Joe Arpaio

Mike Pence Calls Lawbreaking Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio a 'Champion of the Rule of Law'

Because nothings says "rule of law" like a sheriff held in contempt for refusing to follow a judge's orders.

|

Laura Segall/REUTERS/Newscom

Vice President Mike Pence had kind words Tuesday night for former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the self-styled "toughest sheriff in America," who was pardoned by President Donald Trump last year after a federal judge held him in criminal contempt.

At a rally in Arizona, Pence introduced Arpaio, now running for U.S. Senate, as "another favorite, a great friend of this president, a tireless champion of strong borders and the rule of law."

It was interesting choice of words, considering Arpaio was charged by federal prosecutors and convicted of contempt of court for refusing to stop his department's unconstitutional racial profiling of Latino residents.

Pence is usually thought of as the more sober straight man to Trump's bombast, but Republicans have a long history of pandering to Arpaio, who was first elected sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in 1993. Arpaio gained national notoriety for holding inmates in a sweltering desert tent city and making them wear old-timey striped uniforms. He later raised his national profile by ordering large-scale sweeps of Latino neighborhoods to round up illegal immigrants. He also peddled birther conspiracy theories about Barack Obama.

But while he was a darling of the national conservative scene, Arpaio was sued more than 2,000 times over the years for the conditions inside his jail and for his unrepentant and habitual abuses of power.

In 2014, J.D. Tuccille noted in Reason that Arpaio's office "has also been guilty of a litany of shenanigans, including stealing documents from a defense attorney, arresting critical journalists, spying on political opponents—and maintaining such lousy jail conditions that they violate inmates' rights."

The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division probed the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office twice and sued it several times, once for refusing to cooperate with its investigation.

In 2007, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors settled a lawsuit filed by the founders of the Phoenix New Times against Arpaio and the board for $3.5 million. The newspaper founders sued after Arpaio's deputies arrested them for publishing details of a grand jury subpoena for the paper's notes and sources for its coverage of the sheriff. The charges against the paper were quickly dropped.

In 2008, the board of supervisors approved another $1 million payout to a man who Arpaio framed in a staged murder plot against the sheriff. The 1999 stunt gained Arpaio sympathetic local media coverage in an election year, while the framed man spent four years in county jail awaiting trial before being acquitted of all charges.

In 2008, Arpaio's jail also lost its accreditation after investigators found jail officials had provided false information about conditions inside the facility. By that time Maricopa County had spent $43 million in lawsuit settlement payouts as a result of Arpaio's brand of law and order.

When the Justice Department's investigation finally wrapped up in 2012, it concluded that Arpaio's office had engaged in a pattern and practice of unconstitutional racial profiling and unlawful retaliation against those who complained about it.

For the next five years, Arpaio continued to flout orders by federal judges to improve the conditions inside his jails and cease its immigration sweeps.

A federal judge referred Arpaio to the U.S. Attorney's Office for potential prosecution in October 2016, concluding that he had ignored her orders. Federal prosecutors charged Arpaio and three of his aides with criminal contempt of court.

Amid the negative headlines, Arpaio, who had previously been politically untouchable for 24 years, lost his campaign for reelection in 2016.

In July of last year another federal judge found him guilty of criminal contempt, but Trump used the first pardon of his presidency to grant Arpaio reprieve. As I wrote at the time:

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.

Pence, it appears, can be added to that company.

NEXT: Seattle Sued Over Law Banning Landlords From Conducting Criminal Background Checks

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. Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
    Book by Harvey Silverglate

    1. What is lawful is whatever I agree with!

      What is awful and unlawful is whatever I disagree with!

      Now can I be POTUS or Vice POTUS or SCROTUS or some such?!?!? Can-I, can-I, can-I??! PLEASE?!??!

      1. You have my vote for SCROTUS.

  2. Pence is more evil and less stupid than Trump. The only thing he has going for him is that nobody likes him.

    1. I don’t know about less stupid.

      1. Well, more self-control.

        Perhaps there was never more of an odd couple on that count.

        1. I think we can all agree that Tony is stupid

          1. …and evil.

          2. I don’t think Tony is stupid or evil. Just ignorant and unwilling to learn.

            1. Chipper, you, sir, are a glass half-full type of guy.

            2. Tony isn’t a real person.

            3. I would agree, but he’s made one too many ‘eugenicky’ comments.

              We all know he’d be a-otay with state sanctioned murder if it was for his prog team.

              1. Convince me that it meets both my criteria for any policy of pragmatic utility and individual dignity.

                1. Socialism is what Tony loves.

    2. I like him.

      Quiz: what crime was he convicted and pardoned for?

  3. You know the saying “game reco’nize game”? This is that, but the opposite.

    1. Lame reco’nize lame?

    2. Wait…what?

      This would be more like “game pretending to recognize game in order to appease big game who isn’t even familiar with how the game works, because he’s too busy banging porn stars”

      1. I was going for “lack of game reco’nize lack of game” but it’s been a long day and yours is probably more accurate.

  4. Pence applauds Arpaio while being part of administration that touts the “rule of law”? The irony

    It would be like a libertarian publication ignoring and then downplaying an incident involving socialized medicine, restricting immigration, and State demanded euthanasia and then pretend……oh wait

    1. You gotta get out of the bubble sometime.

      1. Yes. It’s definitely me that needs to leave the bubble. I’m glad you’re embracing your eugenic roots as a progressive

        1. Before the damage is permanent.

          1. Well, no one can be as good of a “libertarian” as you, Trust Fund

  5. Of course, former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a tireless champion of the rule of law, he was a law enforcement officer. Even multiple felony convictions wouldn’t trump his status as a former law enforcement officer in that regard.

    That is fundamental to the world view of people like Pence.

  6. Pence is just a vile piece of shit:

    Pence Headlines Event for PAC Whose “Advocacy Director” Says It’s a “Statistical Observation” That Black People Are Lazy
    By BEN MATHIS-LILLEY


    In January, a Trump administration official named Carl Higbie resigned after CNN reported on a rich tapestry of insulting statements he’d made about various demographic groups during past radio appearances. Among them:

    ? “The black race as a whole ? is lazier than the white race.”
    ? “I just don’t like Muslim people.”
    ? “[Islam] is the ideology of a child molester.”
    ? “75 percent of [veterans] with PTSD don’t actually have it, and they’re either milking something for a little extra money in disability or they’re just, they honestly are just lying.”
    ? “I don’t like gay people.”

    Higbie landed on his feet as the advocacy director of a pro-Trump PAC called America First Policies. Mike Pence is appearing at a Phoenix event hosted by the group on Tuesday; Higbie, meanwhile, defended his comments about relative racial industriousness in a radio appearance last Friday. “Because I made a statistical observation, they think that’s racist,” Higbie said to a Virginia-based host named John Fredericks, complaining that CNN had taken his remarks “completely out of context.” (Fredericks, incidentally, advertises himself as “America’s Godzilla of the Truth.”)

    Slate

    1. Do these people not realize that Mary was a young teenager when Yahweh impregnated her?

      1. Impregnated but remained a virgin, according to most Christians.

      2. Impregnated but remained a virgin, according to most Christians.

        1. Good point….and worth repeating.

    2. Well let’s go through these statements.

      “The black race as a whole ? is lazier than the white race.” What’s being obscured by that ellipse? That signals something is being left out. What is it? It sounds bad, almost certainly is bad, but I would like to know what they chose to admit.

      “I just don’t like Muslim people.” Bigoted? Yes. Honest? Also yes. So bad because bigotry, but I respect his honesty.

      “Islam is the ideology of a child molester.” Offensive but true. Muhammed did take a six-year-old as his bride. So calling it the ideology of a pedophile is actually completely accurate.

      “75 percent of [veterans] with PTSD don’t actually have it, and they’re either milking something for a little extra money in disability or they’re just, they honestly are just lying.” So how do you back up this claim? Honestly, it sounds like a guy who has never had to deal with anyone who had PTSD/shellshock/battle fatigue/whatever new polite euphemism is coming around the bend.

      “I don’t like gay people.” Bigoted? Yes. Honest? Also yes. See above.

      Does this guy seem like a pile of shit? Yes. Is he a pile of shit? Probably. Does that mean that the PAC he runs is bigoted? It’s likely. Does their support for Trump make Trump a racist? No. Does Pence pandering to them for their votes make him evil? Tough to say.

      1. Jewish law allowed girls to be fucked by their husbands at age 12 at the time of Jesus. Jesus however lived to his 30s without marrying. Therefore what you have is an ideology of a pedophile deity with a homosexual son.

        1. But we’re not Christians, Past Me. And that doesn’t detract from him being right about Muhammed fucking a six-year-old.

          Also, homosexual? I thought he was asexual. Check your privilege, Past Me.

          1. Oh, it’s you? Didn’t realize you were such a bigot apologist. Nobody’s saying Mike Pence should be arrested for associating with this creature. Nor should he get a pass because “I hate Muslims and gays” is refreshingly honest or whatever.

            And the difference between 6 and 12 in the modern age might matter to Roy Moore but it’s hardly something to lord over Muhammad about.

            1. Apparently you don’t get the idea of puberty.

            2. Left-wing logic: fight bigotry with bigotry

              You’re such a religious bigot you could be Gay Jay’s speech writer, Trust Fund

              1. Rightwing logic: it’s only bigotry when it’s against people like MEEEE.

                1. Tony’s logic, lefties are always right.

            3. In Muhammad’s time, taking someone in marriage didn’t necessarily mean having sex with them right away. In some places in India children are promised in matrimony even as infants as kind of a tie between families.

        2. I thought it was proven history that he and Mary Magdalene were married, or at least lovers? Josephus says so. I’ll bet there’s even a Roman census that shows them sharing a home together.

          1. Dan Brown makes a persuasive case.

            1. …to read something else.

              1. I can’t decide if that was the worst book ever written or if I just am not acquainted with how bad books are that normal people read.

        3. Plenty of ancient cultures had females marry early and men marry relatively late as the norm. Six is kind of pushing it though.

          1. “Six is kind of pushing it though.”

            –Roy Moore

            Child marriage for political reasons was commonat the time, and Muhammad didn’t fuck her till she hit puberty, same as with Mary, so what’s the difference?

            1. …and you know about Muhammad’s fucking habits how, exactly?

              1. I’m a learned person.

              2. Muhammad’s (hbih) fucking habits are in the Quran in pornographic detail.

        4. We don’t know that Jesus never married. It seems unlikely, though, because it would have been so unusual for him to have never married at his age that the Gospels would surely have mentioned it, if only to provide a face-saving explanation. As for him being homosexual, that’s really irrelevant to his marital status. Marriage wasn’t about love in those days. Whatever he did with boys would have been a separate issue.

          1. None of the apostles were mentioned as having wives either.

        5. What makes you think Jesus didn’t marry? There are plausible biblical grounds to believe he was (for example, him being referred to as “rabbi,” Mary not leaving the house while sitting shiva for Lazarus until he called her forth, and Pilate offering to free either him or his son — bar abbas means “son of the rabbi”).

          1. Jesus was 33 and had a son old enough to be executed as a criminal?

            1. If he married late and had a son quickly, the son would likely have been 13 or older, and therefore an adult.

              But even if not, Jesus was a claimant to the throne in a bid to restore the Davidic dynasty. While he was executed for rebellion against Rome (that’s what crucifixion represented), his bloodline would have been just as important in that respect as him personally.

          2. I thought Bar Abbas meant ‘Son of Father’.

            Probably just a cool name he used as an outlaw.

      2. Looked it up, The ellipsis stands for, “not totally, He says it was a statistical observation.

        I’d really like to see what he said before and after. But I’d say this: Unless all races are identical on any given metric, one of them is going to be worse than another on a given metric. Those are the choices: Either blacks and whites are equally industrious, or one or the other is lazier on average.

        Might be an ugly thing to say, but it is, potentially, a true ugly thing. I think we reject too many things that might be true on the basis of their being ugly. Ugly and truth are probably not correlated at all.

  7. I think of Pence as Trump’s Spiro Agnew. You know Trump’s never going to have anybody around him who might upstage him so who’s going to take a job where you know your first order of business is never doing anything that might make you look better than the boss?

  8. Sheriff Joe is the poster boy for the ugly public sector lifer.

    He is vile.

    The pardon power should not apply to public sector lifers.

  9. Meanwhile the Left supports the unConstitional DACA. Stones and glass houses.

  10. To be fair, Arpaio was trying to enforce immigration law and other laws while judges tend to try and smother the Constitution in the mud.

    1. He also humiliated and mistreated prisoners in his care solely to benefit his political career. He’s just another sociopath that found his tit in the leo section. Plus he’s ugly. Like Roy Moore ugly.

      1. And Sheriff Israel down in Broward. It’s like they’re all brothers from a different mother.

    2. To be equally fair, you’re a bigoted right-wing hick, loveconstitution1789. You can’t help crushing on Pence and Arpaio. This makes liberals and libertarians your betters.

      1. You know Arty, you have actually made a couple of decent posts today.

        1. I’m Arthur. Artie was great, but he was banned by the proprietor’s Censorship Committee for making fun of conservatives.

          1. Spammer troll then.

      2. Artie, you’re a lefty socialist useful idiot just the Nazis before you.

        Of course you don’t like Libertarians like me speaking out against your lefty nonsense.

  11. What does the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division have to do with the rule of law?

  12. Christ, what an asshole.

    1. That’s what St. John said.

  13. Mike Pence is a gullible, authoritarian, right-wing hick. He was born to adore Joe Arpaio.

    Show me a libertarian who does not despise Pence and Arpaio and I will show you a low-grade conservative masquerading in unconvincing libertarian drag.

    1. There’s nothing special about Arpaio. He’s very typical of the kind of schoolyard bullies that get elected sheriff in this country. He’s just gotten a lot of press because his county is on the front line of the immigration issue.

    2. how do you feel about sanctuary cities and the rule of law?

      1. The rule of law is incompatible with a central planner deciding on the migration of people.

        1. So you do or don’t care what the Constitution says?

          1. Does the Constitution give Congress or the Executive the power to determine the migration of people?

            Hint: Naturalization and immigration are two entirely different things.

            1. A lot of the dopehats here don’t get that.

            2. Migration? Yes. Article I, Section 9
              The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

      2. Sanctuary cities are prime exemplars of the rule of law, insofar as they illustrate our dual-sovereign system. States and cities are permitted, in this system, to choose not to enforce immigration law in any particular way that the federal government might like.

        I would also point out that all the caterwauling about immigration and the “rule of law” turns out to be a bit hypocritical, when there are tons of laws prohibiting much more damaging behavior that are basically not enforced. The typical speeding driver endangers more lives every day than the average immigrant who enters or stays in the country without legal authorization will in his or her entire life.

        So let’s not pretend that anyone actually cares about the “rule of law.” Being anti-immigration is about enforcing restrictions on who gets to be part of this country and its civic life.

  14. Just remember, when a President attends a church that says horrible, inflamatory things or hangs out with domestic terrorists, it’s totes cool because his attending that church or that gathering does not mean he endorses everything the shithead pastor/ terrorist host says. But if a Vice President attends an event where the host said batshit crazy and offensive things at some point in his career, well it’s time for the tar and feathers.

    The Sheriff Joe endorsement is pathetic.

    1. But if a Vice President attends an event where the host said batshit crazy and offensive things at some point in his career, well it’s time for the tar and feathers.

      Who are we talking about?

  15. “At a rally in Arizona, Pence introduced Arpaio, now running for U.S. Senate, as “another favorite, a great friend of this president, a tireless champion of strong borders and the rule of law.”

    It was interesting choice of words, considering Arpaio was charged by federal prosecutors and convicted of contempt of court for refusing to stop his department’s unconstitutional racial profiling of Latino residents.”

    I appreciate that we’re talking about dueling interpretations of “the rule of law”, here, but . . .

    Wait a second. Reason staff have made a mockery of the rule of law over the past two weeks–to the point that being lectured about “the rule of law” by Reason is now insulting to our intelligence.

    Two weeks ago, we heard all about how Article I, Section 8 is sacrosanct, and Trump’s retaliatory strike against Assad for his chemical weapons violations was, hence, unconstitutional and illegal.

    Last week, Shikha Dalmia denigrated the rules of naturalization as set by congress as required by Article I, Section 8 as, “slavish devotion to the elected branches of government”. Who cares what the Constitution says!!!

    Yesterday, we were urged in these pages to ignore the NPT–despite it being ratified by the senate as required by Article I, Section 8–in favor of an agreement negotiated with the Iranians by Obama that was never even submitted for the senate’s consideration.

    . . . and now you’re lecturing us about Arpaio not caring about “the rule of law”?!

  16. Either you people at Reason aren’t reading each others’ work, or you think we’re stupid.

    Tell us, what’s the difference between an organization that doesn’t give a shit about the rule of law and an organization that only cares about the rule of law when it suits them for other reasons? Is there any more to it than whether it’s about your favorite issue? If not, then please stop using “the rule of law” this way. Some of us really do care about it–and it’s already hard enough to persuade other people to care about the rule of law, too, without the phonies treating it like their personal blow-up doll to get their jollies with whenever it’s convenient.

    1. The rule of law as conceived by cucky, faux libertarians, like you, is every bit the Rorschach test as it is for many on the Reason staff, the team red contingent, and the team blue contingent.

      The rule of law as conceived by the likes of Murray Rothbard, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Lysander Spooner, John Whitehead, James Ostrowski, Bionic Mosquito, Thomas DiLorenzo, William Norman Grigg, Butler Shafer and our own sarc is far superior to that which is embraced by the cucky civic nationalist faction of the faux libertarian league, of which you are a member.

      The Rule of Law, if it is to mean anything, must not allow for its administration, protection, and preservation to be monopolized. Said otherwise, there can be no rule of law where Caesar is the sole arbiter of the same. You cucks have a hard time grappling with this because you have been spoon-fed Stars n’ Stripes civics your whole life and you are just too addicted to having one, central planning behemoth being in charge.

      The rule of law can never be truly effective if its enforcement is pegged to any document to which consent was not freely and unambiguously given by any party to be charged. This is why the constitution is a joke. Its birthing was a defiance of the rule of law because the articles of confederation did not permit central planners to secretly convene to create a constitution so that a big, powerful central government could emerge.

      1. “The rule of law as conceived by cucky, faux libertarians, like you . . .

        You should go see a psychiatrist.

        It’s not enough that I opposed Trump’s attack on Assad–only because it was unconstitutional.

        It’s not enough that I’ve been arguing for open borders here for almost 15 years.

        It’s not enough that I insist on our treaties only being entered into by way of constitutional means.

        No, the important thing is that I’m supposed to care about your bullshit litmus tests that aren’t about libertarianism at all?

        Fuck off and go see a psychiatrist.

        P.S. Reason staff are all over the place on the rule of law because they don’t give a shit about the rule of law.

        1. Why do thee look at the speck in thy brother’s eye and pay no attention to the sequoia in thine own eye?

          So, because I do not adhere to the Ken Schultz School of Liberty, I should go and see a psychiatrist?

          All I did was challenge you on a basic premise of the rule of law.

          Of course, I could be 100% wrong on my assumption that you think that the rule of law is compatible with Caesar having a monopoly on the administration of justice.

          Likewise, I could be totally wrong in thinking that you are okay with thinking that two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner as long as the sheep has been given notice that the wolves each get a vote regarding the dinner menu and as long as the sheep is given an opportunity to have his objection heard by judge Alpha Wolf.

          Similarly, I could be off the mark in thinking that you have no problem with sarc and Tony and Ole Mex and Tulpa and Warty and Sugar Free and Elemenope and Epi and MNF and shrike and John and Crusty and Sloop and Joe from Lowell being bound by a document to which they did not freely and voluntarily consent to be so bound.

          To the extent that the above assumptions / thoughts are accurate, then, it naturally follows, at the very least, that you are comfortable with some degree of central planning, collectivism, and monopoly. This means that you are okay with NAP violations which mean that you are not truly a libertarian.

          1. You surely know that for many in the liberty sphere, the NAP is the cornerstone of libertarianism. That is just an indisputable fact.

            You surely know that this conception and definition of libertarianism has been embraced by the luminaries I listed above, as well as by mucho many libertarian artists, authors, bloggers, creators, entrepreneurs, lecturers, philosophers, scholars, thinkers, and writers.

            I know that this brand of libertarianism is just better than any other kind. Its precise and pithy and powerful and sure kicks the ever loving defecation out of any kind that cottons to collectivism.

            1. The NAP is not the cornerstone of libertarianism,–and neither is anarchism.

              Here’s Julian Sanchez from Cato:

              “The Non-Aggression Principle Can’t Be Salvaged?and Isn’t Even a Principle”

              http://www.libertarianism.org/…..-principle

              Meanwhile, government has a legitimate purpose–it’s to protect our rights.

              Watching an anarchist try to defend the rule of law is too stupid to be funny.

              I’m a small-state libertarian, who believes in limited government and the separation of powers a la the U.S. Constitution. If you don’t like that, then fuck you.

              1. Small state libertarian.

                That is rich.

                The sheer jumbo shrimp of it all.

                The faux libertarians’ paradox.

                The ultimate cognitive dissonance.

                Julian Sanchez? You can’t be serious. As if his conception of liberty somehow better represents libertarianism than those of the peeps I designated above.

                Faux libertarianism is not libertarianism.

                Small state libertarianism is not libertarianism.

                Ken Schultz is not libertarianism.

          2. I’ve never seen anyone so completely disoriented just because something doesn’t follow your style guide.

            You’re so far out in left field, it’s like you’re in outer space. You have no idea what I think or why, and I have no idea why what you think about anything should matter.

            1. How small is the “small” in your small state libertarian order?

              How’s that working out for you?

              Well, you couldn’t expect her to slay slim for the rest of her life, right?

              So what, she’s not a size 2 any longer. Big deal. Let me see her..

              OMFG, she’s damn near Donna Simpson size!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        2. It’s not enough, Ken, because they’re not libertarians or Libertarians or anything of the sort.

          They belong to that group, spreading across society like a necrotizing rash, that only ‘tolerates’ total and slavish devotion to their every utterance, acquiescence to their every demand, and a willingness to self-immolate when–not if– you slip up in any way.

          It’s not enough

          because it’s never enough.

  17. I’m sorry, when was the last time Reason enforced the rule of law?

    ALL PRAISE THE RULE OF LAW

    1. Without the rule of law, you have everyone doing whatever they want. Or anarchy if you will.

      The key is to keep as few laws around as needed and limit government with tight restrictions and hold them to that.

  18. There’s a lot of confusion, too much of it intentional I fear, between ‘the rule of law’ and ‘the rule of legislation.’

    The purpose of government is to protect “our” rights?
    I don’t recall delegating that to anyone.
    How can my rights be protected by violating my rights?

    1. You should ask Kenny the King of the Cucky, Faux Libertarians Shultz

      1. I think Ken already said that he’s not a Libertarian but small govenrment guy.

  19. Nothing says “Rule of Law” like a Federal Judge issuing an arbitrary order to a County Sheriff to NOT enforce the law.

    1. yup.

    1. Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn

  20. So looking for illegal activity , e.g. immigration, is not the police’s job? The judges order was basically to not enforce the law. Joe is a grand stander so I’m not a big fan but the article is ridiculous.

  21. If you’re an illegal invader and/or killed someone the ACLU is in your corner but if you’re lawful and one of the homeless I’ve seen encamped near those same prisons they don’t give a shit.

  22. Mike Pence Calls Lawbreaking Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio a ‘Champion of the Rule of Law’

    See, if Arpaio hadn’t been found guilty of legal violations, then Pence wouldn’t have had to make that statement. So, reason dictates that he probably was trying to say something other than “Arpaio has a legally clean record”, since anyone with half a brain can see that that is not true (congratulations, you have at least half a brain.

    So, what might his actual meaning have been? Let me translate that for you:

    Mike Pence: “I believe that prior administrations and judges have violated the rule of law and greatly exceeded their authority. Therefore, Arpaio’s resistance actually amounts to promoting the rule of law.”

    Now that I have properly decoded this for you, you are free to address the real point: in what way were the actions of the federal government that Arpaio resisted legal in the first place?

    And, mind you, I’m not defending Arpaio; I really have no opinion either way at this point. But b.s. like yours isn’t going to convince me.

    1. Right. A “judge’s orders” are not laws.

  23. Right. A “judge’s orders” are not laws.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.