Joe Arpaio

Trump Pardons America's Worst Lawman, Sheriff Joe Arpaio

The notorious former Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff was held in contempt by a federal judge.

|

Donald Trump pardoned former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday, using the first official pardon of his presidency to clear the record of one of America's most abusive, racist, and divisive lawmen.

In pardoning Arpaio, Trump has given a free pass to an unrepentant and habitual abuser of power, a man with insufficient regard for the Constitution he swore to uphold or the separation of powers it enshrines. The move should come as no surprise. The two are kindred spirits.

Mark Reinstein/ZUMA Press/Newscom

A federal judge found Arpaio, who was notorious for jailing inmates in a sweltering desert tent camp, in contempt of court in July for flouting a 2011 order to stop the unconstitutional racial profiling and detainment of Latino residents.

Trump announced in an interview with Fox News earlier this month that he was "seriously considering" pardoning Arpaio, who endorsed Trump in 2016. "He has done a lot in the fight against illegal immigration," Trump told Fox. "He's a great American patriot and I hate to see what has happened to him."

Civil liberties and immigration advocates loathed Arpaio, and his pardon, they say, marks another ugly moment of Trump using his office to prop up bigotry and nativism. In a statement earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said pardoning Arpaio would be "an official presidential endorsement of racism."

Arpaio was investigated twice by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division for constitutional abuses. Vanita Gupta, the former head of the division under the Obama administration, decried the decision.

"Rather than taking action to unite our nation and heal the wounds he has opened, President Trump is considering using the power of his office to sow hate and division," Gupta said in a statement. "Sheriff Joe Arpaio personifies the same bigotry and intolerance we witnessed in Charlottesville. A pardon of Sheriff Arpaio would be excusing racist and illegal policing policies."

"If President Trump uses his power to pardon a discredited law enforcement official who persistently engaged in illegal racial profiling of the Latino community, it will not be a dog whistle to the so-called 'alt right' and white supremacists, but a bull horn," she continued. "No amount of tweets or forced remarks read from a teleprompter could undo the damage."

Arpaio, the former self-styled "toughest sheriff in America," was elected sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in 1993. He made a national name for himself with his unconventional and demeaning incarceration practices; inmates lived in a tent city in the desert heat and were forced to wear old-timey striped uniforms, as well as pink underwear. Among Arpaio's other ignoble achievements were running the only female and juvenile chain gangs in the nation.

Arpaio further raised his profile by ordering large-scale sweeps of Latino neighborhoods and traffic stops of Latino drivers to round up illegal immigrants. He also repeatedly peddled birther conspiracy theories about Barack Obama.

Arpaio's litany of offenses against decency and constitutional principles led Reason to name him one of its "45 enemies of freedom" in 2013.

But for being such an outspoken proponent of the rule of law, Arpaio has never been a fan of the law as it applies to himself. The contempt charge was the culmination of decades of battle between Arpaio and the courts, starting in 1995 when a court ordered him to improve health care and mental health treatment in his jails.

That same year, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division launched an investigation into alleged excessive force and other constitutional violations at the Tent City jail. Talking Points Memo obtained many of the reports from the investigation:

A DOJ inquiry completed that year found a "pattern of excessive force" by the sheriff's staff. It said officers were using dangerous tactics to deal with inmates, including hog tying them and using stun guns on them when they were already detained with handcuffs or strapped into restraining chairs. The investigation found the jails were overcrowded and understaffed. It said internal investigations into use of force by officers were often lacking in details and conclusions.

"Overall, the excessive use of force by staff must be addressed immediately," investigator Eugene Miller wrote in the report, dated January 10, 1996. "In this regard, there are some systemic issues…which allow instances of excessive force to slip between some administrative cracks and thus, go either undetected or unconfronted."

The Justice Department filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) in 1997, but the suit was dismissed in 1998.

In 2007, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors settled a lawsuit filed by the founders of the Phoenix New Times newspaper against Arpaio and the board for $3.5 million. The newspaper founders sued after they were arrested by MCSO deputies for publishing details of a grand jury subpoena for the paper's notes and sources for its coverage of Arpaio. The charges against the newspaper were quickly dropped. The Maricopa County attorney and deputy attorney, on the other hand, were both later disbarred for ethical violations involving campaign finance corruption. Arpaio's chief of staff, who once deployed deputies to spy on Arpaio's political opponents, was fired for his role in the same scandal.

In 2008, Arpaio's jail lost its accreditation after investigators found jail officials provided false information about conditions inside the facility. The Phoenix New Times reported that, at the time, there had been 2,200 lawsuits filed against Arpaio for the conditions inside his jail.

The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division launched another investigation in 2008 into the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. However, the investigation "was delayed when MCSO repeatedly refused to provide the United States with access to pertinent material and personnel," the Justice Department said in a letter describing its findings.

The Justice Department eventually sued the MCSO to gain its cooperation. In 2011, the department released its report, finding that Arpaio's office engage in a pattern and practice of unconstitutional policing.

"Specifically, we find that MCSO, through the actions of its deputies, supervisory staff, and command staff, engages in racial profiling of Latinos; unlawfully stops, detains, and arrests Latinos; and unlawfully retaliates against individuals who complain about or criticize MCSO's policies or practices," Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez wrote.

The Justice Department sued the MCSO yet again in 2012 after it failed to reach an agreement to resolve the constitutional abuses.

For the next five years, Arpaio continued to flout orders by federal judges to improve the conditions inside his jails and cease the unconstitutional racial profiling of Latinos. The MCSO continued to arrest and detain suspected undocumented immigrants, without any pending state charges against them, and hand them over to federal law enforcement, despite a court order barring the practice. The MCSO also held undocumented immigrants past their release date to ensure they were handed over to federal immigration authorities.

The U.S. Attorney's Office charged him with criminal contempt of court last October. In her ruling finding Arpaio in contempt this April, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton cited Arpaio's obstinacy.

"Not only did Defendant abdicate responsibility, he announced to the world and to his subordinates that he was going to continue business as usual no matter who said otherwise," she wrote.

Despite condemnations from national civil rights groups and federal courts, Arpaio was politically untouchable throughout his career. In 2012, Arpaio won reelection by 6 points, and in 2008 he clobbered his opponent by 13 points.

But in 2016, Maricopa County voters finally had enough, and Arpaio lost to a candidate backed by a political action committee funded by liberal megadonor George Soros.

NEXT: Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke Review Proposes Shrinking 4 of 27 National Monuments

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “I’ve got a pen and a phone”

  2. But did he send work emails from a private account?

    1. No, he was grabbing American Citizens by the pu….sy, under the guise of looking for “illeegulz”

      1. Not really, over 93% of the arrested were illegal. My problem was with the ‘do you have your papers’ mentality. The tuna fishermen throw back the dolphins, just as Joe did Americans.

        1. Re: Ragoftag,

          Not really, over 93% of the arrested were illegal

          Before you can arrest illegal immigrants, you have to *find* them. That requires a LOT of harassment of American citizens who resemble the Frito Bandito because I don’t believe Arpaio or his goons were soothsayers.

          1. Sorry, I was using figures supplied by the court. But considering her disregard for her Oath, Vows, trhe Constitution, the law, etc, I guess you might have a point.

        2. That statistic you quoted doesn’t take into account how many Americans and those here legally had to be harassed to find people to arrest.

          In other words you’re using a statistic that in a void looks good but when actually used in conjunction with other facts turns out to be worthless.

          1. Is this what passes for reason here? Why do you think the sheriff hassled people? He didn’t go around asking random people for their papers. But he did on traffic stops and other infractions.

            You are ignorant.

          2. Agreed, but:
            *
            1-I was using the court’s own figures, and that was considered the minimum %.
            *
            2-The judge’s rulings were based on less solid opinions and clearly defied the rule of Law.
            *
            3-The standard nationwide allowed checkpoints everywhere. I’d been stopped dozens of time going to work for license and registration traps. Since you failed to read my post: My problem was with the ‘do you have your papers’ mentality, Comrade.

    2. I’d laugh but I have little doubt President Hillary would have done the same thing. She would have taken longer and made some show about it being some soulwrenching decision but the result would be the same. The authoritarian left need the cops on their side as badly as the authoritarian right.

      1. That is the stupidest thing I’ve read all day. You’re welcome.

        1. yeah, got to say bullshit on that.

          1. Well, I’m glad I helped you two agree on something.

            FWIW, I stand by my crystal ball. She wouldn’t have been so blatant about it, and it would have been at the last minute but it would have happened.

            1. What possible motivation would she have to completely abandon the most important demographic in the Democratic party?

              You don’t have to defend Trump this way. Or at all, really. He’s kind of a shithead. Let him be that shithead all by himself.

              1. Yes, Trump is a shithead. But I remember when Arpaio first got started, many Democrats were praising him, Giuliani, and “Law and Order” policing in general. Bill Clinton cracked down on illegal immigration and massively expanded the prison population and the death penalty. Trump could easily have been a Democrat 20 years ago-oh wait a second-he was!

                1. Like Reagan, the Democrat party left HIM!

                2. Giuliani is a shitweasel just like Trumpler and Arpaio. Using him as an example is profoundly stupid.

                  1. Not nearly as stupid as your posts.

              2. would she have to completely abandon the most important demographic in the Democratic party?

                And there you have it-dems only value minorities for their votes. Most white urban progs don’t want to be anywhere near Blacks or Hispanics, and certainly don’t want their kids going to the same schools. They want them managed from a safe distance.

              3. the most important demographic in the Democratic party?

                Pretty telling statement that the most important demographic in the Democratic party are criminal Hispanics.

              4. For the same reason her husband pardoned terrorists who murdered six people – votes.

            2. A 10 second google search would turn up several articles in which Hillary straight up called sheriff joe a real piece of shit.

              Do you actually make any effort whatsoever to think for yourself, Susan, or do you simply let others formulate your opinions for you?

              As chemjeff suggests below, she definitely would have pardoned some real pieces of shit, but never in a million years would she have pardoned this particularly odious piece of shit.

              1. Big Government needs Big Muscle.

                And, really, how well does what Hillary is “on record” for match up with what she actualky does?

                1. @SusanM you really put the “droll” in “troll”. Keep on making America great again by irritating as many Americans as possible each day.

            3. Damn, Tony FTW!

              Trumpets are a special kind of dumb.

              1. It appears to me that there are a lot of idiots that are opposed to trump here.

        2. Sick of this life
          Not that you’d care
          I’m not the only one with
          Whom these feelings I share

        3. Oh yes. LOL. I’ve been away for a while and I had forgotten what an imbecile Tony is.

      2. Umm I really doubt Hillary would have pardoned Arpaio.

        She undoubtedly would have pardoned people completely unworthy of a pardon, for sure, but not Arpaio.

        1. Hillary would pardon some domestic terrorist cop killer, or some Mark Rich type that lined her pockets.

          1. She’d wait until late in her second term to do any of that.

        2. Obama pardoned a deserter.

          Barack Obama had exercised his constitutional power to grant executive clemency?that is, “pardon, commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve”?to 1,927 individuals convicted of federal crimes.

          Mostly drug dealers and fraud offenses

          But I guess some of you are fine with that.

          1. I am fine with drug dealers being pardoned. Ideally, they would never be arrested and no government would dare to tell its citizens what drugs they can take. If you support the war on drugs, you are a piece of shit.

    3. Another stupid post from the resident idiot, Tony.

  3. And that’s the line for me.
    I considered Trump good comedy up until now. Off his rocker but basically (hopefully?) harmless.
    Fuck that authoritarian cunt. I hope the Left finds a way to burn him at the stake.

    1. Trump is an idiot and they’re both generally awful human beings, but Arpaio was unlikely to hold power again. There will be another line coming and it will have real consequences.

    2. Helluva good laugh, eh?

    3. I think you should reevaluate. This is largely a symbolic gesture. Hate him or not, but this being the line seems weird.

      Unless you’re from AZ.

  4. Hey, the people voted for him for 24 years! Why do you hate democracy?

    1. It kind of only works if the people meet a certain threshold of non-retardation.

        1. Sorry, but what exactly makes you think you would be in charge of things post-democracy, and not the Trumpians?

          They’re already supporting postponing the election so Trump can get a handle on all those illegals voting, so be careful what you wish for.

          1. You constantly insist on exposing your amazing ignorance

      1. That’s why you shouldn’t vote, “Tony”.

        1. Oh gee that joke hit me in the head like a fucking stealth hummingbird. Totally did not see that coming at all.

      2. Tony, thats pretty rich coming from you. Given the abject stupidity of the democrats you vote for there n CA.

        1. Your anti-California horseshit is about 6 years stale.

          1. Unfortunately, the hits just keep coming from crazy commie land. You people get dumber all the time.

          2. Taxifornia keeps putting out those socialist hits, year after year.

          3. As are your asinine posts

          4. But I never tire of hearing it. I especially enjoy the posts that tell you what an idiot you are.

      3. Agreed! But disenfranchising millions of mentally deficient Leftist is politically hard.

      4. You misspelled some words. I’ll fix it for you.

        “It kind of only works if the people are who I want to win.”

        You’re welcome.

    2. I’m a 61 yr resident of Maricopa County.

      I voted for him the first time.

      Against him every time after that.

      I learned.

      The rest of the stupid Maricopa County voters did not.

  5. It’s good to be a dirtbag friend of the dirtbag king.

    1. The sheriffs of that county also rounded up illegals without violating anyone’s constitutional rights and that is why the left cares about this guy so much. Let’s be honest. The left allows/commits violations of constitutional rights all the time as long as its their guy is doing it.

      Trump should not have pardoned Arpaio.

      1. Wrong. Arpaio was charged by a corrupt Obama DOJ. It was a kangaroo court presided over by a corrupt judge

  6. I eagerly await hearing how this is fake news, overblown by cosmotarian media, and there’s nothing see here.

    1. For that you’ll have to check out Fauxbertarians.com where all the winter/spring revolters fled and formed their own support group.

    2. For that you’ll have to check out Fauxbertarians.com where all the winter/spring revolters fled and formed their own support group.

  7. Trump didn’t mention the jury issue, but once again:

    Arpaio was sentenced under the theory that his crime was minor or “petty.” That’s why it’s deemed OK not to have given him a jury trial.

    So we must believe, for legal consistency, that Arpaio’s crime was not a Felony Rape of the Constitution, but a petty matter like littering, or selling secondhand goods without a licence.

    If it were a major Constitution-Rape, then a jury would have been needed, or at least so one might think.

    1. You haven’t explained why his minor crime deserved a pardon.

        1. Was Arpaio’s behavior of which a judge (not a jury) convicted him, a Major Rape of the Rule of Law, or not?

          1. No, rape of the constitution is merely what he made his career out of.

            1. So it’s irrelevant to this particular conviction?

              1. I’m not especially in the mood for parsing this out right now.

                1. You have a devastating rebuttal but simply won’t take the time to explain it to us plebs?

                  1. You have a bunch of bullshit distractions from the question I asked which was actually relevant.

              2. The constitution means nothing to Tony. Something for him to occasionally hide behind. That’s about it.

                1. Every opinion you retch onto this website is a fuck-in-the-eyesocket to the US constitution, if not the most basic principles of human decency.

                  1. Once again, you’re projecting. Which is what your kind does.

                2. The Constitution only applies to Real Muricans ™ . Commies like Tony don’t really count. Amirite?

                  1. The Constitution applies to him too. That’s why we don’t let him get away with his socialist shit here and try and hide behind it while wanting to destroy it at the same time.

                  2. Tony has no soul, or any real functional brain matter. HE only counts towards the hive of gibbering from the progressives.

          2. I dunno Charlie. You cool with rounding up American citizens who can’t prove their citizenship on the spot and sticking them in jail? If it happened to you then you’d have no problem with it?

            1. Yes, indeed, that’s exactly what I said, how perceptive.

            2. That’s quite a strawman Bevis.

            3. Logical Fallacy.

      1. Because it was a BS move by Obama. Kangaroo court with a corrupt DOJ and judge

    2. Why wasn’t he given a jury trial if the court found him in contempt?

      1. How many jury trials did he give to his catches of the day?

        1. Ah, yes, the Bad Person Exception to the Bill of Rights.

          1. Is the pardon power in the Bill of Rights? You’ll understand that the subject is that the horrible fucker got quite a bit more than his share of civil rights tonight.

            1. “How many jury trials” etc.

              The Bad Person Exception.

              1. This monumental violator of the constitution just got all his rights back by fiat. Not only that, you think he deserves to be the first person ever to get a jury trial for contempt of court.

                The He Must Be the Best Person Ever Exception, if you will.

                1. “the first person ever to get a jury trial for contempt of court”

                  You seem to have forgotten an important heroine of the Democratic Party, Susan McDougal.

                  From Wikipedia: “McDougal’s trial for criminal contempt-of-court and obstruction of justice charges began in March 1999. The jury hung 7-5 to acquit her for contempt of court, and found her not guilty on the charge of obstruction of justice.”

                    1. You’re retarded enough to be a regular at The Federalist, Charles.

                  1. A defendant can get a jury trial on a contempt of court misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor charge for which one may not be entitled to a jury trial if the contempt charge is another count included in a felony indictment or complaint. The jury will hear both cases.

                2. You are confused. Obama is the monumental violator of the Constitution.

                  Forbes lists ten major violations. Among the Worse?

                  Political profiling by the IRS.

                  Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme
                  Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times

                  Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses

                  Recess appointments

            2. US Constitution. Article II, Sec. 2 gives the president the power to grant reprieves and pardons, except for impeachment.

        2. You’re asking how many jury trials a sheriff gave to people? None, you moron. He was a sheriff.

          1. Tony is really showcasing his brilliance, isn’t he?

    3. You’re exactly right! Why right here in the Constitution it says “those convicted of a crime don’t have to go to jail if the crime really isn’t that big of a deal”. Boy those Founding Fathers really were wise!

      1. What an excellent summary of my position, it’s even better than what I actually said!

        1. No you’re right. Only “Felony Rape of the Constitution” deserves punishment. Right? That piddling crap that Arpaio pulled, it doesn’t really count.

          1. What an excellent summary, it’s as if you spoke eloquently the things I’ve been saying inside your head.

  8. Well, there’s no spinning this. Fucking awful decision, Trump. This guy is a fucking asshole and should be in his own desert tent jail.

  9. “an official presidential endorsement of racism.”

    How is that different than everything else Trump has done?

    Trump didn’t pardon the asshole for a conviction of “racism”. He pardoned the asshole for a contempt of federal court misdemeanor conviction.

    1. He pardoned a law enforcement official convicted of defying a court order to take steps to stop his department from systemically violating people’s rights, a decent percentage of which violatees were American citizens or lawful immigrants, on the basis of skin tone or accent. The issue – if you actually care about freedom – isn’t that it was a misdemeanor conviction, but that that sort of behavior doesn’t carry heavier personal penalties for LEO’s, and doesn’t happen more frequently. Then maybe there wouldn’t be as many assholes.

      The fact that Trump fans are deluding themselves into thinking this is just another nothingburger means that after giving Venezuela a head start in the “How you fuck a country with a populist strongman contest”, we’re rapidly catching up.

      1. As opposed to police chiefs and mayors who release ~known~ criminals who are wanted for by ICE for ~legal~ deportation. And amazingly those ~known~ criminals have gone on to commit some truly heinous crimes. And they are then defended by “Well it wasn’t really rape, it was just aggravated sexually battery.” or “They didn’t intend to murder that woman in front of her father, it was just that they were really in a bad mood.”

  10. At least he’s still former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I’m still celebrating that all these months later

    1. Thank God for minor miracles. Though let’s see him kick out Sessions and give us AG Arpaio.

      1. Then watch Rand Paul vote to confirm him

        1. We deserve the hell we’ve chosen.

          1. Don’t blame me I voted for Kodos

            1. Miniature American flags for all

              1. We must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

  11. If trump keeps this up he won’t be getting an e-bite to my birthday party.

    1. I’m pretty upset about this happening, but I must admit that an e-bite sounds delightful.

  12. Arpaio was a vigilante. As a State law enforcement official, he had no more power to enforce Federal laws than any ordinary private citizen. If the Feds had deputized him (the same way they could have deputized private citizens) that would have been one thing. Since they didn’t, that made him a vigilante. On top of that he was guilty of abuse of power when he misused his State law-enforcement powers to support his vigilantism.

    1. Yeah! Its just terrible to order his men to check and see if obvious illegals are illegal. That son of a bitch! How dare he!

      1. I mean if it’s obvious why should due process be applied, right? I mean there’s no way a strict legal term like ‘obvious’ could be misused or abused.

      2. Last of the Retards, are your posts not showing up at The Federalist or Brietbart tonight? Your Fauxbertarian pals not taking your calls?

        1. Such an impressive wit. Sorry, but I’m not an open borders fringe nutcase.

          1. No of course not. Because who really supports freedom of association anyway?

            1. I support the constitution. Do you? You do know it provides for sovereign borders right? Or are you with the progressives?

              1. The Constitution also provides for the Post Office – but doesn’t require it. So maybe there’s some wiggle room here.

              2. Show me where in the Constitution it requires the federal government to have strict border controls.

          2. Do you think heroin should be legal?

            Careful! Don’t want to be a fringe nutcase, now do you?

      3. Let me guess, your (and Arpaio’s) definition of “obvious illegals” includes anyone who looks Hispanic?

        1. It’s not like there’s a lot of Hispanic folks in Arizona, so what’s the big deal?

          1. They were all wearing “Bad Hombre” t-shirts.

        2. Oh fuck off. That is such a retarded cliche Cal. Considering a good portion of the deputies down there are also latino, your comment is absurd. They know the profile for illegals in their area. And its much more complex than just race. Ae you really idiotic enough to believe it is?

          Don’t you have an antfa rally to attend?

          1. Don’t use the ‘the police are Latino so there can’t be any racism’ card here. Just like in poor black neighborhoods, the issue is not race but *power*.

            Latino cops don’t give easy rides to Latinos any more than Black cops do to other Blacks – and both will be just as brutal to their co-ethnicists as any White cop because that’s what they need to do to keep that paycheck coming in.

            1. But on the flip side Whites can never be out of power. You know even when everyone in the chain of command is Black or Hispanic.

          2. Please, Last of the Fuckheads, how you can divine who is an “obvious illegal” just by looking at them. And remember, no racial profiling!

      4. There is no way to tell by looking at someone if they’re in the country illegally or not.

        He was not bothering ‘obvious illegals’. He was bothering otherwise hardworking *Americans* who had brown skin in the hope that he’d catch one or two of those illegals.

        There’s lots of things we could allow law enforcement to do in order to reduce crime – warrantless searches, compulsory testimony, for example – but we don’t because we consider them to produce more burden on the law-abiding citizenry than they crime they might prevent.

        Same thing here. We don’t roust people out to check their immigration status because the costs it imposes on the law-abiding are worse than the costs imposed by the illegals that might be found when doing it.

        1. A great many on the Trumpian right, sadly, DO think it is perfectly acceptable to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of brown people, citizens or not, because “the illegals are invading” or some such.

          I once had a discussion on a conservative site about stopping illegals and its connection with the Fourth Amendment. I pointed out that there is no requirement for citizens to carry around their papers with them, and that police demanding papers of citizens who have done nothing wrong is a violation of their rights. They didn’t care. They wanted the police to be demanding papers of “everybody” so that they could catch the illegals. And by “everybody” what they really meant was “brown people” because they knew full well that the police wasn’t going to be demanding immigration papers from blond-haired blue-eyed Nordic-looking white people from Minnesota. And these weren’t “alt-right” types either. This is main-stream modern Trumpian Republicanism. They are motivated by fear and anxiety that the brown people are coming in and taking over and relegating them to second-class citizen status. So they are willing to toss constitutional rights overboard if it means maintaining their status at the top of the heap. It is deeply sad to see.

    2. I don’t know the exact details of his case, I’ll defer to the jury on that one…wait, there was no jury!

      1. 90% of criminal trials don’t go to jury, and zero contempt ones.

        Disingenuousness, thy name is Charles Manson.

        1. You missed Susan McDougal above. How can you forget your cherished heroine so soon? She was an embattled heroine who stood against the Clinton-hating special prosecutors, or don’t you remember?

          1. The fucked up thing is I completely agree with you. Well, I’m kind of against jury trials in general, but that’s beside the point. THE POINT is why did he deserve a pardon?

            1. Didn’t you just say that zero contempt cases go to jury trial?

              Susan McDougal already puts the number over zero, wouldn’t you agree?

              1. You don’t have many friends do you?

                1. With a name like Charles Manson? At least I had a jury.

                  1. You would have been better off with a working brain stem.

                2. tony, if everyone who made you look like an idiot had no friends…

    3. What are you talking about? State police can enforce federal laws.

      1. Lot of armchair lawyers here apparently getting their ‘legal analysis’ talking points from MSNBC and media matters.

        1. Yes, I would have to wonder who the lawyers would call if there were a rash of riots where people were being routinely deprived of federal civil rights. Oh that’s right the city and state police.

    4. As I explained yesterday Deep, local law enforcement can enforce all law from local ordinances up to federal law.

      Federal law enforcement cannot enforce local or state law but only federal law. This is why the FBI does not investigate a murder in states where the standards for federal murder statutes do not apply.

      But hey keep spouting stuff that is incorrect.

    5. WOW. What a stupid argument.

      So a cop can’t arrest the robber of a federal bank or post office?

      Murder of a federal employee?

      Most states allow Law Enforcement to enforce federal law including immigration law.

  13. I think someone said on Twitter that a pardon of Arpaio wouldn’t be about Arpaio, it would be about Trump.

    This is Trump virtue-signaling to his base that he really is totes serious about illegal immigration, you guyz.

    The sad part is that you can count on one hand the number of Trump supporters turned off by this decision. After all Arpaio was just a mini-Trump on the issue of illegal immigration.

    Who’s ready for Trump/Arpaio 2020?

    1. It’s more likely that he’ll name Arapio to his cabinet before the year is out. He’ll be a special advisor or lead a counsel on immigration.

    2. The sad part is that you can count on one hand the number of Trump supporters turned off by this decision.

      Can you blame them? If I didn’t know anything about Arpaio until today, all the MSM coverage (including this) would make me like him.

      1. If true you’re
        A: ignorant about the world around you. I mean, do you live in New Zealand and read Reason once a year?
        B: The same level of retarded fucktard that voted for the bloated Orangutan in the first place.
        /notwithstanding that at least he defeated Hitlery.

        1. Learn to read better

        2. You seem smart.

        3. ‘No Yards Penalty’…….progtard supreme? Sock puppet for Tony? Tulpa? DB Cooper? Hitler’s brain transplanted to a tiger shark?

        4. Your ad hominem attacks and foul language exposes your astonishing ignorance.

          Get help before you have a heart attack.

      2. Uhh yeah I can blame them. I can blame people for having an opinion along the lines of “I think criminals should get out of jail if it means the media has a sadz”. So much for the chest-thumping RULE OF LAW crowd.

        1. I’m terrible at rhetoric too. You should try honesty.

          1. Why don’t you try putting your tribalism away for a moment and stop defending the indefensible.

            1. You didn’t somehow get good at that game in the last 10 minutes.

        2. Well the media certainly got angry when Arpaio was ENFORCING the law.

    3. The sheriffs of that county also rounded up illegals without violating anyone’s constitutional rights and that is why the left cares about this guy so much. Let’s be honest. The left allows violations of constitutional rights all the time as long as its their guy is doing it.

      1. So as long as you guys on the Left don’t care about freedom or rights, that means we don’t have to either. I mean the standard that most of the partisan hacks we both cultivate hold us to is basically tit-for-tat. Actual principles don’t even factor in. So as long as we’re not massively worst than each other, across the board, these saps will let us run this game forever.

        1. Of course, we need to support the constitution and civil rights.

          We also need lefties remembering that they violate the constitution and civil rights constantly.

      2. . . . without violating anyone’s constitutional rights . . .

        Except, you know, those citizens rounded up at their place of employment, detained, and forced to produce ID. Just those guys.

        1. Also, there’s only one Sheriff in a county – its a minor nitpick, I know, but the cops who work for him are Deputies, not Sheriffs.

    4. I’m not a member of Trump’s base, didn’t vote for him and have always thought of him as a clownish idiot. But I’ve had an open mind about the guy and have been very pleased with his stand on regulation and so far, federal court appointments.. I’ve also been appalled by the the blatant and and hysterical bias in the media and have come here and elsewhere to defend him against TDS on occasion. But with Syria, Afghanistan and Arpaio, he’s managed to destroy any good will I’ve got left.
      The problem is Trump’s base is not large enough to reelect him. A whole lot of people who put him in office aren’t really fans of Trump, they just didn’t like the alternative. With dumbass shit like this he’s alienating a big chunk of potential supporters. Not that I’d vote for him anyway. My strategy is to throw my vote away on clowns like Gary Johnson. Not really working out that well but I’m too old to give a shit. Still HRC would have been much worse so there’s that.

  14. The real tragedy is that depriving people of due process is only considered a misdemeanor.

    1. Arpaio wasn’t convicted ofor the crime of depriving people of due process. He was convicted for contempt of court.

      1. He was told to quit depriving people of due process and declined to do so. Thus the contempt of court.

        Depends on how you look at it, I guess…….

        1. With maximum pedantry, of course. The guy with the presidential pardon is the real victim in all this, so I’m told.

          1. I understand the media said something mean about Trump. Therefore all those Latino victims of Arpaio don’t really count.

            1. It was ALL hispanics, right? Arpaio’s sheriff’s never violated the rights of white people or black people?

              Victim victim victim.

              The sheriffs of that county also rounded up illegals without violating anyone’s constitutional rights and that is why the left cares about this guy so much. Let’s be honest. The left allows violations of constitutional rights all the time as long as its their guy doing it.

              If Arpaio violated civil rights, he should have been prosecuted for that. Maybe US attorneys were never going to indict Arpaio, so the judge went this route.

              1. It was ALL hispanics, right? Arpaio’s sheriff’s never violated the rights of white people or black people?

                chemjeff’s probably just upset that there were so many fewer tack trucks for him to choose from.

                1. *taco

              2. Arpaio’s office framed up a (white) guy in an “assassination plot” against him, prepared for media during an election year, and had him rot in jail for 4 years before he was exonerated.

                They got Capone on tax charges. If that’s the only thing you can get a conviction on to put this guy behind bars, I’m okay with that.

          2. Tony, the real victims are those of us who have been subjected to your gibbering.

        2. However, its not the deprivation of due process of ordinary people that he was going to be disciplined for – it was not submitting to the power of the state.

      2. Right. I stand corrected. That’s actually kinda worse.

  15. Trump is a mentally ill scumbag and the morons like Rufus and Mikey that worship his ass are likewise scum.

    1. Your judgement of anyone means nothing. As you are a communist piece of shit. Therefore not even a real person.

      1. Oh look the genociders have arrived. Someone fetch the canap?s?

      2. Yeah, I know you Andrew Bratbitch morons. Every liberal is a commie. Hayek is a commie, Warren Buffett is a commie. Ayn Rand is a commie.

        Anyone who is not a full-fledged Bible-beating redneck conservative is a “commie”.

        You Jeff Sessions/Donald Trump fascists can go felch each other.

        1. So many clever retorts there faggoty buttplug. Are you usually this clever?

      3. Back to Brietbard, Last of the Braindead Contards.

        1. Stop punishing the rest of society for your daddy issues, No Brains Pussy

    2. Stop calling people mentally I’ll as a slur. It’s a bad argument and insulting and diminutive to many good people.

    3. I beam with pride that you consider me scum, Tony.

  16. On top of that, the embattled President has accepted the resignation of controversial aide Sebastian Gorka. Or maybe it’s the controversial President has accepted the resignation of embattled aide Sebastian Gorka, I forget. I’m pretty sure they’re both beleaguered, though. Apparently, nobody really knows what the hell Gorka was doing in the White House, which was why he was pushed/jumped out the door.

    Trump’s got this 5:00 Friday news dump thing down pat, doesn’t he? Too bad that shit don’t work with the press like it did with Obama or Hillary – this won’t be old news by Monday because the press gets to decide what’s old news and when it’s All Trump All The Time, you can just do a greatest hits piece every goddamn day over shit that happened months ago and nobody’ll know you’re selling stale dog turds as fresh-baked brownies.

  17. Has anyone said “christ what an asshole” yet?

    1. Imagine if assholism were a crime, where would we find enough guards to guard the convicts?

      1. Everyone gets the point, no need for the pedantry spam.

      2. What a sad case to obsess over.

    2. I was gonna, but this is no time for memes.

    3. Has anyone said, different spanks for different ranks, yet?

  18. Probably shouldn’t make any woodchipper jokes, right?

    And pro-tip to everybody: don’t get arrested.

    1. But what if a guy says he really needs you to take a suitcase to Las Vegas, and if you take it there without looking inside he’ll give you a hundred thousand dollars?

  19. However, the investigation “was delayed when MCSO repeatedly refused to provide the United States with access to pertinent material and personnel,” the Justice Department said in a letter describing its findings.

    However, another investigation was delayed when the Justice Department repeatedly refused to provide the United States with access to pertinent material and personnel.

  20. Prosecuting Arapio was a witch hunt by a dishonest DOJ and a far left federal judge. I am fine with his prison camps.

    1. Poor poor Arpaio! I mean he only trampled on the rights of brown people. Who really gives a shit about them. They were probably anti-American La Raza types anyway and they totally had it coming. Or they were illegals, who are worse than Nazi child molesters. So fuck them all. Amirite?

      1. brown people? don’t you mean people? how very racist of you to notice that people have different hues. NAZI!

    2. Are you fine with his Deputies stealing documents from defense council right in open court?

      Are you fine with him raiding newspapers because they said bad things about him?

      Are you fine with him using lawfare to get back at some judges that didn’t submit to his will?

      Because those are all things he’s done also.

    3. It is too bad that cop-suckers aren’t the victims. Maybe they would learn.

  21. Among Arpaio’s other ignoble achievements were running the only female and juvenile chain gangs in the nation.

    You sexist piece of shit.

  22. Hey, I’m waiting for the regulars here to justify Trump’s pardon of this despicable racist by claiming that anyone upset by this decision is a pants-shitting liberal. It’s pretty much the best argument you’ve got going.

    1. IOW, you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand libertarians at all.

      1. Libertarians, occasionally in the right when things are very very obvious. Well, maybe half of them anyway.

        1. Tony, do you understand how absurd it is that you in any way consider yourself intellectually superior to anything more advanced than an earwig? Do you understand what ‘absurd’ means?

          1. Being a genocidal psychopath from a keyboard?

  23. The Arpaio pardon is Chapter One. Chapter Two goes like this: a pro-abortion governor in a pro-abortion state decides that he doesn’t want pro-life demonstrators carrying those ugly fetal-gore pics in front of abortion clinics, so he orders the cops to bust the pro-life demonstrators’ heads. After a few spectacular brutalities, a judge says “you can’t do that unless the demonstrators break the law! You know, that First-Amendment thing,” and issues a cease-and-desist injunction, ordering the cops to back off and stand down. But the cops tell the judge “Your Honor, go fcck yourself”, and go on busting heads anyway. The judge finds the cops in contempt, and orders that they be arrested and jailed, but, the pro-abortion governor pardons the cops.

    Chapter Three goes: from that day on, the First Amendment only protects people whom the governor likes.

    This was always a danger, a potential problem with the privilege of executive clemency. The Founding Fathers argued about it. Now, it is an ACTUAL problem.

    Thank you, President Trump.

    Machen Sie Amerika wieder gro?artig.

    ???????? ??????? ???????? ?????.

  24. The worst lawman???? You mean this guy made inmates uncomfortable??? I am sure their victims were uncomfortable or the families of said victims. I swear you people have gone soft, jail is supposed to be uncomfortable. You are supposed to never want to go back. Sheriff Joe was and is a good man, if the brown people some of you speak of didn’t want to go to his jail, then they should have obeyed the law. This article and the author are a total joke. He enforced the law and the judge went on a bender to destroy the guy.

    1. good comment! Arapaio was great in law enforcement. treated criminals like criminals. People should just save their racist comments, which depict a lack of education!

    2. Yeah, inmates who are in there for drug possession charges. Something that shouldn’t even be illegal.

      But fuck those guys, right? After all, once you’re in jail you *deserve* the prison-rape.

      1. There are just too few people who are willing to recognize the rights of *all* people.

        Sure there are some prisoners who have done some pretty horrible things. (Drug crimes aren’t among them.) Even despite their despicable crimes, they still have rights.

        “Illegal Mexicans” have broken the law by coming here, yes. Even still, they still have rights.

        Absolutely no one is arguing that recognizing a person’s rights means absolving that person of all their sins.

        Is it really too much to ask that we acknowledge the rights that all people have?

        1. A couple of issues here that are being conflated.

          There are human rights, which everyone should have at all times. Examples of which are protections from torture (as opposed to being uncomfortable), coerced confessions, etc.

          While I agree that there are some people that have violated drug crimes that aren’t bad people, there many, many more multiples of people who have only been convicted of drug crimes that have done horrendous things. And while I realize that they are ~probably~ just getting caught up in your hyperbole, I’ve saw you characterize many people who haven’t broken any laws as bad people. I know what you mean but it does provide perspective on why restraint and accuracy is beneficial.

          “Illegal Mexicans” only have basic human rights within the U.S. Constitutional Rights only extend to American Citizens.

          1. While I agree that there are some people that have violated drug crimes that aren’t bad people, there many, many more multiples of people who have only been convicted of drug crimes that have done horrendous things.

            Citation needed.

      2. If you think drugs should not be illegal then spend your life and effort to change the law. As for those guys getting raped in prison, I dare say it is those fellow druggies and violent offenders taking advantage of them dropping the soap. The Reason most drugs aren’t legal is because the dope heads kill their children, rob their neighbors and pimp themselves for drug money. People see this on the news and will cry to politicians to pass more laws. It is usually because of the irresponsible few that you can’t have nice things!

    3. “Sheriff Joe was and is a good man”

      oh good Lord! I’m a 61 year resident of Maricopa County.

      Joe has blood on his hands for the MURDER by his deputies of several inmates in medieval “restraint chairs” (for which the stupid voters of Maricopa County paid out about $50 MILLION dollars in settlements).

      He should have ended up like that Italian dictator from the last century long before the Feds went after him.

      People that laud Joe worship the police state. They are more dangerous even than Joe.

      May he, and them, roast in hell.

  25. If a federal court decided that the 14th amendment meant “all ni**ers must hang” and someone defied that order we’d hate him.
    If a federal court found that Ted Bundy was wrongly convicted because he was “profiled” we’d laud that.

  26. Arpaio is not a lawman, he’s a criminal. A lawman obeys the law, including the constitution.

    -jcr

    1. He did.

  27. God I hope Mueller can nail this scumbag to the wall.

  28. Arpaio detained exactly 0 albino Danes for illegally entering the US. RACIST! If he’d been doing his job he’d have caught dozens. People think albino Danes would avoid the southern route into the US and flood in from ginger and albino friendly Canada, so 120% of albino Danes (and 144% of light ginger Irish) brave the southern crossing because they know they will not be challenged even when responding “Jeg mangler solbriller” to the “what is your nationality” question. Arpaio often allowed “skrub af helvede til” to count as affirmation and proof of US citizenship.

    While profiling south americans for no good reason other than RACISM, Arpaio did nothing to stop the flood of Hassidic Jews illegaly flooding through our southern border. Arpaio was often heard saying “Payot is proof enough” and “them American Hebrews sure do love them some desert walkin'”; waving the brown people of Moses through but persecuting the brown people of Santa Maria!

    1. “At 142 pages, the decision is peppered with stinging criticism of the policies and practices espoused by Sheriff Arpaio, who Judge Snow said had turned much of his focus to arresting immigrants who were in the country illegally, in most cases civil violations, at the expense of fighting crimes.

      He said the sheriff relied on racial profiling and illegal detentions to target Latinos, using their ethnicity as the main basis for suspecting they were in the country illegally. Many of the people targeted were American citizens or legal residents.”

      Collective punishment of Americans because they share a race with criminals is SO hot.

      1. At 142 pages, the decision is peppered with stinging criticism … who Judge Snow said had turned much of his focus to arresting immigrants who were in the country illegally, in most cases civil violations, at the expense of fighting crimes.

        So, Snow is essentially saying “I don’t want immigration law enforced, and I’m going to punish you if you try to. Right there, you have judge Snow admitting that the “racial profiling” charge is just a red herring.

      2. Well, if a progressive activist judge says so, it must be gospel, right? That’s the Reason way, isn’t it? TO believe anything a judge says to automatically be true?

        Oh wait, Arpaio isn’t for open borders no matter what. So he must be worse than Hitler. This kind of shit is part of why the libertarian party has no traction, and why I don’t refer people to Reason anymore to teach them about libertarianism. If any of them read this article, and all the lefty responses, I would be laughed at.

        1. Oh good Lord. Nobody is arguing that he is “worse than Hitler” because he isn’t in favor of open borders. But you’d think that he could’ve at least tried to do his job without violating the rights of the people in his custody. Evidently that was too much to ask of him.

  29. Reason can sure be an unreasonable place.

  30. If you don’t like the law that says corrupt socialist states should not be able to export their impoverished citizens to our wealthier corrupt socialist state, then change the law. Don’t demonize the guy who is enforcing the law in a rational and effective manner.

    If you think the ruling against him was correct you also might buy a federal judge saying the 14 amendment says “all ni**ers but hang” and would demonize any sheriff that told that judge to get bent.

    be reasonable Reason people

    1. If you don’t like a law that says that you are a slave then change the law – don’t demonize the slave-catcher.

  31. correction:
    If you think the ruling against him was correct you also might buy a federal judge saying the 14 amendment says “all ni**ers bus
    t hang” and would demonize any sheriff that told that judge to get bent.

  32. correction again:

    If you think the ruling against him was correct you also might buy a federal judge saying the 14 amendment says “all ni**ers must hang” and would demonize any sheriff that told that judge to get bent.

  33. I think this was a mistake to pardon Arpaio. I see the rationale that he could not get a jury trial for contempt of the courts and of course a judge found him guilty. Arpaio acts like he was just being a good law enforcement guy.

    In reality, Arpaio was a showboat of government authority and seemed to have violated people’s constitutional rights. He’s a typical ex-federal employee who then went on to be the sheriff of the county around Phoenix.

    The one good thing about Arpaio’s pardon is that it will drive the lefties crazy for weeks. I just wish it was for different reasons.

    If we had an objective media we might have them find out exactly why Trump pardoned Arpaio and whether this means that Trump will be pardoning way more people than past presidents because he feels the courts have gone off the rails or it was just returning a favor because Arpaio advocated for Trump.

    Either way, Arpaio is not sheriff anymore and holds no government power anymore, so that is a great thing.

    1. “If we had an objective media we might have them find out exactly why Trump pardoned Arpaio”

      well lookee here, from CNN itself

      “In a brief statement released late Friday evening, the White House praised Arpaio’s career.
      “Throughout his time as sheriff, Arpaio continued his life’s work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration,” the statement read. “Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now 85 years old, and after more than 50 years of admirable service to our nation, he is (a) worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon.””

      http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/…..index.html

      so yeah, it was not about the due process, it was because Arpaio roughed up illegals.

      1. ‘Roughed up’……..no. You’re confused. He ROUNDED them up. Which i the correct thing to do under the law.

        No open borders! Get rid of the illegals.

        1. He deprived them of their Fourth Amendment rights. Oh but wait who really cares about the damn wetbacks, amirite?

          1. Ummm you do realize that only American Citizens have 4th amendment rights under the Constitution of the United Stated, don’t you?

  34. I really don’t give a duck that Joe made life miserable for inmates. Jail is supposed to suck. And I hope there is someone that will replace him that will make the lives of illegal aliens totally miserable.

    I find it humorous that New England Cucks (read: Reason editors) think they are so damn much smarter than the citizens of Maricopa County.

    Reason: The CNN of libertarianism.

    1. No you’re right. Those New England Cucks should butt out of what Arizona chooses to do with their illegals. If Sheriff Joe wants to rough up a few brown people, even if they happen to be citizens, why should anyone care? I mean, it’s not like they are people who have rights or anything. They are illegals!

      1. What an idiotic thing to say. Open borders are bullshit. Thankfully I’ve got the constitution to back me up.

        1. Would you mind pointing out in the Constitution that requires the federal government to police the borders?

          You do realize that for the first 100 years of this country, there were essentially zero immigration restrictions?

  35. Poe’s law… Poe’s law… Poe’s law… Poe’s law…

  36. Sheriff Arapaio was harrassed because of the birth certificate investigation in 2 countries about Barack Obama, which happened to be true that his American Birth Certificate was a fake. His half-brother, who lives in Virginia has shown us Obama’s authentic birth certificate from Kenya but hardly anyone from the media picked up the story. What difference does it make where he was born, we were goated into voting for Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada. So no big thing.
    The fact that no one at the university of Columbia remembers Obama nor do they have anything on file is no surprise.

    1. The birth certificate is a red herring. There’s no dispute that Obama’s mother was a US citizen, so he could have been born on Mars and he’d still be a natural-born American.

      -jcr

      1. The real reason the citizenship issue had so much traction was the fact that Obama pretended to be an African-American for the purposes of the election, when he actually was a cosmopolitan European-style intellectual looking down his nose at the US and US society; the fact that he formally had US citizenship didn’t make any difference.

    2. We elected Ted Cruz president? Weird, my ballot had Trump as the GOP candidate. Must have been a misprint.

  37. to clear the record of one of America’s most abusive, racist, and divisive lawmen

    If Arpaio is among the worst, then I guess America’s law enforcement must be in really good shape.

    And “Spanish speaker” is a race now?

  38. Tomorrow’s headlines:

    Trump pardons Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Satan!

  39. “In pardoning Arpaio, Trump has given a free pass to an unrepentant and habitual abuser of power, a man with insufficient regard for the Constitution he swore to uphold or the separation of powers it enshrines.”

    The problem with SJWs turning politics into a signaling war is that it turns politics into a signaling war.

    We should go ahead and plan on President Warren pardoning a BLM activist convicted of shooting a police officer.

    Meanwhile, convicting or pardoning Arpaio doesn’t change anything. No borders are opened or closed because of it.

    There’s no point in arguing about securing the borders against cartels, gangs, and traffickers. There’s no point in arguing about opening the border for Mexicans who just want to find work. Why argue about that trivial stuff when we can about Arpaio?

    Last week there was no point in arguing about whether we should call off the drug war, give choice to disadvantaged kids trapped in horrible schools, or reform police oversight to ensure that officers who brutalize suspects are brought to justice. Why talk about that trivial stuff when we argue about a statue of Robert E. Lee?

    Their hand-waving and signal wars are meant to distract us.

    1. Their hand-waving and signal wars are meant to distract us.

      That only makes sense if there is something to distract us from, but the Republican Congress and the administration just aren’t getting anything done at all.

    2. “There’s no point in arguing about securing the borders against cartels, gangs, and traffickers.”

      Sure is a lot of pants shitting by the open borders crowd here though. And suddenly they like the rule of law again. The funny thing is that a pardon is rule of law.

      1. Are libertarians in the habit of saying that there are no bad laws? The pardon is the most monarchical power granted to anyone in this country, definitely an exception to the general spirit of our democratic system, and more definitely not libertarian (whatever its other virtues). Or are you simply reminding everyone that it exists, as if we didn’t go to elementary school?

        The pants shitting is over the violation of basic human rights of many people because of their ethic background, a practice the courts wisely treated as wrong but that your president thought was something to celebrate.

        1. “The pants shitting is over the violation of basic human rights of many people because of their ethic background, a practice the courts wisely treated as wrong but that your president thought was something to celebrate.”

          Amen, bro, agreeing here 100% on this one!!!

    3. “Meanwhile, convicting or pardoning Arpaio doesn’t change anything. ”

      Well, that’s not entirely true. The future Sheriff Joes waiting in the wings are now emboldened to treat illegals more roughly, because Trump’s now got their backs.

      1. Any sheriff who think he can depend on presidential pardons in the future to get them out of abusing people’s rights would be operating on an extremely absurd assumption.

        One pardon doe not create moral hazard. Abusing people’s rights is just as illegal as it’s always been.

        Competitive signaling is not the equivalent of moral hazard.

        1. We shall see. I think Arpaio is going to now get the hero’s treatment among the conservative grifters like Rush and Hannity and other LEO’s will think that this is a pretty good example to follow.

    4. Who is more of an exploiter of identity politics in the last 50 years than Donald Trump?

      1. Let’s see..

        Jesse Jackson
        Hillary Clinton
        Al Sharpton
        Robert Byrd
        Strom Thurmond
        Barack Obama
        Jeremiah Wright
        Louis Farrakhan
        The SPLC
        David Duke
        “Antifa”
        The Nazis,
        and the Klan.

        Those are the ones that spring to mind. I’m sure I’ve left a few out.

        -jcr

        1. Spike Lee?

        2. Only one of those made it to the presidency and I don’t think Obama’s explicit message of unity counts quite as much as Trump’s explicit call to turn all Mexicans, Muslims, and trans people into political scapegoats. Not to mention his Nazi sympathizing. No one does identity politics quite like Nazis.

          1. Obama’s explicit message of unity … all Mexicans, Muslims, and trans people

            And there you have it in a nutshell. In a free society, people don’t want to be forcibly united with illegal Mexicans, Muslim refugees, and trans people, either fiscally or socially.

            When the government forcibly tries to unite people into a societal whole, that’s called “fascism”; literally, that’s what the term means. And Americans didn’t want it, which is why they rejected Clinton.

            Not to mention his Nazi sympathizing. No one does identity politics quite like Nazis.

            Oh, American progressives have been far better at it than the Nazis.

            1. No one is forcing you to associate with “illegal Mexicans, Muslim refugees, and trans people”.

              Is your view of a “free society” one that is homogeneous and pure?

              1. No one is forcing you to associate with “illegal Mexicans, Muslim refugees, and trans people”.

                Of course I am forced to associate with them: all businesses are forced to accommodate and hire them without discrimination, all schools and universities are forced to accept them, all housing is forced to accommodate them, etc.

                Is your view of a “free society” one that is homogeneous and pure?

                No, that is your view. My view is that people ought to be free to discriminate against me as a gay immigrant, and likewise, I should be able to discriminate against people I don’t like.

                1. First, both you and I don’t favor anti-discrimination laws. Second, even considering the status quo, that is not how anti-discrimination laws work. “Illegal Mexicans, Muslim refugees, and trans people” are not protected classes under any statute and there is no quota nor any expectation or mandate that you hire any of them for any job that you have available as an employer.

                  Oh one more thing

                  “When the government forcibly tries to unite people into a societal whole, that’s called “fascism”; literally, that’s what the term means. And Americans didn’t want it, which is why they rejected Clinton.”

                  What do you think of the phrase “E pluribus unum”? Is that a statement of fascism? Or do you think actual fascism is more nuanced than simply a vague desire for social unity?

                  1. “Illegal Mexicans, Muslim refugees, and trans people” are not protected classes under any statute

                    You’re wrong.

                    What do you think of the phrase “E pluribus unum”? Is that a statement of fascism? Or do you think actual fascism is more nuanced than simply a vague desire for social unity?

                    Neither. It simply refers to the union of 13 colonies into one nation under a minimalist federal structure.

            2. Furthermore, by wanting to use government force to keep out “illegal Mexicans, Muslim refugees, and trans people”, you are denying _citizens_ the right to associate with whom they choose with their own property.

              1. Furthermore, by wanting to use government force to keep out “illegal Mexicans, Muslim refugees, and trans people”, you are denying _citizens_ the right to associate with whom they choose with their own property.

                Correct. That’s because we live in a progressive welfare state, and such states forcibly extract money via taxes, redistribute that money and provide services to all citizens, and deny citizens the right to free association, both among citizens and across borders. These infringements on people’s liberties are all dependent on each other; you cannot reasonably lift some of those infringements without also lifting others. Furthermore, such partial lifts are not libertarian policies.

                So, first get rid of high taxes, redistribution, high government spending, and non-discrimination laws; after you do all that, then we can talk about opening borders. Until then, we will retain restrictive immigration laws, whether you like it or not.

                1. How about this instead: we work to increase the liberty of all people, whenever and wherever we can?

                  There is not going to be one triumphal act that restores everyone’s liberty. We have to take victories where we can get them.

                  You are arguing that depriving yourself of YOUR OWN liberty is preferable to even partial restoration of your liberty. This is a patently absurd position particularly for a libertarian website. In what other case would you even think of arguing “nah, don’t make me more free, I prefer to have my liberties stripped away until that one singular moment arrives when all is made perfect in the world”? Would you say “I don’t want the government to stop spying on my email until they also stop spying on me entirely”? Would you say “I don’t want the government to reduce my tax burden even a little until the income tax is totally abolished”? Of course not.

                  And it is because of the lunacy of this position that many people, myself included, don’t really consider this to be a genuine argument. I think instead that it is a mere rationalization for your deeper feeling that you just don’t want more Mexicans here.

                  1. How about this instead: we work to increase the liberty of all people, whenever and wherever we can?

                    That’s not what you’re proposing. What you are proposing is to increase the liberty of other people at my expense. You’re like someone complaining that I’m infringing on their liberty because I don’t let them have a pool party on my private property.

                    The way the US is set up is that large parts of the country, land, and infrastructure are owned and maintained by the federal and state governments. That effectively makes US citizens involuntary members in a vast HOA. And as such, I exercise my right as an HOA member to keep people out that I don’t want to have around; I don’t have to justify to anybody who I want to keep out or why.

                    In a libertarian society, I would exercise the same rights in different ways, but I would still exercise them.

                    I think instead that it is a mere rationalization for your deeper feeling that you just don’t want more Mexicans here.

                    I have nothing against Mexicans per se; any Mexican who consistently makes more than $100k/year (or can produce a $500k one time payment+ $500k as a bond), has no debt, and doesn’t require any government services is welcome as far as I’m concerned. Anybody who doesn’t meet those requirements is not welcome, regardless of country of origin.

                    1. “The way the US is set up is that large parts of the country, land, and infrastructure are owned and maintained by the federal and state governments. That effectively makes US citizens involuntary members in a vast HOA. ”

                      Your HOA analogy is baloney. Not even in a real HOA do its members have property rights in the HOA’s own property. And citizens certainly do not have any property rights over public land. Only the government does.

                      And if we accept your argument at face value, what you are arguing is such a minimalist view of liberty as to render the concept meaningless. You are granting the mob veto power over how citizens might justly exercise their liberty. Suppose I wish to transport my guns from my private residence in my private car to a private shooting range. According to you, the public may justly forbid me from doing this by declaring that no guns are allowed on public roads. No RKBA proponent in their right minds would ever tolerate such an argument. They would view it, correctly, as an infringement of their liberty.

                      And this is the blind spot that the border restrictionists have when it comes to immigration, they make absurd demands (only $100k/yr jobs? Really?) and they advance anti-liberty arguments that they would never make under any other circumstances. It all boils down to the fact that you just don’t want those dirty foreigners here and you will create any rationalization necessary in order to pursue this outcome.

                    2. So, out with it Mark. What’s the real reason you don’t want the foreigners here?

                    3. So, out with it Mark. What’s the real reason you don’t want the foreigners here?

                      I’ve given you one reason: as a US taxpayer, I don’t want to pay for the education, healthcare, and support of unskilled third world immigrants.

                      The other reason is that I’m an immigrant myself and I don’t want the US to turn into the kind of shithole that I emigrated from,

                      Both of those concerns would be easily addressed if the US returned to its libertarian roots, and the sooner the US does that the better as far as I’m concerned; at that point, feel free to open the borders. But as long as the US is a nation state and a progressive welfare state, I am going to continue to support strict limits on immigration.

                    4. And citizens certainly do not have any property rights over public land. Only the government does.

                      Yes, and the government gives us voting rights by which we can exclude whoever we like. There is no equal protection clause or human right to immigrate to the US. None. No amount of confabulation on your part is going to change that.

                      You are granting the mob veto power over how citizens might justly exercise their liberty.

                      That’s the way the US operates. The mob constantly vetoes my ability to justly exercise my liberty, and I do the same. It’s not a libertarian system, but it’s the system we have.

                    5. And this is the blind spot that the border restrictionists have when it comes to immigration, they make absurd demands (only $100k/yr jobs? Really?)

                      There is nothing “absurd” about it. I have been making more than $100k/year since I got my green card, and so have been all the foreigners and immigrants I have been working with for the past few decades.

                      It all boils down to the fact that you just don’t want those dirty foreigners here

                      Quite right. I only want high earning foreigners here, like myself.

                      you will create any rationalization necessary in order to pursue this outcome

                      The ability to control national borders and restrict immigration and cross border travel is a recognized right of all nations and it is exercised by every nation in existence. And that will continue to be the case as long as we have nation states.

                    6. Oh, and why $100k? That’s cross-over point at which a tax payer actually starts paying more in taxes than they get in government benefits.

                      It’s also only twice the median family income, hardly an unusual requirement.

          2. Nazi sympathizing.

            Obama’s mentor was literally a bomb-throwing commie, so there’s nothing to choose between Trump and the Teleprompter-in-chief on that score.

            -jcr

      2. Tony?

      3. If “identity politics” is defined as a platform of wanting to grant special favors to members of a group based on those members’ immutable characteristics, then I don’t think any politician has failed to pander in this manner. The difference between then and now, IMO, is that in the past, such pandering would generally be less obvious and cloaked in a facially neutral rationale. Now, however, it is just far more obvious and the pretense of a neutral rationale has been dropped.

        1. The difference between then and now, IMO, is that in the past, such pandering would generally be less obvious and cloaked in a facially neutral rationale. Now, however, it is just far more obvious and the pretense of a neutral rationale has been dropped.

          To me: feature, not a bug.

          I’d rather know exactly where people stand than have “leaders” who change their spots to suit the audience.

    5. We are opening the borders to Mexicans looking for work. It’s called the RAISE act.

      1. Nonsense. The RAISE act gives preference to skilled workers and eliminates special categories based on national origin or family ties. There would be a sharp drop in the number of Mexicans coming to the US under RAISE.

        Of course, the act also has no chance of passing since many corporations and wealthy folks are addicted to indentured Mexican servants.

  40. If it was up to me, I’d hang that son of a bitch for spamming me, right next to the asshole who stole Ron Paul’s e-mail list and sold it to him.

    -jcr

  41. Phew! That’s a relief. Good thing he didn’t pardon a hero like Snowden, because that would be a genuinely anti-establishment move, and Trump clearly can’t have that. Pardoning a big government authoritarian loser who violated people’s rights, though, is perfectly fine. Tremendous pardon!

    1. Trump is virtue-signaling to his base that he really really really dislikes illegals, just like Arpaio.

  42. The author of this is a moron. It’s not racist of illegal to arrest and deport illegals. What an ignorant fool.

    1. “It’s not racist to deport illegals. Therefore it’s totally okay to rough them up a little before sending them back.” — Trumpian Logic

      1. Therefore it’s totally okay to rough them up a little before sending them back.

        Sure, like for example imprisoning them for up to ten years. Why shouldn’t the US do that? It’s, after all, how Mexico itself treats illegal immigrants.

    2. That may be true, but “Joe” had no legal brief to do that.

      He did, a couple of times arrest a few who actually committed the crime of identity theft. Good on him.

      But, most of his “effort” to combat illegal immigration was posturing and PR for the stupid citizens of Maricopa County.

      If he did catch an illegal immigrant thru a vehicle stop for a busted taillight it is almost certain that the person wasn’t going to be deported – because it is ICE, that is the Fed gov’t, that deports people. Joe couldn’t do it.

      And, as a Maricopa County resident for all of my 61 years I KNOW that his “efforts” resulted in ZERO reduction in illegal immigration to Maricopa County. He couldn’t even “scare” them out.

      Instead, his deputies murdered several people in medieval “restraint chairs” for which the Maricopa County voters paid out some $50 MILLION in settlements for wrongful death lawsuits while they IGNORED actual sexual crimes (thousands of victims simply ignored) and waged a war on free speech against ANYONE who criticized him, going so far as to use the power of his office to even arrest his detractors.

      This is not someone who should be lauded by anyone.

      But stupid right-wing cop-suckers do.

      ps: I voted for Trump. His pardon of Joe would make me sick but I didn’t expect much from Trump. At least he is not Hillary. But Joe has blood on his hands. That is what he should be in jail for.

  43. Why not? We’ve already allowed Hilary to destroy evidence, IRS to do the same and/or not turn over documents and many others. Essentially all have been pardoned. We as a nation have apparently decided that not cooperating with a court ruling is not a crime.

    Sad commentary on “We The People” not being angry enough to demand all laws applying to all equally.

  44. Ciaramella is a damn fool. So Sheriff Joe s the worst because he tried to enforce the law? I bet this fool loved Obama.

  45. Let’s face it folks, he followed the constitution, and issued a pardon. He does not have to explain why, it does not have to be justified. He just issues the pardon.
    This is possibly the most straightforward, unquestionably proper thing he has done from an executive point, and a constitutional point of anything else since he took the oath.
    Get over it.

    1. Just as you no doubt took Mark Rich’s pardon with complete equanimity.

    2. Maybe he’ll pardon Mark David Chapman next.

  46. It is too bad the US gov’t didn’t go after him a lot earlier –

    for the MURDER by his jail deputies of a number of inmates in medieval “restraint chairs”.

    Funny, in the wrongful cases that cost Maricopa County over $50 MILLION dollars Sheriff Joe professed he had no knowledge of what happens in his jail. But anytime else he claimed to be the smartest man in the room.

    Defying the order of a Fed judge is an offence he should not have been pardoned for, but being responsible (by “encouraging” his deputies to be “tough”) for the murders of a half dozen inmates (I believe actually all were awaiting trial, not convicted of anything yet, for pretty minor offences if indeed any offence other than disrespect of cop). I hope he roasts in hell.

    Joe has blood on his hands, and should have ended up like some other tyrants of the 20th Century did. One Italian and one Romanian.

    I voted for Trump. Well, I voted “against” Hillary. And I would do the same thing if the choice were the same.

    But this (and other actions of his administration) confirm my fears that the Donald isn’t really any kind of a believer in freedom.

    No, he is a “law and order” cop-sucker.

    I regret that I voted for Joe when he first ran for office. I voted against him every time after that but the stupid voters of Maricopa County didn’t learn like I did.

    1. sorry, left out – (being responsible for murders) is what he really should have been punished for.

  47. “He also repeatedly peddled birther conspiracy theories about Barack Obama.”

    ALL of Barack Obama’s birth certificates are stone-cold forgeries. This is NOT a “conspiracy theory” but the concrete evidence of a genuine conspiracy to put a foreign-born, Muslim Marxist, identity fraud into the White House.

    Obama has NEVER produced a single shred of independently verifiable, concrete evidence to prove that he was born in the United States.

    Anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant fool.

  48. I fail to understand all the hatred and hostility toward an 85-year-old who is no danger to society. I believe it was Aeschylus who once said that society hangs ordinary thieves and makes monuments for the political leaders, who steal from society on a massive scale. Today, we have an ordinary small-town sheriff arousing the hatred and hostility of angry mobs, whereas the vast corruption of the Clinton empire is unscathed.

  49. I disagree with the article on so many levels.
    Sheriff Joe was convicted of a misdemeanor offense of refusing to duck a Politically setup situation
    .
    But in my book Criminals are criminals.
    Here in Ga, we have DUI Checkpoints that stop people and check papers.
    I understand it is to get the Drunks off the road, but it does, as I feel, violate the rights of the 999
    others stopped to get the 1 drunk that could have been snagged at a checkpoint down the street from the bar.
    Likely it or not the State and Federal Courts have ruled this was OK long ago.

    In the case of Sheriff Joe, his was not 999 out of a 1000, but 70 out of 1000 stopped.
    This meant 930 Illegals stopped before they invaded the USA Economy and drove down wages or took US Jobs.
    Remember this is a major crossing location for Illegals and drug dealer mules.

    All because EX-President Obama unsecured the Southern US border, when he openly invited in Illegals and had ICE stand down for the Open Borders Globalist agenda groups.

    1. “This meant 930 Illegals stopped before they invaded the USA Economy and drove down wages or took US Jobs”

      I’ll give you a free geography lesson.

      Maricopa County doesn’t border Mexico.

      Any illegal immigrant Joe managed to snare either got released eventually or perhaps turned over to ICE.

      Maybe a few got deported. But I’ve lived in Phx all my life – 61 yrs. His 24 yrs of grandstanding didn’t make a diff regards illegal immigrants.

      But it cost AZ voters at least $50 MILLION in wrongful death settlements, besides the other mismanagement (which was legion).

      Trumped picked a particularly loathsome person to pardon. What a waste.

      And the Navy seaman who took a picture of the sub where he worked still is in jail.

      We know what Trumps real priorities are.

      I voted for him, or rather “against” Hillary. But his action here didn’t surprise me.

  50. Aesop said, “We hang petty thieves, and appoint the great ones to public office.” That sums up my feelings in a climate in which all the great scandals and lawlessness goes unscathed in Washington (the DNC scandal, the Wasserman scandal, Hillary’s private server scandal, the IRA scandal, the Fast and Furious scandal, the Benghazi scandal, not mention all the shenanigans going on with the FBI, the CIA, the Fed, the central banks and Goldman Sachs enriching the inside establishment at the expense of the common people. The author talks of coming together, but there will always be division when the establishment is opposed–and it deserves to be opposed. Trump’s pardon of this insignificant sheriff is significant only in that it signals he will be willing to pardon others caught up in the high-priced Mueller witch hunt. Bush didn’t have the balls to pardon Scooter Libby, even though he was merely a scalp for a previous team of high-priced lawyers paid to prove that black is white.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.