It seems that bands sometimes do win.
Note that the “wins” are about ads. That’s very different from just playing a song at a rally, which is what I was talking about.
Yep, he filed re-election papers about 5 hours after the inauguration so he could start collecting that sweet sweet campaign money.
Well, Trump did it. Pardoned.
Just in case you weren’t sure if Trump was a white supremacist.
I’m pretty sure he’s a Trump supremacist.
Arpaio was a disgrace to law enforcement. You should feel embarassed.
I should feel embarrassed how? What the hell do I have to do with it?
Is a pardon for a misdemeanor considered a first?
Arpaio is out of office and that’s a good thing. The voters finally saw him for what he really is.
I read someplace, and this really gets into GD territory, that a pardon for contempt of court really undermines the justice system. Contempt of court is really all the judicial branch has to enforce their edicts, so if the executive branch overrides that, we’re in some very strange territory.
The article (probably in the NY Times) seemed to lay out a case that it’s possible that the president can’t pardon someone for contempt, and that the judiciary might decide to step in and override it. That seems unlikely to me, but I’m interested in any case history or just our legal eagles’ opinions.
Yup, a racist person who abused his power. Just like the president.
I doubt we’ll see any more pardons for contempt of court.
The average joe better not hold their breath waiting for their governor or the President to issue a pardon. They are very rare.
If Flynn or Manafort decide not to turn over files or to testify and get cited for contempt, you don’t think they’ll be pardoned? What about if his son or Kushner end up defying the court?
You know what? I’m not really good at posting in MPSIMS, so I’ll just step out now. I’m still interested in our resident lawyers’ opinions, so I’ll follow along, but I probably won’t post more here.
That sounds like they are making shit up. The constitution says the president can pardon for all federal crimes except in cases of impeachment. There isn’t an asterix for contempt.
I know I flounced out of this thread, but here’s the article:
I think the idea is that contempt is not like other crimes. Other laws are created by the legislature and decided upon by the judicial. Contempt is the judiciary’s own thing, and you can be jailed for it without even having a trial (not the case here, of course, since there was a trial). I thought it was an interesting article.
Anyway, I’m not a law-talking guy, so I’m going to re-flounce.
The argument that this pardon was illegal seems like it was invented within the last month or so. It’s like the birthers who ultimately decided that “natural born citizen” means that both parents must have been born in the USA. Nobody thought that before 2008, and I suspect that nobody thought that criminal contempt couldn’t be pardoned before 2017. The motivation is more pure, but the reasoning is not.
Is Arizona in flames yet?
That’s what it sounds like to me.
The constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” There isn’t an asterix for “yelling fire in a crowded theater” or “commercial speech”.
I think the idea is nutty for reasons of the existing jurisprudence (or lack thereof) on the subject. But just because the plain text of the Constitution doesn’t say something doesn’t mean that “something” can’t be read into it.
I think a lot is tampered by the fact that Arizonans voted the old foggy out of office back in November.
The anger is indeed better directed to the Cheeto in Chief that I’m sure thinks that the group of people cheering him in the rally was the majority of Arizonans. And that most of the American people agree with the abuses that Arpaio did and the ones Trump is doing now.