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.
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?
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.
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.
*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.
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
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:
You obviously didn’t understand anything that you replied to.
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.
“The people?” Who would that be? Who would have standing to bring such a suit?
.
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
I so want to see that play out… 
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.