I might be an email prankster.Originally Posted by Aimless
I might be an email prankster.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Well I loved what you did to those Breitbart editors anyway
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That's like saying Stalin never supported Hitler just because Hitler ended up attacking the USSR.
Hope is the denial of reality
You said that the GOP in Congress were not going to conflict with Trump based on a ridiculous comparison of how votes went a few weeks after inauguration contrasted with years into a Presidents term.
Twitter Link
Science envoy resigns with an open resignation letter. First letter of each paragraph spells I-M-P-E-A-C-H
Those vote percentages haven't changed.
Hope is the denial of reality
To show just much the GOP is protecting Trump:
Trump demanded McConnell ‘protect him’ from Russia scandal probe
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...-scandal-probe
As far back as 11 months ago he partisanly refused to denounce Russia along with Obama who had to take a less effective route in denouncing Russia's crimes. In December, McConnell rejects special panel for Russia election allegations. After Trump fired FBI Director James Comey who was investigating Trump's campaign, but not Trump himself, McConnell rejected calls for a special prosecutor.
This is all coupled with Paul Ryan doing the same things, with the House GOP blocking investigations from forming or from releasing information, with Devin Nunes colluding with the White House to obstruct the Russia probe, with Devin Nunes deceitfully issuing a fake recusal to the world then continuing to request top secret information unilaterally and without consulting the rest of the committee (clearly a mole for Trump, he still today sits as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee).
http://www.thedailybeast.com/obama-a...ey-did-nothing
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...ng-allegations
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...secutor-238206
9/30/16 GOP Blocks Probes Into Trump-Russia Ties
12/12/16 McConnell rejects special panel for Russia election allegations
FEB. 14, 2017 Speaker Paul Ryan declines to support independent Russian investigation after Flynn's resignation
Feb 27, 2017 GOP intelligence chairman Devin Nunes: “There’s no evidence of anything” regarding Russia-Trump campaign contacts
Mar 21, 2017 Day 1 of "Devin Nunes colluded with the White House to obstruct the Russia probe"
Mar 29, 2017 House Republicans cancel all hearings on Russian investigation, blame Democrats
May 9, 2017 F.B.I. Director James Comey Is Fired by Trump
May 10, 2017 James Comey Fired: McConnell Rejects Calls for Prosecutor
05/10/17 Paul Ryan rejects calls for special prosecutor in Russia investigation
May 17, 2017 GOP blocks House vote on independent Russia-Trump investigation
May 31, 2017 Nunes ‘acted separately’ from House Russia probe by unilaterally issuing subpoenas on ‘unmasking’
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/devin-...-surveillance/
When it comes to the GOP and Trump, actions speak louder than words.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
This will no doubt make a couple of you guys giddy with joy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...vice-asked-me/
A detective grabbed my wrist and cuffed me. A gaggle of officers from multiple law enforcement agencies escorted me to a
room near the atrium. A few chairs had Trump campaign materials plastered on them. Inside the room with me were more
than 10 officers from the NYPD and the Secret Service.
Then the questions began, and they were bananas. A young woman from the Secret Service began the questioning; male NYPD officers tagged in and out. They never asked me whether I understood my rights, and I wasn’t actually sure at that moment what rights, if any, I had. I was focused on not getting put in a car and being whisked away.
[...]
Here are my favorite parts of the conversation, as I remember them.
NYPD: “Why would you come to the president’s home to do this?”
Me: “It was wrong for the president to support white supremacy.”
NYPD: “Don’t you respect the president?”
Me: “I don’t respect people who align with Nazis.”
Secret Service: “Do you have negative feelings toward the president?”
Me: “Yes.”
Secret Service: “Can you elaborate?”
Me: “He should be impeached and should not be president.”
They were concerned with who bought my train ticket, once they saw the receipt on my phone. The NYPD officers didn’t seem
to believe me that some organizations work for justice and organize these legal protests. [...]
Secret Service: “Have you ever been inside the White House?
Me: “Yes.”
Secret Service: “How many times?”
Me: “Many. I was a volunteer holiday tour guide for the White House Visitors Center.”
Secret Service, eyes wide: “When was the last time you were there?”
Me: “December.” I explained that I probably wouldn’t be invited back until we have a new president.
The officers ran through a raft of predictable questions about firearms. (I don’t own any, and they seemed puzzled by my
commitment to nonviolence as a philosophy.) They asked whether I wanted to hurt the president or anyone in his family.
Obviously not. Then came the mental health questions.
Secret Service: “Do you have any mental health disorders?”
Me: “No.”
Secret Service: “Have you ever tried to commit suicide?”
Me: “No.”
Secret Service: “Have you ever had suicidal thoughts?”
Me: “No.”
I was trying very hard not to roll my eyes at the repeated questions when an NYPD detective suggested my protest could be charged as a felony. In the next second, the Secret Service agents asked me to sign Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act waivers so they could gather all my medical records.
[...]
But a few days later, I heard they were canvassing my neighborhood, in West Philadelphia, looking for
information about me, including from people I’ve never met. One woman they approached found my contact information online and told me about this exchange in a Facebook Messenger request. They asked her whether she knew me and whether I was a threat to the president. Since I live in West Philly, she replied that the only threat lives in the White House and that the president is racist.
Secret Service: “Do you know Melissa Byrne?”
Neighbor: “No.”
Secret Service: “Why would she protest President Trump?”
Neighbor: “Because he’s a f—ing racist.”
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The writer says the way they treated her isn't normal. It actually is, the Secret Service really doesn't like slipping things by them, even when they're innocuous. And that statement about being in the White House many times is enough to give a Secret Service agent heart palpitations, even when it is followed by an innocent reason.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The only thing in that article that doesn't sound like how I'd expect the Secret Service to behave when a protestor gets too close to the President is the threat of a felony charge. I don't see (and may be wrong) what felony she could be charged with.
Love the neighbours response though.
I don't think there's anything she can be charged with either and I expect the cop also knew that. They'll still threaten it, fairly standard method of applying pressure during questioning.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0821444c25fad
Seems the guy in charge of Trump's propaganda document has quit. Be prepared for increased Twitter meltdowns and over the top grumpiness until some other poor sucker is found.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The little handed fucker actually did it. How horrible of a person do you have to be to see a person like Arpaio and think, "this man aligns with my values"
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
One article of impeachment written.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm a bit puzzled because. . . Arpaio is in jail on a contempt order. A pardon simply doesn't apply, just like it wouldn't release someone from impeachment.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
How is that a high crime or misdemeanour?
It's immoral but pardons are part of his perogative.
It's not just a contempt order is it? I thought he was convicted of "criminal contempt of court".
IANAL but I thought a contempt order was something that the judge could unilaterally issue to ensure order in the courtroom, while what Arpaio has (had?) is a criminal conviction from a jury.
Surely sadly a pardon does apply to a conviction? I've never respected pardons especially politically motivated ones or for friends etc - they are extremely rare here and generally only where courts don't seem to be dealing with a miscarriage of justice properly.
Someone put together all the awful shit Arpaio did. Just read past the first couple of paragraphs concerning the fucked up transgender ban.
https://np.reddit.com/r/BlueMidterm2...f_joe/dm4xget/
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
No wonder he was a convicted criminal. Suits the Don to be associating with criminals.
So this is who Trump has pardoned? How can anyone have any respect for either of these two twerps?
https://twitter.com/phoenixnewtimes/...house-for%2Fp1
There was definitely no jury. But it was criminal contempt, you're right there. What difference that makes is beyond me, criminal contempt is just odd and I've said before I've never really understood what it's there for and how it differs from civil contempt. It's not just for refusal to follow a court order because you can and usually do use civil contempt for that. And it looks like criminal contempt does currently lie within the executive's power, as per a ruling written by Taft when he was chief justice, though there is significant theoretical dispute about how well-grounded his ruling was (criminal contempt itself isn't very common and federal pardons for it are rather rare)
Misusing the pardon power (and other Presidents have done so but generally in their last acts of office when there isn't any time or point impeaching) is definitely grounds for impeachment though. Madison explicitly highlighted it as a justification for impeaching the President, and all references from the Constitutional Convention indicate that actions which "subvert the constitution" (and issuing a pardon for very clearly deserved contempt, the only real stick the judiciary has, definitely does so) counts, Hamilton in the Federalist Papers lays its grounds in the abuse of power for political favor, and various others describe abuses of process which are not on the face of things illegal but which undermine effective governance/breach societies trust in the government (things like arranging a quorum from only favorable states, giving false information to Congress, violation of the emoluments clause, using the pardon power to stop inquiry and investigation or to shelter those who committed crimes the President had advised, etc.
Watergate era report from the House Judiciary committee
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You should write to your congressmen
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
But he didn't go to jail for almost all of what is listed there. The specific thing was this:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...ing-to-do.html
"Arpaio was convicted by a federal judge in July of criminal contempt after being charged with violating a court order that attempted to prevent suspected illegal immigrants from being targeted by the sheriff’s traffic patrols. The sheriff acknowledged continuing the patrols, but said that targeting was not the focus.
Arpaio’s conviction arose out of a lawsuit wrongfully accusing the sheriff’s office of violating the rights of Hispanics, allegedly using racial profiling tactics to identify people for traffic stops, and detaining convicts based only on the suspicion that they were illegal immigrants. Arpaio denied all wrongdoing."
Fox, always worth a laugh
but your whole post is equally ridiculous. Like saying Al Capone wasn't a mobster cause he was only busted for tax evasion.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-26-2017 at 08:55 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Question - and this is an honest one, if it was discovered that Al Capone shouldn't have been found guilty on tax evasion (be it some technical bull shit, jury tampering, prosecutor misconduct) would it have been a bad thing to correct the inappropriate verdict via a pardon. Or should the person deciding to pardon consider the 'known' fact that he was a bad guy.
but your whole post is equally ridiculous. Like saying Al Capone wasn't a mobster cause he was only busted for tax evasion.
This is what retrials are for...
Hope is the denial of reality
One could make that argument on a lot of pardons.
Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah
But no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Ar...action_lawsuit
Not enough?In his September 2009 deposition in the case, Arpaio testified he had never read the complaint in the case, was unfamiliar with the details of the allegations of racial profiling therein, didn't know the content of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and had never read the Department of Justice's guidelines concerning the use of race in investigations, which would have applied to his deputies in the field when they were still operating under a 287(g) program agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He insisted, however, that his deputies didn't profile based on ethnicity or race.[148]
In a December 2011 order, Judge Snow sanctioned Arpaio and the MCSO for acknowledged destruction of records in the case.[149][150][151] Judge Snow also stated:
"Sheriff Arpaio has made public statements that a fact finder could interpret as endorsing racial profiling, such as stating that, even lacking 287(g) authority, his officers can detain people based upon 'their speech, what they look like, if they look like they came from another country'... Moreover, he acknowledges that MCSO provides no training to reduce the risk of racial profiling, stating 'if we do not racial profile, why would I do a training program?'"[140] Judge Snow expanded the complaint into a class-action lawsuit, including all Latino drivers stopped by the Sheriff's Office since 2007, or who will be stopped in the future. He also enjoined the MCSO and all of its officers from "detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States, because as a matter of law such knowledge does not amount to a reasonable belief that the person either violated or conspired to violate the Arizona human smuggling statute, or any other state or federal criminal law." [140]
On December 23, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow enjoined Arpaio and the MCSO from "detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States," halting anti-illegal immigration enforcement by MCSO in its current form.[152]
Arpaio filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court upheld Judge Snow's injunction.[153]
Starting July 19, 2012, a six-day bench trial was held before Judge Snow.[154] On May 24, 2013, Judge Snow issued a decision finding the policies and practices of Arpaio and his office discriminatory, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[155][156]
In June 2013, the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in the case, recommending the appointment of an "independent monitor to assess and report on MCSO’s compliance with the remedial measures ordered by the Court."[157] Adopting the DOJ's recommendation, in August 2013 Judge Snow stated in a court hearing that he would be assigning an independent monitor.[158]
In October 2013, Judge Snow issued a 59-page final order, giving the MCSO a list of reforms and requirements to institute and follow. In January 2014, Judge Snow appointed Robert Warshaw, former Rochester, New York, police chief, to act as monitor over the MCSO.[159]
Arpaio filed a limited appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, contesting the district court's order, insofar as it covered traffic stops outside of saturation patrols. The appeals court rejected this claim, upholding Judge Snow's inclusion of non-saturation patrols in his finding of racial profiling, and maintaining his rulings of corrective actions that included training and video recording of traffic stops. The appeals court did agree with Arpaio that the court-appointed monitor's oversight of internal investigations must only be related to the constitutional violations.[159][160]
Subsequent to Judge Snow's October 2013 order, Arpaio was videotaped during a training session for MCSO deputies, saying "we don't racially profile. I don't care what everybody says." As a result of this, and mischaracterizations of the court's order by MCSO Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan, Snow convened a hearing in March 2014 where he chastised Arpaio and Sheridan, saying they had "defied and even mocked his order to stop singling out Latinos during routine patrols, traffic stops and workplace raids."[161] He then ordered Arpaio's attorney to prepare a corrective letter setting the record straight, to be distributed to all MCSO deputies. Because of Arpaio's First Amendment free speech rights, the court did not require him to personally sign the corrective letter.[162]
Two days after the hearing, having just been rebuked for mocking the court's order, Arpaio sent out a fundraising letter complaining of "Rampant UNFOUNDED [sic] charges of racism and racial profiling in my office."[163] Judge Snow responded to this fundraising letter, stating:
"I want to be careful and say that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has used race – has illegitimately used race as a factor, and to the extent that constitutes racial profiling, that's what it is and that's what I found and the sheriff is saying that people have wrongfully accused him of that as of last Wednesday, which was after the meeting in which he was here.
"So to the extent that I have a sheriff, who I'm not going to prohibit from mischaracterizing my order publicly, to the extent that I have an MCSO that is rife with a misunderstanding of my order and a mischaracterization of it when they are the people that have to understand it and implement it, I have grave concerns..."[164]
On September 11, 2014, Judge Snow granted more than $4.4 million in attorney’s fees to four legal organizations that litigated Melendres v. Arpaio. Attorney’s fees were granted to the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of Arizona, MALDEF, and Covington & Burling.[165]
Findings of racial profiling
On December 15, 2011, the Justice Department released their findings after a 3-year investigation of Arpaio's office amid complaints of racial profiling and a culture of bias at the agency's top level. The report stated that under Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has "a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos" that "reaches the highest levels of the agency."[187]
The Justice Department accused Arpaio of engaging in "unconstitutional policing" by unfairly targeting Latinos for detention and arrest, and retaliating against critics.[188] In the report, a Justice Department expert concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history.[189]
http://web.pdx.edu/~pcooper/Arpaiove...AZ07312017.pdf
Not enough?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. For example, ICE changed its policy to only accept felons who violated civil
immigration law, and in response Defendant declared that he created a backup plan. (Ex.
3B 557:6-9; Ex. 3G 63:17-21; Gov’t Ex. 36G.) The backup plan directed the Human
Smuggling Unit to take illegal immigrants for whom state charges were unavailable to
Border Patrol if ICE did not agree to take them. (Gov’t Ex. 36E.) In mid to late 2012,
Defendant gave Lieutenant Jackowinicz a direct order to take people ICE would not to
Border Patrol. (Trial Tr. Day 3-AM 583:14-584:7.) This meant, in effect, that MCSO
officers were required by Defendant to detain persons not suspected of any crime for the
additional hour and 15 minutes to hour and 30 minutes it took to deliver the detainees to
the nearest Border Patrol station, Casa Grande in Pinal County. (Trial Tr. Day 3-PM
705:4-11.) These detentions, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, were exactly what
the preliminary injunction intended to stop. (Gov’t Ex. 1 at 7-8, 17, 23-24, 38, 40.) When
confronted by Mr. Casey about the violations in October 2012, Defendant told him that it
was a mistake and that it would not happen again, but there is no evidence that Defendant
ever gave his subordinates a contrary instruction. (Trial Tr. Day 1-PM 154:7-24.)
https://www.aclu.org/cases/ortega-me...v-arpaio-et-al
Now go take that and shove it up Tucker's ass before you kneel down to worship it.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yeah, but don't use run on sentences and don't forget to close parentheses. It's starting to be like reading editorials that don't edit around here anymore. Lazy fucks!You should write to your congressmen
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Your source neglects the really important part. He was repeatedly arresting people who weren't illegal. Detaining and handing over people who had committed no crime and were in the country legally.
There's a reason why there is a requirement for them to have committed a crime before state police arrest them. It's because this is not a "papers please" society. We are not under any obligation to carry things like identification, proof of citizenship, or proof of legal residence with us at all times. If "Sheriff Joe" had only arrested people who actually WERE here illegally he would never have had a problem, as no one would have had standing to sue.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 08-27-2017 at 03:03 AM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote