I'm finding a bit of something about all this that's causing some confusion perhaps.

One might ponder how Arpaio withstood the full force and fury of the Obama Department of Justice for 8 years, but did he really withstand that?? Looking at Arpaio's win/lose record for lawsuits doesn't seem to suggest much legal acumen or much of a propensity to select A-team legal representation, and yet the feds were impotent to put his sorry Italian ass in federal prison anywhere. Almost as though the DoJ was pulling it's punches, or worse, Arpaio had some level of tacit approval for his conduct. Hard to avoid thinking it might add up to an imprimatur of approval if we knew the full rationale for the history of this bully.

And now dumping on Trump, exclusively, for a pardon ??

I'm getting indigestion from this one . . .

(August 25, 2017 at 11:15 pm)Court Jester Wrote:

(August 25, 2017 at 10:27 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Is cheering on an instance in which a cop is above the law predictably republican or something?  I thought you guys were "law and order" types......?

He did uphold the law. Some liberal political figures just didn't like how he did it.

No he didn't. But like Shit gibbon, you seem to think this is a good thing. And sadly you're willing to justify it by blaming liberals for not agreeing with it. Shame on you.

How do you not get that being a person of Authority doesn't give him a free pass to do what ever he wants to people? He isn't above the law you know.

@Vor
You're surprised that cops get treated with kid gloves when they misbehave? That's not an anomaly begging for obscure explanation. That's SOP.

When it should be a showcase demonstration for an Obama Department of Justice ??

And an easy one to bag a win on, Arpaio's win/lose record for lawsuits is bad enough to nearly have bankrupted Maricopa County. Jesus, this one should have been a 'gimmee' for Holder or Lynch. Helluva opportunity to send a message.

And nothing. Something ain't right here, and it's been not right for 8 years. Arpaio ain't fucking carrying around a magic talisman to ward off Holder/Lynch without their fucking complicity.

It's almost as if Obama wasn't the all powerful federal tyrant he was made out to be...or something. It;s almost as if Some People™ provided enough support for his unconstitutional abuses of authority to shield him from whatever lukewarm consequences he would have suffered as a member of a privileged law enforcement class....for Some Reason™. It;s almost as if he was so emboldened by this that he became openly and blatantly insubordinate to law -as- a law enforcement agent.......

-and then, after all of that shit, and after squandering or burning every opportunity to clean up his act.......whats the charge? Criminal contempt, the sentence being a few months in jail....but no, instead a presidential pardon.

Meanwhile, Others™ who -allegedly- abuse our civil liberties and constitutional rights for one moment in time, are shot on sight.

Somebody hand me one of those red fucking hats.

(August 26, 2017 at 8:48 am)Court Jester Wrote: Contempt of court because a judge told him to stop enforcing a written law. Not that he was enforcing in improperly, or he should have enforced it differently, or a hold on the enforcement of the law because it was in the process of being changed. Those would have added different charges.
And I'm sure that there's no coincidence that the state department announced the contempt charge on the eve of early voting.

Why did the judge tell him not to uphold the law though? Perhaps there was a valid reason for it.

No judge, ever, anywhere, told him not to uphold the law. Consider the inanity of that proposition..the notion of, of all people, a judge, telling someone to cool it with all that law and whatnot.

He was repeatedly told to stop -breaking- the law.

(August 26, 2017 at 1:45 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 26, 2017 at 8:48 am)Court Jester Wrote: Contempt of court because a judge told him to stop enforcing a written law. Not that he was enforcing in improperly, or he should have enforced it differently, or a hold on the enforcement of the law because it was in the process of being changed. Those would have added different charges.
And I'm sure that there's no coincidence that the state department announced the contempt charge on the eve of early voting.

Why did the judge tell him not to uphold the law though? Perhaps there was a valid reason for it.

Because he was violating the constitution.  You know what the "constitution" is, right.  It's that thing that clowns like CJ trot out when it suits their purpose and then ignore at any other opportunity.

His enforcement strategies were deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge, and he was ordered to stop his department from pursuing those unconstitutional measures.

(August 26, 2017 at 2:47 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: His enforcement strategies were deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge, and he was ordered to stop his department from pursuing those unconstitutional measures.

Yeah, Trump loves that kind of thing.  Loves his white people, especially the rich ones who can buy his products and the poor stupid ones who support the rest.


Been thinking of you, Thumper.  Hope you're staying dry and safe!