It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arpaio is Free

page: 7
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot


The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1


What was Nixon's "Offense"?


The power to pardon is one of the least limited powers granted to the President in the Constitution. The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases), and that they cannot affect an impeachment process.
www.heritage.org...#!/articles/2/essays/89/pardon-power


Pardon's are not granted for offenses that may have been committed. They are granted for offenses committed. Nixon's pardon was an empty gesture.

ETA Interesting side not. Accepting a pardon is an implicit admittance of guilt!


Today, pardons are granted in many countries when individuals have demonstrated that they have paid their debt to society, or are otherwise considered to be deserving of them. Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who were either wrongfully convicted or who claim that they were wrongfully convicted. In some jurisdictions, accepting a pardon implicitly constitutes an admission of guilt (see Burdick v. United States in the United States),
en.wikipedia.org...


So, by accepting his pardon, Nixon admitted to his guilt.





edit on 25-8-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
If there's a bank robbery, cops are out investigating anyone in the vicinity that looks like a criminal.

If the police suspect a crime, they investigate.

The only alternative is the airport security method of hassling everyone equally. That actually sounds like something a lot of people might be pushing.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz
See, that's the thing---this "crime" wasn't tried before a jury of his peers. Not enough evidence so let a judge hear it, preferably a judge in the complete control of DOJ due to certain recordings of certain phone calls, emails, etc. We see this type of behavior with state and local judges all the time. Does anyone really believe federal judges are immune to corruption?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: whywhynot


The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1


What was Nixon's "Offense"?


The power to pardon is one of the least limited powers granted to the President in the Constitution. The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases), and that they cannot affect an impeachment process.
www.heritage.org...#!/articles/2/essays/89/pardon-power


Pardon's are not granted for offenses that may have been committed. They are granted for offenses committed. Nixon's pardon was an empty gesture.






You are adding your words and your spin and drawing your conclusion.

Fortunately better legal minds have argued this as you are still WRONG. You see this lack of research and just saying what you think is true is part of the demise of the Democratic Party.

www.nytimes.com...



The leading Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.''



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot



The leading Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.''


He never admitted to having committed a crime/offense!
When was Nixon's "commission of a crime?

edit on 25-8-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Another circle jerk safe space thread for the closet racists of ATS



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: odzeandennz
See, that's the thing---this "crime" wasn't tried before a jury of his peers. Not enough evidence so let a judge hear it, preferably a judge in the complete control of DOJ due to certain recordings of certain phone calls, emails, etc. We see this type of behavior with state and local judges all the time. Does anyone really believe federal judges are immune to corruption?


The prosecutor in the case knew that he could never get a jury conviction against Joe so he reduced the charge to a misdemeanor which do not use juries.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: whywhynot



The leading Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.''


He never admitted to having committed a crime/offense!
When was Nixon's "commission of a crime?


Once more you only read what you want to read. Keep reading the very next line: either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment

My god you guys are thick!



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I don't like pardons, why should the President be able to overturn the Justice System? But if we're going to have them, using one on a man trying to protect the country seems as good a time to use it as any.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator by the Grand Jury empaneled by the special prosecutor. He wasn't indicted due to legal gray area surrounding the prosecution of a sitting president. When all this came to light Articles of Impeachment were begun, and Nixon resigned. Ford pardoned him not long after. There was no question that Nixon would have been indicted by a grand jury after his resignation had he not been pardoned. The pardon effectively ended the investigation into any crimes Nixon may have committed
edit on 25-8-2017 by Arizonaguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Trueman

President Trump's attorneys advised him to wait until sentencing was imposed on October 5th, because at age 85, Sheriff Joe might not have received jail time.

Source - www.cbsnews.com...

But pardoning Joe Arpaio is a sure fire way to agitate/trigger Liberal Media and Democrat leaders. Keeps them from thinking clearly enough to formulate a winning election strategy.

Keep it up Mr. President. Your strategy continues to work marvelously!

edit on 8/25/2017 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: whywhynot



The leading Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.''


He never admitted to having committed a crime/offense!
When was Nixon's "commission of a crime?
[/quote

Once more you only read what you want to read. Keep reading the very next line: either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment

My god you guys are thick!


Frustrating, isn't it?
edit on 25-8-2017 by Arizonaguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot


Nixon claimed to be innocent. He claimed that he never committed any offense against the US and he was never tried or convicted of offenses. The Constitution requires that an offense against the US government be committed.

There was no real pardon for Nixon. It was never established that he committed an offense. Johnson's pardon clearly says the Nixon is pardoned for offenses that he "may have" committed. Sorry, that's not a pardon. It's a Dog and Pony show!



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
Another circle jerk safe space thread for the closet racists of ATS


Are you saying that illegal immigrants are targeted because people just don't like them?

How would the situation be any different if illegals were arriving from Canada?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: windword

Nixon was named an indicted co-conspirator by the Grand Jury empaneled by the special prosecutor. He wasn't indicted due to legal gray area surrounding the prosecution of a sitting president. When all this came to light Articles of Impeachment were begun, and Nixon resigned. Ford pardoned him not long after. There was no question that Nixon would have been indicted by a grand jury after his resignation had he not been pardoned. The pardon effectively ended the investigation into any crimes Nixon may have committed


lol correct, but some who don't understand pardons and seem confused by all of this might reply " but he was not indicted or convicted".

That is why the only road to take on this is the consensus opinion of constitutional scholars and the Supreme Court. Namely, a President has broad powers to pardon a person either before, burning or after a crime.


Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: windword

Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator by the Grand Jury empaneled by the special prosecutor. He wasn't indicted due to legal gray area surrounding the prosecution of a sitting president. When all this came to light Articles of Impeachment were begun, and Nixon resigned. Ford pardoned him not long after. There was no question that Nixon would have been indicted by a grand jury after his resignation had he not been pardoned. The pardon effectively ended the investigation into any crimes Nixon may have committed


I won't argue this. The so called "pardon" sent a message that pursuing Nixon's crimes would be a waste of time. It would have hurt the nation at a time when it needed to move forward.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: whywhynot


Nixon claimed to be innocent. He claimed that he never committed any offense against the US and he was never tried or convicted of offenses. The Constitution requires that an offense against the US government be committed.

There was no real pardon for Nixon. It was never established that he committed an offense. Johnson's pardon clearly says the Nixon is pardoned for offenses that he "may have" committed. Sorry, that's not a pardon. It's a Dog and Pony show!




Ok, you're just refusing to focus or listen. I'm certain that you know more than the Supreme Court or the attorneys.

It's a futile effort giving medicine to a dead man.

You don't even recognize how foolish your position looks.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Sheriff Joe is not a good man.

But Meh. I give up. It's too horrible to see all the applause for letting this "concentration camp" sheriff (he called his tent city that as a "joke") escape his jail time.

A pardon he may have, but Justice will out in this world or the next.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I'll be sure to tell Pres Trump of your concurrence, I'm certain that he will be relieved.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
Sheriff Joe is not a good man.

WTF do you mean by that? You remember that I backed way off of you, when you were personally offended by me, in another topic on these boards.

How can you say this person is not good? He did what was right in the minds of the majority of the voting public in his district. His job was to establish Law & Order in his community and he did exactly that (in the best ways he could devise). He put people in pink underwear and forced them to pay back what they owed to society for their infractions of the law.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join