 150; King v. Haines, Ibid. 214; Jenk. Cent. p. 12, ca. 62. The necessity of his pleading it, or claiming it in some other manner, grows out of the nature of the grant; he must accept it.​

It's still admission of nothing.

Not exactly. Being it is a choice to accept a pardon, the courts have recognized a reason for rejecting a pardon is because accepting oneit can imply guilt.

BURDICK v. UNITED STATES

Indeed, the grace of a pardon, though good its intention, may be only in pretense or seeming; in pretense, as having purpose not moving from the individual to whom it is offered; in seeming, as involving consequences of even greater disgrace than those from which it purports to relieve. Circumstances may be made to bring innocence under the penalties of the law. If so brought, escape by confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy. This, at least theoretically, is a right, and a right is often best tested in its extreme. "It may be supposed," the Court said in United States v. Wilson, "that no being condemned to death would reject a pardon; but the rule must be the same in capital cases and in misdemeanors. A pardon may be conditional, and the condition may be more objectionable than the punishment inflicted by the judgment."​

UNITED STATES v. GEORGE WILSON

1. That the court cannot give the prisoner the benefit of the pardon, unless he claims the benefit of it, and relies on it by plea or motion. The form in which he may ask it, is not material to this inquiry; but the claim must be made in some shape by him. It is a grant to him; it is his property; and he may accept it or not, as he pleases. The ancient doctrine was, that his plea of 'not guilty' waived it, and that he could not afterwards rely on it; that a general plea of not guilty, was equivalent to a refusal to accept it. This doctrine is not meant to be contended for. It is admitted, that he may avail himself of it, at any time, by plea, before or after verdict or confession. But is insisted, that unless he pleads it, or in some way claims its benefit, thereby denoting his acceptance of the proffered grace, the court cannot notice it, nor allow it to prevent them from passing sentence. The whole current of authority establishes this principle. 2 Hawk. P. C. ch. 37, § 59, 64, 56; 4 Bl. Com. 402; Arch. Plead. & Ev. 55; 5 Bac. Abr. 292-3, tit. Pardon, E; Comyn's Dig.; 13 Petersd. Abr. 82; Kelyng 24; Radcliffe's Case, Fost. 40; 1 Wils. 150; King v. Haines, Ibid. 214; Jenk. Cent. p. 12, ca. 62. The necessity of his pleading it, or claiming it in some other manner, grows out of the nature of the grant; he must accept it.​

 

[bripat9643]

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.

As always, you have no fucking clue what you're slobbering over.

UNITED STATES v. GEORGE WILSON

1. That the court cannot give the prisoner the benefit of the pardon, unless he claims the benefit of it, and relies on it by plea or motion. The form in which he may ask it, is not material to this inquiry; but the claim must be made in some shape by him. It is a grant to him; it is his property; and he may accept it or not, as he pleases. The ancient doctrine was, that his plea of 'not guilty' waived it, and that he could not afterwards rely on it; that a general plea of not guilty, was equivalent to a refusal to accept it. This doctrine is not meant to be contended for. It is admitted, that he may avail himself of it, at any time, by plea, before or after verdict or confession. But is insisted, that unless he pleads it, or in some way claims its benefit, thereby denoting his acceptance of the proffered grace, the court cannot notice it, nor allow it to prevent them from passing sentence. The whole current of authority establishes this principle. 2 Hawk. P. C. ch. 37, § 59, 64, 56; 4 Bl. Com. 402; Arch. Plead. & Ev. 55; 5 Bac. Abr. 292-3, tit. Pardon, E; Comyn's Dig.; 13 Petersd. Abr. 82; Kelyng 24; Radcliffe's Case, Fost. 40; 1 Wils. 150; King v. Haines, Ibid. 214; Jenk. Cent. p. 12, ca. 62. The necessity of his pleading it, or claiming it in some other manner, grows out of the nature of the grant; he must accept it.​

It's still admission of nothing.

Not exactly. Being it is a choice to accept a pardon, the courts have recognized a reason for rejecting a pardon is because accepting oneit can imply guilt.

BURDICK v. UNITED STATES

Indeed, the grace of a pardon, though good its intention, may be only in pretense or seeming; in pretense, as having purpose not moving from the individual to whom it is offered; in seeming, as involving consequences of even greater disgrace than those from which it purports to relieve. Circumstances may be made to bring innocence under the penalties of the law. If so brought, escape by confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy. This, at least theoretically, is a right, and a right is often best tested in its extreme. "It may be supposed," the Court said in United States v. Wilson, "that no being condemned to death would reject a pardon; but the rule must be the same in capital cases and in misdemeanors. A pardon may be conditional, and the condition may be more objectionable than the punishment inflicted by the judgment."​

UNITED STATES v. GEORGE WILSON

1. That the court cannot give the prisoner the benefit of the pardon, unless he claims the benefit of it, and relies on it by plea or motion. The form in which he may ask it, is not material to this inquiry; but the claim must be made in some shape by him. It is a grant to him; it is his property; and he may accept it or not, as he pleases. The ancient doctrine was, that his plea of 'not guilty' waived it, and that he could not afterwards rely on it; that a general plea of not guilty, was equivalent to a refusal to accept it. This doctrine is not meant to be contended for. It is admitted, that he may avail himself of it, at any time, by plea, before or after verdict or confession. But is insisted, that unless he pleads it, or in some way claims its benefit, thereby denoting his acceptance of the proffered grace, the court cannot notice it, nor allow it to prevent them from passing sentence. The whole current of authority establishes this principle. 2 Hawk. P. C. ch. 37, § 59, 64, 56; 4 Bl. Com. 402; Arch. Plead. & Ev. 55; 5 Bac. Abr. 292-3, tit. Pardon, E; Comyn's Dig.; 13 Petersd. Abr. 82; Kelyng 24; Radcliffe's Case, Fost. 40; 1 Wils. 150; King v. Haines, Ibid. 214; Jenk. Cent. p. 12, ca. 62. The necessity of his pleading it, or claiming it in some other manner, grows out of the nature of the grant; he must accept it.​

This doctrine is not meant to be contended for. It is admitted, that he may avail himself of it, at any time, by plea, before or after verdict or confession.

In other words, a defendant can plead "not guilty" and still accept a pardon. Your cite doesn't support your position. However, the court can still pass sentence - meaningless act since it's result will be nil.

 

[Faun]

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.

As always, you have no fucking clue what you're slobbering over.

UNITED STATES v. GEORGE WILSON

1. That the court cannot give the prisoner the benefit of the pardon, unless he claims the benefit of it, and relies on it by plea or motion. The form in which he may ask it, is not material to this inquiry; but the claim must be made in some shape by him. It is a grant to him; it is his property; and he may accept it or not, as he pleases. The ancient doctrine was, that his plea of 'not guilty' waived it, and that he could not afterwards rely on it; that a general plea of not guilty, was equivalent to a refusal to accept it. This doctrine is not meant to be contended for. It is admitted, that he may avail himself of it, at any time, by plea, before or after verdict or confession. But is insisted, that unless he pleads it, or in some way claims its benefit, thereby denoting his acceptance of the proffered grace, the court cannot notice it, nor allow it to prevent them from passing sentence. The whole current of authority establishes this principle. 2 Hawk. P. C. ch. 37, § 59, 64, 56; 4 Bl. Com. 402; Arch. Plead. & Ev. 55; 5 Bac. Abr. 292-3, tit. Pardon, E; Comyn's Dig.; 13 Petersd. Abr. 82; Kelyng 24; Radcliffe's Case, Fost. 40; 1 Wils. 150; King v. Haines, Ibid. 214; Jenk. Cent. p. 12, ca. 62. The necessity of his pleading it, or claiming it in some other manner, grows out of the nature of the grant; he must accept it.​

It's still admission of nothing.

Not exactly. Being it is a choice to accept a pardon, the courts have recognized a reason for rejecting a pardon is because accepting oneit can imply guilt.

BURDICK v. UNITED STATES

Indeed, the grace of a pardon, though good its intention, may be only in pretense or seeming; in pretense, as having purpose not moving from the individual to whom it is offered; in seeming, as involving consequences of even greater disgrace than those from which it purports to relieve. Circumstances may be made to bring innocence under the penalties of the law. If so brought, escape by confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy. This, at least theoretically, is a right, and a right is often best tested in its extreme. "It may be supposed," the Court said in United States v. Wilson, "that no being condemned to death would reject a pardon; but the rule must be the same in capital cases and in misdemeanors. A pardon may be conditional, and the condition may be more objectionable than the punishment inflicted by the judgment."​

UNITED STATES v. GEORGE WILSON

1. That the court cannot give the prisoner the benefit of the pardon, unless he claims the benefit of it, and relies on it by plea or motion. The form in which he may ask it, is not material to this inquiry; but the claim must be made in some shape by him. It is a grant to him; it is his property; and he may accept it or not, as he pleases. The ancient doctrine was, that his plea of 'not guilty' waived it, and that he could not afterwards rely on it; that a general plea of not guilty, was equivalent to a refusal to accept it. This doctrine is not meant to be contended for. It is admitted, that he may avail himself of it, at any time, by plea, before or after verdict or confession. But is insisted, that unless he pleads it, or in some way claims its benefit, thereby denoting his acceptance of the proffered grace, the court cannot notice it, nor allow it to prevent them from passing sentence. The whole current of authority establishes this principle. 2 Hawk. P. C. ch. 37, § 59, 64, 56; 4 Bl. Com. 402; Arch. Plead. & Ev. 55; 5 Bac. Abr. 292-3, tit. Pardon, E; Comyn's Dig.; 13 Petersd. Abr. 82; Kelyng 24; Radcliffe's Case, Fost. 40; 1 Wils. 150; King v. Haines, Ibid. 214; Jenk. Cent. p. 12, ca. 62. The necessity of his pleading it, or claiming it in some other manner, grows out of the nature of the grant; he must accept it.​

This doctrine is not meant to be contended for. It is admitted, that he may avail himself of it, at any time, by plea, before or after verdict or confession.

In other words, a defendant can plead "not guilty" and still accept a pardon. Your cite doesn't support your position. However, the court can still pass sentence - meaningless act since it's result will be nil.

Alas, I can do no more than drag you to the trough.

 

[radical right]

Way to spew lefty talking points.....Post proof or pound salt. You dope.

Arpaio already cost Arizona around $44 million in fines, legal fees and civil judgments.

That a hell of a lot of guilty.

Can you provide a link to support that claim?

No I can't. Apparently the $44 million figure wasn't true.

Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio may soon be pardoned for a criminal-contempt conviction stemming from a long-running racial-profiling case, but county taxpayers are still on the hook, now to the tune of nearly $70 million.

About $24 million has been funneled to case-related expenses this year alone, adding to the $46 million incurred since 2008.

About $17 million will pay the salaries of employees devoted full time to bringing the office into compliance.

include $3.7 million for monitor costs, $1.5 million for attorneys' fees and $1.1 million for non-recurring costs.

the lawsuit's costs will only continue to mount. The tab is expected to grow by $26 million in 2018.

Taxpayer tab up to $70M in Joe Arpaio racial-profiling case

 

[Avatar4321]

I hear Chelsea Clinton was sentenced to one of these camps. At least according to Chelsea

 

[PredFan]

Lol, ok. I didn't recall anything if his I disagreed with, but yeah, I disagree with those.

Then you're not truly a Conservative. You're just someone who doesn't want admit they're a Liberal.

Ok guy. Remember that when we, as we often do, agree on something.

 

[radical right]

This doctrine is not meant to be contended for. It is admitted, that he may avail himself of it, at any time, by plea, before or after verdict or confession.

In other words, a defendant can plead "not guilty" and still accept a pardon. Your cite doesn't support your position. However, the court can still pass sentence - meaningless act since it's result will be nil.

This is a stupid as when you said Trump interviewed this years H2b's for Mar-a-lago..

One can pursue an appeal of one's guilt, or they can accept a pardon. The two are mutually exclusive, since a pardon makes any further proceedings on the matter moot. If someone wants to clear their name, they have to reject the pardon.

 

[bripat9643]

This doctrine is not meant to be contended for. It is admitted, that he may avail himself of it, at any time, by plea, before or after verdict or confession.

In other words, a defendant can plead "not guilty" and still accept a pardon. Your cite doesn't support your position. However, the court can still pass sentence - meaningless act since it's result will be nil.

This is a stupid as when you said Trump interviewed the H2b's for Mar-a-lago..

One can pursue an appeal of one's guilt, or they can accept a pardon. The two are mutually exclusive, since a pardon makes any further proceedings on the matter moot. If someone wants to clear their name, they have to reject the pardon.

No they don't, moron. That's pure snowflake moonshine. A pardon is irrelevant to the matter of guilt.

 

[Anathema]

]Ok guy. Remember that when we, as we often do, agree on something.

I think you miss something... a person who is 99% Conservative is STILL a Liberal. So, until you agree with 100% Conservative Principles you'll always be a Liberal.