White House has paperwork ready for Joe Arpaio pardon

a reply to: Gandalf77

The court was in the wrong per federal law.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gandalf77

The court was in the wrong per federal law.

Which law would that be?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you have nothing substantive to offer, then I rest my case.

Just going to ignore this question I see:

And what is that motive? Unless you are assuming he is guilty first there should be no motive to lie.

The motive is apparent: Something about his actual birth certificate is either embarrassing to him or proves he is ineligible.

The document is fraudulent on its face. I don't have to assume he is guilty -- he is.

(Or, more precisely, Factcheck is guilty. Conveniently, the Obama campaign claimed they requested a certified copy of his short form, in 2008, to 'dispel the rumors.' But the short form birth certificate that Factcheck photographed is stamped '2007.' So, the Obama campaign threw up just enough dust to distance him from the fraudulent record that Factcheck claimed was Obama's short form birth certificate.)

Obama did a couple of Pardons too...you all can compare them to Sheriff Joe, all 1715 of them...lol



Obama's Pardons

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The court ruling forbid Arpaio from following and enforcing federal immigration law. Through history we have seen local and state law enforcement nullify federal laws by selective enforcement, but this was precedent setting insomuch as local law enforcement has never been forbidden from enforcing federal law by a federal court before.

How, exactly, was that judge interpreting the federal law as opposed to legislating from the bench to push his political agenda?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
PS: What is there substantive to give you? This is a bunch of hookum that was put to rest during Obama's Presidency and now that he isn't even the President is 100% irrelevant to our current political situation.

Nope. It was never put to rest and it will always be relevant.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

The motive is apparent: Something about his actual birth certificate is either embarrassing to him or proves he is ineligible.

And what would make you think that is true without looking at the BC he released? In other words, why would you examine his BC assuming he is guilty first?

The document is fraudulent on its face. I don't have to assume he is guilty -- he is.

At the MOST he is guilty of having an incomplete or not properly filled out form. Determining he isn't American based on that form is a specious conclusion and needs more evidence to prove.

(Or, more precisely, Factcheck is guilty. Conveniently, the Obama campaign claimed they requested a certified copy of his short form, in 2008, to 'dispel the rumors.' But the short form birth certificate that Factcheck photographed is stamped '2007.' So, the Obama campaign threw up just enough dust to distance him from the fraudulent record that Factcheck claimed was Obama's short form birth certificate.)

Why is nothing as it seems with you? Besides the BC, do you have any additional proof that he was born overseas? I'm guessing outside of ridiculous right wing fake news sites the answer is no.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The ruling did no such thing. It only said he couldn't be a racist asshole in how he went about enforcing it. Which is what the Constitution dictates be done.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The court ruling forbid Arpaio from following and enforcing federal immigration law. Through history we have seen local and state law enforcement nullify federal laws by selective enforcement, but this was precedent setting insomuch as local law enforcement has never been forbidden from enforcing federal law by a federal court before.

No. That isn't what it said at all. It's almost like you haven't researched the sentence and are just winging it or going off of stuff you've heard on Facebook.

How, exactly, was that judge interpreting the federal law as opposed to legislating from the bench to push his political agenda?

He determined that Arpaio was selectively enforcing the law by stereotyping Hispanic looking people and assuming they were illegals. The courts told him to stop. He didn't listen, so he was awarded a contempt of court charge. It's that simple. The fact you want to pretend like he was wronged in some way just shows how you don't know the details of the case.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Aazadan

Might as well release Sheriff Joe early. O.J. Simpson committed far worse crimes, and he was released early.

While OJ Simpson killing 2 people is pretty heinous, Sheriff Joe tortured people and detained them unconstitutionally. Then he ignored federal orders to stop. His crimes are borderline traitorous. The fact that Trump is entertaining pardoning him at all is a slap in the face of any ideas he is trying to foster to heal the divides in this country.

I agree, except for one part.....when has trump tried to heal the divides in this country?.....he can't even heal the divide of republican congressmen, or his own white house......
I think he would love nothing better than to have violent civil war...that way he has an excuse to come in and declare martial law....he talks and acts like a dictator, and seems to get joy out of the s**t he stirs.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It wasn't the court that stated the MCSO could no longer identify and detain illegal immigrants. That was an order put forth by the DHS following the DOJ report that had been enacted under Bush.

The reason that Arpaio was held in contempt is because the court ordered the MCSO to cease racial profiling practices. In order to facilitate this the court appointed a monitor to the MCSO. The MCSO rejected the monitor and continued business as usual.

a reply to: jimmyx

Well he makes noise towards that regard. Even if he is only just saying it because he thinks he has to and not because he is sincere I still wanted to address it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

The motive is apparent: Something about his actual birth certificate is either embarrassing to him or proves he is ineligible.

And what would make you think that is true without looking at the BC he released? In other words, why would you examine his BC assuming he is guilty first?

The document is fraudulent on its face. I don't have to assume he is guilty -- he is.

At the LEAST he is guilty of having an incomplete or not properly filled out form. Determining he isn't American based on that form is a specious conclusion and needs more evidence to prove.

(Or, more precisely, Factcheck is guilty. Conveniently, the Obama campaign claimed they requested a certified copy of his short form, in 2008, to 'dispel the rumors.' But the short form birth certificate that Factcheck photographed is stamped '2007.' So, the Obama campaign threw up just enough dust to distance him from the fraudulent record that Factcheck claimed was Obama's short form birth certificate.)

Why is nothing as it seems with you? Besides the BC, do you have any additional proof that he was born overseas? I'm guessing outside of ridiculous right wing fake news sites the answer is no.

You asked for motive and I gave you motive. I can't fathom another reason for the fraud that was perpetrated but it was perpetrated none-the-less.

And it's not that the form was filled out incorrectly -- it lacks the required regulated official "RAISED SEAL" of the Hawaii Department of Health:

Hawaii Public Health Regulations, Chapter 8b

2.4 Issuance of Certified Copies of Vital Records
B. Standards for Copies of Vital Records
(1) Standard Copy
(b) Form of certification. Standard certified copies shall contain an appropriate certification statement over the signature of the registrar having custody of the record and be impressed with the RAISED seal of the issuing office. The signature may be photographed or entered by mechanical means. The paper shall display the official seal of the Department of Health or the seal of the State.

So, therefore, it is not a certified copy -- yet it purports to be in the registrar stamp. It is a fraudulent identification document.

The raised seal was important, according to the HDOH, back in 2008, when the first cruddy jpeg of the document hit DailyKos:

"The Hawaii Department of Health receives about a dozen e-mail inquiries a day about Obama's birth certificate, spokesman Okubo said.

"I guess the big issue that's being raised is the lack of an EMBOSSED seal and a signature," Okubo said, pointing out that in Hawaii, both those things are on the back of the document." "Because they scanned the front … you wouldn't see those things."

Okubo says she got a copy of her own birth certificate last year and it is identical to the Obama one we received.

And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification? "When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the EMBOSSED image through it."

Still, she acknowledges: "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."

And even Arlen Specter stated it was a key feature they were looking for to authenticate the document was legally certified:

“On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department’s system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website "Factcheck.org" investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document … Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States.”

But, Factcheck lied. They defrauded Congress by captioning a photo of the wrong side of the document/backside of the seal.

I have no proof he was born outside of the U.S. Never said I did. But I also have no proof that he was born in the U.S. either.

No one could ever say with certainty based on what we have been provided.

The only thing I can say for certain is that the public and Congress were defrauded by the bogus short form that Factcheck photographed.

If anybody should be pardoned, it's Sheriff Joe.

At least he's not a convicted heroin or coc aine dealer, or a facilitator of the illegal export of high-tech microelectronics, uninterruptible power supplies and other commodities to Iran in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If those types can be pardoned by the last administration, surely nobody objects to the pardon of Joe.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
You asked for motive and I gave you motive. I can't fathom another reason for the fraud that was perpetrated but it was perpetrated none-the-less.

That isn't a motive. That is an assumption you pulled out of thin air to explain why you think he is guilty.

So, therefore, it is not a certified copy -- yet it purports to be in the registrar stamp. It is a fraudulent identification document.

AGAIN. If everything you are saying is true, the MOST Obama is guilty of is having a bad copy of his BC. It isn't evidence of him being born overseas unless you already believe that due to other reasons. Reasons which I'm trying to find out from you as to why you believe because everything you've ever presented about this conspiracy suggests that you believe him guilty first then seek out evidence to fit that verdict. Which is confirmation bias. So tell me, besides the BC why do you think he isn't American?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
You asked for motive and I gave you motive. I can't fathom another reason for the fraud that was perpetrated but it was perpetrated none-the-less.

That isn't a motive. That is an assumption you pulled out of thin air to explain why you think he is guilty.

So, therefore, it is not a certified copy -- yet it purports to be in the registrar stamp. It is a fraudulent identification document.

AGAIN. If everything you are saying is true, the MOST Obama is guilty of is having a bad copy of his BC. It isn't evidence of him being born overseas unless you already believe that due to other reasons. Reasons which I'm trying to find out from you as to why you believe because everything you've ever presented about this conspiracy suggests that you believe him guilty first then seek out evidence to fit that verdict.

Well, certainly there was some motive, otherwise the fraud wouldn't have been perpetrted. I can think of motive -- and you asked me to -- but do I know for a fact what that motive was? Nope. But there was, indeed, some motive to defraud Congress and the public...because we were defrauded.

The evidence is prima facie.

a reply to: seeker1963

originally posted by: queenofswords
If anybody should be pardoned, it's Sheriff Joe.

At least he's not a convicted heroin or coc aine dealer, or a facilitator of the illegal export of high-tech microelectronics, uninterruptible power supplies and other commodities to Iran in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If those types can be pardoned by the last administration, surely nobody objects to the pardon of Joe.

You have an interesting conundrum then. Accepting a pardon is legally equivalent of admitting guilt. By accepting a pardon, Arpaio is saying that he broke the law, and that what he did was wrong. This then opens up the door to state and local lawsuits from his victims, where he has already admitted guilt.

Is that something you support?