Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-15-2018, 12:22 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
His rate is what, something like one offense per 80 years?
When you are an elected officer with influence over the law enforcement agencies and courts in your jurisdiction (and Arizona appears to grant its county sheriffs more authority than most states), one conviction is pretty bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
Are you sure of this?

I was a little alarmed when I read it here, but, googling, I'm almost seeing the opposite.
It's more accurate to say that New York recognizes federal prosecutions for double jeopardy purposes. It's not required to; the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits repeat trials by the same sovereign, so the federal government or a state government can't prosecute you twice for the same act. It doesn't present the feds and state from both prosecuting you for the same act.

Because Arpaio was pardoned after his conviction, double jeopardy would attach under the New York rule. Had Trump pardoned him before he was prosecuted* double jeopardy would not bar a subsequent state prosecution. So, for example, New York could have prosecuted Richard Nixon, since he was pardoned before any charges were filed.

*Under federal law, double jeopardy attaches once the jury is sworn. I am not sure if the threshold is the same for NY.
  #52  
Old 05-15-2018, 12:53 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Can you provide some details of why those pardons are bad? I'm familiar with Arpaio's case, I don't know anything about those that you implied were terrible.
The idea was that Trump was condoning Arpaio's crime by pardoning him. If that's the principle, then any President who pardons anyone is condoning the crime. If Trump is condoning contempt of court, then Obama was condoning drug dealing and the other violations. QED.

Now the idea is that they have to serve some portion of their sentence, which strikes me as a fairly obvious case of special pleading. Obama never pardoned a true Scotsman, IOW. If someone wants to lay out a logical case why it makes a difference whether the person served some of his sentence, go ahead.

Regards,
Shodan
  #53  
Old 05-15-2018, 01:08 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The idea was that Trump was condoning Arpaio's crime by pardoning him. If that's the principle, then any President who pardons anyone is condoning the crime. If Trump is condoning contempt of court, then Obama was condoning drug dealing and the other violations. QED.

Now the idea is that they have to serve some portion of their sentence, which strikes me as a fairly obvious case of special pleading. Obama never pardoned a true Scotsman, IOW. If someone wants to lay out a logical case why it makes a difference whether the person served some of his sentence, go ahead.
No, you're jumping to conclusions.

In the case of Arpaio, we have statements from Trump that pretty much go to the heart of the issues for which his law enforcement agency was under investigation in the first place. Trump said, "Hes done a great job for the people of Arizona, hes very strong on borders, very strong on illegal immigration, he is loved in Arizona." And as far as the prosecution, he stated that "I thought that was very, very unfair thing to do," though I'm not sure in context whether Trump was referring to the prosecution itself or the timing of the announcement of his indictment.

So I think it is fair to say that Trump generally approved of Arpaio's law enforcement policies, on the basis that "he's very strong on borders." If Trump did not approve of Arpaio's continued violations of civil rights.... then why would he pardon him at all? But in any case, there is direct evidence that Arpaio got his pardon because Trump agreed with his enforcement of immigration laws, because that's literally what Trump said.

As far as Obama's pardons, again, I'm not sure what the circumstances are of each case -- and it appears that you have no interest in doing anything more than barfing out a link to the pardons.

But it does appear to me that based on your link, most of those listed were clemency for people who had been convicted and completed their prison sentences. I can only assume that those individuals were on good behavior for years after completing their sentences in order to be issued clemency.

The one that I do know more facts about, and that I strongly disagree with, is General James Cartwright, who straight-up lied to the FBI, and will not serve any prison time. I think he got his pardon on the basis of a personal relationship with the President, not on the merits of the case.

But all in all, it sure looks like you're just throwing up a lot of chaff, and not interested enough in your own argument to even try supporting it.
  #54  
Old 05-15-2018, 01:29 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 10,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
No, you're jumping to conclusions.

In the case of Arpaio, we have statements from Trump that pretty much go to the heart of the issues for which his law enforcement agency was under investigation in the first place. Trump said, "Hes done a great job for the people of Arizona, hes very strong on borders, very strong on illegal immigration, he is loved in Arizona." And as far as the prosecution, he stated that "I thought that was very, very unfair thing to do," though I'm not sure in context whether Trump was referring to the prosecution itself or the timing of the announcement of his indictment.

So I think it is fair to say that Trump generally approved of Arpaio's law enforcement policies, on the basis that "he's very strong on borders." If Trump did not approve of Arpaio's continued violations of civil rights.... then why would he pardon him at all? But in any case, there is direct evidence that Arpaio got his pardon because Trump agreed with his enforcement of immigration laws, because that's literally what Trump said.

As far as Obama's pardons, again, I'm not sure what the circumstances are of each case -- and it appears that you have no interest in doing anything more than barfing out a link to the pardons.

But it does appear to me that based on your link, most of those listed were clemency for people who had been convicted and completed their prison sentences. I can only assume that those individuals were on good behavior for years after completing their sentences in order to be issued clemency.

The one that I do know more facts about, and that I strongly disagree with, is General James Cartwright, who straight-up lied to the FBI, and will not serve any prison time. I think he got his pardon on the basis of a personal relationship with the President, not on the merits of the case.

But all in all, it sure looks like you're just throwing up a lot of chaff, and not interested enough in your own argument to even try supporting it.
Right - it was 'Joe CERTAINLY has been pissing on the law, and Trump endorses that - and thus he pardoned his fellow racist criminal'. It wasn't 'Trump pardoned somebody, so absent of any further examination or knowledge of the situation we can know that Trump unilaterally condones every act the person was accused of.'
  #55  
Old 05-15-2018, 01:39 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If that's the principle, then any President who pardons anyone is condoning the crime.
Do you actually think that's the principle behind the pardon power?
  #56  
Old 05-15-2018, 02:45 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 1,995
Arpaio's policies led to people DYING in his custody repeatedly. And he was supposed to be the cop, not the criminal. It's not comparable in any way to pardoning drug dealers imprisoned under the war on drugs which is bullshit anyway.
__________________
Meet me at Jacquernagy Park.
  #57  
Old 05-15-2018, 02:53 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
No, you're jumping to conclusions.
No, I am not jumping to any conclusions. I am applying a general principle to see if it applies generally. begbert2 said 'Joe CERTAINLY has been pissing on the law, and Trump endorses that - and thus he pardoned his fellow racist criminal' - that pardoning someone endorses the crime for which the person is being pardoned. Or maybe he meant by "pissing on the law" something other than breaking it. But OK - if that is the case, that pardoning someone means you endorse pissing on the law, then Obama endorses pissing on some different laws, because he pardoned people.

Or maybe begbert2 meant it was the certainty of the knowledge that law-breaking had occurred that made it wrong. That's not much better - I think Obama knew that his pardons were of people at least equally certain of having broken/pissed on the law. Or maybe it is just that pardons cease to condone crimes only after people have served some indeterminate part of their sentence. If that's the case, some logical basis for the distinction should be made, if possible.
Quote:
But all in all, it sure looks like you're just throwing up a lot of chaff, and not interested enough in your own argument to even try supporting it.
I am interested if others can support their arguments.

Pardoning people means you condone what they did - if it is true of Trump, it is true of Obama (and every other President).

Pardoning people is wrong if you are CERTAIN that they actually broke the law - if it is true of Trump, it is true of every other President.

Pardoning people is wrong if they have not served any of their sentence - that has been asserted, but not supported, and it is that which might benefit from an indication that it is not just special pleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves
Do you actually think that's the principle behind the pardon power?
It seems to be the principle being suggested in the case of Trump. I don't think it's valid, which is why I cited other cases to see if it was going to be applied consistently. Apparently it can't be, which is why it might help if you can explain or defend the special distinction, if any.

Regards,
Shodan
  #58  
Old 05-15-2018, 03:01 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacquernagy View Post
Arpaio's policies led to people DYING in his custody repeatedly. And he was supposed to be the cop, not the criminal. It's not comparable in any way to pardoning drug dealers imprisoned under the war on drugs which is bullshit anyway.
How about bank fraud, tax fraud, embezzlement, theft, and money laundering? And I assume you know that people die of drug abuse and overdose.

Regards,
Shodan

PS-

Mary Ann Krauser, fka Mary Ann Iron Shield

Offense:

Involuntary manslaughter

District/Date:
District of North Dakota; June 1, 1982
  #59  
Old 05-15-2018, 03:49 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 10,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If that's the case, some logical basis for the distinction should be made, if possible.
I am interested if others can support their arguments.

Pardoning people means you condone what they did - if it is true of Trump, it is true of Obama (and every other President).
Strawman, and you know it. I already explained this, and you pretending I haven't is bullshit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Pardoning people is wrong if you are CERTAIN that they actually broke the law - if it is true of Trump, it is true of every other President.
Did anybody say this? I don't recall this happening. (In fact somebody straight up said that the war on drug's laws are bullshit which, one would presume, would make it okay to pardon everyone hit by them.) So, another strawman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Pardoning people is wrong if they have not served any of their sentence - that has been asserted, but not supported, and it is that which might benefit from an indication that it is not just special pleading.
Well, for once you're not just making up complete bullshit - there actually have been arguments made that Joe's pardon is worse because he didn't serve a day of jail for his crimes. My read of those comments is that they felt that some punishment might have be merited by the pardoned, but that they'd already served enough of their sentences to be just, whereas Joe is just traipsing off scott free and unrepentant. But in any case I didn't make those comments and thus can't truly explain them.
  #60  
Old 05-15-2018, 03:59 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
You have a point, though I'm sure steps could be taken to mitigate this. Kidnap him and take him across state lines first, perhaps? The president could post an instructional video on how to murder somebody and get away with it scott-free, with the final step being "If I was annoyed by whoever you killed, I'll totally pardon you. Here's a (long) list."
A fair amount of Arizona is under federal jurisdiction.

Just sayin.
  #61  
Old 05-15-2018, 04:02 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, I am not jumping to any conclusions. I am applying a general principle to see if it applies generally.
You are assiduously asserting that a case we know a lot about must be a lot like cases we know nothing about, if we only ignore everything we know about the first case.

It's patently ridiculous.
  #62  
Old 05-15-2018, 04:05 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,040
begbert2:

Quote:
My read of those comments is that they felt that some punishment might have be merited by the pardoned, but that they'd already served enough of their sentences to be just
If this is the belief of the president who does this, shouldn't he COMMUTE the sentence rather than PARDON the individual? That is within the president's pardon power as well, isn't it?
__________________
"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible. The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
  #63  
Old 05-15-2018, 04:13 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, I am not jumping to any conclusions. I am applying a general principle to see if it applies generally. begbert2 said 'Joe CERTAINLY has been pissing on the law, and Trump endorses that - and thus he pardoned his fellow racist criminal' - that pardoning someone endorses the crime for which the person is being pardoned. Or maybe he meant by "pissing on the law" something other than breaking it. But OK - if that is the case, that pardoning someone means you endorse pissing on the law, then Obama endorses pissing on some different laws, because he pardoned people.
Try reading what you have posted here. You have the answer to your so hard to answer question right here in your own very post.

Joe is pissing on the law: This is to do with his harassment of legal citizens and his use of racial profiling which he was specifically ordered not to do. If specifically violating the constitutional rights of american citizens in direct opposition to a court order not to do so isn't "pissing on the law" then nothing ever is.

Trump endorses that: Trump is on record talking about what a swell guy joe is. He is on record talking about how the conviction and everything about the case was wrong. He is on record for saying that arpaio should have kept violating citizen's constitutional rights.

Trump, because he endorses Joe pissing on the law, pardoned him.

You are trying to make it backwards, that because trump pardoned joe, that he must endorse joe, and therefore, any pardon is an endorsement. That logic does not follow, and therefore, your whole attempt at making some sort of hypocrisy claim simple falls on its ass.
  #64  
Old 05-15-2018, 04:18 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 10,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
begbert2:



If this is the belief of the president who does this, shouldn't he COMMUTE the sentence rather than PARDON the individual? That is within the president's pardon power as well, isn't it?
I have no idea. I'm so aggressively not a lawyer that by including the words "I'm", "lawyer" and "a" in the same sentence I'm probably flirting with a practicing-law-without-a-license charge.
  #65  
Old 05-15-2018, 04:36 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
It seems to be the principle being suggested in the case of Trump. I don't think it's valid, which is why I cited other cases to see if it was going to be applied consistently.
You posted it, you support it. All you did was post some vague link with no commentary of your own other than something like "Nyah nyah, libs".

Do you think it's "valid" to treat people who've paid their judicially-ordered debt to society differently from those who haven't? That's (part of) why Trump is being criticized, and the other part is the blatant political pandering aspect to it. It isn't hard.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 05-15-2018 at 04:41 PM.
  #66  
Old 05-15-2018, 04:45 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Mary Ann Krauser, fka Mary Ann Iron Shield

Offense:

Involuntary manslaughter

District/Date:
District of North Dakota; June 1, 1982
Whatever man, I find a corrupt, racist, shitbag lawman with official policies that led to the death of people in his custody who hadn't yet been convicted of anything, a lot more objectionable than drug dealers or someone who committed involuntary manslaughter. Not to mention that pardoning Arpaio was blatant political pandering; pandering to racists.

No regards for you,
Jacquernagy, aka Jacque R. Nagy, Qua Cagney Jr., Cary Jen Quag, Ganja C. Query, &c
  #67  
Old 05-15-2018, 07:16 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 23,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, I am not jumping to any conclusions. I am applying a general principle to see if it applies generally. begbert2 said 'Joe CERTAINLY has been pissing on the law, and Trump endorses that - and thus he pardoned his fellow racist criminal' - that pardoning someone endorses the crime for which the person is being pardoned. Or maybe he meant by "pissing on the law" something other than breaking it. But OK - if that is the case, that pardoning someone means you endorse pissing on the law, then Obama endorses pissing on some different laws, because he pardoned people.
This paragraph clearly shows that you didn't at all understand what you responded to. The fact that you quoted the sentence in your reply and then so obviously fucked up the meaning of it is clearly on display, so thanks for that.

Than you compound it with this next bit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Or maybe begbert2 meant it was the certainty of the knowledge that law-breaking had occurred that made it wrong. That's not much better - I think Obama knew that his pardons were of people at least equally certain of having broken/pissed on the law. Or maybe it is just that pardons cease to condone crimes only after people have served some indeterminate part of their sentence. If that's the case, some logical basis for the distinction should be made, if possible.
I am interested if others can support their arguments.

Pardoning people means you condone what they did - if it is true of Trump, it is true of Obama (and every other President).
You obviously didn't understand anything that you replied to.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 05-15-2018 at 07:18 PM.
  #68  
Old 05-18-2018, 08:03 AM
postpic200 postpic200 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
https://trib.al/wzU4PM4
is Redish right? Are there constitutional limits to presidential pardon powers? Can a president pardon a government official who has violated citizens' constitutional rights, or do those constitutional rights outweigh the constitutional pardon power?
There is only one restriction on the presidents power to pardon.

"... and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Now the people could sue Arpaio, assuming they got past the immunity that police are given.
  #69  
Old 05-18-2018, 08:53 AM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by postpic200 View Post
...Now the people could sue Arpaio, assuming they got past the immunity that police are given.
"The people?" Who would that be? Who would have standing to bring such a suit?
.
  #70  
Old 05-18-2018, 01:18 PM
epolo epolo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 355
Cool, cool...

So, if I’m sherif of a county and I decide to confiscate every privately owned firearm in the county and President Warren gives me a blanket pardon against the inevitable prosecution and contempt of court, then I can effectively make the second amendment null and voiding my county?

Good to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Morpheme Addict
  #71  
Old 05-18-2018, 01:20 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 10,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by epolo View Post
Cool, cool...

So, if Im sherif of a county and I decide to confiscate every privately owned firearm in the county and President Warren gives me a blanket pardon against the inevitable prosecution and contempt of court, then I can effectively make the second amendment null and voiding my county?

Good to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I so want to see that play out...
  #72  
Old 05-18-2018, 01:42 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by epolo View Post
Cool, cool...

So, if Im sherif of a county and I decide to confiscate every privately owned firearm in the county and President Warren gives me a blanket pardon against the inevitable prosecution and contempt of court, then I can effectively make the second amendment null and voiding my county?

Good to know.
You can also make suspected gun owners wear pink panties and camp out in the desert with little food and water while they wait for their court date.

If some of them die due to those conditions, no matter. They were in jail, so they must have deserved it.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017