(08-30-2017 08:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-29-2017 10:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Tanq's argument is that the charges were trumped up to suit a political agenda. Do we want to live in a country where that is acceptable behavior? Like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? I don't.

The other issue is did the judge decide the case correctly. If not, then presumably she would get reversed on appeal at some point. Judges decide cases incorrectly every day, there's nothing unusual or unique about that. If Trump reasonably believes that the conviction would get reversed on appeal, then a pardon is entirely within reason.

Then let the case go to appeals. What legal training does Trump have to make the determination? I agree that judges make mistakes, but that is what the appeal process is for.

And your first argument cuts both ways, doesn't it not? Is it acceptable behavior to ignore the rule of law and pardon people from punishment to suit a political agenda? That is why I think commuting the sentence would have been the better and much less politically polarizing decision.

You are absolutely correct it cuts both ways. That is why the pardon is a fitting end to this saga.

But the only 'rule of law' in play is that the President has the unchecked power to grant it.... please tell me another 'rule of law' that comes into play, would love to know of it.

If Trump had granted a pardon for political reasons to someone who had *not* been politically up-charged, I would probably be as apoplectic as you are currently. (Marc Rich is the poster child for that, I guess).

The only apparent singular difference here is that I think rather highly of the concept of "equal treatment of the law for equivalent actions" in charging; you apparently dont. So be it. And I dont have a problem with the political end to a political based up-charge as you seemingly do. So be it as well.

(08-30-2017 08:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 07:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-29-2017 10:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-29-2017 08:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the Obama had a serious hard on for Joe. They overtly twisted arms at DOJ to throw the book at him due to his political leanings, notwithstanding that in similar cases they were perfectly okay with lesser charges. Understand now?

I will take it you dont seemingly have an issue with that. Good for you.

But consistency in charging (or not charging for that matter, or seeking maximal sentences) based on political considerations was seemingly not a highlight of the Obama years imo.

And, as I have said (now for the third time) a political end to this fits in nicely with the apparent political beginning (based on the overt pressure to go full right side of the bell curve on the charging scale) to up-charge him. And you dont apparently have an issue with such selective enforcement policies.

On that note, since I have had to repeat my position (for a third time), I suggest we agree to disagree and move on.

btw: You will note that I havent *even* touched upon that the issues in question were brought about with the stark background of an immense lack of zealousness on the part of the Obama administration to *actually* enforce the immigration laws. (http://www.npr.org/2017/06/26/534381348/...s-on-trial) The judge found Arpaio couldn’t detain those who lack legal status because that’s the federal government’s job. But the feds hadn’t been and were not doing that job in the slightest.

So, no. When the Obama administration absolutely abdicates an obligation under the fing law, then turns around and charges the party who enforces it, and then strong arms the DOJ to upcharge the civil contempt to a criminal contempt, yeah.... this is political end to a ****** up political situation and a ****** up political upcharge *based* on the contempt, and based in no small part of the utter failure of the Obama administration to even to attempt to enforce the immigration laws at the center of the contempt issue.

But enforcing what a law says under the Obama administration, or an even handed attempt to enforce laws, wasnt the Obama administration's strong point by any fing measure imo.

I understand your position. Your position just has nothing to do with my original comment. You're underlying issue is with the court case itself and the charges that were brought - I get it.

So yes, let's agree that you are not actually addressing the issue at hand, which is what the judge's ruling was, and that you are quibbling over how and when the case was brought before the court.

I *am* addressing simply the one singular fact (for the fourth time) at hand. IIRC, the issue was *how* bad the pardon was, correct? In my view it (the pardon) is a political end to a politically based up-charge. My apologies for the temerity of actually injecting context into my answer to your original comment.

So (again in view of your original comment on the 'terribleness' (or somefink like that) of Trump, Arrapaio, and the pardon) when I consider the context if it, I do not have a problem with it. Hate to tell you the 'how and when' the case was brought to court goes a long way to the "terribleness (or lack thereof)" of the pardon for me. Especially when it that stupid lil' ol' 'how and when' goes to the equal application of law.

I fail to see how the timing of the case has ANYTHING to do with the charges and rationale behind pardoning. I see how that affects an election, but it is completely disconnected from the merits of the charges or application of law. How does when the charges were brought affect the application of the law?

The only logical qualm in respect to the charges and subsequent pardoning that is valid is that you believe the charges were trumped up. But again, that quickly falls apart because a judge, who was not involved with bringing the charges, ruled that Arpaio was guilty. But since it sounds like you think the judge made a mistake, I understand the logic behind why the so-called trumped up charges were problematic.

But you're also misunderstanding my comment - I didn't but delve into how terrible Arpaio was/is. I simply said that we can all agree he broke the law (hence the guilty verdict). And that because he was found guilty, he should have done time and been commuted, not outright pardoned. Pardoning him after the fact means that you are usurping law and order and projecting one's own personal feelings about the entire situation.

I actually dont believe as strongly as you do that Arpaio committed criminal contempt. Civil contempt, yes.

Please stop mischaracterizing my statements. To be blunt Im getting rather tired of it.

Quote:And that because he was found guilty, he should have done time and been commuted, not outright pardoned.

Thats an idiotic position. The predicate for a pardon is a conviction. If that is your position, by definition the pardon should never be exercised. You are entering the Kamala Harris realm of stupidity there.

(08-30-2017 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 08:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-29-2017 10:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Tanq's argument is that the charges were trumped up to suit a political agenda. Do we want to live in a country where that is acceptable behavior? Like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? I don't.

The other issue is did the judge decide the case correctly. If not, then presumably she would get reversed on appeal at some point. Judges decide cases incorrectly every day, there's nothing unusual or unique about that. If Trump reasonably believes that the conviction would get reversed on appeal, then a pardon is entirely within reason.

Then let the case go to appeals. What legal training does Trump have to make the determination? I agree that judges make mistakes, but that is what the appeal process is for.

And your first argument cuts both ways, doesn't it not? Is it acceptable behavior to ignore the rule of law and pardon people from punishment to suit a political agenda? That is why I think commuting the sentence would have been the better and much less politically polarizing decision.

You are absolutely correct it cuts both ways. That is why the pardon is a fitting end to this saga.

But the only 'rule of law' in play is that the President has the unchecked power to grant it.... please tell me another 'rule of law' that comes into play, would love to know of it.

If Trump had granted a pardon for political reasons to someone who had *not* been politically up-charged, I would probably be as apoplectic as you are currently. (Marc Rich is the poster child for that, I guess).

The only apparent singular difference here is that I think rather highly of the concept of "equal treatment of the law for equivalent actions" in charging; you apparently dont. So be it. And I dont have a problem with the political end to a political based up-charge as you seemingly do. So be it as well.

I'm NOT apoplectic about this. Please show me one post of mine that warrants that comment. That's a very rude and divisive thing to say when all I've been arguing is that a judge ruled fairly and that Trump should have gone for clemency as opposed to pardoning if he really felt strongly enough about this topic.

And again, you're being divisive with your second comment. I too believe in equal treatment of the law for equivalent actions. There are plenty of murder cases where prosecutors try to charge someone with a higher degree of homicide and don't win because the court finds they do not have enough evidence to support that specific charge. In this case, the court found that there was enough evidence to find the Sheriff guilty of a criminal action.

I don't have an opinion of whether this was prosecutorial overreach or not, and so with that being my stance, I would rather trust the court system to settle that - either by the first trial or an appeal.

You're really taking what I'm saying and twisting it around.

(08-30-2017 09:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 08:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 07:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-29-2017 10:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-29-2017 08:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the Obama had a serious hard on for Joe. They overtly twisted arms at DOJ to throw the book at him due to his political leanings, notwithstanding that in similar cases they were perfectly okay with lesser charges. Understand now?

I will take it you dont seemingly have an issue with that. Good for you.

But consistency in charging (or not charging for that matter, or seeking maximal sentences) based on political considerations was seemingly not a highlight of the Obama years imo.

And, as I have said (now for the third time) a political end to this fits in nicely with the apparent political beginning (based on the overt pressure to go full right side of the bell curve on the charging scale) to up-charge him. And you dont apparently have an issue with such selective enforcement policies.

On that note, since I have had to repeat my position (for a third time), I suggest we agree to disagree and move on.

btw: You will note that I havent *even* touched upon that the issues in question were brought about with the stark background of an immense lack of zealousness on the part of the Obama administration to *actually* enforce the immigration laws. (http://www.npr.org/2017/06/26/534381348/...s-on-trial) The judge found Arpaio couldn’t detain those who lack legal status because that’s the federal government’s job. But the feds hadn’t been and were not doing that job in the slightest.

So, no. When the Obama administration absolutely abdicates an obligation under the fing law, then turns around and charges the party who enforces it, and then strong arms the DOJ to upcharge the civil contempt to a criminal contempt, yeah.... this is political end to a ****** up political situation and a ****** up political upcharge *based* on the contempt, and based in no small part of the utter failure of the Obama administration to even to attempt to enforce the immigration laws at the center of the contempt issue.

But enforcing what a law says under the Obama administration, or an even handed attempt to enforce laws, wasnt the Obama administration's strong point by any fing measure imo.

I understand your position. Your position just has nothing to do with my original comment. You're underlying issue is with the court case itself and the charges that were brought - I get it.

So yes, let's agree that you are not actually addressing the issue at hand, which is what the judge's ruling was, and that you are quibbling over how and when the case was brought before the court.

I *am* addressing simply the one singular fact (for the fourth time) at hand. IIRC, the issue was *how* bad the pardon was, correct? In my view it (the pardon) is a political end to a politically based up-charge. My apologies for the temerity of actually injecting context into my answer to your original comment.

So (again in view of your original comment on the 'terribleness' (or somefink like that) of Trump, Arrapaio, and the pardon) when I consider the context if it, I do not have a problem with it. Hate to tell you the 'how and when' the case was brought to court goes a long way to the "terribleness (or lack thereof)" of the pardon for me. Especially when it that stupid lil' ol' 'how and when' goes to the equal application of law.

I fail to see how the timing of the case has ANYTHING to do with the charges and rationale behind pardoning. I see how that affects an election, but it is completely disconnected from the merits of the charges or application of law. How does when the charges were brought affect the application of the law?

The only logical qualm in respect to the charges and subsequent pardoning that is valid is that you believe the charges were trumped up. But again, that quickly falls apart because a judge, who was not involved with bringing the charges, ruled that Arpaio was guilty. But since it sounds like you think the judge made a mistake, I understand the logic behind why the so-called trumped up charges were problematic.

But you're also misunderstanding my comment - I didn't but delve into how terrible Arpaio was/is. I simply said that we can all agree he broke the law (hence the guilty verdict). And that because he was found guilty, he should have done time and been commuted, not outright pardoned. Pardoning him after the fact means that you are usurping law and order and projecting one's own personal feelings about the entire situation.

I actually dont believe as strongly as you do that Arpaio committed criminal contempt. Civil contempt, yes.

Please stop mischaracterizing my statements. To be blunt Im getting rather tired of it.

Quote:And that because he was found guilty, he should have done time and been commuted, not outright pardoned.

Thats an idiotic position. The predicate for a pardon is a conviction. If that is your position, by definition the pardon should never be exercised. You are entering the Kamala Harris realm of stupidity there.

It seems like there is a lot of mischaracterizing going on. I don't feel very strongly that he committed criminal contempt - I feel strongly that a judge found him guilty of criminal contempt and I trust that the judge carried out justice correctly.

I also feel strongly that the judges ruling was independent of WHEN the case was brought to court (an issue you've raised) and whether it was prosecutorial overreach (an issue you've raised).

And go ahead and scoff at my opinion - that's your right. But obviously the decision to pardon the Sheriff created another political snafu. I propose an alternative route that I believe would have ended the situation in a way that was less political because it would have seen the Sheriff go to jail for the crime he was convicted of (satisfies the left) but not for the entirety of his sentence (satisfies the "right").

(08-30-2017 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I trust that the judge carried out justice correctly.

I think that's the issue where there is a difference of opinion.

(08-30-2017 01:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I trust that the judge carried out justice correctly.

I think that's the issue where there is a difference of opinion.

Just like with guilt, I will presume innocence/competency (e.g. carrying out a sentencing correctly) when I don't have enough information to assume otherwise.

If there was concern that the verdict was incorrect, appealing would have been a more appropriate action, no?

They're kind of doing that, post-pardon by challenging the admission of guilt by accepting the pardon, so we'll see how that plays out.

(08-30-2017 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 09:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 08:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 07:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-29-2017 10:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand your position. Your position just has nothing to do with my original comment. You're underlying issue is with the court case itself and the charges that were brought - I get it.

So yes, let's agree that you are not actually addressing the issue at hand, which is what the judge's ruling was, and that you are quibbling over how and when the case was brought before the court.

I *am* addressing simply the one singular fact (for the fourth time) at hand. IIRC, the issue was *how* bad the pardon was, correct? In my view it (the pardon) is a political end to a politically based up-charge. My apologies for the temerity of actually injecting context into my answer to your original comment.

So (again in view of your original comment on the 'terribleness' (or somefink like that) of Trump, Arrapaio, and the pardon) when I consider the context if it, I do not have a problem with it. Hate to tell you the 'how and when' the case was brought to court goes a long way to the "terribleness (or lack thereof)" of the pardon for me. Especially when it that stupid lil' ol' 'how and when' goes to the equal application of law.

I fail to see how the timing of the case has ANYTHING to do with the charges and rationale behind pardoning. I see how that affects an election, but it is completely disconnected from the merits of the charges or application of law. How does when the charges were brought affect the application of the law?

The only logical qualm in respect to the charges and subsequent pardoning that is valid is that you believe the charges were trumped up. But again, that quickly falls apart because a judge, who was not involved with bringing the charges, ruled that Arpaio was guilty. But since it sounds like you think the judge made a mistake, I understand the logic behind why the so-called trumped up charges were problematic.

But you're also misunderstanding my comment - I didn't but delve into how terrible Arpaio was/is. I simply said that we can all agree he broke the law (hence the guilty verdict). And that because he was found guilty, he should have done time and been commuted, not outright pardoned. Pardoning him after the fact means that you are usurping law and order and projecting one's own personal feelings about the entire situation.

I actually dont believe as strongly as you do that Arpaio committed criminal contempt. Civil contempt, yes.

Please stop mischaracterizing my statements. To be blunt Im getting rather tired of it.

Quote:And that because he was found guilty, he should have done time and been commuted, not outright pardoned.

Thats an idiotic position. The predicate for a pardon is a conviction. If that is your position, by definition the pardon should never be exercised. You are entering the Kamala Harris realm of stupidity there.

It seems like there is a lot of mischaracterizing going on. I don't feel very strongly that he committed criminal contempt - I feel strongly that a judge found him guilty of criminal contempt and I trust that the judge carried out justice correctly.

I also feel strongly that the judges ruling was independent of WHEN the case was brought to court (an issue you've raised) and whether it was prosecutorial overreach (an issue you've raised).

And go ahead and scoff at my opinion - that's your right. But obviously the decision to pardon the Sheriff created another political snafu. I propose an alternative route that I believe would have ended the situation in a way that was less political because it would have seen the Sheriff go to jail for the crime he was convicted of (satisfies the left) but not for the entirety of his sentence (satisfies the "right").

The political issues hit three actions here:

1) Arpaio’s offense arises from his efforts to combat a serious problem of lawlessness — illegal immigration — that the Obama administration not just refused to take seriously, but made an active effort to impede the enforcement of. Arpaio was filling a void created by the Obama administration, a void that inflicted hardship on the people Arpaio was elected to serve.

2) Arapio's criminal contempt prosecution arises out of a political decision by Obama administration to override the DOJ recommendation of pursuing civil contempt --- a recommendation that reflected an equivalent response to equivalent actions.

3) The resulting misdemeanor criminal contempt conviction was pardoned by a political decision to erase the events that preceded this, namely 1 and 2.

You ostensibly do not care about about events 1 and 2. I do. You focus solely on 3, you are free to do so.

And for the 5th (or 6th) time, the pardon is a political decision to end the prosecution. Much in line with the political genesis of the prosecution. In that regard I think the exercise of the pardon is reasonable.

The fact that he was prosecuted, and the fact of the level he was prosecuted at is the issue. Not whether Joe serves time. Sorry but your 'commutation' doesnt really address that and really only gives lip service to 'serving the interests' of the right in this matter.

(08-30-2017 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I also feel strongly that the judges ruling was independent of WHEN the case was brought to court (an issue you've raised) and whether it was prosecutorial overreach (an issue you've raised).

The fact isn't the political damage of the ruling. The timing was to ensure the charges were filed and announced at the potentially most political damaging time.

(08-30-2017 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I also feel strongly that the judges ruling was independent of WHEN the case was brought to court (an issue you've raised) and whether it was prosecutorial overreach (an issue you've raised).

The fact isn't the political damage of the ruling. The timing was to ensure the charges were filed and announced at the potentially most political damaging time.

Yes, I completely understand that and also understand why that was problematic.

Again, for like the 3rd time, that point doesn't matter to the final ruling and whether the Sheriff was found guilty, which was my first comment.

If you don't disagree that the judge found the Sheriff guilty of criminal contempt, or don't solely respond to why the ruling was incorrect, just stop.

You're trying to argue with me about issues that I was not discussing and that I frankly don't care to argue about because it's pretty clear - the timing of the case was bad.

(08-30-2017 01:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 09:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 08:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 07:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I *am* addressing simply the one singular fact (for the fourth time) at hand. IIRC, the issue was *how* bad the pardon was, correct? In my view it (the pardon) is a political end to a politically based up-charge. My apologies for the temerity of actually injecting context into my answer to your original comment.

So (again in view of your original comment on the 'terribleness' (or somefink like that) of Trump, Arrapaio, and the pardon) when I consider the context if it, I do not have a problem with it. Hate to tell you the 'how and when' the case was brought to court goes a long way to the "terribleness (or lack thereof)" of the pardon for me. Especially when it that stupid lil' ol' 'how and when' goes to the equal application of law.

I fail to see how the timing of the case has ANYTHING to do with the charges and rationale behind pardoning. I see how that affects an election, but it is completely disconnected from the merits of the charges or application of law. How does when the charges were brought affect the application of the law?

The only logical qualm in respect to the charges and subsequent pardoning that is valid is that you believe the charges were trumped up. But again, that quickly falls apart because a judge, who was not involved with bringing the charges, ruled that Arpaio was guilty. But since it sounds like you think the judge made a mistake, I understand the logic behind why the so-called trumped up charges were problematic.

But you're also misunderstanding my comment - I didn't but delve into how terrible Arpaio was/is. I simply said that we can all agree he broke the law (hence the guilty verdict). And that because he was found guilty, he should have done time and been commuted, not outright pardoned. Pardoning him after the fact means that you are usurping law and order and projecting one's own personal feelings about the entire situation.

I actually dont believe as strongly as you do that Arpaio committed criminal contempt. Civil contempt, yes.

Please stop mischaracterizing my statements. To be blunt Im getting rather tired of it.

Quote:And that because he was found guilty, he should have done time and been commuted, not outright pardoned.

Thats an idiotic position. The predicate for a pardon is a conviction. If that is your position, by definition the pardon should never be exercised. You are entering the Kamala Harris realm of stupidity there.

It seems like there is a lot of mischaracterizing going on. I don't feel very strongly that he committed criminal contempt - I feel strongly that a judge found him guilty of criminal contempt and I trust that the judge carried out justice correctly.

I also feel strongly that the judges ruling was independent of WHEN the case was brought to court (an issue you've raised) and whether it was prosecutorial overreach (an issue you've raised).

And go ahead and scoff at my opinion - that's your right. But obviously the decision to pardon the Sheriff created another political snafu. I propose an alternative route that I believe would have ended the situation in a way that was less political because it would have seen the Sheriff go to jail for the crime he was convicted of (satisfies the left) but not for the entirety of his sentence (satisfies the "right").

The political issues hit three actions here:

1) Arpaio’s offense arises from his efforts to combat a serious problem of lawlessness — illegal immigration — that the Obama administration not just refused to take seriously, but made an active effort to impede the enforcement of. Arpaio was filling a void created by the Obama administration, a void that inflicted hardship on the people Arpaio was elected to serve.

2) Arapio's criminal contempt prosecution arises out of a political decision by Obama administration to override the DOJ recommendation of pursuing civil contempt --- a recommendation that reflected an equivalent response to equivalent actions.

3) The resulting misdemeanor criminal contempt conviction was pardoned by a political decision to erase the events that preceded this, namely 1 and 2.

You ostensibly do not care about about events 1 and 2. I do. You focus solely on 3, you are free to do so.

And for the 5th (or 6th) time, the pardon is a political decision to end the prosecution. Much in line with the political genesis of the prosecution. In that regard I think the exercise of the pardon is reasonable.

The fact that he was prosecuted, and the fact of the level he was prosecuted at is the issue. Not whether Joe serves time. Sorry but your 'commutation' doesnt really address that and really only gives lip service to 'serving the interests' of the right in this matter.

I get that you feel that two wrongs make a right, and I am disagreeing with that.

Instead of continuing down the politically charged road, I am advocating for a solution that would have potentially avoided the eye-for-an-eye action that Trump took. It would have avoided causing more division. We're now debating this issue because someone chose to go down a purely political path to fix, what you and others saw, was a gross miscarriage of justice. However, since that case was not cut and dry, a more nuanced approach would have appeased pretty much all sides and avoided this quagmire.

But as I said to Owl69, Sheriff Joe is trying to appeal the admission of guilt which goes with accepting a pardon, so we'll see if another judge feels that he should be held in criminal contempt for his refusal to follow a court order.

(08-30-2017 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 01:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I trust that the judge carried out justice correctly.

I think that's the issue where there is a difference of opinion.

Just like with guilt, I will presume innocence/competency (e.g. carrying out a sentencing correctly) when I don't have enough information to assume otherwise.

But here there is sufficient information at least to cast reasonable doubt upon the issue of whether the sentencing, or indeed the judgement itself, was proper in the circumstances.

Quote:If there was concern that the verdict was incorrect, appealing would have been a more appropriate action, no?

It's a judgement, not a verdict. Juries reach verdicts. Judges give judgements.

I believe they are still in the time frame when it could have been appealed. The pardon essentially pre-empts the appeal process. If there is a belief that it would have been overturned on appeal, then a pardon is not improper in any way, shape, or form. Saves time and resources.

Quote:They're kind of doing that, post-pardon by challenging the admission of guilt by accepting the pardon, so we'll see how that plays out.

For the record, I think civil contempt, not criminal, was the right outcome.

(08-30-2017 04:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 01:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I trust that the judge carried out justice correctly.

I think that's the issue where there is a difference of opinion.

Just like with guilt, I will presume innocence/competency (e.g. carrying out a sentencing correctly) when I don't have enough information to assume otherwise.

But here there is sufficient information at least to cast reasonable doubt upon the issue of whether the sentencing, or indeed the judgement itself, was proper in the circumstances.

Quote:If there was concern that the verdict was incorrect, appealing would have been a more appropriate action, no?

It's a judgement, not a verdict. Juries reach verdicts. Judges give judgements.

I believe they are still in the time frame when it could have been appealed. The pardon essentially pre-empts the appeal process. If there is a belief that it would have been overturned on appeal, then a pardon is not improper in any way, shape, or form. Saves time and resources.

Quote:They're kind of doing that, post-pardon by challenging the admission of guilt by accepting the pardon, so we'll see how that plays out.

For the record, I think civil contempt, not criminal, was the right outcome.

I do not like the logic that pardons are worthwhile just because the appeal may have been won, as that circumvents our court system.

And can you explain why civil contempt and not criminal contempt was the right outcome? Like I said, I don't have a good understanding of that and am operating under the assumption that the judge is competent.

Interesting connection to the Sheriff pardoning. Mueller reportedly working with the state of NY now on financial crimes associated with Manafort. Speculation is that this is to avoid a potential presidential pardon since POTUS cannot pardon state crimes.
I'd seen speculation that the Sheriff was a test case for Trump to gauge how much pushback there would be.

(08-30-2017 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Instead of continuing down the politically charged road, I am advocating for a solution that would have potentially avoided the eye-for-an-eye action that Trump took. It would have avoided causing more division. We're now debating this issue because someone chose to go down a purely political path to fix, what you and others saw, was a gross miscarriage of justice. However, since that case was not cut and dry, a more nuanced approach would have appeased pretty much all sides and avoided this quagmire.

I'm not sure what a "more nuanced approach" would look like?

And "appeased (sic) pretty much all sides" seems to me a fairly remote possibility?

(08-31-2017 10:35 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Instead of continuing down the politically charged road, I am advocating for a solution that would have potentially avoided the eye-for-an-eye action that Trump took. It would have avoided causing more division. We're now debating this issue because someone chose to go down a purely political path to fix, what you and others saw, was a gross miscarriage of justice. However, since that case was not cut and dry, a more nuanced approach would have appeased pretty much all sides and avoided this quagmire.

I'm not sure what a "more nuanced approach" would look like?

And "appeased (sic) pretty much all sides" seems to me a fairly remote possibility?

What I suggested - commute his sentence after he had started doing some time or let him continue the appeals process and let the court find that he was not guilty of criminal contempt.

On a side note, why did you put (sic) after appeased? That is the correct spelling of the past tense of appease. Even if it wasn't the correct spelling, way to look like a d*ck.

(08-31-2017 10:35 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Instead of continuing down the politically charged road, I am advocating for a solution that would have potentially avoided the eye-for-an-eye action that Trump took. It would have avoided causing more division. We're now debating this issue because someone chose to go down a purely political path to fix, what you and others saw, was a gross miscarriage of justice. However, since that case was not cut and dry, a more nuanced approach would have appeased pretty much all sides and avoided this quagmire.

I'm not sure what a "more nuanced approach" would look like?

And "appeased (sic) pretty much all sides" seems to me a fairly remote possibility?

I just find it amusing that Arpaio "broke the law", and thus deserves jail time while thousands of illegal immigrants who also "broke the law" are given a free pass. Maybe we need a sanctuary city for people who committed criminal contempt. I suggest San Francisco.

(08-31-2017 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 10:35 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Instead of continuing down the politically charged road, I am advocating for a solution that would have potentially avoided the eye-for-an-eye action that Trump took. It would have avoided causing more division. We're now debating this issue because someone chose to go down a purely political path to fix, what you and others saw, was a gross miscarriage of justice. However, since that case was not cut and dry, a more nuanced approach would have appeased pretty much all sides and avoided this quagmire.

I'm not sure what a "more nuanced approach" would look like?

And "appeased (sic) pretty much all sides" seems to me a fairly remote possibility?

I just find it amusing that Arpaio "broke the law", and thus deserves jail time while thousands of illegal immigrants who also "broke the law" are given a free pass. Maybe we need a sanctuary city for people who committed criminal contempt. I suggest San Francisco.

When did someone in this thread suggest that all illegal immigrants never be deported?

(08-31-2017 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 10:35 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Instead of continuing down the politically charged road, I am advocating for a solution that would have potentially avoided the eye-for-an-eye action that Trump took. It would have avoided causing more division. We're now debating this issue because someone chose to go down a purely political path to fix, what you and others saw, was a gross miscarriage of justice. However, since that case was not cut and dry, a more nuanced approach would have appeased pretty much all sides and avoided this quagmire.

I'm not sure what a "more nuanced approach" would look like?

And "appeased (sic) pretty much all sides" seems to me a fairly remote possibility?

I just find it amusing that Arpaio "broke the law", and thus deserves jail time while thousands of illegal immigrants who also "broke the law" are given a free pass. Maybe we need a sanctuary city for people who committed criminal contempt. I suggest San Francisco.

When did someone in this thread suggest that all illegal immigrants never be deported?

First error: I dont think OO is limiting his comments to this board or people who have posted to this thread.
Second error: most liberals who are jonesing to see Sheriiff Joe serve time in the pokey are for the large measure the same group who want to obviate the current immigration laws, are they not?
Third error: there was no statement about 'all' illegal immigrants
Fourth error: there was no statement about 'never deported'

I think pretty much that everyone agrees that the four time rapist, drug cartel henchman, three time serial murderer needs to be deported (except potentially San Francisco and Austin city leaders...). But as we travel to the other extreme there seems to be a world of difference as we run the spectrum of opinion if the immigration laws should be applied as currently written or just ignored for the most part.

(08-31-2017 12:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 10:35 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Instead of continuing down the politically charged road, I am advocating for a solution that would have potentially avoided the eye-for-an-eye action that Trump took. It would have avoided causing more division. We're now debating this issue because someone chose to go down a purely political path to fix, what you and others saw, was a gross miscarriage of justice. However, since that case was not cut and dry, a more nuanced approach would have appeased pretty much all sides and avoided this quagmire.

I'm not sure what a "more nuanced approach" would look like?

And "appeased (sic) pretty much all sides" seems to me a fairly remote possibility?

I just find it amusing that Arpaio "broke the law", and thus deserves jail time while thousands of illegal immigrants who also "broke the law" are given a free pass. Maybe we need a sanctuary city for people who committed criminal contempt. I suggest San Francisco.

When did someone in this thread suggest that all illegal immigrants never be deported?

First error: I dont think OO is limiting his comments to this board or people who have posted to this thread.
Second error: most liberals who are jonesing to see Sheriiff Joe serve time in the pokey are for the large measure the same group who want to obviate the current immigration laws, are they not?
Third error: there was no statement about 'all' illegal immigrants
Fourth error: there was no statement about 'never deported'

You're really looking to try and find any flaw possible in anything I write, huh?

To the first "error, "if OO isn't limiting it to the board, then let him say it. OO was clearly referencing the title of the thread by putting broke the law in quotes, so why wouldn't I think he was talking about people on this board?

Plus, since we are generally talking to each other on this board and about our feelings, I wanted to make sure I was on the same page with OO and that he wasn't drawing inferences about positions on immigration solely on our discussion of the Sheriff. Is that a terrible thing to do? I think it deserves clarification.

To the second "error" - how is that even an error? I would imagine that yes, those who don't support the Sheriff generally fall on the side of less strict immigration laws. But I've also seen plenty of Republican officials come out against the pardon that buck that notion.

To the third error you try and point out, what differentiates the thousands of illegal immigrants in the statement from all illegal immigrants if the focus of the law-breaking was on the act of immigrating illegally? If it was meant to just focus on illegal immigrants who have broken other laws, then I don't know how many people are actively looking to absolve those people of their crimes - and that's why I assumed it was talking about the former.

To the fourth error, are there other penalties for illegal immigrants other than deportation? I assumed that free pass indicates that they would go unpunished, and since the only punishment that makes sense is deportation, how much of a logical leap is it to equate free pass with not being deported?

You're really stretching to try and find some issues here. I made a comment asking OO to clarify that he was not talking about a comment that had been posted in this thread and you stretched that to its logical extreme and trying to pick some really petty fights.

(08-31-2017 12:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 12:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 10:35 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I'm not sure what a "more nuanced approach" would look like?

And "appeased (sic) pretty much all sides" seems to me a fairly remote possibility?

I just find it amusing that Arpaio "broke the law", and thus deserves jail time while thousands of illegal immigrants who also "broke the law" are given a free pass. Maybe we need a sanctuary city for people who committed criminal contempt. I suggest San Francisco.

When did someone in this thread suggest that all illegal immigrants never be deported?

First error: I dont think OO is limiting his comments to this board or people who have posted to this thread.
Second error: most liberals who are jonesing to see Sheriiff Joe serve time in the pokey are for the large measure the same group who want to obviate the current immigration laws, are they not?
Third error: there was no statement about 'all' illegal immigrants
Fourth error: there was no statement about 'never deported'

You're really looking to try and find any flaw possible in anything I write, huh?

To the first "error, "if OO isn't limiting it to the board, then let him say it. OO was clearly referencing the title of the thread by putting broke the law in quotes, so why wouldn't I think he was talking about people on this board?

Plus, since we are generally talking to each other on this board and about our feelings, I wanted to make sure I was on the same page with OO and that he wasn't drawing inferences about positions on immigration solely on our discussion of the Sheriff. Is that a terrible thing to do? I think it deserves clarification.

To the second "error" - how is that even an error? I would imagine that yes, those who don't support the Sheriff generally fall on the side of less strict immigration laws. But I've also seen plenty of Republican officials come out against the pardon that buck that notion.

To the third error you try and point out, what differentiates the thousands of illegal immigrants in the statement from all illegal immigrants if the focus of the law-breaking was on the act of immigrating illegally? If it was meant to just focus on illegal immigrants who have broken other laws, then I don't know how many people are actively looking to absolve those people of their crimes - and that's why I assumed it was talking about the former.

To the fourth error, are there other penalties for illegal immigrants other than deportation? I assumed that free pass indicates that they would go unpunished, and since the only punishment that makes sense is deportation, how much of a logical leap is it to equate free pass with not being deported?

You're really stretching to try and find some issues here. I made a comment asking OO to clarify that he was not talking about a comment that had been posted in this thread and you stretched that to its logical extreme and trying to pick some really petty fights.

Lad, apologies. But you were the one trying to make the "people on the thread" fit what was otherwise (at least to me) a subject of a very generalized statement. I dont know why you read the implied subject(s) expressing those thoughts as the limited population of those who read this board. I didnt read his comments that way and thought it somewhat unfair that you would comment that way.

Second, glad we agree that on a gross scale, many (if not most) of those who wish to diminish the scope of or completely obviate the current immigration laws also, in a general sense, wish to see Sheriff Joe spend time in the pokey for 'breaking the law'. That was whom I inferred was the generalized subject of OOs comments.

Lastly, "thousands who break the immigration laws" does *not* automatically translate to "all illegal immigrants should never be deported" as you seemingly infer that his comments state. There is a difference. Wouldnt have commented at all if the errors were limited to one portion. But, at least to me, the errors compounded.

Again, pointing out some hyperbole in your return statement. Apologies if you took my comments as trying to "pick [] petty fight[s]."

You are a model of using non-hyperbolic, precise, exact, non-inflammatory, and non-exaggerative language on this board. I think I have commented on this both publicly and privately to you. Your return comment there, I thought, did not give OOs comments the fair treatment I see from you in the usual course. Just saying. Would hate to see you come down the tanqtonic sarcastic, disrespectful, unlikable, and overbearing manner trail.

My apologies for the temerity in my original response as well.