and just exactly what part of the process might that be?So Trump defends his own abuse of the process by listing the abuses of Obama and Clinton? What sense does that make?
And he didn't bother to answer the report's question which was completely valid.
There was no “abuse of the process.” He is allowed to pardon whomever he wishes, whenever he wishes.
There was no abuse of process.
The President has unlimited power of pardon in the Constitution.
The charge against Sheriff Joe was a MISDEMEANOR, brought by an out of control Justice Dept, under Holder and Lynch, and abetted by a Clinton appointed kangaroo court judge.
That was where the abuse was, not by Trump.
There was no “abuse”. Unlike Clinton, Trump didn’t receive a dime in exchange for his pardon. In this case Trump was absolutely justified in pardoning a man whose crime was ignoring a court order that illegally told him to stop enforcing the law he was sworn to uphold.
Are you a perpetual Trump hater or just a constitutionally challenged idiot?
What do you mean by “abuse of process?” Perhaps you could enlighten us on the Constitutional limits of the Executive’s Pardon Power?
and just exactly what part of the process might that be?I'm assuming you meant that "Trump defending his correct use of the process by pointing out the abuse of process by others makes his correct use look like an abuse." Otherwise, your claim that Trump has "abused" his constitutional powers is absolutely insane.
That said, I think that Joe has already received a lot of defense in center and right leaning media. If Trump needs a 30 second talking point to go viral, I also would choose to point out the crimes of Obama and Clinton.
Mummy.... No. Trump DID answer the reporters question. Told him exactly why he issued the pardon. Watch the video.
What makes Tump's pardon of Arpaio, "abusive"?
I notice that you can’t be bothered to explain how the President abused his authority.
Another Never Trumper makes their self known.
It makes a lot of sense given the MSM's reaction to the Arpaio pardon versus the egregious pardons by Clinton and Obama that drew scant rebukes by the MSM.
And the Arpaio case is far different. You need to read this: RINOS Wrong on Arpaio This was a gross miscarriage of justice by a politicized Obama DOJ. The Obama appointed Judge prevented a trial by jury and the charges were limited to a misdemeanor for political reasons.
"Arpaio was cleverly denied a jury of his peers, a jury comprised of Arizona citizens beset by illegal aliens and the crimes they commit, according to National Center for Police Defense (NCPD) President James Fotis, who was present in the courtroom, and was highly skeptical a Phoenix jury could have ever found Arpaio guilty. He told Breitbart News:
“I sat through three days of testimony and it was clear from the beginning that the DOJ had no evidence to make their case. In fact, all of the DOJ’s witnesses made it clear that Judge Snow’s order was unclear and ambiguous. There is no way a jury would have determined that the Sheriff willfully and intentionally violated the judge’s order.”
As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized at the time, the decision to prosecute Joe Arpaio smacked of hypocrisy, injustice, and legal gymnastics involving one Thomas Perez, current foul-mouthed head of the Democratic National Committee and former Obama administration DOJ official
The administration that refused to enforce voting rights law in the New Black Panther case is going after America's best-known sheriff for what it calls discriminatory policing practices involving Hispanics…
With a thoroughness not seen in Justice's handling of the "Fast and Furious" federal gun-running debacle that resulted in the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry a year ago, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, head of the department's Civil Rights Division, listed Arpaio's alleged excesses and said a three-year civil investigation found that the sheriff and his deputies engaged in unconstitutional conduct and violations of federal law that jeopardized his "commitment to fair and effective" law enforcement…
No doubt Arpaio has been under scrutiny for some time. But the timing of the announcement is curious, not only because of the announced Supreme Court review of SB1070, but also because it can be seen as another attempt to rally the president's Hispanic base as we enter an election year, and to portray border security advocates as racist and anti-Latino.
If the name Thomas Perez sounds familiar, it should: Perez was heavily involved in the decision to drop the voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. Perez testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that "the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes."
The fact is that Joe Arpaio was in fact enforcing federal law as originally written, only to have the Obama administration rewrite the law in order to prosecute Arpaio. Under the federal government’s 287(g) program, Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office was authorized and trained to enforce federal immigration law and ask those suspected of a crime their immigration status.
Who is Joe Arpaio? Arpaio was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, on June 14, 1932, to Italian parents, both from Lacedonia, Italy. Arpaio's mother died while giving birth to him, and he was raised by his father. Arpaio completed high school and worked in his father's business until age 18 when he enlisted in the United States Army. He served in the Army from 1950 to 1954 in the Medical Department and was stationed in France for part of the time as a military policeman.
Following his army discharge in 1954, Arpaio moved to Washington, D.C., and became a police officer, moving in 1957 to Las Vegas, Nevada. He served as a police officer in Las Vegas for six months before being appointed as a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which later became part of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). During his 25-year tenure with the DEA, he was stationed in Argentina, Turkey, and Mexico, and advanced through the ranks to the position of head of the DEA's Arizona branch.
Arpaio was first elected as sheriff of Maricopa County in 1992. He was re-elected in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012.
It is a shame that Trump had to issue a pardon. Arpaio should never have been charged in the first place.
Somehow, some way, you've landed on the wrong site. Head back to DU! Or, are you a D.C. Republican legislator? Begone!
Abuse of the process? Try again?