Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
No they don't, moron. That's pure snowflake moonshine. A pardon is irrelevant to the matter of guilt.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.
How is it Arpaio's fault that Obama and his disgraced AT (Eric Holder) played politics in this investigation causing all this expense? .
You are completely wrong.You are using a moral equivalence argument. Trump did something wrong.
You are assuming they are more mature than 5 year olds.Pino? Cheeto?
How many more juvenile names can the left come up with? Are they consulting 5th graders for insults?
Wrong, moron. That isn't what the ruling says.No they don't, moron. That's pure snowflake moonshine. A pardon is irrelevant to the matter of guilt.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.
As was quoted, a person has to ascend to a pardon. To use it to declare themselves free of the consequences of their crime. If they want to declare their innocence, they have to reject the pardon, which is a declaratory statement they committed a crime, but are being absolved of it's consequences.
Trump has the power to pardon, just as every President has had, and he exercised that right. That is not up for debate - it is fact.
You tell 'em, Princess......Laugh all you want. Just make sure you look at the muzzle and wait for the flash when the time comes.
If you didn't notice, Trump isn't 'most Presidents'...Trump has the power to pardon, just as every President has had, and he exercised that right. That is not up for debate - it is fact.
Just as every president has a 1st amendment right to say whatever he wants. The difference is that most presidents take the time to determine the right thing to say, or the right people to pardon. Most presidents wait over a year before issuing their first pardon.
But Trump just blurts things out, or issues pardons, without thinking.
Wrong, moron. That isn't what the ruling says.As was quoted, a person has to ascend to a pardon. To use it to declare themselves free of the consequences of their crime. If they want to declare their innocence, they have to reject the pardon, which is a declaratory statement they committed a crime, but are being absolved of it's consequences.
If you didn't notice, Trump isn't 'most Presidents'...But Trump just blurts things out, or issues pardons, without thinking.
In other words, the court can declare him guilty even though he accepts the pardon. That fact is meaningless. It doesn't mean he admits guilt by accepting a pardon. The only thing that implies you accept guilt is submitting a guilty plea. End of story.Wrong, moron. That isn't what the ruling says.As was quoted, a person has to ascend to a pardon. To use it to declare themselves free of the consequences of their crime. If they want to declare their innocence, they have to reject the pardon, which is a declaratory statement they committed a crime, but are being absolved of it's consequences.
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.
Stick to carpentry, you stink at law. Or understanding english.
Wrong. Reagan did.If you didn't notice, Trump isn't 'most Presidents'...But Trump just blurts things out, or issues pardons, without thinking.
Most presidents don't have job approvals in the 30's in their first 6 months. In fact, since they've been keeping score, none have. Trump is the first to have so much disapproval this soon..
]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.
If you didn't notice, Trump isn't 'most Presidents'...But Trump just blurts things out, or issues pardons, without thinking.
Most presidents don't have job approvals in the 30's in their first 6 months. In fact, since they've been keeping score, none have. Trump is the first to have so much disapproval this soon..
If you didn't notice, Trump isn't 'most Presidents'...But Trump just blurts things out, or issues pardons, without thinking.
Most presidents don't have job approvals in the 30's in their first 6 months. In fact, since they've been keeping score, none have. Trump is the first to have so much disapproval this soon..
Polls. You liberals poll each other and then report your findings. Lies are the only way you can get yourselves out of bed every morning.
In other words, the court can declare him guilty even though he accepts the pardon. That fact is meaningless. It doesn't mean he admits guilt by accepting a pardon. The only thing that implies you accept guilt is submitting a guilty plea. End of story.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..
You still haven't demonstrated that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.In other words, the court can declare him guilty even though he accepts the pardon. That fact is meaningless. It doesn't mean he admits guilt by accepting a pardon. The only thing that implies you accept guilt is submitting a guilty plea. End of story.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..
Wrong again. As soon as he accepts the pardon, the court is rendered powerless to inflict either guilty or it's consequences upon the person.
What is a pardon in legal terms?
1) v. to use the executive power of a Governor or President to forgive a person convicted of a crime, thus removing any remaining penalties or punishments and preventing any new prosecution of the person for the crime for which the pardon was given.
Wrong. Reagan did.Most presidents don't have job approvals in the 30's in their first 6 months. In fact, since they've been keeping score, none have. Trump is the first to have so much disapproval this soon..
You still haven't demonstrated that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.
