DC Tom Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Was Joe even convicted ? or was it just his contempt charges? Convicted of criminal contempt of court, at a bench trial. That was what he was pardoned of, as it was the only criminal charge he was convicted of. He's had a ****-ton of civil charges go against him, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Oh, I do pretty much believe those, given they're based on verifiable court records (the assassination plot is !@#$ing ridiculous. He should have gone to jail for that bit of fraud, IMO.) But again...proves he's an !@#$, but not necessarily a racist !@#$. Your point, and KTD's, provided a decent illustration of how thoroughly !@#$ed up immigration law is in this country. ICE can "deputize" local law enforcement to enforce immigration law, who's can't enforce the law otherwise, who may be at odds with state authorities who issue documentation of proof of residency that commonly substitutes as proof of citizenship, none of which makes any goddamn sense whatsoever. This country's debates about illegal immigration are virtually meaningless, since they take place in a legal context that has been !@#$ed sideways six ways to Sunday. See above explanation. I wasn't at all saying DL shows any proof whatsoever about citizenship. But your point about the !@#$ed up laws is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 No, it was Trump trying to distract from his abysmal handling of Hurricane Harvey [/MSNBC] Sarcasm aside, you're pretty much correct. Anyone remember the last time a sitting president pardoned anyone in the middle of his term? All the pardons I recall were back-loaded in to their last month in office. Well, if Trump waited to pardon him until the end of his term he may have already served a prison sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Convicted of criminal contempt of court, at a bench trial. That was what he was pardoned of, as it was the only criminal charge he was convicted of. He's had a ****-ton of civil charges go against him, though. You know this better than me but doesn't Arpaio accepting the pardon mean that he agrees that he was guilty of the crime he was convicted for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 I think you may have misinterpreted grinreaper's post. He was not really arguing the issue--he was merely taking the opportunity to attack you personally. that does seem to be his/her style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 fixed that for you. Yes I believe it was only Latinos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 You know this better than me but doesn't Arpaio accepting the pardon mean that he agrees that he was guilty of the crime he was convicted for? That's a bit beyond my "Holiday Inn Express" level of knowledge. I think you may be right...but in this case it may also be that, in accepting the pardon, he's only admitting that he was convicted. Row_33's an attorney, I believe...hey may know better. But I doubt it matters...as Kleaglebanana pointed out, this was a PR stunt first and foremost, and the people it's meant for have no use for that distinction. "Pardoned" to them means "innocent." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) You know this better than me but doesn't Arpaio accepting the pardon mean that he agrees that he was guilty of the crime he was convicted for? Not really. In fact, it's really not clear if you can even decline a pardon. Edited August 30, 2017 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 See above explanation. I wasn't at all saying DL shows any proof whatsoever about citizenship. But your point about the !@#$ed up laws is correct. I'm actually involved with immigration right now...one of the always-interesting things about my government contracting niche is that you get to see how the sausage is made. This sausage is ugly. Where I am has some of the finer government people I've met...but the legal, regulatory, and administrative systems they work under are unbelievably FUBAR'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 That's a bit beyond my "Holiday Inn Express" level of knowledge. I think you may be right...but in this case it may also be that, in accepting the pardon, he's only admitting that he was convicted. Row_33's an attorney, I believe...hey may know better. But I doubt it matters...as Kleaglebanana pointed out, this was a PR stunt first and foremost, and the people it's meant for have no use for that distinction. "Pardoned" to them means "innocent." It seems that it implies acceptance of guilt of the crime not just the conviction. "The presumption, then, is that someone offered a pardon naturally will accept it; why not if it is so easy and the President wants to grant it? The Supreme Court supplied a reason not to accept a pardon just over 100 years ago, in 1915, writing that a person who accepts such pardon is confessing guilt because a pardon carries an imputation of guilt. In other words, the person offered the pardon actually may reject the pardon from the President because he or she does not wish to admit guilt, even if accepting the pardon would extinguish any penalties related to the alleged crime. And, a presidential pardon does not erase or expunge the records of a conviction. So, an individual’s criminal history record will reflect both a conviction, if there is one, and the pardon." https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobfrenkel/2017/07/21/president-trump-can-preemptively-pardon-his-advisors-and-family-but-will-he/#670be2fd6c3b Not really. In fact, it's really not clear if you can even decline a pardon. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobfrenkel/2017/07/21/president-trump-can-preemptively-pardon-his-advisors-and-family-but-will-he/#670be2fd6c3b I'm just providing a link where it is discussed and it seems to be an admission of guilt, with case law. I'm not a legal scholar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 It seems that it implies acceptance of guilt of the crime not just the conviction. "The presumption, then, is that someone offered a pardon naturally will accept it; why not if it is so easy and the President wants to grant it? The Supreme Court supplied a reason not to accept a pardon just over 100 years ago, in 1915, writing that a person who accepts such pardon is confessing guilt because a pardon carries an imputation of guilt. In other words, the person offered the pardon actually may reject the pardon from the President because he or she does not wish to admit guilt, even if accepting the pardon would extinguish any penalties related to the alleged crime. And, a presidential pardon does not erase or expunge the records of a conviction. So, an individual’s criminal history record will reflect both a conviction, if there is one, and the pardon." https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobfrenkel/2017/07/21/president-trump-can-preemptively-pardon-his-advisors-and-family-but-will-he/#670be2fd6c3b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobfrenkel/2017/07/21/president-trump-can-preemptively-pardon-his-advisors-and-family-but-will-he/#670be2fd6c3b I'm just providing a link where it is discussed and it seems to be an admission of guilt, with case law. I'm not a legal scholar. I'm not sure it matters much anyway. This is one of those "perception is reality" situations, where everyone's going to hold dear their preconceived notions and only listen to sources that reinforce them. But if it is an admission of guilt by Arpaio, I look forward to Trump's ignorant tweeting this weekend how Arpaio is now innocent of all charges. (And you know..."ignorant" doesn't even begin to cover it. We need a new adjective that conveys the concept of "ignorance so far beyond normal that the light from normal will take a thousand years to reach it.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 that does seem to be his/her style. No, I was pointing out a statement that implied having a driver's license meant one was a citizen. When you make a positive contribution here, it will be your first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 No, I was pointing out a statement that implied having a driver's license meant one was a citizen. When you make a positive contribution here, it will be your first time. Hey, none of that. You may disagree with him, you may not like him. But don't treat him like gatorman. When everything is racism/terrorism/gatorman, then nothing is racism/terrorism/gatorman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 This is a good article by one of the clerks for the very Republican, very conservative judge who was responsible for the Arpaio case. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/30/joe-arpaio-says-hes-been-treated-unfairly-thats-ridiculous/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.35c9c673c0e0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 No, I was pointing out a statement that implied having a driver's license meant one was a citizen. When you make a positive contribution here, it will be your first time. ding ding ding Every post makes a contribution. Some people take it personally and start acting like children. If you want to converse, fine, if you want to insult I'll ignore it and occasionally point it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 This is a good article by one of the clerks for the very Republican, very conservative judge who was responsible for the Arpaio case. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/30/joe-arpaio-says-hes-been-treated-unfairly-thats-ridiculous/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.35c9c673c0e0 Again, not racist. You'll note that no one here is arguing that Arpaio was some sort of grand gentleman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Again, not racist. You'll note that no one here is arguing that Arpaio was some sort of grand gentleman. How is it not racist when the article specifically refers to the charge he was using racist tactics and then flaunted that he wasn't going to follow federal law that doesn't allow him to practice such racist tactics? It says right in same article that the officers had written orders to specifically target and pull over Hispanics. How is that not racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 How is it not racist when the article specifically refers to the charge he was using racist tactics and then flaunted that he wasn't going to follow federal law that doesn't allow him to practice such racist tactics? It says right in same article that the officers had written orders to specifically target and pull over Hispanics. How is that not racist? That begs the question, is profiling racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 That begs the question, is profiling racist? It is not always or necessarily racist, no. It often is. I would say written orders from your bosses to pull over Hispanics is racist by definition, yes. If you just happen to pull over more Hispanics because there are not as many white or black illegal immigrants in a basic border city then no, I would not think that was racist at all. "But Snow ignored these incendiary emails and focused on the evidence relevant to the case — Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office equated being Hispanic with being unlawfully present in the country. Their written orders directed officers to stop cars when the drivers and passengers appeared Hispanic. Full stop." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 It is not always or necessarily racist, no. It often is. I would say written orders from your bosses to pull over Hispanics is racist by definition, yes. If you just happen to pull over more Hispanics because there are not as many white or black illegal immigrants in a basic border city then no, I would not think that was racist at all. "But Snow ignored these incendiary emails and focused on the evidence relevant to the case — Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office equated being Hispanic with being unlawfully present in the country. Their written orders directed officers to stop cars when the drivers and passengers appeared Hispanic. Full stop." Then I take it you are fine with the ratio of Blacks, Whites and Hispanics locked up in our prison system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts