Reply With Quote
Yeah, no.
That wasn't it.
Dude was arresting and detaining American citizens with no cause.
The truth about the Arpaio matter is the Obama and his justice dept. persecuted Joe Arpaio for the investigation of Obama's birth certificate and his vocal criticism of Obama for the way illegals were being let in our nation illegally, the charges against the sheriff manufactured to keep Joe from being elected sheriff again and to punish the man for his patriotism, Trump was well within his rights as president to pardon this man !
Yeah, no.
That wasn't it.
Dude was arresting and detaining American citizens with no cause.
Did not break the law
Indeed he did.
Talking about Chelsea Manning yesterday at the news conference Trump referred to (she) as "he." tee, hee.
Yep. Obama is loved. Trump is hated. Nothing you can do about it.
Joselito Arpaio not Joe
Nate SilverVerified account NateSilver538
Trump's Arpaio pardon is completely... precedented. Lots of modern presidents have used & abused their pardon power.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ts-in-trouble/
lol ducks is pro-abuse.
Joe
actually I think all presidents should not be allowed to pardon anyone but they are
trump did nothing illegal
So ducks is taking a stand against Trump's abuse of power?
Exactly. Like Hussein said:::"There are consequences to elections."
Joe
I said ALL PRESIDENTS should not be allowed to pardon
other presidents have
he did nothing wrong and he deserved to be pardoned
the former president went after him because he went after him
the trial was suppose to be jury was not
a person can request a jury trial he did
trump did the right thing since presidents can pardon people(I think they should not be allowed to )
So you don't actually have any principles and don't believe in the rule of law.
Thanks for making yourself perfectly clear.
all the presidents pardoned people that were found guilty
that is what a pardon is
I think presidents should not pardon but they are allowed to.
so I have no idea why the left is crying like a baby about him pardoning someone.
Yes, yes -- you have no principles and don't believe in the rule of law. You already told us.
so were you against other people that got pardoned?
Cronies? Yes.
Legal challenge to Arpaio pardon begins
The Arizona Republic reports:
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.
In other words, this is no slam dunk.
Protect Democracy, an activist group seeking to thwart Trump’s violations of legal norms, and a group of lawyers have sent a letter to Raymond N. Hulser and John Dixon Keller of the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division of the Justice Department, arguing that the pardon goes beyond cons utional limits.
In their letter obtained by Right Turn, they argue:
While the Cons ution’s pardon power is broad, it is not unlimited. Like all provisions of the original Cons ution of 1787, it is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights.
For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Similarly, issuance of a pardon that violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is also suspect.
Under the Due Process Clause, no one in the United States (citizen or otherwise) may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
But for due process and judicial review to function, courts must be able to restrain government officials.
Due process requires that, when a government official is found by a court to be violating individuals’ cons utional rights, the court can issue effective relief (such as an injunction) ordering the official to cease this uncons utional conduct.
And for an injunction to be effective, there must be a penalty for violation of the injunction—principally, contempt of court.
Put simply, the argument is that the president cannot obviate the court’s powers to enforce its orders when the cons utional rights of others are at stake.
“The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s cons utional rights,”
if the president can pardon anyone who defies court orders to enforce cons utional protections,
then those cons utional protections are rendered meaningless.
It is a creative argument, but then, this president has created new and disturbing challenges to democratic norms.
“Judge Bolton may want to see how the honorable lawyers of DOJ’s public integrity section respond personally in open court —
themselves as officers of the bar who’ve taken an oath to uphold the Cons ution —
to the blatant abuse of power by their boss.”
He adds, “After all, these are people who’ve dedicated their lives and careers to ensuring our public officials act with integrity and Joe Arpaio and
now the President of the United States have spit in the face of that.”
Bolton’s hearing will venture into uncharted territory,
a voyage necessitated by Trump’s utter disregard for the rule of law and his cons utional obligations to enforce the Cons ution and laws of the United States.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...nl_most&wpmm=1
If Trash's pardon gets overturned?
This will probably go to SCOTUS, where the oligarchy's 5 will rule for Trash.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-30-2017 at 12:07 PM.
Did anyone say trumps pardon was illegal?
it's being challenged as illegal.
and the challenge "should" scare Trash and his mafia about Trash's message that he will pardon them all, including himself
Arpaio pardon probably going to SCOTUS, and should be immediately heard and ruled on, just as when Scalia elected dubya rather than count the votes.
Nobodies talking to you
Ever
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
