Trump pardons Sheriff Joe

[Kutnupe14]

Sorry, I wasn't differentiating between pardons and commutations because wikipedia didn't for any other President than Obama. So I went to the DOJ website for a breakdown. You are correct that Obama pardoned fewer than those Presidents. His commutations however are significantly higher.

Eisenhower pardons- 1110, commutations-47, Total- 1157
Nixon pardons-863, commutations-60, Total- 923
Ford pardons-382, commutations-22, Total- 404
Reagan pardons-393, commutations- 13, Total- 406
Obama pardons-212, commutations-1715, Total- 1927

I think this gives a better comparison than strictly using the term pardon.

Since, you've read further into this, did you happen to come across the reasoning for these commutations? And you're clear, on what a commutation does, right?

 

[Alpo]

If those presidents had to deal with the drug epidemic brought about by crack and amphetamines, I think you might have had a point. They did not for the most part. The commutations reduced harsh sentences for drug offenders, and I agree with him. While I'm not in favor of legalization of most presently illicit drugs, the sentencing guidelines have been ridiculous. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Sylvain]

Interesting read. He even pardoned someone for transferring a firearm without paying transfer tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Barack_Obama

I saw that.
More than 60 of the people he pardoned for drug crimes were also felons in possession of a firearm, unlawfully carrying a firearm or were charged with some firearm related crime.

Obama Pardons 2016 List By State: Drug Dealers, Gun*Offenders

Looks like Obama was a pretty pro-gun president afterall.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I saw that.
More than 60 of the people he pardoned for drug crimes were also felons in possession of a firearm, unlawfully carrying a firearm or were charged with some firearm related crime.

Obama Pardons 2016 List By State: Drug Dealers, Gun*Offenders

Looks like Obama was a pretty pro-gun president afterall.

Nah, first (as in the custom) people pardoned/commuted have to actually write a letter asking for the pardon/commutation, and explaining why. For the vast majority, the sentencing at the time of conviction, is compared to sentencing guidelines now. If a person was given a 30 year sentence, but today it is typically 10, the criminal can in theory ask that he be held to the same standard. If he's served 15, he gets out. If he's served 9, he has 1 more year to go.

 

[Trigger Time]

Nah, first (as in the custom) people pardoned/commuted have to actually write a letter asking for the pardon/commutation, and explaining why. For the vast majority, the sentencing at the time of conviction, is compared to sentencing guidelines now. If a person was given a 30 year sentence, but today it is typically 10, the criminal can in theory ask that he be held to the same standard. If he's served 15, he gets out. If he's served 9, he has 1 more year to go.

I wanna ask,him for a.million dollars

 

[bwframe]

I'm sure President Trump made the right move pardoning Sherriff Joe, because it pisses Kut off so much.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm sure President Trump made the right move pardoning Sherriff Joe, because it pisses Kut off so much.

Nah, it's not Trump, he is what he is.... it's the people who are "fair weather believers in the Constitution" that's more troubling.

 

[actaeon277]

Nah, it's not Trump, he is what he is.... it's the people who are "fair weather believers in the Constitution" that's more troubling.

The President being able to "Pardon" is in the Constitution.

 

[2A_Tom]

Not the part of the Constitution that Kut is worried about today.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Trial on the contempt charge already happened, and he already lost. I'm not entirely certain why you are fascinated with trying to relitigate it, he had a really good legal counsel and plenty of money for his defense.

That said, directing a subordinate to violate a court order is contempt just the same as if you violate the order itself. Your fixation on the 174 is not particularly relevant to whether or not he directed his deputies to violate the order. He openly stated that he was doing so, the contempt is complete at that point regardless of what happens after.

Actually, he had a bench trial (judge instead of a jury) over his objections and constitutional rights. To be found guilty of contempt for violating Judge Snow's injunction, it is a required element that he be shown to have actually violated the injunction: done something it prohibited. Reading the decision of the judge that convicted him, he did not violate the injunction.

My "fixation" on the 174 individuals is they are the only evidence Bolton presents in the decision that the injunction was factually violated... that MCSO detained solely illegally present individuals, without more.... but it is very clear from the text of the decision that the overwhelming majority, if not all, were NOT solely illegally present... there was more... hence the injunction was not violated and the contempt conviction was unjust.

Like the guy or don't, if his conviction was unjust and unfounded by law and facts, then a pardon is in order.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The President being able to "Pardon" is in the Constitution.

Did you miss the "Nah, it's not Trump"? I think it's fairly obvious, or maybe not, that the "fair weather believers in the Constitution," are those who are ok with Arpaio's actions. You can be ok with the Constitutional legality of Trump's actions (as I am), but NOT the unconstitutional actions of Arpaio... that is, if you actually believe in the Constitution; which apparently some are wishy washy on, depending on if it fits in with their ultimate goals.

 

[chipbennett]

Just a few questions, given the support there seems to be for this action:
-do you believe that Arpaio wasn't profiling people to make illegal immigration arrests?
-if you don't, nothing further... if you do believe he profiled, was the court correct in telling him to stop?
-After the court told him to stop, do you believe he stopped, or did he still allow his department to profile?
-If you believe he continued to allow his department to profile, should he have been punished?

I couldn't give a rat's ass about "profiling". Arpaio was right. The courts were wrong. **** the black-robed tyrants, and their enabling of lawlessness.

 

[chipbennett]

Nah, it's not Trump, he is what he is.... it's the people who are "fair weather believers in the Constitution" that's more troubling.

Nothing in the Constitution enumerates to the judiciary the authority that they have taken upon themselves.

The judiciary, if allowed to continue unchecked, will be the final nail in the coffin that is the experiment with freedom known as the United States of America.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I couldn't give a rat's ass about "profiling". Arpaio was right. The courts were wrong. **** the black-robed tyrants, and their enabling of lawlessness.

Well duh, in most cases, it's the people who aren't profiled that care about it the least.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Nothing in the Constitution enumerates to the judiciary the authority that they have taken upon themselves.

The judiciary, if allowed to continue unchecked, will be the final nail in the coffin that is the experiment with freedom known as the United States of America.

It irony being, that the "experiment with freedom" you're talking about, and lamenting the possible passing of, only (based on your earlier post) applies to people that look like, and think like, you.

 

[bwframe]

I couldn't give a rat's ass about "profiling". Arpaio was right. The courts were wrong. **** the black-robed tyrants, and their enabling of lawlessness.

Nothing in the Constitution enumerates to the judiciary the authority that they have taken upon themselves.

The judiciary, if allowed to continue unchecked, will be the final nail in the coffin that is the experiment with freedom known as the United States of America.

There we go!

 

[chipbennett]

It irony being, that the "experiment with freedom" you're talking about, and lamenting the possible passing of, only (based on your earlier post) applies to people that look like, and think like, you.

Bull****. I said no such thing, and I rebuke and reject your attempt to put those words in my mouth.

 

[chipbennett]

Well duh, in most cases, it's the people who aren't profiled that care about it the least.

Did Arpaio arrest anyone who was not present in our country illegally, and therefore, by definition, a criminal? He profiled people based on their criminal behavior, not on the color of their skin. I'm not here illegally, believe that every person here illegally should be deported immediately upon discovery, and therefore couldn't care in the least about criminals being rightly profiled as being criminals.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Bull****. I said no such thing, and I rebuke and reject your attempt to put those words in my mouth.

You said no such thing is 100% correct. It's implied. If Arpaio is "profiling" Latinos, and you "don't give a rat's ass about profiling," then logic dictates exactly what I said. Unless you, of course, don't mind if you are targeted solely based on your skin color.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Did Arpaio arrest anyone who was not present in our country illegally, and therefore, by definition, a criminal? He profiled people based on their criminal behavior, not on the color of their skin. I'm not here illegally, believe that every person here illegally should be deported immediately upon discovery, and therefore couldn't care in the least about criminals being rightly profiled as being criminals.

I think the better question, is did Arpaio arrest anyone who was present in our (their) country, legally, and not a criminal?.... which is a yes.