Trump just pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio...

1. 67

   ptosisposted 6 years ago

   https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZNZY-gd3K0
   
   Last week this Sumday with John Oliver on Arapio.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Very funny. But you do realize this is a satire...
      You might not agree with Arpiao and his immigration stance but Trump had his reasons for pardoning this man, a supprter from the beginning.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I doubt seriously the sheriff is the last criminal associated with Trump to be pardoned. There will more than likely be some family members he has to save in this manner.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            It probably won't be the last criminal Trump pardons.  Very few presidents have limited themselves to only pardoning 1 criminal - there isn't much reason to think Trump will be any different.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               What is the reason for pardoning in the first place? Someone way back then thought it would be a good idea... I suppose we can change it if enough people decided to do so. We have a "living document" in our Constitution.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I've never truly had a handle on just why we allow the President to pardon.  The lawmakers and the courts have decided guilt and punishment; why should the President be able to set it aside?

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Because there are extenuating circumstances where someone may be guilty of a crime and yet later had a change of heart... it is called redemption. It can also happen that a poorly written law that caused a person to be convicted of a crime, and the Pardon is one way it can be to correct a bad situation.
                     Or it can be the perrogative of a President to pardon someone like Marc Rich who donated millions to his library... The president does not need to give a reason. It is unconditional pardon. It states to the integrity of the person giving the pardon as well as the person receiving it. In my opinion, Clinton showed exactly who he is by pardoning Marc Rich - a selfish money hungry politician who did what he could before leaving office for personal gain.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        "It can also happen that a poorly written law that caused a person to be convicted of a crime, and the Pardon is one way it can be to correct a bad situation."
                        
                        This one I can't agree with; what you're saying is that  President has final say over what is law and what is not.  Much like Obama decided immigration laws were bad so millions of people were "pardoned" from following them. 
                        
                        Doesn't work for me at all - that kind of thing is why we have separation of powers.

                        replyreport
                        1. 80

                           jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           I was not thinking of a general law but some thing of a political nature. For example, I was thinking of Col. Oliver North during the Iran Contra scandal, in the Reagan Administration. At the time, I thought he should have been pardoned because he was trying to do the "right thing" by supporting the Contra. It was Congress that passed the law after the fact not to support the contras. The Reagan administration was trying to come up with a way to avoid the direct involvement of Congress, and in the process, help a group that was fighting the Soviet supported communist Sandonista government.
                           A pardon, in this case, gave a President the discretion to free a patriot that was trying to help without any personal gain.

                           replyreport
                           1. 67

                              ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              WTF?
                              
                              
                              
                              The American traitor Oliver North worked with  terrorist group to overthrow Nicaragua, a democracy.. Even if the arms for hostages deal had been a good idea, the administration totally screwed it up.
                              
                              Oliver North gave $$ to the so-called “freedom fighters” who did: assassinating healthcare workers; kidnapping, torturing, and murdering civilians; raping women; attacking and seizing civilian housing; and burning down houses.
                              
                              Indicted for 16 felonies but found guilty of only three minor ones. He was given a three year suspended sentence. But on appeal, all convictions were dropped. That’s America: smoke a joint, go to prison for thirty years; subvert the Constitution, become a national hero. - http://franklycurious.com/wp/2014/10/07 … ver-north/

                              replyreport
                           2. 96

                              wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              "A pardon, in this case, gave a President the discretion to free a patriot that was trying to help without any personal gain."
                              
                              That bolded word is the root of my problem with pardons.  Who declared he was a patriot?  He was a common criminal, unwilling to follow the laws of the nation, but that doesn't make him a patriot! 
                              
                              And who's opinion of "patriot", or "good", or "wrongfully convicted", etc. shall be used?  A single man's, given the power to change what a judge and jury, sitting through hours or months of information and personally examining it all - a man who did nothing like that and has nothing but opinion (and political reasons) to base his pardon on.
                              
                              No, while pardons may be politically expedient and useful, while they may please a public, at the bottom of it all they are also the very antithesis of how our justice system is supposed to work.

                              replyreport
                              1. 92

                                 Jean Bakulaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 I agree with that. There may be an odd case here or there where the jury wasn't paying attention, or they didn't want to convict a popular person--O.J. Simpson, probably Bill Cosby.. But if the defendant has been through the legal system, that's what it's for. For what it's worth, we have the best legal system in the world.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 96

                                    wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    I am forced, kicking and screaming in objections, to agree.  We have at least as good a legal system as anywhere in the world and far, far superior to most.  Indeed, cases like OJ show this to be true: while the requirements for criminal guilt did not exist, they did exist for a civil case with it's lesser requirements.  The system worked, exactly as it should have.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 67

                                       ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                       USA ranked 26th world wide for justice

                                       report
                                 2. 67

                                    ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    Sounds like an opinion not based on fact - unless you are a international lawyer or something. I am really sure you personally have never been through the criminal court system and having a public pretender who has a 99.99% plead guilty rate of clients. 
                                    
                                    Pleading out is not good. People do it because only in the USA and the Philippines have a bail system and you 'speedy' trial is months away. Yeah, looks great on paper tho'.
                                    
                                    
                                    Norway is the leader in civil justice, ranked number one on the civil justice index. It also ranks among the top 10 countries with the absence of corruption and has an effective government. - http://www.siliconindia.com/news/genera … cid-1.html
                                    
                                    US is not even in the top ten.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 96

                                       wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                       "a public pretender who has a 99.99% plead guilty rate of clients.  "
                                       
                                       Nothing new in that - any decent inquisitioner could and did match that figure.

                                       report
                                       1. 67

                                          ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                          Yup. I didn't know that having a lawyer if unable to afford one only started in the 1960s. Which is just window dressing since the 'vigorously' defense pleads out 99.99%  of the time. I think that is why US justice is considered a farce. 
                                          
                                          And if do defend are inherently incompetent if have over 35 cases at a time and most public pretenders have over 75 cases or more at a time.

                                          report
                  2. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     I know there are many that thought then, or think so now, that Pres. Ford's pardon of Nixon was a travesty of justice, but I see it as the right thing to to have done, as a way to close the book on a nationally disrupting crisis.
                     
                     If you could consider that perspective - Would you consider Pres. Ford's pardon of Pres. Nixon a possible validation of the pardon power?
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
2. 80

   jackclee lmposted 6 years ago

   It seems like you know nothing about what went down with Iran Contra. All this was well documented and written about in a book. You can look it up. Oliver North is a patriot. If anyone is to be blamed, it would have to be the American Congress at the time. They pass the law that handcuffed the Reagan administration from following what was promised to the Contras. If they didn't act, thousands of Contras fighters would be killed. Would that be OK with you?

   replyreport
   1. 67

      ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Passing laws is what Congress is duty bound to do via the Constitution. Seems you don't know much about how the USA gov't is supposed to work..
      
      
      Who wrote this book that you are referring to?  〽
      
      According to you, in this instance, not only the judges are wrong but so is Congress and the entire International Justice court is wrong also.
      
      For such a sweeping statement and with such deep conviction, I feel 'honored' to be in the presence of a person so omnipotent to be nearly considered to be seated on the right side of God!
      
      You are wasting your talents here and should persue a career in a think tank or Faux News and become just some other  guy with an opinion .... Just like North who is on Faux.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Read this book from the Man himself -
         https://www.amazon.com/Under-Fire-Ameri … 0971700915
         
         Perhaps you will learn what a true patriot is...

         replyreport
         1. 67

            ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            haha haha! ha ha ha ha! HA hah haaaaaa hehe hehe heh heh muahaha mwahaha heehee ahahahah bahaha gahaha hahahahahaha HAHAHAHAHAHA
            lmbo
            
            buhahahahahahahahahahahahaha
            
            gyuh gyuh,gyuh
            
            
            oh, my sides hurt.  Really that's your fckin source???
            
            
            haha haha! ha ha ha ha! HA hah haaaaaa hehe hehe heh heh muahaha mwahaha heehee ahahahah bahaha gahaha hahahahahaha HAHAHAHAHAHA
            lmbo
            
            buhahahahahahahahahahahahaha
            
            gyuh gyuh,gyuh
            
            oh .. you're killing me!
            
            

            replyreport
         2. 89

            GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Ouch! I was cringing jackclee, when I saw the direction you were headed with your first mention of Oliver North. I saw the train wreck that was coming.
            
            There are substantial legitimate contrary perspectives, (to yours), that hold quite a different position. But Col. North is an interesting political topic, especially as it seems a cornerstone of your conservative perspective.
            
            I have also read Under Fire", and do not hold quite the negative opinion as Wilderness and ptosis seem to, so how about a new thread to discuss it? I will start one.
            
            GA

            replyreport