DOJ to charge Joe Arpaio with criminal contempt

[Destiny]

I had nightmares about this asshole last night.

[GrumpyGran]

20 hours ago, apple1 said:

They already did. They voted Arpaio out in the election Nov. 9, 2016.

And they need to get rid of Trent Franks next November. Elect a Democrat who won't applaud support for criminals.

[PreciousPantsofDoom]

My God, I'm appalled. I can't quite wrap my head around this whole thing.  The evil things that Arpaio has done to people and then Trump pardoning him and calling him a patriot. That's bad enough, then you add in the whole aspect of the Trumps actions undermining the courts and I can't even.

Actually, just reading those articles about Arpaios reign of terror as Sherrif was unreal.  I had no idea that kind of thing was going on.  I am even more naive than I thought.

 I think I need to go walk down the street on this fine summer day and hug a puppy or something.  And be mindful that such things as justice and moral and humane behaviour should not be taken for granted. 

[Destiny]

I’m right there with you. I knew he was a jerk, but couldn’t do anything cos don’t live there. Now that I’ve seen the whole breadth of the horror I can’t even.

[KnittingOwl]

That article is shocking. I knew a little more than the tent cities and pink underwear, but not the full extent. I'm amazed that he wasn't fired before he made it all the way up the ranks to police chief. I really feel for all of the residents in MC who suffered under his tyrannical reign. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Seriously, you couldn't make this up: "White House aide defends Trump’s pardon of former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio"

Spoiler

White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert on Sunday defended President Trump's decision to pardon controversial former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, a campaign supporter, calling it a “straightforward” case of clemency for an aging man with a history of military service.

Bossert denied accusations by lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who argued that the pardon demonstrates Trump's contempt for the rule of law.

“Just about every modern president ends up with some controversial pardons,” Bossert said on ABC News's “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” “I don’t think it’s fair to characterize him as not caring about the rule of law.”

“I’m pretty certain that this is not something that will threaten our constitutional order,” Bossert added.

Bossert said he was not familiar with the details of the criminal contempt charges Arpaio faced over his failure to comply with a judge's order to end the practice of detaining people on suspicion that they had undocumented status. Critics called Arpaio's practices racial profiling.

Trump, in announcing the pardon, did not address the charges. Instead, at a rally in Phoenix this week, he defended Arpaio, who he said was being prosecuted for “doing his job.”

“It was a contempt order and not an issue of his job or not his job,” Bossert said. “I really don’t know the details of it.

“I think there’s a clemency argument that can be made for the long history of service, both in the United States military and in law enforcement, for the sheriff,” he added.

ARGH. That is all.

[apple1]

Do none of them know the difference between clemency and pardon?

[sawasdee]

No.

[bashfulpixie]

8 hours ago, apple1 said:

Do none of them know the difference between clemency and pardon?

They don't know the difference between their ass and their elbow, so I'm going with definitely not

[GrumpyGran]

Homeland Security advisor Tom Bossert. Really? Bossert: "Let me make a statement to you on the record, regarding something I will admit, I know nothing about. I'll even include in this statement evidence that I really don't know what I'm talking about!"

And his "long history of service...in law enforcement"? Yeah, that was the problem, asshat.

[sawasdee]

I don't know enough about US constitutional law, but is there a possibility that Arpaio could be charged with neglect of duty? The stuff that is coming out about sex crimes and/or crimes against children being ignored in favour of either his immigration crusade or other political agendas is horrifying. Is there any way he can be held to account?

And I may be getting this completely wrong. But I understand that his actions cost the county millions and millions of dollars for his unconstitutional deeds - is there really no way other than the ballot to remove someone so obviously unfitted for office? And what about misuse of office? The investigations - and arrests! - he made without any legal justification into two local journalists, the investigations into political rivals, the absolutely unreal and concocted assassination attempt - surely all these are actionable? And if they are not, then someone needs to look at the laws. Otherwise, an elected official seems to have carte blanche to behave as his prejudices wish.

[fraurosena]

34 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

I don't know enough about US constitutional law, but is there a possibility that Arpaio could be charged with neglect of duty? The stuff that is coming out about sex crimes and/or crimes against children being ignored in favour of either his immigration crusade or other political agendas is horrifying. Is there any way he can be held to account?

And I may be getting this completely wrong. But I understand that his actions cost the county millions and millions of dollars for his unconstitutional deeds - is there really no way other than the ballot to remove someone so obviously unfitted for office? And what about misuse of office? The investigations - and arrests! - he made without any legal justification into two local journalists, the investigations into political rivals, the absolutely unreal and concocted assassination attempt - surely all these are actionable? And if they are not, then someone needs to look at the laws. Otherwise, an elected official seems to have carte blanche to behave as his prejudices wish.

If this isn't actionable, it seems the days of the wild, wild west haven't ended. 

[JMarie]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fresh-off-a-pardon-from-trump-arpaio-floats-a-primary-challenge-to-flake/ar-AAqQPe1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Quote

Just a few days after President Donald Trump issued a pardon for Joe Arpaio, the former Maricopa County sheriff hinted that he could mount a primary challenge to Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who’s up for re-election next year.

Arpaio, who was convicted of contempt of court for ignoring a court order to stop holding people solely on suspicion of being undocumented, told the Washington Examiner on Monday that he may run for office again.

“I could run for mayor, I could run for legislator, I could run for Senate,” he said.

“I’m sure getting a lot of people around the state asking me” to run against Flake, he added. “All I’m saying is the door is open and we’ll see what happens. I’ve got support. I know what support I have.”

It’s not clear how serious Arpaio is about challenging Flake. He lost his bid for a seventh term as sheriff of Maricopa County last year, and was later convicted of contempt of court. The sheriff was notorious for holding inmates in “tent city,” an open air jail he once referred to as a “concentration camp.”

Arpaio, who is now 85 years old, told the Washington Examiner that despite his age, he does not plan to fully retire yet.

“I’m proud to be my age. I work 14 hours a day. If anyone thinks my age is going to hold me back, I’ve got news for them,” he said. “The bottom line is there’s no way I’m going to go fishing. I have no hobbies.”

Kelli Ward campaigning for Jeff Flake's Senate seat next year.  She ran last year against John McCain, and here's what she said about him (he turned 80 the day before the primary election):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/25/john-mccains-primary-opponent-just-launched-one-of-the-nastiest-political-attacks-youll-see/?utm_term=.f2d2dca53af8

Quote

“John McCain is falling down on the job," she said, only getting started. "He has gotten weak. He has gotten old. I do want to wish him a happy birthday. He's going to be 80 on Monday, and I want to give him the best birthday present ever -- the gift of retirement."

Also: "I'm a physician. I see the physiological changes that happen in normal aging, in patients again and again and again over the last 20, 25 years. So I do know what happens to the body and the mind at the end of life."

Yes, she actually said "end of life" while talking about her 79-year-old, war hero opponent (whose mother, by the way, is still around at the age of 104).

Asked by a taken-aback Todd whether she feels comfortable diagnosing McCain without examining him as his personal doctor, Ward had an amazingly brazen response.

“Diagnosing him as an 80-year-old man, yes, I do," she said.

So if she gets that huffy about an 80 year old running against her, what's she going to say about an 85 year old running against her?

[sawasdee]

As far as I understand (please correct me!) an elected sheriff has a degree of immunity for civil complaints made against him for actions taken in the name of his office. I am sure MCPO had insurance to cover such actions.

What would happen if the insurance companies would no longer insure a sheriff because of too many actions against him? Does the county then become liable? And does the county have any means to remove such a person from office?

I would really like to know. I do know there are a lot of lawyers on FJ - can @Buzzard et al enlighten me?

(I'm not a US citizen, and sometimes your laws completely confound me!)

[GrumpyGran]

53 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

I don't know enough about US constitutional law, but is there a possibility that Arpaio could be charged with neglect of duty? The stuff that is coming out about sex crimes and/or crimes against children being ignored in favour of either his immigration crusade or other political agendas is horrifying. Is there any way he can be held to account?

And I may be getting this completely wrong. But I understand that his actions cost the county millions and millions of dollars for his unconstitutional deeds - is there really no way other than the ballot to remove someone so obviously unfitted for office? And what about misuse of office? The investigations - and arrests! - he made without any legal justification into two local journalists, the investigations into political rivals, the absolutely unreal and concocted assassination attempt - surely all these are actionable? And if they are not, then someone needs to look at the laws. Otherwise, an elected official seems to have carte blanche to behave as his prejudices wish.

You'd have to find someone to prosecute him and as the people of Maricopa County have seen, that would be a huge waste of money. Their money. Civil action is the best anyone can do now, with a court that will force him to part with assets if he is found guilty.

[sawasdee]

@GrumpyGran  But could he not be liable for some criminal charges? Malicious prosecution, for one.

If his actions took place while he was sheriff, does that mean that any civil case will only cost the county?

ETA I hate this man with a passion. I am desperately trying to find a way he could be made to pay for his actions.

Edited August 28, 2017 by sawasdee

[GrumpyGran]

4 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

As far as I understand (please correct me!) an elected sheriff has a degree of immunity for civil complaints made against him for actions taken in the name of his office. I am sure MCPO had insurance to cover such actions.

What would happen if the insurance companies would no longer insure a sheriff because of too many actions against him? Does the county then become liable? And does the county have any means to remove such a person from office?

I would really like to know. I do know there are a lot of lawyers on FJ - can @Buzzard et al enlighten me?

(I'm not a US citizen, and sometimes your laws completely confound me!)

Yes, the insurance company can refuse to pay for claims against him if they have good cause. You'll find info about this in the Steven Avery case in Wisconsin, if you're not familiar. I think he would be personally responsible in that case since he was not following anyone's orders.

2 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

@GrumpyGran  But could he not be liable for some criminal charges? Malicious prosecution, for one.

If his actions took place while he was sheriff, does that mean that any civil case will only cost the county?

Well, everyone knows now that Trump would just get in the way. I don't know if he could be pardoned again for another crime. It would be a hot legal mess that would drag on and on, with change of venue, delays, probably protests. And remember, many of the people that he targeted aren't inclined to come forward for fear of reprisal from the current administration.

I do hope there is someone out there with something good on him. But I think he's tempting fate with his boasting. Tick, tock, tick, tock.

[fraurosena]

4 minutes ago, JMarie said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fresh-off-a-pardon-from-trump-arpaio-floats-a-primary-challenge-to-flake/ar-AAqQPe1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Kelli Ward campaigning for Jeff Flake's Senate seat next year.  She ran last year against John McCain, and here's what she said about him (he turned 80 the day before the primary election):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/25/john-mccains-primary-opponent-just-launched-one-of-the-nastiest-political-attacks-youll-see/?utm_term=.f2d2dca53af8

So if she gets that huffy about an 80 year old running against her, what's she going to say about an 85 year old running against her?

Wait. WHAT???? 

That   is thinking of running against Jeff Flake for senator?

I'm at a loss for words. And that's saying something.

[sawasdee]

Quote

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." Thomas Jefferson

Yep.

[sawasdee]

2 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

Well, everyone knows now that Trump would just get in the way. I don't know if he could be pardoned again for another crime.

He can't be pardoned by the Mandarin Mess for a state crime - if I understand correctly. The Tangerine Twat can only pardon Federal offences - so some Arizona prosecutor could really make his bones here!

[JMarie]

CNN is reporting that Trump decided to tell the nation about Sheriff Joe's pardon on Friday night, during a weather-related disaster, because he wanted HIGHER RATINGS!

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-08-28/trump-defends-arpaio-pardon-citing-high-harvey-ratings

 

[JMarie]

Classes started today at Georgetown Law school.  Tiffany can help out her dad with all the technical law stuff he doesn't understand, if she's still enrolled.

[GreyhoundFan]

How very true: "Why did Trump pardon Arpaio? Because he sees himself in the former sheriff.'

Spoiler

There are lots of compelling reasons not to pardon the country’s most famous racist in the middle of a hurricane.

So why exactly did President Trump decide to pardon Joe Arpaio?

Maybe, some speculated, Trump wanted to toss some red meat to his base. Trump’s recent Phoenix campaign-rally crowd practically frothed at the mouth when he hinted at a coming pardon of the former Maricopa County sheriff. As Trump’s overall approval hovers around 35 percent, a high-profile pardon of a notorious racial profiler might be a way to shore up his support.

But Trump had also previously pursued more behind-the-scenes moves to help Arpaio avoid facing justice, as my Post colleagues reported over the weekend. Which suggests that public credit may not have been the primary goal.

Others speculated that the pardon was about rewarding a longtime ally for his loyalty. Arpaio was, after all, one of the first politicians to board the Trump train. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions was also among Trump’s earliest political supporters, and loyalty alone did not shield him from public torment and humiliation at the hands of the president.

Another popular theory is that the pardon was a signal to other Trump confederates coming into special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s orbit that the president will protect them. No need to turn on our boy, y’ hear?

In my view, the most likely explanation for this stomach-churning pardon is much simpler: It’s projection. Trump sees himself — or what he sometimes aspires to accomplish, anyway — in this local tin-pot dictator.

Think about it. Trump has not exactly proved himself to be the forward-looking, calculating mastermind implied by those alternative explanations. And he makes everything — including the Charlottesville violence, the Houston catastrophe, even the eclipse — about himself.

Trump and Arpaio both built their political careers by demonizing immigrants. They also both raised their national profiles by claiming that Barack Obama was secretly a Kenyan-born Muslim, a racist conspiracy theory that Arpaio even sent a taxpayer-funded deputy to Hawaii to investigate.

And more broadly they both seem to use “law and order” as code for encouraging law enforcement to harass people of color.

Those are the best-known parallels between the two politicians, but they’re hardly the only ones. There are many other ways in which Arpaio has proved to be Trump’s mini-me.

Arpaio has, for example, jailed journalists who wrote critical stories about his hidden commercial real estate transactions. Trump’s antipathy for the media likewise goes beyond bashing us as “the enemy of the people” and threatening to “open up the libel laws” — he reportedly asked the FBI director to fight leaks by throwing journalists in jail .

Or consider their preferred forms of pomp and circumstance.

For years as sheriff, Arpaio rode a giant tank in local parades. Trump hoped (but failed) to emulate this in his own inaugural parade in January. Trump also plans to issue an executive order expanding the militarization of local police forces, which Obama had rolled back.

Both Trump and Arpaio also have launched attacks on the independence of our federal judiciary.

Trump did this by, among other things, questioning the ability of a U.S.-born judge of Mexican descent to remain impartial in a Trump University case. Arpaio, for his part, refused a court order to stop racial profiling — earning him a contempt-of-court conviction, the crime for which he was pardoned.

Before that, Arpaio secretly investigated a judge assigned to his trial, and then claimed that this same judge could not be impartial because the judge had learned about the politically motivated investigation.

Politically motivated investigations were actually a mainstay of Arpaio’s law enforcement career, as well as Trump’s campaign rallies (“Lock her up!”), while both claim to be victims of political witch hunts themselves.

And woe betide those who actually find themselves imprisoned under either’s authority.

Trump throughout the presidential campaign repeatedly advocated torturing prisoners held abroad; Arpaio often acted on this brutal impulse in his own jails. He set up a “tent city,” which he sometimes referred to as a “concentration camp,” housing inmates in temperatures reaching up to 145 degrees; conditions got so hot that prisoners’ shoes sometimes melted.

And at least three prisoners died — each at the time held down in a “restraint chair” — via suffocation.

Trump and the White House repeatedly alluded to 85-year-old Arpaio’s advanced age when justifying his absolution, perhaps another reason that the oldest man to assume the presidency empathizes with the recipient of his first pardon.

Over the two years of his political life, Trump’s insults have often been of the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I projectional variety. Turns out his praise and clemency are, as well.

Birds of a feather.

[GrumpyGran]

15 hours ago, JMarie said:

CNN is reporting that Trump decided to tell the nation about Sheriff Joe's pardon on Friday night, during a weather-related disaster, because he wanted HIGHER RATINGS!

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-08-28/trump-defends-arpaio-pardon-citing-high-harvey-ratings

 

Yeah, that little 30 second spew of venom was ill-advised. Even if he was being snide, it's completely inappropriate. Another brick in your wall, Donald.

[AnywhereButHere]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/08/29/judge-wont-vacate-former-sheriff-joe-arpaios-contempt-conviction-without-oral-arguments/614854001/

 

Quote

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton canceled former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's upcoming sentencing hearing for his criminal contempt-of-court conviction, telling attorneys not to file replies to motions that were pending before his recent presidential pardon.

However, Bolton on Tuesday stopped short of throwing out the conviction based solely on Arpaio's request. Instead she ordered Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is prosecuting the case, to file briefs on why she should or shouldn't grant Arpaio's request.

Arpaio's attorneys asked Bolton on Monday to vacate Arpaio's conviction in light of President Donald Trump's Friday pardon.

Bolton has scheduled oral arguments on the matter for Oct. 4, the day before Arpaio was supposed to be sentenced.

There is case law that says a pardon implies an admission of guilt, and that will have to be argued in open court.

Once again Caligula is at war with the justice system.