I wondered that myself.
It shows how full of hatred liberals are: instead of discussing the actual issues, they’re unloading venom on Arpaio as if they were a bunch of rattlesnakes who hadn’t eaten for a year. But I learned years ago that (with only a tiny handful of exceptions) liberals are far too angry and hate-filled to behave with decorum. They hate tradition, morality, and pretty much everything else that ever helped this country.
For criminal contempt? Yes, I think launching someone with a trebuchet for misdemeanor contempt would qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. As would forcing him and him alone to wear pink clothing and eat green bologna, or whatever he did to his victims. But I defer to** Bricker**.
Can someone explain why the attorney that testified was allowed to testify? What was that about?
So, this isn’t about the legal technicalities of the charges brought, but a demonstration of the ruthless liberal dominance in Arizona? Their iron grip on power. In Arizona. K.
IANAL but on the first question, I think it’s because it’s a contempt of court charge. Basically, it’s a judge telling the defendant, “I told you to stop doing something and you kept on doing it. Now, because I’m so mad at you I could spit, I’m letting my buddy decide whether you kept on doing it out of malice or were just dumb.” Being a criminal contempt of court charge it might have been eligible for a jury trial; I don’t know. He also might have waived the right to a jury trial – I haven’t followed the preliminaries that closely – but I doubt it.
On the second question, it was his current defense attorney who was blaming his former defense attorney of not explaining the order clear enough. Somehow I think, “Your honor, my client’s former attorney was a dum-dum who couldn’t make things clear to my client.” “So, what did he tell your client?” “Um, I invoke attorney-client privilege.” is going to fly.
Oh, and what they’re talking about is six months, maximum, not a ten-year stretch in Florence.
I hope he gets to wear the pink underwear, eat the rancid bologna, sleep in 120 degree weather in a tent, and doesn’t get any vaseline.
One of the exceptions to solicitor-client privilege is if the former client reveals the contents of the legal advice given by the lawyer. Another is if the former client is slagging the lawyer, alleging incompetence in the advice given by the lawyer. I would speculate that both came into play here, if Arpaio is trying to suggest that his former lawyer did not properly explain the requirements of the court order.
Bricker explains it in post 34: a jury trial is not available for “petty” offences, such as misdemeanours that only carry a six month maximum.
That works for me. Jury, judge, as long as the law and justice are served. I say, make him serve the ful six months, with NO preferential treatment or “niceties”… exactly the same as any other dirtbag.
Even though I personally would still would prefer him to serve it out in the same conditions as he inflicted on others - rotten baloney to eat, live in a tent, etc etc etc.
Because, to put it bluntly, there is nothing Arpaio could do that would make Trump more ashamed than what Trump had already done and said, and that had done nothing to stop him from, say, trying to get a judge to recuse himself because he was a “mexican”.
Even if the tents are gone, even if the pink underwear is abolished, the inmates are still there.
I am sure he will make great friends with them over the course of his incarceration.
Sorry. I really think Joe Arpaio combined the worst impulses toward his fellow men with sanctimonious arrogance with a childlike and cowardly inclination to bully anyone weaker than he who came to his attention, under color of authority. He was awful.
And unfortunately he is now old and sick and I can’t, even as an evil liberal, really enjoy the prospect of punishing him. At best, I can hope this trial will demonstrate that the rule of law still, eventually, will apply to such people, even in Arizona.
It would be extremely unusual, under the federal sentencing guidelines, for a first offense misdemeanor to get jail time, much less the maximum sentence.
So I’m not sure I understand your “exactly the same as any other dirtbag,” wish. If he’s treated exactly the same, he won’t get jail time.
Same people are still there, same people who stood around with their hands in their pockets and let this shit happen for…how long? How many years? The one’s who weren’t actively cheering and whistling. He’s gone, they’re still there. “Basket of deplorables” seems apt, a piñata would be an improvement.
That’s kind of what I said in my second paragraph.
That should be, “Somehow I don’t think,” of course.
Arpaio.com is run by one of his former lieutenants who resigned and moved to Colorado; it’s inactive right now. It was to be taken down after Penzone took office in March but it didn’t happen. Probably waiting for the URL to expire. Click on the Blood on Arpaio’s Hands bar for some of the human cost of his tenure.
And here is an omnibus page of the Phoenix New Times articles on Nickelbag Joe for the past twenty years. Full disclosure: Arpaio arrested and perp-walked in 2007 the two partners who owned the paper at the time. This may make their neutrality doubtful.
Frankly, I see six months in jail as a little light; I’d prefer a year and a day felony conviction instead. The misdemeanor contempt charge is what the courts went with, though.
Who gave you a copy of our memo? ANSWER ME.
Well then, would you care to represent that tradition, morality, and help that Arpaio’s tent city brought to our country? Would you care to defend his actions? After all, if all we’re going on is a seething hate for America, it should be trivial to point out how good Arpaio and his tent city was.
Christ, I can sorta understand this kind of stupid bullshit from the people whose side of the political spectrum didn’t just elect Donald Trump president of the united states, but coming from Republicans, it’s just insane. It shows a complete and utter break with reality.
But I can. To hell with him, let him rot for as long as possible 
I can still hope.
My observation was that the two hopes you expressed are mutually exclusive:
(1) Treat him exactly the same as any other dirtbag; and
(2) Give him jail time.
You cannot have both.
By the way, does anyone here believe that the denial of a jury trial for Arapio is unfair? I laid out the legal citations above to defend the denial of a jury, but the words of the Sixth Amendment are:
(emphasis added)
Does anyone here believe that the simple words of the Sixth Amendment should be applied here, and that Joe’s therefore entitled to have a jury, not a judge, determine his guilt?