Image 01 Image 03

Friday Night News Dump: Trump Pardons Arpaio, Gorka Resigns

Friday Night News Dump: Trump Pardons Arpaio, Gorka Resigns

All the news…..

Another Friday night, another news dump. As the nation watches Hurricane Harvey and Texas braces for impact (stay safe, Kemberlee!), news dropped that President Donald Trump pardoned controversial Sheriff Joe Arpaio and that his aide Sebastian Gorka resigned.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

At his rally last week, Trump sort of hinted that he’d pardoned Arpaio who received a conviction for “disobeying a federal court order to halt immigration raids.”

From Fox News:

Arpaio, 85, was recently found guilty of criminal contempt for defying a judge’s order to stop traffic patrols that allegedly targeted immigrants.

He had been charged with misdemeanor contempt of court for allegedly willfully defying a judge’s order in 2011 and prolonging his patrols for another 17 months.

He was expected to be sentenced on Oct. 5 and faced up to six months in jail if convicted.

“Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now 85 years old, and after more than 50 years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon,” the White House said in a statement.

Known for his controversial takes on many issues, including his “birther” campaign against former President Barack Obama and for housing inmates in desert tent camps, Arpaio is best known for his approach to battling illegal immigration. In 2009 he claimed to have arrested 30,000 illegal immigrants since starting his efforts in 2005.

However, I will leave this here:

Jon Gabriel is speaking about this: Arpaio Is Criticized Over Handling of Sex-Crimes Cases

Deputy Assistant Sebastian Gorka

Not even an hour after the White House announced the Arpaio pardon, Gorka announced his resignation from his post. Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist reported that Gorka had become dissatisfied “with the current state of the Trump administration.” She continued:

“[G]iven recent events, it is clear to me that forces that do not support the MAGA promise are – for now – ascendant within the White House,” Gorka wrote. “As a result, the best and most effective way I can support you, Mr. President, is from outside the People’s House.”

Gorka’s letter expressed unhappiness with the direction the Trump administration’s foreign policy has taken, as signaled by the president’s recent speech on Afghanistan:

“Regrettably, outside of yourself, the individuals who most embodied and represented the policies that will ‘Make America Great Again,’ have been internally countered, systematically removed, or undermined in recent months. This was made patently obvious as I read the text of your speech on Afghanistan this week…

“The fact that those who drafted and approved the speech removed any mention of Radical Islam or radical Islamic terrorism proves that a crucial element of your presidential campaign has been lost…

“Just as worrying, when discussing our future actions in the region, the speech listed operational objectives without ever defining the strategic victory conditions we are fighting for. This omission should seriously disturb any national security professional, and any American who is unsatisfied with the last 16 years of disastrous policy decisions which have led to thousands of Americans killed and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent in ways that have not brought security or victory.”

Gorka has not had an easy time at the White House. For the record, I worked under him at Breitbart when he served as National Security editor. As Mollie points out, left-wing organizations have attempted to smear Gorka:

The Forward has written dozens of attack pieces against Gorka, including several attempting to align him with Nazism. Most recently that publication retracted a story about his son’s schoolwork. Gorka strenuously objected to allegations he had ties to Nazi groups in his family’s home country of Hungary, where he had previously been involved in national politics. Even detractors eventually acknowledged the Nazi accusations were unfair smears.

Gorka still has faith in the Trump presidency:

“Your presidency will prove to be one of the most significant events in modern American politics. November the 8th was the result of decades during which the political and media elites felt that they knew better than the people who elect them into office. They do not, and the MAGA platform allowed their voices to be heard,” he wrote, adding, “Millions of people believe in, and have chosen, you and your vision of Making America Great Again. They will help eventually rebalance this temporary reality.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


FFS pardon Arpaio … that guy is the most totalitarian PoS ever. Argggghhhh C’mon Trump the comment on both sides really made me happy but pardoning the most disgusting human being on the planet … bleeehhhk

    MarkSmith in reply to Shane. | August 25, 2017 at 10:06 pm

    Please….. “the most disgusting human being on the planet ….” Not even close. Who cares if he pardons Joe. Glad it pisses people off.

    More concerned about the lost of Gorka. The Uni-party is winning. That has to change. If McMaster goes I will feel better. Less Goldman Sacs would make me breath easier.

    I say fire Mueller too. Total waste of time.

    legalizehazing in reply to Shane. | August 26, 2017 at 3:40 am

    Sheriff Joe is a hero in Phx. Tent city is how we want justice served in the West. Drink and drive that’s where we want you. Illegals, criminals, in our neighborhoods get them the f–k out. AZ, this country need more public servants just like that.

      YellowSnake in reply to legalizehazing. | August 26, 2017 at 11:52 am

      Obviously, Arpaio is not a hero to all in the county. Trump carried the county and Arpaio lost.

      Besides, what would I would use about him, hero he is not. It didn’t take courage to act as he did. All it took was a meanness of spirit and a pioneering understanding of self-promotion.

    sdharms in reply to Shane. | August 26, 2017 at 5:14 am

    more disgusting than pardoning Mark Rich? Chelsea Manning?

    Jackie in reply to Shane. | August 26, 2017 at 11:16 am

    I think pardoning the traitor Bradley Manning is a lot worse. Joe was facing at most 6 months in jail and despite is age and his wife’s deteriorating condition the dem judge would have sent him to jail. Manning, that despicable traitor was facing 30 years in prison. Unfortunately he was not given the death penalty before Obama could set him free. There may be dead Americans due to Manning actions. Arpaio was following the law Obama refused to do. Good for Trump.
    There is an op ed in the Times saying Trump doesn’t have the power to pardon Arpaio. It was perhaps the dumbest thing I have read from a very fake paper.

DieJustAsHappy | August 25, 2017 at 9:43 pm

Well, okay Joe, but Gorka??? I was under the impression he was one of the good guys. In the words of the ole’ Frank Sinatra tune, Somethin’s Gotta Give.

… it’s a show.. the sheeple are fed by the corrupt media covering for a corrupt state & as long as they have their internet, the sheeple are satisfied…

“[G]iven recent events, it is clear to me that forces that do not support the MAGA promise are – for now – ascendant within the White House,” Gorka wrote. “As a result, the best and most effective way I can support you, Mr. President, is from outside the People’s House.”

Gorka’s letter expressed unhappiness with the direction the Trump administration’s foreign policy has taken, as signaled by the president’s recent speech on Afghanistan:

“Regrettably, outside of yourself, the individuals who most embodied and represented the policies that will ‘Make America Great Again,’ have been internally countered, systematically removed, or undermined in recent months. This was made patently obvious as I read the text of your speech on Afghanistan this week…

“The fact that those who drafted and approved the speech removed any mention of Radical Islam or radical Islamic terrorism proves that a crucial element of your presidential campaign has been lost…

“Just as worrying, when discussing our future actions in the region, the speech listed operational objectives without ever defining the strategic victory conditions we are fighting for. This omission should seriously disturb any national security professional, and any American who is unsatisfied with the last 16 years of disastrous policy decisions which have led to thousands of Americans killed and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent in ways that have not brought security or victory.”

Yep. Mr. Establishment, as predicted.

    Pelosi Schmelosi in reply to Ragspierre. | August 25, 2017 at 11:03 pm

    I already know this pointless but…

    “Regrettably, outside of yourself”….

    Do you even bother to read what you post?
    Thumbs down!

      Ragspierre in reply to Pelosi Schmelosi. | August 25, 2017 at 11:32 pm

      So, your thesis is that T-rumpo is a hep-les, hep-les victim of dees bad ‘orrible peoples…

      who he continues to employ.


        Pelosi Schmelosi in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2017 at 12:23 am

        My COMMENT is that your posts are no different than watching CNN…and I should know better than wasting my time with either.

    There’s still time for you: hillary clinton’s not dead yet.

    LindaK in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2017 at 10:46 am

    New leader, new rules of engagement that favor our military and not Obama’s playing at war. Obama LIED and screwed up the two wars he inherited, got us into another one plus stirring up several other M.E. nations via his FAILED foreign policy decisions. Even jimmy carter had nothing positive to say about Obama’s foreign policies nor his ability to get other nations to join in with us… instead losing their support. Pres. Trump is our military to do what they do best, not some know-it-all, weak president that Obama was.

    Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2017 at 2:14 pm

    The Establishment is STILL trying to gain control of the Trump Administration and turn it into a more tractable, traditional Republican Presidency. This is nothing new. It has been going on since before the inauguration. What is concerning is that, at the moment, it appears that the Establishment is winning.

    Trump has three big disadvantages that are not shared by other Presidents.

    The first is that he has NO political allies inside the beltway or the government. NONE.

    The second is that he is a political novice. He went into this expecting to gain some support for winning the election. However, the Establishment mounted a totally unprecedented attack upon him, his administration and his family. And, his expected allies have actively worked against him. It took him awhile, but it appears that he has finally accepted the fact that the entire membership of the Congress is actively working against him. He turns to those with DC experience to assist him in running the administration. Unfortunately, most of these people are allied with, or influenced by, the Establishment. That includes the generals [some of the most political people on the planet] he has surrounded himself with.

    And third, he tends to prefer a hands off approach when allowing his assistants to do their jobs. This, of course has increased to friction within the WH, as the ideologies of the advisory staff have clashed, with part wishing to continue moving in the vein which has worked so far versus those who wish to change course to a more conciliatory position by capitulating to Establishment demands.

    In an effort to reduce the conflict among his advisors, largely based upon an ideological divide, he placed gen. Kelly in the position of WH Chief of Staff and will allow him reduce friction. This is resulting in the supporters of the President’s campaign agenda being forced out, in favor of more conciliatory advisors.

    How this will all work out, is anyone’s guess. No matter how conciliatory Trump becomes, he will still not have any support in DC. His agenda will never be passed. And, as almost happened in the Ryancare debacle, he will end up owning the useless legislation that the Congress may pass.

    Nothing that has happened proves that Trump is part of the Establishment or an Establishment stooge. Quite the opposite. If he was part of the Establishment or a stooge, he would have either withdrawn from the primary or, having been elected, would have immediately embarked upon an Establishment friendly course of action, rather than one which was distinctly anti-Establishment. That the Establishment might finally be gaining the control of Trump’s administration that they have sought since he was elected is a concern. But, trump has proven to be a fast learner and mercurial. So, we’ll just have to see what happens.

Unless Arpaio had some kind of super secret device that could detect illegal aliens at a distance without interrogating them, he had to violate the civil liberties of some American Citizens simply because their skin was brown.

Arpaio instructed his deputies to manufacture reasons to question brown people. That is illegal. He was instructed during a hearing to stop doing it. He openly flouted the judges ruling. He was, in the legal and dictionary definition, in contempt. He was a stickler for the rules, but he behaved as if he and his henchmen were above the law.

As far as I am aware, there is no law that requires me to carry proof of my citizenship. If I am not driving, I am not required to carry any ID. Unless I am observed committing a crime or the police have some other probable cause, the police need a warrant to detain me. You people love the 2nd Amendment. Any thoughts on the 4th?

    Ragspierre in reply to YellowSnake. | August 26, 2017 at 12:06 am

    Wow. That’s pretty much batting 0 on everything you just said.

      YellowSnake in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2017 at 12:17 pm

      Do you have anything constructive to offer? You are, perhaps, the only person who comments on this site that I have respect for. That predates your never-Trump stand. I am sad that is not mutual.

      You know damn well that I am educated, logical and informed. We have different cultures and different experience. But to claim that the comment was just a zero is BS.

      To paraphrase one part for the purpose of this comment. No citizen is required to carry proof of citizenship or even identity except in limited circumstances such as driving. When I last served jury duty, I was searched for weapons and cameras as I entered the court house, but I did not need to show id. Obviously I had to hand my summons to the clerk in the assembly area. But I was not required to show id at any point. On another occasion I went to a different courthouse to get some documents. If not in a court, then where?

      Please, for everyone else. This is a personal response and I would prefer that you not respond. It is not that I don’t want to hear it. It is that I can pretty much predict what will be said. It will, more than likely, be boring and repetitive. It might attempt to be insulting, but I will not feel insulted – just sad at people who think more highly of themselves on the internet than they have any reason to feel in the real world.

      To Ragspierre: Within the last week I offered a reasoned, logical and factual rebuttal to a comment you made. Either you didn’t read it, you felt it was beneath you to answer it or you didn’t have an answer and didn’t wish to admit that. It is the nature of this board that it is impossible for me to know which is true.

        Ragspierre in reply to YellowSnake. | August 26, 2017 at 12:29 pm

        Sometimes I don’t have the time to FISK your stuff as it deserves. As here. You should do your own research when you are challenged.

        I support your contrarian views when I can. I oppose bullshit from anyone.

        I don’t think you are a troll…mostly. Trolls are a thing, and you (generally) are not trolling. Generally.

          YellowSnake in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2017 at 1:27 pm

          Your answer is OK with me, although if all you have time to answer is a zero, perhaps you shouldn’t answer at all.

          I am not a BS artist and I don’t troll except on the rare occasions that someone ‘deserves’ it. There are a couple of people, here, who probably deserve it every time. But I wouldn’t do that unless their comment is gratuitous or snide or directed at me. Then, if I have a witty retort, I will use it to amuse myself. I don’t care if I am casting pearls before swine. In the real world, I am known for my wit and smarts.

          The stuff I wrote about my father was as accurate as my memory will allow. I did not recognize the significance of it to the current debate about Voter ID until that topic started getting hot. I was just taking care of my father and spending time with him. It also represented a chance to learn some things. I have not requested his military records because he told me of his experiences when I was growing up. He is the opposite of a BS artist. He still gets Christmas cards from some of his comrades – obviously not many of them are left.

          During the time he was forced down in Belgium and his plane was being repaired, he stayed with a Belgian family. A grandson of that family wrote a thesis, that was published as a book, on a battle my father was in. It features a chapter on him and his mates. The grandson came to America. We all met him and he gave us copies of the book. I would be more specific, but exposing your identity on the internet is dangerous. Even what I wrote, here, may be too much info for some idiot on this site. But I am proud of him. I didn’t care, in the slightest, that some called me a liar. They voted for, and support a liar and grifter. I guess they assume we all are. BTW, my father was a lawyer and that is where I get what I know of the law. We argued over the dinner table. I thought about becoming one, but Kennedy was calling for scientists and I was good at that, too. I never did anything great, but I have made some useful contributions.

          I also went to school in NYC when the school system was excellent. We studied history and social studies in depth – I am embarrassed that the system isn’t great, anymore. It was segregated, de facto, when I went and it still is today. On that account the north has no right to lecture the south.

    Pelosi Schmelosi in reply to YellowSnake. | August 26, 2017 at 12:32 am

    “Arpaio instructed his deputies to manufacture reasons to question brown people”

    OMG another one…

    It clearly stated in the article what “crime” he was found guilty of.
    More fake news

    DaveGinOly in reply to YellowSnake. | August 26, 2017 at 1:13 am

    You seem to forget (or simply not know) that Arpaio has been pardoned, not for any of the crimes you allege, but for misdemeanor contempt of court. Hardly a hanging offense, and arguably the end result of federal overreach and a politically-motivated attack on the sheriff. Your argument is one of bait-and-switch in which you’re substituting allegations of other crimes, for which you think Arpaio should be punished, for the crime that he was actually convicted of. His misdemeanor conviction was never meant to be a punishment for any other crime than contempt of court.

      LindaK in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 26, 2017 at 10:54 am

      While Obama’s Holder was held in contempt of CONGRESS and skated with Obama using his Executive Privilege of protection for his VIOLATING our laws via Fast and Furious.

      YellowSnake in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 26, 2017 at 11:48 am

      A misdemeanor conviction is just the kind of crime that would have landed an offender in Arpaio’s sadistic, humiliating, demeaning and inhumane jail. The food alone is inhumane. Prisoners may be served cheap food, but it should be healthy. Baloney on white bread hardly qualifies. I don’t care for a claim that it is as good as they would have had on the outside. Once you take away their liberty, you take on the burden of meeting their basic needs.

      I am aware that Trump’s power to pardon is unfettered and he had the right to pardon Arpaio. I am not arguing against about that. But to celebrate, as Trump did, the career of a man who is filled with hate and rage and was allowed to abuse people because he could, is an abuse in itself.

      I am arguing the Arpaio was undeserving and in fact deserved a taste of his own medicine. He spent his career politicizing his office over and above the law. He grandstanded and did nothing to aid rehabilitation. He operated under the theory that if he made people miserable enough, they wouldn’t want to come back. That may be true for a few, but it hardens and embitters most. He sought publicity and self-aggrandizement and he ultimately felt safe in showing contempt for the system he was sworn to uphold.

      Now tell me how wrong I am when what you mean is that you like what he did and you don’t give a damn about the law as long as you are not the party whose rights are being violated.

        Ah, the latest in the regressive view of “justice”: a “taste of his own medicine.” White people shouldn’t be allowed to vote because taste of their own medicine. White people should be oppressed and silenced because taste of their own medicine. White people should be shouted down, bullied, shamed for the very sin of being born white because taste of their own medicine.

        Regressives are not only stuck in the 1930’s but are apparently stuck at the emotional and psychological age of 12.

          YellowSnake in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | August 26, 2017 at 3:15 pm

          You have a bad case of self-pity and an erroneous claim that white people are now the oppressed majority. Your comment is nothing but a well worn talking point.

          But mainly, that is not what I was saying. It was specific to Arpaio as a man who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, he bragged about how rotten he treated any offender or even an accused who fell into his hands

          Read this if you have the guts to see some learned opinions that concede that Trump can do as he pleased, but violated some norms – not in the process of draining any swamp. Instead he added mud:

      gospace in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 26, 2017 at 6:39 pm

      And why was he in contempt of court? Because he was enforcing the law in violation of the judge’s instructions not to enforce the law.

        Ragspierre in reply to gospace. | August 26, 2017 at 6:56 pm

        No. That was NOT why. It was HOW he chose to conduct his office. It was NOT about enforcing or not enforcing. That is simply false.

    legalizehazing in reply to YellowSnake. | August 26, 2017 at 3:47 am

    Arpiao was removing criminals from our Phx neighborhoods because the open border regime was defying federal law and flooding the region. He was investigated for YEARS by the corrupt DOJ before they could concoct their BS.

    More than a pardon, he deserves a medal of Freedom.

    Matt_SE in reply to YellowSnake. | August 26, 2017 at 11:53 am

    The people crossing the border illegally are mostly Mexicans. The two traits are coincident, like blacks and inner city crime.
    If we were being invaded from the south by Norwegians, we’d be pulling over blondes instead.

      Ragspierre in reply to Matt_SE. | August 26, 2017 at 12:23 pm

      “The people crossing the border illegally are mostly Mexicans.”

      Well, support? Last I heard, that was not the case. Brown skinned, maybe. But so are a great many Americans of long ancestry.

      Just to be a nitpicker, there are lots of Norwegians with jet black hair and blue eyes. High cheek-bones, too!

    I will grant you the Arpaio did exactly what he was accused of, in the latest court hearing. There was a reason for this, which I will get into at the end of this post. What everyone fails to remember, or comment upon, is that almost none of the people detained for screening by ICE were NOT exactly what he identified them to be, illegal aliens. Arpaio did, it is clear, knowing ignore the 2011 court order for 18 months. But, there is more to the story.

    The Maricopa Sheriff’s Office had been partnered with ICE and the Border Patrol for years in a program to enforce immigration laws within its jurisdiction. In 2009, the Obama Administration cancelled that participation. The State of Arizona, passed SB 1070 in 2010. The bill in no way infringed upon the power of the federal government to enforce immigration laws. Rather it made violation of US Code, re: immigration, a state offense as well and directed law enforcement agents to ask an arrestee about his immigration status before releasing him. This would have made it much harder for the federal government to REFUSE to enforce immigration laws within the State of Arizona, as was the current practice. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton [yep, the same judge who found Arpaio in criminal contempt of court] ruled much of the Arizona law unconstitutional in 2012, though her reasoning there was extremely weak. As everyone in Arizona knew, the feds continued their hands off approach to immigration enforcement. And, illegal immigrants, along with major drug mules, continued to stream across the border into Arizona, until 2017.

    Sheriff Arpaio continued to have his deputies question people concerning their immigration status. A lawsuit was filed that Arpiao’s actions were a violation of the 4th Amendment. A restraining order was issue, in 2011. Arpaio had is agency continue to question people as to their immigration status and to detain those where probable cause existed to believe that they were in the country illegally and to notify ICE until mid 2013. Was this illegal? Apparently the US Attorney’s office was not too sure of that. They refused to file any charges of violations of anyone’s civil rights. The only charge that they pursued was that Arpaio, and only Arpaio, had knowingly violated a federal court order. Now, as Arpaio was out of office, 85 years of age, and they never proved that his actions ever harmed any law abiding citizen, most judges would simply have found him in contempt of court, given him a tongue lashing and a small fine. But, not the Honorable Susan R. Bolton. No, she wants to make an example of Arpaio and demands that the US Attorney file criminal contempt charges against Arpaio. This looks at exactly what it was, payback for Arpaio’s embarrassing the courts.

    Was he a good Sheriff? His crime clearance by arrest results were not very good and his exceptional clearance rate was exceptionally high. However, other agencies have used exceptional clearance to keep their clearance rates up. Was his procedures a bit outre? Yep. Were they illegal? Not many were. Was he reelected every four years for 20 years? Yep. So, apparently the voters were satisfied with his performance. He might not have been a very good Sheriff, but he was never accused of being a corrupt one.

    Should he have been pardoned? Given the charge, his years of public service and his age, probably. Is it a big deal? No.

      YellowSnake in reply to Mac45. | August 27, 2017 at 10:19 am

      Mac, I think we may have some points of agreement, but I am having a very hard time following your comment. The 1st paragraph has a double negative. Are you saying that many of the people he detained as illegals were legal? In that case he absolutely, unequivocally did harm.

      You provide good history. You say Judge Bolton ruled SB 1070 unconstitutional. Was this appealed; given that you claim that her reasoning was weak? It is my understanding that Obama attempted to prioritize detentions and deportations with the goal of going after criminals. I don’t see how you can claim that the feds were hands-off when the gross number of deportations went up significantly. Nothing stopped Arpaio from arresting drug mules and turning them over for prosecution. Obama didn’t hinder the deportation of criminals – the numbers backed that up. His administration did ‘look the other way’ on illegals that were otherwise law abiding. One could argue that the previous statement is an oxymoron. But I believe the position of the administration was that if they weren’t breaking any other law, they were harmless or might even be beneficial – doing labor that others didn’t want to do and paying taxes of one kind or another. That might be Obama’s argument, but I don’t wish to defend that in this comment because it is really another topic.

      If the US Attorney refused to file charges against Arpaio, that would be material. Of course, I wonder why a US Attorney not following the direction of the President would be allowed to retain his position. Didn’t Bush fire US Attorneys for purely political reasons? This was looked at askance by democrats, but was legal – similar to Trump’s use of the pardon. You mention that they filed one charge. That is enough.

      Arpaio may have been found guilty after he was out of office, but the charge was for what he did in office – was some statute of limitations violated? If not, what is your point? What most judges would have done is unknown and irrelevant – Arpaio had the appeals process available to determine what other judges thought. Trump would have been wise to see how that went. But Trump and wise are words that rarely, if ever, occur in the same sentence. I don’t know what it ‘looks like’, but isn’t embarrassing the courts a euphemism for showing contempt. You seem to be arguing that he was in contempt, but the judge should have ignored it because it wasn’t very bad contempt. Just how many MPH above the speed limit do you need to go to violate the traffic code. In NJ, the highway patrol will generally ignore 10 over, but they might pull you over for 1 over if you are weaving. I know that from personal experience. 2 different cops, on 2 different occasions, told me that when they stopped me. In favor of your argument, they both gave me warnings. But then I am elderly, white, had my documents in order, and smiled. Arpaio tends not to smile and yes, he clearly pissed this judge off. The question is whether he pissing her off by repeatedly flouting her lawful orders.

      I am not sure I understand your point about his arrest and clearance rate. But given the large number of exonerations that are turning up; and the fact that those exonerations point to flawed investigative techniques, I would be suspicious of a sheriff who pushed for high rates unless he had strong quality assurance procedures and his methods were updated regularly. I know nothing about Arpaio’s methods, but in NY where I live, there have been a disturbing number of convicts exonerated because they were demonstrably innocent – not on technicalities. The cops testa-lie, coerce witness, labs are not independent and evidence favorable to the defense is withheld. Indigent defendants don’t make bail, have overworked or bad lawyers and no money for investigators. This is happening in liberal NY. I shudder to think of what could happen under Arpaio – but I have no knowledge on this.

      Should he have been pardoned? Given the charge, his years of public service and his age, probably. Is it a big deal? No.

      Sorry, his age is immaterial. He ran for reelection. If he felt he was still fit to be sheriff, he certainly is fit for punishment. His public service is not, in my mind, a selling point. He was one mean SOB running a jail and sheriffs department that was decidedly unfriendly to certain classes of people. Some of those people were innocent, but poor or might have deserved mercy (as you are arguing for Arpaio). You did not use the word mercy, but claiming that he should not be punished based on age and public service is an argument for mercy. Arpaio had no record of showing mercy to those who fell into his clutches – although the truth might be different from his carefully cultivated image. I simply don’t know.

      Anyway, Trump had the power. That is undisputed. But he should have waited for the appeals process to complete. He should have established a well-ordered set of procedures for determining who deserves an appeal. But that is not Trump and that is not the person that his supporters voted for. For the record, I was not one of them. .

Very interesting.

Trump has ignored the relatively safe and slow approach of letting Sheriff Joe’s case wend its glacially tedious way through the judicial system, choosing to fire an immediate broadside instead. A very aggressive tactic, and I’d guess one meant to accomplish several things.

It may even work.

I see this is the start of another “slow news” weekend. /sarc

    legalizehazing in reply to Leslie Eastman. | August 26, 2017 at 3:48 am

    It’ll all probably get flooded out by Harvey

      snopercod in reply to legalizehazing. | August 26, 2017 at 7:39 am

      Speaking of Harvey, I just wrote this on another forum:

      Let’s not get all hysterical. As I explained to my daughter in FL last night, the purpose of television is to sell advertisement. To do that, they feed you the most hysterical crap they can to keep you tuned in so you can see more ads. I wish the residents well but, crap, when you look at the online weather in Corpus Christi, it’s not that bad. Current wind is 13G37. The precipitation forecast for the next 24 hours is less than 5″. Maximum wind for Harvey is listed as 85 MPH. If you look at the NWS radar map, there’s hardly any red on it. All that is nothing to sniff at, of course, and maybe it was worse last night or worse in some other location, but I’m just so sick of all the hype on TV. As someone noted on Twitter:

      “If Obama was president Hurricane Harvey would be bringing much needed rain to the region.”

        legalizehazing in reply to snopercod. | August 26, 2017 at 11:39 am

        lol it’s true. I was watching last night. As far as Hurricanes go.. it’s no Katrina. Lots of space between those clouds. Very little red.

        We’ll see

        Great comment, snopercod! Having lived in a hurricane zone for most of my life, I can assure you that the national news coverage is utter crap. Locals watch or listen to local news . . . and then only to find out what cat a hurricane is and its general direction. We respond accordingly: cats 1-3 are yawn-fests (though in New Orleans, because it’s so low and poorly protected, a 3 might be bad). Once we get to 4 and 5 we pay attention; store water, check batteries, fill up on gas (including for generators), and etc. Depending on its projected path, we may evacuate.

        It looks like Harvey was a cat 4 (only just) when it hit and had been building up as it approached Texas. In this case, evacuation on coastal areas is a good idea (once a hurricane hits land, it loses steam and quickly downgrades to a 1 or tropical storm).

        Anyway, I got a bit side-tracked, but you’re right, the national media blows this stuff out of all proportion. Local media does the best job, by miles, on hurricanes.

Freddie Sykes | August 26, 2017 at 6:38 am

RE: including his “birther” campaign

We must never forget that the whole “birther” issue was started in the 90s by Obama and / or his literary biographer who stated that he was born in Kenya. This “fact” remained on his bio until 2007 when Obama decided to run for president.Who has the most blame: the people who wrote this or the people who believed this?

Mary: Like a fool, I clicked on your link to the NYT “Arpaio Is Criticized Over Handling of Sex-Crimes Cases”. In typical NYT fashion, the article never did explain what these crimes were. After reading the article. I ended up knowing less than before I started.

    Yeah, I looked into this before and couldn’t find a smoking gun. That said, though, even if he were Attila the Hun, Hitler, and Mao rolled into one, his conviction was for a nonsensical charge that would garner anyone else a fine. If he committed serious criminal acts, he should be charged and tried for them. All they got, though, was this throwaway contempt charge.

    It’s like all the people who wanted OJ denied parole because they believe he killed Ron and Nicole. He wasn’t in prison for killing them; indeed, he’d been acquitted of those charges. Trying to punish him via other, lesser crimes for a crime for which he was not only not convicted but was found to be not guilty is injustice writ large.

“Sebastian Gorka did not resign, but I can confirm he no longer works at the White House,” the official said.

According to the Washington Examiner’s Sarah Westwood, Gorka said it was “disappointing” that the White House said he was fired, because “I resigned.”

***A source with knowledge of the situation said Gorka did indeed resign—but only after being informed on Friday by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly that his security clearance had been revoked, which would have made it impossible for him to continue in his White House job. Gorka was on vacation at the time and due to return on Monday. Instead, after hearing from Kelly, he submitted his resignation.***


I wonder if Der Donald knew…???

And what will Bannon have to say…???

I agree that the sheriff should get a medal for actually following and enforcing our laws = working to see the LEFT’s illegals, who are currently ENABLING THEIR illegals to VOTE, are arrested and deported. The dem party leaders have allowed our LAWS to be ignored because they don’t pay for the HUGE costs of supporting THEIR illegals and they desire their VOTES which they are now ENABLING to occur, taxpayers do at a cost of at least $113 BILLION dollars a YEAR. Meanwhile our OWN citizens and VETS go without their needs being met. Vote ALL DEMS OUT of power….. get our nation back to taking care of our OWN citizens NEEDS, not the LEFT’s ILLEGALS.

On the matter of an outcome in Afghanistan after 16 years of fitful war, President Trump is adamant. “The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory,” he proclaimed in Monday night’s big speech. “They deserve the tools they need, and the trust they have earned, to fight and to win.”

The president hammered home the point, again and again: Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.

Stirring stuff. Or at least it would have been if Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had not, less than 24 hours later, undercut his boss’s bold message.

Victory? There is no battlefield victory to be had in Afghanistan, Tillerson maintained at Foggy Bottom.

Instead, the modest goal is to convince the Taliban that, while “we might not win,” they won’t win either. Eh . . . not so stirring. By the time the secretary was done tinkering with the president’s “plan for victory,” one couldn’t be sure if the Taliban was an enemy, a terrorist organization, or a “peace partner.”

Indeed, not content to leave pathetic enough alone, Tillerson contemplated “political legitimacy” for the mullahs, proclaiming that the Trump administration “stand[s] ready to support peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban without precondition.” You read that right: without precondition — not even the condition that they abandon their alliance with al-Qaeda (you know, the reason we went to Afghanistan in the first place). As the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes observed, this is “the same kind of diplomatic tail-chasing that was a priority of the Obama administration’s failed approach.”

The band’s got new players. The pitch is a bit higher. But the song remains the same. Ultimately, Tillerson elaborated, “it is going to be up to the Afghan government and the representatives of the Taliban to work through a reconciliation process.” Sound familiar? Yeah . . . just like Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, during an April 2016 trip to Kabul, expressing “support for the government of Afghanistan’s efforts to end the conflict in Afghanistan through a peace and reconciliation process with the Taliban.”

Oddly enough, Tillerson remains fully employed by Mr. Establishment.

Remember that “uncertain trumpet” we learned about as kids…???

On further reflection … the pardon is a far bigger deal than the punditry seems to realize yet. Maybe even yuuuge.

This is how the President is fighting back against federal judges who are overstepping their offices to castrate his agenda. They can still snarl and snap, but he’s pulling their teeth when they try to bite the wrong victims.

And easily done, too. All perfectly legal, and—unlike that “phone and a pen” stuff—not even controversial.

They can learn their places, or they can suffer more indignities and defeats. Either will do.

All just part of what made this the Best. Election. Ever.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | August 26, 2017 at 10:01 am

    Well, let’s examine that steaming pile of crap…

    How did the judge in this instance “over-step his office”?

    You can argue that the judge ruled wrongly WRT his finding and order to Arpaio. You can’t find fault with his finding of contempt. Arpaio was in contempt, and he obdurately persisted when given the chance to change his conduct.

    All that happened was perfectly in keeping with the judge’s “office”.

    One can do the right thing the wrong way. See McCarthy, Joe.

    You don’t uphold the rule of law by defying the law.

    If you think T-rump sent a thumping message to the Federal judiciary with this nakedly political move, you are grossly mistaken. Watch and see.

      The President of the United States and the federal officials charged with upholding federal immigration law refused to do so. Arpaio then took it upon himself to enforce the law in his jurisdiction. The President of the United States and his not so merry band of pirates then manufactured a technical crime (contempt of court) to halt Arpaio’s law enforcement efforts.

      Trump’s pardon does not go far enough; his next step should be an award of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Arpaio for his efforts to uphold the law in the face of the coercive pressures applied by the federal government.

        Ragspierre in reply to MSO. | August 26, 2017 at 11:13 am

        No. Contempt of court is NOT a “technical” crime. Where do you get off defining a crime with a qualifier?

        Answer the following;

        1. was Arpaio under a lawful order (whether you like it on substance or not)?

        2. was Arpaio given the opportunity, after defying it, to reform his conduct?

        3. did Arpaio continue the conduct in defiance of the order?

        Just yes or no to each. Then you can expand on your answer.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2017 at 2:22 pm

          I know you don’t like Arpaio, but the prosecution was just a political prosecution.

          Trump simply corrected that, using his political power to do so.

          As usual, you are on the side of the progs, admiring yellowbelly.

          yes or no, eh comrade.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2017 at 4:47 pm

          No, nutter.

          I, nevertheless, value your opinion Rags.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 27, 2017 at 8:56 am

          I reciprocate, MSO.

          And, for the record, I “like” Sherf Joe just fine, and defend him when he’s defensible.

          Prosecuting him was mandatory in the face of his conduct, which was outlawry, and he damn well knew it.

          T-rump is himself an outlaw, demonstrated many times, and his pardon was just naked politics. It is a really bad thing from a “rule of law” POV.

          I don’t smear and insult Yellowsnake as so many here do. I don’t “admire” him, either. I value opinions differing from my own when they are not attacking me. A poster here who differs from the herd mentality that too often obtains here is a welcome thing, and they are not (necessarily) trolls at all.

          I am never “on the side of Progs”, and many of those who state that lie respecting me are. PLUS they are nuts and/or cultists.

      LindaK in reply to Ragspierre. | August 26, 2017 at 11:06 am

      When on is supporting our LAWS, the progressive left goes nuts. NEVER bothered them when all sorts of laws/RIGHTS where being violated. NO double standards here Ragspierre, rules laws apply to all. VOTERS saw the left’s ignoring our laws/etc, while they continue going after those who ARE honoring the oaths they took, SO unlike the progressive left who falsely think they can do as they wish and NEVER be held accountable for their actions, but come unglued when those like Pres. Trump/this sheriff DO enforce our laws/honor their oaths.

Even detractors eventually acknowledged the Nazi accusations were unfair smears.

When did they do that? As far as I know the Forward and the entire anti-Trump left still insists Gorka is a nazi, because they can, and because they don’t give a d*mn whether it’s true.