Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Case for Pardoning Sheriff Joe
Over at Powerline, Paul Mirengoff lays out the argument. The nub:
To be sure, the pardon of Arpaio is, at least in part, a political act by a president who campaigned on a tough-as-nails immigration policy and who received Arpaio’s backing. But there’s a pretty good argument that the prosecution of Arpaio was also political.
It was the highly politicized, left-wing Obama Justice Department that chose to prosecute Arpaio in connection with the hot button political issue of enforcing immigration laws. The judge whose order Arpaio defied apparently was satisfied with civil contempt. Team Obama went criminal on the octogenarian sheriff. And it did so, according to Arpaio’s lawyers, just two weeks before he stood for reelection.
The pardon thus can be said to represent a political end to a political case.
Taking all things together, I’m still uncertain I quite approve of the pardon. But it was hardly the obvious, flagrant outrage against all that is good and just that most of the press would have us believe.
Published in General
The pardoning of Arpaio is a slap in the face to competent, honest law enforcement. Arpaio is the face of how groups like BLM view police. Trump just gave them added justification for their viewpoint that cops are above the law.
This may or not be the case Karl, but it would be very difficult to test. Can you point to the competent, honest enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws that has occurred since the passage of Simpson-Mazzoli?
Because BLM views reasoned, balanced opponents like Heather Macdonald or upright cops like Darren Wilson differently right? Why try to evaluate the conjectured (but very dubious) insult felt by police officers in general (or Maricopa cops in particular) by imagining the racist distorted view from the radicalized BLM perspective?
I think that you hit the nail on the top of the head. Arpaio treated Hispanics not unlike how Bull Connor treated blacks in the south.
Or my mom when she jogs around her neighborhood, or children, or teenagers hanging out in a park. Perhaps we should just have our social security number tattooed to our forearms? There is no constitutional requirement to carry ID, and there is no implied criminality in not doing so. Why not just say the only people who drive at the speed limit are drug runners afraid of getting pulled over?
@hypatia : A 2004 breakdown in the Massachusetts prison system (Geoghan) equates to a death sentence if an Arizona Federal Misdemeanor sentencing proceeds? Have you been watching too many old George Raft movies?
In answer to your question, the criteria vary by institution, but not everyone who requests PC gets it. And very few request it: one of the reasons is that PC inmates are often kept separate from all other inmates, and it gets very lonely. Most often, inmates are put on PC status involuntarily.
While I doubt that you are actually interested, here’s a website regarding inmate mortality and causes: https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcrp/prisonindex.cfm. If you dig deeply into the internals, you will find that even confined in the Arizona prison system (felonies), Mr. Arpaio would have been twice as likely to die of AIDS than assault. At least, that’s what the statistics suggest.
From context, I think it’s reasonable to surmise @jctpatriot meant ID while driving a car, @valiuth. Everyone’s supposed to have not just ID, but a valid license, while driving a car.
(My busy-fingered toddler loves finding where mommy’s purse is hidden and pulling out her license, so my awareness of ensuring your license is where it’s supposed to be is heightened right now. We seem to be raising an evil genius of the “chaotic evil” variety.)
Yes, you should have a driver’s license to drive a car. But you shouldn’t be forced to carry your birth certificate to “prove” that you are a citizen.
Maricopa County, Arizona Ricochet Editor-In-Chief Jon Gabriel wrote an excellent column for USA Today two hours ago about former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I strongly hope that he posts it in Ricochet.
He knows that. He just subscribes to the Rush Limbaugh philosophy of “being absurd to point out the absurdity” of the situation. There’s no way he really believes that cops are slamming on the brakes, jumping out of their cars, pulling out their guns, and demanding that someone jogging down the street produce their Birth Certificate. Throwing out the tired old Liberal line “what if it was your mother?” is your proof. This is just HateTrump emotions pretending to be a valid argument. That’s why I ignored it.
He should have gone for trial by combat, let the gods decide . . . .
This is racemongering worthy of antifa agitprop.
Bull Connor distinguished white citizens from black citizens and systematically prevented black citizens from registering, voting, using public facilities, running for office or participating in the society and economy of his jurisdiction.
Arpaio, love him or hate him, distinguished between citizens and illegal aliens who have no legal right to be in the country or his county. To my knowledge he never prevented a single Hispanic citizen from registering, voting or participating fully in the social and economic life of Maricopa County.
Honestly, this is preteen sloganeering, whatever you think of Arpaio.
It also deeply discounts the real and pervasive mistreatment of black citizens under Connor’s reign.
You are right, I exaggerated. I grant you that Arpaio does not rise to the level of Bull Connor. But I refer you to Ricochet’s Editor-In-Chief Jon Gabriel about Arpaio’s treatment of Hispanics.
This is Jon Gabriel’s USA Today op-ed on the sheriff. I would agree with him.
I thought I was done with this thread, but I’ve come back to apologize. I thought that Maricopa deputies were asking for proof of citizenship only when they pulled over a Hispanic for a traffic violation. Boy was I wrong. From Jon Gabriel’s article on Sheriff Joe:
Instead of sobriety check-points he was conducting ethnic check points. Then there is this:
There’s more in Jon’s article.
So I apologize if I misled anyone on how sleazy Sheriff Joe really was, and mitigating the disgrace and dishonor he brought to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and to other law enforcement officers throughout Arizona.
MarciN, do you believe that waiving on an ethnically Norwegian driver when you are performing a roadside sweep for a tide of illegal immigrants from Mexico is really racial profiling.
Many of these charges may be true or at least true in part, yet Arpaio was targeted by the Obama justice department for one reason and Trump pardoned him for one “crime”: attempting to enforce federal immigration law, which local law enforcement agencies are specifically authorized to do (including the crime of illegal entry).
Many of these preeny charges of racial profiling and police misconduct were also levelled at Giuliani, Bratton, Bloomberg and Kelly as they made the city where I spend half my life habitable once again.
Worth noting that Jon’s opinion is one of 4 million in Maricopa, which elected and re-elected the man six times, often by large majorities, until the age of 85. Are the Republicans of Maricopa, who supported Arpaio in overwhelming numbers for 25 years, racist fans of a reign of terror and error?
Or maybe Jon just has a hard opinion of Arpaio, very similar to his rants against Trump last August?
Nice mis-direction, but I press the Fail button for your effort. The Pardon was for a false charge brought on by angry Leftists concerning Illegal Immigration and the President was absolutely correct in issuing the Pardon to prevent political persecution. For the record, I will consider you corrected on your false charges.
As I said straight to Jon, myself, if he wants to get together a bunch of his lawyer friends and bring charges against Arpaio for all the claims he makes in his article, and gets a conviction, I will back him 100% that Sheriff Joe is a bad man. I will not, however, use unrelated, unsubstantiated charges against Arpaio as a club to beat up our President, and shame on Jon for doing that. And for that matter, shame on you, too. The things that you and others were throwing out there about stopping our jogging mothers and pulling people over because they look Hispanic and whatnot should be beneath you.
But… but… I read it in a newspaper! It must be true!! They’re never known to interview political operatives and report it as fact! Never!!
Just took a look at the Maricopa voter registration totals and Arpaio’s historical vote totals.
Republicans put up some impressive numbers in Phoenix (for a major American city) but still only register 30% of the voters countywide. Democrats and unaffiliated voters dwarf the GOP. For Arpaio to consistently win large majorities, more than 60% of the vote at times, he must have won 90% of the GOP vote.
Why then did 90% of Republican voters support Arpaio through this quarter century of racist ineptitude. Are they racist? Do they not care about good government, or rampant sexual assaults reminiscent of the Red Army in Berlin in 1945? Perhaps they are simply just stupid and deplorable?
Funny thing, my politics takes my into AZ as far as Flagstaff and I find AZ Republicans to be smart, pro-business, fair and very reasonable and self-mocking on racial and ethnic issues.
Fair question: how do you square Jon’s description of a quarter century of racist, incompetent oppression and 90% GOP support?
I know how BLM squares it. And how MSNBC and the Nation square it.
But how does Ricochet square it?
I have no problem with the pardon. The trash has been taken out to the curb.
Not just the Republicans, you’re forgetting a number sex abusers that caught a big break from Sheriff Joe’s Department. Close to 400 votes in that special interest group.
Doug I interpret this to mean you really can’t square it, right? Even comparisons to Trump aren’t close. Sure Trump won 90% of the GOP vote while many conservative pundits opposed him bitterly.
But that was one nomination and one general election, both of which were rather peculiar in both game theory and Hillaryesque respects.
Arpaio was nominated by the Maricopa GOP for 6 terms and enjoyed overwhelming support by Maricopa Republicans for six elections.
How could they if Jon’s characterization isn’t a personal cartoon (speaking as one who draws personal cartoons of politicians all the time)?
There’s no need. We don’t have a bunch of Canadians sneaking in.
I can rationalize it I cannot justify it. How can you justify this:
When local journalists delved into Arpaio’s dealings, he had them arrested, a move that ultimately cost taxpayers $3.75 million. We paid $3.5 million more after the sheriff wrongfully arrested a county supervisor who had been critical of him.
About the same time, Arpaio sought charges against another supervisor, a county board member, the school superintendent, four Superior Court Judges and several county employees. All of these were cleared by the courts and also resulted in hefty taxpayer-funded settlements for his targets.
As a U.S. District Court judge presided over a civil contempt hearing, Arpaio’s attorney hired a private detective to investigate the judge’s wife.
On the pretext of going after an alleged cache of illegal weapons, a Maricopa SWAT team burned down an upscale suburban Phoenix home and killed the occupants’ 10-month-old dog. There were no illegal arms, so they arrested the resident on traffic citations.
Arpaio’s staff concocted an imaginary assassination attempt on the sheriff, presumably for news coverage. Taxpayers had to pay the framed defendant $1.1 million after he was found not guilty.
President Reagan once famously S aid that every one is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts.
Your “facts” are wrong.
First, in Maricopa County, 36.2% of the voters are Republican, 35.6% are Independent (or no party named), and only 27.2% are Democratic. Maricopa County is a Republican stronghold.
Second, Arpaio has steadily been losing votes, as he has pulled more and more publicity stunts. In 2000, he won 66.5% of the vote, in 2004 56.7%, in 2008 55.2%, in 2013 50.7%, and in 2016 he received only 43.5% of the vote, losing Maricopa County by 10 points, while Trump won by 3 points.
I have lived in Arizona for 59 of the last 61 years. To suggest that Maricopa County is a moderate bastion is laughable.
Gary, sorry I was off by a few percentage points in the mental math but how does that change the question in even a trivial manner?
Democrats and unaffiliated voters still dwarf GOP registration. Arpaio when winning 66.5% of the total vote must have taken 95% of the GOP vote. Even when taking 55% that GOP percentage must have been at over 90%. The man was supported by Maricopa Republicans for 25 years overwhelmingly. Yet you and Jon insist he was a disgrace and a racist, incompetent goon.
Why did Maricopa Republicans support him for a quarter century?
You just can’t answer the question, or at least you cannot answer the question without giving an inconveniently honest opinion about Maricopa Republicans.
Where did I claim that Maricopa was a moderate bastion by the way?
I’ll check back but my assumption is none of the “Arpaio the racist thug protector of child molestors” propagandists can explain his 90% support by Maricopa Republicans for a quarter century.
Your living in AZ for 59 of the last 61 years means little if you cannot answer a single question honestly Gary.
Doug you are repeating talking points from Jon’s rant which may be true, partially true, or events with complicated backstories prone to political exaggeration. What you can’t explain is why the man enjoyed 90% support of Republicans for a quarter century if he was such a racist, paranoid, incompetent tyrant. Not one fluke election against a horror show Democrat, but six primaries and six general elections in a county (and state) which regularly produces moderate Democrats.
I am not interested in pursuing a masters degree in Arpaio studies. Genuinely would like some insight.
But all I get is nitpicking over stats and misdirection.
Jon Gabriel has posted about Arpaio on the Main Feed.
I don’t care. You can wish for an authoritarian police state all you want. But, for the time being, we are a nation of laws where one man doesn’t get to arbitrarily decide how to run the justice system. The worst kind of criminal in a liberal society is one who has his hands directly on the levers of the police force. Joe Arpaio is a two-bit, loathsome thug. His pardoning is a reflection on the character of Donald Trump (as if we needed any further substantiation).
I don’t care (again). This is (another) non sequitur. We live in a free society. Corrupt politicians who control the police have no place in it.