What did y'all think of Trump's speech in Pheonix tonight?

[PsyOps]

The Constitution grants him the authority to do it.

The DOJ policy establishes criteria to apply for it. Arpaio does not meet that criteria. That's all I'm saying.



Thank you.



Yes, it is.

Glad that's cleared up.

Then what's all the stink? I might have missed it, do you have a link to this policy?

The president does not have to apply for a presidential pardon. He doesn't even have to seek legal advice on it. He could just do it. It seem you've acknowledged this; so I don't even know what your arguing against.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Then what's all the stink? I might have missed it, do you have a link to this policy?

The president does not have to apply for a presidential pardon. He doesn't even have to seek legal advice on it. He could just do it. It seem you've acknowledged this; so I don't even know what your arguing against.

I linked them in my original post.

I have the in-thread ads turned off so I'm not sure, but if you guys see a linked piece of text, do you generally think it's an ad? I like adding the link to the text vs. putting the hyperlink by itself, but I've had more than one person ask for a link. Just wondering if I should not put it in the text.

The president does not have to apply, you're correct. The criminal typically does.

I'm not arguing anything, just trying to clarify. I'd prefer the President hold the powers of pardon to a higher standard, but I can't expect that given the wide latitude of its power given to the President. I'd prefer to discuss why some believe Arpaio was just doing his job, but it seems that's just not possible. I've asked twice now, but folks would rather spend pages trying to prove me wrong/them right (and let's be honest, this is not the only thread where that happens) then discuss the topic.

Certainly not pointing at you in that case as I think you and This_Person are one of the few who can argue points on merit and not on degrading someone with a differing opinion.

 

[PsyOps]

I linked them in my original post.

I have the in-thread ads turned off so I'm not sure, but if you guys see a linked piece of text, do you generally think it's an ad? I like adding the link to the text vs. putting the hyperlink by itself, but I've had more than one person ask for a link. Just wondering if I should not put it in the text.

The president does not have to apply, you're correct. The criminal typically does.

I'm not arguing anything, just trying to clarify. I'd prefer the President hold the powers of pardon to a higher standard, but I can't expect that given the wide latitude of its power given to the President. I'd prefer to discuss why some believe Arpaio was just doing his job, but it seems that's just not possible. I've asked twice now, but folks would rather spend pages trying to prove me wrong/them right (and let's be honest, this is not the only thread where that happens) then discuss the topic.

Certainly not pointing at you in that case as I think you and This_Person are one of the few who can argue points on merit and not on degrading someone with a differing opinion.

I just haven't read every post. When I walk away for a long period of time, several pages have added up, and I don't usually take the time to read everything to get up to speed.

What higher standard would you like? They are pardoning criminals.

I think Arpaio was simply trying to send a message to the fed "start doing your job, or your likely to see more local LE taking matters into our own hands. This has become an impossible situation for us to manage, all because you (the fed) refuse to enforce existing law or give us the authority to enforce our districts". I suppose he took things too far with his profiling bit and defying a court order. I don't know how much of what Arpaio did influenced peoples' decision at the ballot box either. He might have been part of the larger voice demanding something be done about illegal immigration.

I've never been a fan of this pardon thing; especially when a president has one leg out the door, and goes on a pardon rampage. In Arpaio's case, I'm inclined to give him a break simply because he, like so many LE along the border, has been left to deal with the problem on their own. These illegals cross over onto people's property destroying their land and killing their livestock. They become a criminal threat to those areas. Arpaio got fed up; as would I.

 

[Gilligan]

Awesome. Prosecuted for just doing his job .....and pardoned.

 

[Hijinx]

I just haven't read every post. When I walk away for a long period of time, several pages have added up, and I don't usually take the time to read everything to get up to speed.

What higher standard would you like? They are pardoning criminals.

I think Arpaio was simply trying to send a message to the fed "start doing your job, or your likely to see more local LE taking matters into our own hands. This has become an impossible situation for us to manage, all because you (the fed) refuse to enforce existing law or give us the authority to enforce our districts". I suppose he took things too far with his profiling bit and defying a court order. I don't know how much of what Arpaio did influenced peoples' decision at the ballto box either. He might have been part of the larger voice demanding something be done about illegal immigration.

I've never been a fan of this pardon thing; especially when a president has one leg out the door, and goes on a pardon rampage. In Arpaio's case, I'm inclined to give him a break simply because he, like so many LE along the border, has been left to deal with the problem on their own. These illegals cross over onto people's property destroying their land and killing their livestock. They become a criminal threat to those areas. Arpaio got fed up; as would I.

good post.

 

[Hijinx]

You could certainly tell when he was reading the teleprompter.

I hope he doesn't pardon Ex-Sheriff Joe.

What have you got against Sheriff Joe. The man is trying to do what Obama's Government wouldn't.