67 Replies to “Hypocrisy.”

  2. Hollyweird? Well, those filthy rich folk do enjoy their cheap illegal servants, don’t they?

  3. Trump was wrong to pardon the sheriff. That leftists agree doesn’t make that point wrong.

  4. “defying a judge’s order to stop using unlawful immigration tactics”
    NOT TRUE: Allegations that have not been litigated, are not fact
    Sheriff Joe has promised to TELL the full story of how a 9th Circuit Judge’s wife told all her friends how the Judge (Snow) was going to put a boot on Joe’s throat. Joe was the elected sheriff of Maricopa County (Phoenix & area) He was the re-elected sheriff of the people.. The 9th circuit has zero authority over elected officials, the law supported Joe, but the Obama team was paid to ignore the law. …The talk shows are going to love Joe
    1. Trump sends a message to Arizona Republicans that silence regarding Illegal Aliens is not an option…The drug trade must cease, Support the wall or else..
    2. Trump sends a Message to Arizona Republicans that NAFTA may be Nixed.. The NAFTA Business in Arizona is huge & they will be hit harder than Canada ( I don’t think Canada is the target but if they lay down with dogs they may get fleas)
    McCain & Flake become examples of Trump road kills

  5. He defied a judges order to stop upholding the law. It gets complicated doesn’t it. Judges don’t make law, they adjudicate it. I don’t think it is within a judges mandate to tell a sheriff to break the law. Arpeo should be pardoned and the judges should be jailed.

  6. Two wrongs do not make a right. You think it was the judges who broke the law then go after them and jail them. And the sheriff.

  7. And John McCain … “doing the work his fellow Democrats just won’t do,” … tweeted “undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law”. Yes, thank you Senator Illegal Alien … for ignoring Federal Law allowing CHEAP labor to flood into your sanctuary State. All your crony-Capitalist backers cheer your Mexican labor bureau. Senile old fool. Oh, excuse me … senile old (war hero) fool.

  8. “defying a judge’s order to stop using unlawful immigration tactics”
    –
    The government knew the only thing they could stick him with was defying a Federal judge.
    Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt.
    “Arpaio planned to appeal to get a jury”
    Had they put him in front of a 12 or 6 person jury of his peers, He would have walked away months ago.

  9. What Arpeo did was not wrong. It is his job to uphold the law and that is exactly what he did. The judge was wrong to tell him to ignore the law and Arpeo (sp?) was right to not obey an illegal order. I might be missing something but it seems pretty cut and dry to me.
    I also believe that sometimes two wrongs do make a right. The left is trying to stoke a civil war and if we keep playing like boy scouts while they keep playing like gangsters we will surely lose. The whole don’t bring a knife to a gun fight thing.

  11. “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. How very bumper sticker of you. But a wrong can be made right….and that is what Trump did.

  12. Exactly! It is interesting that in the US you can be jailed by a political judge for upholding the law while the same judge wants you to break the law.
    The Democrats wanted to get him for years and created an illegal situation to get him. In a way kind of the same ride that Conrad Black got from Democrats.
    old white guy, well said.
    That said, for thousands of years actors were considered p*mps and prosti*utes and they are just doing what comes naturally to that bunch.

  13. And since Arpaio would have eventually won on appeal, even if it had to go to the Supreme Court, Trump saved the U.S. taxpayers a mitt-full of money by issuing a pardon now.
    (cue image of crestfallen lawyers throwing yacht catalogs into dumpster)

  14. I’m with the angry mob. Screw you, Gord – you don’t charge law enforcement officers for doing their jobs, and judges can’t arbitrarily suspend national law on a whim. I’m wondering what it is that you see in this that makes you take the judiciary involved seriously – ?
    I dunno what it is but something in Sherriff Joe just seems to make our elderly baby boomer hippies foam at the mouth. Maybe he reminds them of their overly strict fathers or something? It seems to go right across the political spectrum too – I’ve seen supposedly conservative seniors lose their mud over him too – and when you ask them to explain what it is that triggers ’em – they get hissy and evasive and eventually they essentially say ‘he’s a mean poopy-head’ or they bring up supposed infractions that were proven bogus. If the old cucks and progtards are against Joe – he has made all the right enemies in my opinion.

  15. It is the US President’s prerogative to pardon anyone. Whether a particular pardon is ‘right or wrong’ is purely subjective. Gord, I respect your right to agree or disagree with Sheriff Joe’s pardon. What is certain is that it is fully legal for the President to do it. Now if you want to go after an outrageous pardon in recent history how about going after Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich. By any measure that pardon was outrageous. But crocked is as crocked does.
    BTW – you want to attack abuse of law? How about you go after the completely corrupt and oft’ overturned 9th Circuit Court.

  16. This argument was settled at the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal. You have an obligation to defy an illegal or immoral order. The judge issued an illegal order. End of discussion.

  17. you , Gord, are a prime example of what is wrong with conservative party. Your inability to see that the sheriff was right in applying the law as written, and the 9th circuit judge actually broke the law twice, is what makes you a libtard. Do cons a favour and go become a lieberal, you’v been NONconservative on a few issues lately, now go away.

  18. “On July 2017, he was convicted of misdemeanor contempt of court, a crime for which he was pardoned by President Donald Trump on August 25, 2017.” Wiki
    If you read Wiki you will think that Sheriff Joe was a very bad person. Yet, it all boils down to pretty much nothing but accusations.
    I absolutely believe that Donald Trump pardoned Joe as a deliberate provocation. He had not even been sentenced yet and, given his age and his former position, the sentence would probably would have amounted to a slap on the wrist….probation, community service at La Raza, something like that. And Trump could have waited a month or so for the actual sentence to be pronounced. Yeah, so a definite provocation by the President. For me, the question is why?
    As Sheriff, Joe Arpio was very polarizing. You either liked him or you despised him. Libertarians and other open border groups hated him. People opposed to being overrun by illegal aliens loved him. So it goes.

  19. So the good doctors that are left in Canada, should defy the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on assisted suicide (murder) in hospitals in Canada.
    Turning doctors into killers, was also something Nuremberg War Crimes trials found abhorrent.
    Sheriff Arpaio faithfully upheld the law, that the Obama administration disliked. For upholding the law he was found in criminal contempt of the court.
    The simple fact is that the court has earned public contempt, in a similar manner to our own Supreme geniuses in Canada. They didn’t like the proscription on euthanasia so they just upended the law to suit their fancy. There is no right to death in the Constitution Act 1867 or 1981. They made this legal fiction up out of whole cloth.
    In a similar manner, Sheriff Arpaio was hung out to dry because the administration captive to billionaires who want dirt cheap labor wanted to keep the ‘wetback’ flow going. Follow the money on cheap wetback labor and it explains a lot.
    The criminal contempt charge was completely and utterly “trumped up”; so it took a “Trump” to save him!
    All the dog whistling about racism is unadulterated cow droppings.
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group ‘True North’

  20. @Hans:
    Ooops. Wiki was wrong again. It was, as you said, criminal contempt. And I spelled his name wrong too. Arpaio is the correct spelling.
    And Arizona paper stated it this way: “The sentencing phase will begin Oct. 5. Arpaio, 85, faces up to six months in confinement, a sentence equivalent to that of a misdemeanor.”

  21. Be careful what you wish for.
    Supporting a law officer for ignoring a court ruling is a very very slippery slope indeed. What if he was ignoring a court order to arrest illegals?
    Just because you think his cause is just doesn’t make his actions just.
    It would have been much better if this had gone to the scotus. And for a comment or above to argue that trump was right to pardon because it saved a bunch of court costs sounds a whole lot like Justin Trudeaus argument for giving a terrorist murderer / traitor millions of dollars.
    The ends – freeing the sheriff does not justify the means – a presidential pardon.

  22. Not disputing the legality of pardon. I think it is unethical and hypocritical by the president and many of those who agree with him doing it. Supporters of the move are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
    The power to pardon in this manner was not the intent of the constitutions authors in my opinion.

  23. You are wrong (as is often your practice). The judge made an incorrect ruling. And it is that that should be corrected. Supporting the breaking of the law – in this case a judges order to a law officer – is to support the kind of anarchy the progressive left wants.

  24. And he likely would have had the judgement overturned on appeal. There was no need for trump to do this. As another commentor noted above this likely was nothing but stirring the pot by trump (though his timing – on a Friday afternoon in the middle of a hurricane would argue otherwise).

  25. Be careful what you wish for.
    Supporting a law officer for ignoring a court ruling is a very very slippery slope indeed. What if he was ignoring a court order to arrest illegals?
    Just because you think his cause is just doesn’t make his actions just.
    It would have been much better if this had gone to the scotus. And for a comment or above to argue that trump was right to pardon because it saved a bunch of court costs sounds a whole lot like Justin Trudeaus argument for giving a terrorist murderer / traitor millions of dollars.
    The ends – freeing the sheriff does not justify the means – a presidential pardon.

  26. If trump really gave a $hit about the law he would appoint people to the over 100 court positions that hasn’t done and has had the power to fir the past eight months. And split the ninth circuit in two and end the unconstitutional blue slips process that is holding up many of the few judgeship appointments he has made.
    These are all longstanding wishes of conservatives – but you don’t read ‘boo’ about it on this “conservative” site. I am more and more convinced that many who post and comment here are reactionary populists – not conservatives- which is what Trump is. (Note that with a couple possible exceptions only democrat generals and New York democrats are all that are in the White House advising trump)

  27. Well at least one American lawmaker from Arizona would disagree with your take on the matter…enjoy the read. As you will see Arpaio was clearly being hung out to dry by hook or crook; in a transparent attempt to miscarry justice. Just because one has a different reading of the facts at hand doesn’t make one an ‘unfaithful conservative’ as in you suggest in your most recent post.
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group ‘True North’
    AZ Rep. Trent Franks Praises Trump’s Pardon of Joe Arpaio
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/26/az-rep-trent-franks-praises-trumps-pardon-of-joe-arpaio/
    WASHINGTON—Arizona Rep. Trent Franks praised President Donald Trump’s decision to pardon former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday, calling it “right and just” for Arpaio and his family.
    Arpaio was held in contempt of court by a federal judge for continuing his policy of enforcing immigration laws against illegal aliens. When Arpaio was sued for allegedly violating civil rights, a federal judge whose family member was representing the side suing Arpaio—a conflict of interest that under federal law requires the judge to recuse himself—ordered Arpaio to cease his law enforcement efforts.
    When the judge later decided Arpaio was not fully complying with that order, he held Arpaio in contempt of court and referred the matter to the Obama-Lynch Justice Department for criminal prosecution. Judge Susan Bolton—who was appointed by President Barack Obama—convicted Arpaio without a jury on July 31 of this year.
    Although Arpaio is 85 years old and his wife is gravely ill, federal prosecutors from the Obama administration sought six months behind bars for the sheriff. If prosecutors had requested a single day more than six months of jail time, then the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights would have entitled Arpaio to a jury trial.
    But by asking for only six months of jail time, Arpaio was denied the right for his fate to be decided by twelve Arizonans, who it is widely believed would likely have acquitted him. Instead, the aged lawman’s fate was decided by a district judge, and so Arpaio faced the threat of being locked up behind bars alongside hundreds of criminals who were locked up by him.
    Article II of the Constitution gives every president authority to grant pardons, commutations, and other reprieves for federal crimes. The power is unlimited, with the sole exception that a president cannot pardon a federal officer who is impeached and removed from office by Congress.
    The White House statement accompanying the pardon declared of Arpaio, “After more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is a worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon.”
    Commending President Trump for granting the pardon, Franks contrasted it to Obama’s commuting the prison sentence of Bradley Manning, the transgender Army soldier convicted of one of the worst leaks of classified information in American history, giving those documents to Wikileaks for worldwide disclosure.
    “While no one can dispute Manning acted to undermine our country’s national security, Joe Arpaio has spent a lifetime trying to maintain it,” Franks, a longtime Republican favorite of Christians and conservatives, said in his statement. “Comparing the two, it is easy to discern that Arpaio is a patriot, while Manning is a traitor.”
    “Arpaio is the victim of political assassination and a partisan prosecution,” Franks concluded. “It is right and just for him and his ailing wife to receive the peace of an honorable retirement.”
    Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News.

  28. “”And split the ninth circuit in two and end the unconstitutional blue slips process that is holding up many of the few judgeship appointments he has made.”” Gord Turk
    You are catching ON… When Joe goes on the talk circuit he (hopefully) will make the case for the new 12th circuit. California, Hawaii, Guam stay in 9th…
    Obama used the IRS against Republicans, Obama used the 9th Circuit against Sheriff Joe….If you think those acts are anything about justice your values are stuck on stupid.
    McCain is crying that it’s just not fair..he is made to look like a dumb chimp…He IS

  29. From a reactionary site – and frank is a reactionary too. That noted he is arguing his case on grounds of compassion – not that what the sheriff did was right or legal.
    Trumps argument that the sheriffs service makes him worthy of pardon opens the oandoras box that Hillary be pardoned/not prosecuted on the same grounds.

  30. Ignoring the court by pardoning hurts the case against it. And sets the precedent for radicals on the left to ignore the law when they get back on power.
    I await the citation of a bona fide conservative agreeing with trumps actions. This kind of short-term populist act can have huge negative consequences for years to some.

  31. The source material didn’t alter the facts at hand.
    The presidential pardon power isn’t going away anytime soon…Obama 2009-2017
    You can check out the money laundering list here of a slew of convicted offenders:
    https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons#PJAN172017
    So all of Obama’s pardons are lily white, while Trump’s pardons are inexcusable…sorry no sale.
    Nothing on Obama’s list suggest they did anything right or legal; they were straight up CONVICTED.
    What pray tell is so different because Trump granted a pardon, when it is demonstrably clear Arpaio was being hung out to dry on the basis that he was doing his job, with over a 50 year career track record, as opposed to some neophyte no nothing who made some junior mistake?
    In the same, smarmy manner that the DNC trotted out the Russian conspiracy for their loss to Trump, the Obama administration wanted to jack up a “Trumped Up” charge on Arpaio because he was inconvenient to the untrammelled flow of migrants.
    So the immigrant flow should proceed untrammelled by any lawful considerations; regardless of the statutes at hand? So one should swear to uphold the law, by not upholding the law. Sure that might make sense in some orthogonal Copenhagen interpretation of quantum worlds but perhaps not on this planet.
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group ‘True North’

  32. Manning sucks but he’s not an authoritarian psycho like Arpaio, who was a dangerous monster in power. People died because of his misrule. Sheriffs should not be elected; Arpaio should be in jail.

  33. ‘Reactionary populism’ is basically all that’s left of the right. The ground is set for Dem-progs to take power for a very long time. They have no real opposition. Certainly not a serious one, given all the idiots here hollering about ‘rule of law’ while supporting a Sheriff who had no respect for the law.

  34. That’s right, Gord, keep showing us that winning “conservative ” message.

  37. Oh, I totally agree. That’s exactly why they’ve lost more than a thousand state seats, all 3 branches and hold only the most far left states’ gubernatorial seats. They’ve got the right just where they want them.
    Of course, they know this and all that violence shown exclusively by the left is just for show, right?
    Right? Haha.

  38. If judge can tell a law enforcement officer to not enforce the law, then that judge is making law upon his personal whim, not elaborating, resolvoing or explaining it.

  39. If judge can tell a law enforcement officer to not enforce the law, then that judge is making law upon his personal whim, not elaborating, resolvoing or explaining it.

  40. good god, are that stupid that you posted “that” to my post??????????????
    CINO says” The judge made an incorrect ruling.” (in other words, he fvcked up)…and you think Arpaio should compound the mistake (illegal order) by following it. You have NO clue as to what you are suggesting. And I see I’m not the only one in here that thinks your out to lunch. You are wrong, full stop, now FO!

  42. The Dems have suffered immensely in the short term, but they probably have the long term locked up. The proggies certainly do. The GOP has it as good as it’s going to get and they can’t accomplish diddly. I really don’t see how the GOP doesn’t wither away over the next few decades. Their voter base of ever dyspeptic angry white guys (including more than a few racists) is just too old.
    Re others: the judge never ordered Arpaio to ‘stop enforcing the law’ that’s a lie. He was told to stop “flouting a 2011 order to stop the unconstitutional racial profiling and detainment of Latino residents.” That was merely the tip of his iceberg of criminality.
    https://reason.com/blog/2017/08/25/trumps-pardon-of-former-sheriff-joe-arpa

  44. I have been fascinated … absolutely fascinated … about the criticism of Trump (usually from the Left) for being too slow to appoint Judges to vacancies. I will suggest the reason is … that Trump isn’t really a (D) or an (R). Therefore, he doesn’t have ready-made list of “Donors” to repay with plum jobs of a highly paid Jugeships. So … finally … we have a President who is selcting judges solely on merit. Carefully. Vetted. And if his SCOTUS pick is any foreshadowing, then his picks will all be solid constitutionalist conservatives. Sorry Koch Bros … no more cronies feeding at the government trough. He has 4-years … he’ll get the positions filled … and then some.

  45. Democrats were upset about the way Arpaio did the job. They didn’t like the tent facilities, the pink underwear the baloney sandwiches or the way he walked around with the guests. His neighbours complained their crime increased because no one wanted to go to jail under Sheriff Arpaio.

  46. “Democrats were upset about the way Arpaio did the job. ”
    As was anyone else with any regard for civil rights and rule of law.
    “His neighbours complained their crime increased because no one wanted to go to jail under Sheriff Arpaio.”
    Crime increased under Arpaio’s misrule because illegal immigrants are not a major source of crime.

  47. Arpaio arrested and turned over to ICE … criminals … who broke the law. Last I checked nobody has the “Civil right” to break the law. No ones Civil rights were harmed by cost-effective incarceration.

  48. Yes they were. Arpaio harassed American citizens because they ‘look like’ illegals ie broke the 4A. His prisons were also inhumane. Arpaio also harassed reporters and political opponents. His henchmen stole defense documents in court.

  49. If he did what he did with the appointment of gorsuch he’d have been done a long time ago. The federalist society would have provided the perfect list to choose from.

  50. Trump interfered before the verdict by asking Sessions if the charges can be dropped. John McCain certainly has a lot more principles than the President. Which isn’t saying much as Trump has none.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation