Patterico's Pontifications

8/24/2017

Legal Genius Kamala Harris: Trump Should Not Pardon Joe Arpaio Because . . . He Committed A Crime

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:00 pm

Joe Arpaio stands convicted of a misdemeanor count of criminal contempt of court, for carrying out “targeted patrols aiming to catch illegal aliens in his Arizona jurisdiction.” Reports say that President Trump’s administration has filled out the paperwork for Arpaio to be pardoned. Arpaio is unrepentant and has not gone through the usual DoJ process for seeking a pardon. There are many reasons why pardoning Arpaio would be questionable.

This is . . . not one of them:

Pardons, how do they work?

Yes, while it is possible to pardon someone not yet convicted of a crime, that is decidedly not the norm. Arguing that someone should not be pardoned because they have been convicted is kind of like arguing that someone should not be allowed to seek absolution through the Sacrament of Penance because they have sinned. That’s sort of the whole reason the thing exists.

A note about Senator Harris: she’s physically and demographically attractive, she’s a first-term Senator of no particular distinction, she’s from a large state, she’s a partisan Democrat trying to make a name for herself by criticizing the current administration, and she’s young. (Democrats have not elected someone President in their 60s or older since Truman.)

Does any of this sound familiar?

Say hello to the likely next Democrat presidential candidate.

Fortunately, at least we know she won’t be pardoning anyone who was convicted of a crime! So we got that going for us. Which is nice.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

115 Responses to “Legal Genius Kamala Harris: Trump Should Not Pardon Joe Arpaio Because . . . He Committed A Crime”

  1. “Sheriff! Are you trying to show contempt for this court?”
    “No, I’m doing my best to hide it.”

    It’s better with Mae West.

    And a bonus song from “Frozen”.

    nk (dbc370)

  2. Ok. She’s a Progressive. So what?

    She wants to micromanage speech and be Socialistic Santy Claus. Is that a crime? Can you think of something worse? I bet someone can.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  3. You left out “Dumb as a rock”.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  4. A full pardon!

    Then getta good ghost writer.

    A double-wide in a Tuscon trailer park; some natty sports jackets, keep the .357 in a cookie jar and drive a classic ’77 Firebird.

    Voila: ‘The Arpaio Files’ – This fall, on Fox!

    Hollywood’s-a-callin’, Joe — just leave your name and number and they’ll get back to ‘ya.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  5. Still not a crime..(see DJT)

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  6. “full pardon!”

    Dude! You get to share Powerball jackpot.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  7. As clueless as a rock and yet the instincts of a weasel. Kameltoe Harris has the winning combination for a Democrat candidate… at least in the primaries.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  8. She sounds perfect based on your Model Presidunce Pfc.

    Ben burn (786e20)

  9. she has that desperate cougar stank on her like katie couric

    it’s not attractive

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  10. What’s the political downside of Trump pardoning Arpaio for the “crime” of rounding up suspected illegals?

    Better yet, what’s the political upside of not pardoning him?

    nk (dbc370)

  11. A fanatic’s eyes, a smirking pout and Sendero Luminoso politics. What’s not to like?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  12. “Was Sheriff Joe convicted of doing his job?” asked President Trump. “He should of had a jury,” he added. “But you know what, “I’ll make a prediction. He gonna be just fine, okay.”

    The biggest problem I see in the statement is that contempt of court is not a crime per se. Sheriff Joe had no right to a jury trial. Had he a jury, he would have won but that is besides the point.

    Moreover, can Trump pardon him if it is not a crime? I think so because the sanction of jail time should be enough to view this as affording the same rights to due process as those given real criminals.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  13. I am surprised Harris does not know the difference between a crime and contempt of court.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  14. AZBob: the President has “the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment”.

    kishnevi (ceb37f)

  15. In red states like Texas they used the courts as a battering ram, in Alaska they weaponized the ethics complaint process, in purple states like wisconsin, it was procurators like chisholm same against mcdonnell

    narciso (d1f714)

  16. All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

    I wonder Senator Harris’ opinion regarding Marc Rich.

    “That’s different!” she will exclaim. “Because shut up.”

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  17. Whereas clear illegality is often ignored:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/900889667599466496?p=v

    narciso (d1f714)

  18. No you need a white male with more vigor against a worn Trump and also expect the uniparty to become a thing, to the point of a Kasich or asurviving 2018 class RINO Senator being the VP under a fusion ticket.

    urbanleftbehind (5782b9)

  19. When did I step through the stargate:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/stillgray/status/900817556713373696/photo/1

    narciso (d1f714)

  20. Raises the age-old question of whether stupid people go into politics, or politics makes people stupid.

    Leviticus (e53afc)

  21. There are different types of contempt of court — criminal and civil. Criminal contempt is a crime. Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt.

    DRJ (d35869)

  22. Barkley not so much, Jason Whitlock more immediately comes to mind. But as far as intra-racial perjorative goes, Coon (said with elongated “oooo”) just sounds cool.

    urbanleftbehind (5782b9)

  23. 19
    I guess they haven’t yet found out Andrew Young is a white supremacist. (He was saying similar things on CNN last week.)

    kishnevi (ceb37f)

  24. Here is a case that says no jury trial in criminal contempt so long as the punishment is no more than six months.

    From Wikipedia: There have been criticisms over the practice of trying contempt from the bench. In particular, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in a dissent, “It is high time, in my judgment, to wipe out root and branch the judge-invented and judge-maintained notion that judges can try criminal contempt cases without a jury.”

    I am no expert in this area so please add your legal opinion and state your expertise.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  25. Harris is still an idiot.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  26. The lesson is we not suppose to enforce federal law, even if the people demand it
    , as with sub 1070 or prop 209 or 187 or prop 8 (or prop 2 in Colorado)

    narciso (d1f714)

  27. Trial by jury for any crime, not only contempt, can be denied provided the punishment is no more than six months imprisonment, according to our stare decisis Constitution.

    Contempt of court is a hybrid crime in the federal system. Its foundation is the inherent power of the court to punish contempt, but Congress has enacted a couple of statutes defining it and/or limiting it. It is, nonetheless, a crime and falls under the Sentencing Guidelines. The President is well within his power to pardon it or commute the sentence.

    nk (dbc370)

  28. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401

    Click “next” to go to Sections 402 and 403.

    nk (dbc370)

  29. This probably isnt a crime to her either:
    dailycaller.com/2017/08/24/armed-antifa-group-calls-for-revolution-seizing-property-and-violence-against-police/?utm_content=buffera2fc1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    narciso (d1f714)

  30. However, she would probably commute any death penalty that comes her way. You really HAVE to be convicted before you can get a commutation. I’m pretty sure of that.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  31. I’d vote for harris before I would ever vote for that lying traitor democrat wannabe mcconnell

    mg (31009b)

  32. @4 DCSCA

    Arpaio was rounding up guys named Angel

    Pinandpuller (1b8663)

  33. Isn’t this similar to what happened to Rick Perry?

    Pinandpuller (1b8663)

  34. I’m willing to bet a jumbo lobster roll mitch and his hacks will join with democrats in an attempt to take away the 2nd amendment.
    Recall this maggot.

    mg (31009b)

  35. Just think if all of Obama’s minions had to face criminal contempt of court (or of Congress) charges.

    Wait, why aren’t they?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  36. It’s a poser, kev.

    narciso (939f64)

  37. Anyone else for chaining Harris and Arpaio together and leaving them to annoy each-other to death?

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  38. Every time the American Taliban takes down a monument to the veterans of The War Against Northern Aggression, a statue of Sheriff Joe Arpaio should be erected.

    ropelight (44f1b7)

  39. As no said, the Supreme Court has limited the right to a jury trial in criminal cases:

    The right to trial by jury in a criminal case resides in both Article III, Section 2 of the federal Constitution (“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury”) and the Sixth Amendment (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury”). But the right isn’t as broad as those texts might suggest, meaning that many defendants have to settle for judge trials, where the court decides whether the defendant is guilty.

    *****

    According to the Supreme Court, the jury-trial right applies only when “serious” offenses are at hand—petty offenses don’t invoke it. For purposes of this right, a serious offense is one that carries a potential sentence of more than six months’ imprisonment. (Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970).) If the penalty is six months or less, the crime is serious only if the sum of its penalties are weighty enough. The Supreme Court decided in one case that up to six months’ incarceration or five years’ probation, plus a $5,000 maximum fine weren’t enough to make a certain kind of DUI a serious offense. (U.S. v. Nachtigal, 507 U.S. 1 (1993).)

    This is why a Judge’s power to impose criminal contempt can only result in a lesser sentence.

    DRJ (15874d)

  40. @40. So basically what you’re saying is once again the lawyers and judges say the Constitution does not say or mean what is clearly written in it. I still find it amusing anyone even refers to the Constitution any more. It has no relationship to modern law whatsoever.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  41. ropelight, you probably have already read them, but if you haven’t, I think you will greatly enjoy the Judge Priest stories by Irvin S. Cobb, available free here, as well as the movie with Will Rogers. Maybe more than The Outlaw Josey Wales revisionist bang-bang-shoot-em-up, even.

    nk (dbc370)

  42. I guess it depends on the what the meaning of “all” is, Hoagie.

    nk (dbc370)

  43. Then, bending over sideways, he picked up one of his shoes, shaking the crumpled sock out of it and peering down its white-lined gullet to read the maker’s tag:

    “Fall River, Mass.,” the sergeant spelled out the stamped letters—“ Reliance Shoe Company, Fall River, Mass.”

    He dropped the shoe and in tones of reluctant admiration addressed empty space:

    “Well, now, ain’t them Yankees the persistent devils! Waitin’ forty-odd years fur a chance to cripple me up! But they done it!”

    Irvin S. Cobb. Old Judge Priest (Kindle Locations 1866-1870).

    (It’s 1912, it’s a reunion of his old Confederate outfit, and his new shoes gave him blisters.)

    nk (dbc370)

  44. She will have her 15 minutes in the sun, and then will disappear. The lady is not too bright.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  45. i don’t wanna have a beer with this hoochie that’s for sure

    whereas with President Trump i wanna have all the beers

    he seems like such a nice guy with so many stories and insights

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  46. There are limits on every right, even Constitutional rights. Unlimited rights would result in anarchy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  47. ugh this stupid Harvey’s heading straight for the ancestral pikachu homelands

    maybe even gonna hit it twice if the projection is accurate

    this is no good

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  48. Rights should be accompanied by responsibility/accountability and children shouldn’t be murdered either.

    But those overarching RIGHTS!

    Ben burn (786e20)

  49. It’s Voodoo Econ Deja vu all over again. Can’t avaricious swine understand basic accounting?

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/opinion/republicans-debt-ceiling-budget.html?referer=http://www.memeorandum.com/river

    Ben burn (786e20)

  50. The Budget, like the Constitution has become fungible, Ben burn.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  51. I think we’re beginning to get the idea that Kamala Harris is somewhat incoherent. The question is: How did she get so far? She didn’t have to be good?

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  52. 12.“Was Sheriff Joe convicted of doing his job?” asked President Trump.

    No he wasn’t.

    He was convicted for going “above and beyond the call of duty” in doing something that number one, was not his job, even if President Trump believes it is somebody’s job, but it wasn’t his, any more than enforcing federal environmental rules is; and number two, he did something in furtherance of that he was specifically ordered by a federal judge not to do.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  53. There is absolutely no expectation of coherent thought or utterance associated with progressive politicians. Harris is about average when you consider her predecessor, the Governor of California, the House Minority Leader or the former President (let alone the current President). It’s all white noise generated by bobble heads.

    Rick Ballard (48cc19)

  54. Ask Joe Baca, former LA Sheriff about prisoner abuse. The Fed’s are serious..

    Ben burn (786e20)

  55. Actually, Lee Baca.

    JoeH (f94276)

  56. Correct. I conflated the criminals.

    Ben burn (786e20)

  57. @41 @40. So basically what you’re saying is once again the lawyers and judges say the Constitution does not say or mean what is clearly written in it. I still find it amusing anyone even refers to the Constitution any more. It has no relationship to modern law whatsoever.

    What do you mean by “modern law”, white man?

    Cheff, however, would have us hold that the right to jury trial attaches in all criminal contempts and not merely in those which are outside the category of “petty offenses. (From Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373, 379 (1966), citing, inter alia, to an 1888 case):

    Cheff’s argument is unavailing, for we are constrained to view the proceedings here as equivalent to a procedure to prosecute a petty offense, which under our decisions does not require a jury trial. Over 75 years ago, in Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540, 127 U. S. 557 (1888), this Court stated that “in that class or grade of offences called “petty offences,” which, according to the common law, may be proceeded against summarily in any tribunal legally constituted for that purpose,” a jury trial is not required. And as late as 1937, the Court reiterated in District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U. S. 617, 300 U. S. 624, that:

    “It is settled by the decisions of this Court . . . that the right of trial by jury . . . does not extend to every criminal proceeding. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there were numerous offenses, commonly described as ‘petty,’ which were tried summarily without a jury. . . .”

    I.e., what’s “clear to a doctor”, may not be clear to a non-doctor; or “to an electrician”, [etc.]; or to a lawyer or a jurist, [etc.]. That’s just the way of the world, I guess . . . (That said, you of course might point out that the remarks in Callan might be argued to be dicta; well . . . not you obviously, but someone might . . . )

    Q! (267694)

  58. Lee Baca, the Ray Frias of LA County (could-have-been Brown Knight).

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  59. 1) Title of Original Post: Legal Genius Kamala Harris: Trump Should Not Pardon Joe Arpaio Because . . . He Committed A Crime

    2) The Original Post reproduces Harris’ tweet.

    3) Harris tweet links to a 47 sec. excerpt from Trump’s Phoenix rally/commercial wherein the first words out off the big guy’s mouth has him saying/implying that Arpaio was convicted “for [simply] doing his job” and asserts that Arpaio “should’ve had a jury”

    4) Harris’ tweet’s text is as follows:

    Joe Arpaio was convicted because he committed a crime. He should not be pardoned.

    5) Tweet text does not include the word “because” or “therefore” or any similar locution.
    6) Compare, the original post’s headline, which inserts a “because”.
    7A) At worst, obviously, the tweet is ambiguous, insofar as it permits a reader to infer that the tweet could be re-written as represented in the original post.
    7B) Literally, and not engaging in the indulgence of any possibly unfair inference, both of the tweet’s 2 sentence are true.
    8) Including the tweet’s link (and the first words out of the big guy’s mouth), the fairness of any such inference pretty much evaporates on the spot.
    9) Not to mention the fact that Harris has years upon years of experience as an ADA and as elected DA of San Francisco, and is unlikely (let us say) to have “fallen into the error” which she’s claimed to have made.
    10) Nor is sensible or fair to write/joke Fortunately, at least we know she won’t be pardoning anyone who was convicted of a crime!

    Them’s my 2 cents (and I suspect that in his heart, P. knows he was just a mite quick on the trigger on this one).

    Q! (267694)

  60. yeah she’s pretty stupid

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  61. Kamala Harris reminds me of last season’s Houston Rockets, of whom it was written during the playoffs:

    What the NBA should do about the proliferation of players being fouled on three-point shot attempts is up for debate. What is not is who has practically cornered the market on how to draw them: the Houston Rockets.

    And for however long they are alive in these playoffs …[,] there will be consternation from certain corners of the league about how the Rockets have created an unfair advantage for themselves and are “gaming the system,” as one rival general manager told Bleacher Report.

    I watched her on C-SPAN during hours of Senate committee hearings this spring, and she obviously went into at least some of those hearings with the intention of “drawing a foul” — a rebuke from the (white, male, old, GOP) chairman of the committee — for interrupting witnesses, speaking over them, treating them with obvious contempt, and otherwise grandstanding. She viewed the C-SPAN video of these hearings as opportunities to shoot free (if raw and over-voluminous) campaign-ad material for her 2020 presidential run, and sure enough, she manipulated the exact sound bites she wanted from the likes of McCain and Grassley: The fund-raising emails with embedded, out-of-context clips went out that very week.

    Was she “drawing a foul” in this tweet? Q’s facile but over-credulous defense suggests she’s been taken out of context unfairly, but our host is far from the only critic of this particular tweet. Has Sen. Harris herself claimed to have been taken out of context? Has she clarified to confirm that she thinks — meant to say, would have said but for Twitter’s limits, as if we couldn’t find examples of her multi-tweeting — Arpaio is a specially noxious class of convicted criminals (still subject to appellate challenge) whom the Framers intended to be beyond the POTUS’ pardon power?

    I haven’t seen that, but I confess to not having looked. Got a link for us, Q? Because until you produce something from her saying what you think she meant, I’m going with the obvious inference from her Tweet instead of your helpful re-write.

    I actually don’t think she’s stupid. Some of her attempted cross-examination of Rod Rosenstein during his confirmation hearings, for example, showed a deep enough understanding of the legal principles and regulations involved to make me confident that Harris understood them, and was nevertheless deliberately misrepresenting them in her questions. She is utterly unscrupulous, untethered from any principle, but ready to pivot on the first breath of a fresh political wind and to find a way to use it to political advantage. I think she’s got many of the same intuitive political gifts that Obama had, and she’s got the tailor-made narrative already in place to run as the Female Obama in 2020. She’s very dangerous indeed.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  62. And she can win because the GOP has become similarly “unscrupulous, untethered from any principle, but ready to pivot on the first breath of a fresh political wind and to find a way to use it to political advantage.”

    DRJ (d18ca6)

  63. We don’t need more minced-Q.

    Colonel Haiku (167584)

  64. Well Beldar, she may be absolootly unscroopulous but she does respect the rule of law unlike his Constitutionally fickle support group. Do you have any corroboration for her total lack of scruples. I don’t think you researched the meaning of ‘dangerous, but semantics is a foreign agent to literalist conservatives so I suspect incurious about nuance.

    Ben burn (786e20)

  65. 68… what a h00t!

    Colonel Haiku (167584)

  66. Pfc is absolootly nuanced into sound bytes.

    Ben burn (786e20)

  67. Remember when Teddy the Cruz shutdown the government with green eggs and ham, costing $24 billion?

    What’s the Vegas line on when secessionist Texas adds begins begging for Federal aid from the United States government because of Hurricane Harvey, adding to the national debt– Saturday morning or Sunday noon?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  68. @65 Beldar.

    Has she clarified to confirm that she thinks … Arpaio is a specially noxious class of convicted criminals (still subject to appellate challenge) whom the Framers intended to be beyond the POTUS’ pardon power?

    Is this what you meant to write? Did you leave out a “not” or something?

    In this vein, I reproduce this portion of your following para.:

    Because until you produce something from her saying what you think she meant, I’m going with the obvious inference from her Tweet instead of your helpful re-write.

    I assume any reader at the 4th grade level gathered from my post that Harris’ tweet (including its very pointed CNN excerpt) rendered reasonably unambiguous her assertions:

    1) Arpaio is a [legitimately] convicted criminal.

    (1A And not one who was tried for “merely doing his job”); and likely
    (1B And the jury trial entitlement assertion of DJT’s is bs)

    and
    2) Arpaio should not be pardoned.

    Two thoughts. No causation running from (1 to (2. No “because”. No “therefore”. No “legally dumb as a bag of stones” former district attorney.

    You are free to make whatever inferences you desire, of course. All I can do is point out (in considerable & uncontested detail) the unfairness/unreasonableness of the inference — but where you land (and whatever “facts” you add in to get you there), is up to you, I guess.

    Like I say, it looks like to me you left out a not or something (see above).

    In this vein (?), I don’t know of any tweet of hers that renders it any clearer than her (contextually unambiguous) first tweet as to what she meant, although one of her Aug. 24 tweets links to another CNN story, which fleshes out in greater detail Arpaio’s infamy (and quite possibly/likely reveals a fair amount as to why Harris is anti-pardon here). I didn’t watch the video there, but the text thereto includes the following:

    Yet it is plain that Arpaio was not convicted for doing his job [Compare DJT’s remarks]. He was convicted for willfully disobeying the law after a court ordered him to stop singling out drivers based on ethnicity and detaining them without charges. [Emphasis added]

    Cheers.

    Q! (267694)

  69. All those words. And you got nuthin’, Q!

    Cheers indeed.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  70. @73. Beldar- off topic- you in a safe place down there?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  71. DRJ- off topic- you high an dry downthere?

    NOAA and Euro models show Texas may get the ‘Harvey Hover’ for several days.

    Best TV news story; half-drunk Texan holding a hurricane party telling reporter he’ll tie his boat to his wooden porch and ‘ride it out;’- ‘course, once the ten foot storm surge floats his patio off the foundation and smashes it to splinters he’ll be less a Texan and more a statistic.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  72. Harvey’s a dick he doesn’t even have a cone

    what kinda hurricane don’t got no cone

    a sleazy dick hurricane that’s what kind

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  73. @76: Best deserved and well-earned Federal response to any Texas cry for hurricane relief:

    “Swim for it.”

    Texas Senator Ted Cruz votes against Federal relief for Super storm Sandy 6/2/15:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah2n9_S1PHg

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  74. “And you got nuthin’

    Beldar said it. That settles it.

    Ben burn (786e20)

  75. Give Zuck his due. My hard contrarian liberal sister shared 2 respective FB pists about God punishing Texans and Trump doesn’t care because no FEMA and no NOAA heads in place. 30 mins later those pistswere gone from her and several others feed. Logically thinking, I think god would favor TX since Trump underperformed there and Texans can take care of themselves pretty well wrt to federal posts not being filled.

    urbanleftbehind (01c451)

  76. @71. Amendment; all bets are off:

    Texas governor Abbott has already requested Federal disaster declaration and aid— before the storm actually hits.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  77. O e of you is in Dallas and the other in Houston or am I Mistaken.

    narciso (d1f714)

  78. @78. That settles it.

    Just like Alka-Seltzer; plop-plop, fizz-fizz.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  79. 80, that could have been drama had Cruz stayed the Cruz of the convention.

    urbanleftbehind (01c451)

  80. 63.yeah she’s pretty stupid

    That’s how they like’em in California;

    Pretty.
    And stupid.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. ‘Danger’ could derive from physically injurious behavior from within or without.

    Semantics and conservative minds don’t mix homogenously. Could fruit be borne via a discussion of a carrot-top POTUS from the Gang who can’t shoot straight? Is agreement on a difficult word like ‘Danger’ even an option in a discussion with the deliberately myopic? Tunnel vision is a gift in certain circles.

    Ben burn (786e20)

  82. @83. Unreal. Simply a steamin’, walkin’-talkin’ cow pie.

    Canadian Cruz on TWC crowing ‘he’ is coordinating storm response from Houston weather bunker and has already spoken to and gotten reassurances from the President for Federal aid to Texas in response to Hovering Harvey.

    Absolut Hypocrite – vodka and bitters on the rocks; the Tedtoo cocktail for any hurricane party.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  83. And your retort, as always, is it’s Trump’s fault. But he shares the blame with pathetically incompetent congressional leadership and this environment – a wasteland populated by malevolent nitwit media, sh*t-for-brains Democrats, pontificating NeverTrumpinistas, and craven Republicans – does not help in any way, shape, or form.

    Perhaps it WILL take a Civil War.

    Colonel Haiku (167584) — 8/25/2017 @ 2:23 pm

    I did not say it is Trump’s fault. I said he could do a better job, and he can. He does a good job at speaking and governing now and then, but now and then isn’t enough.

    As for the rest of your comment, your Spiro Agnew impression would have been timely 50 years ago but Trump has raised the bar when it comes to political trash talk. BUt I am curious why you feel the need to escalate the rhetoric and personally attack people when you get frustrated in discussions.

    DRJ (15874d)

  84. Brett Stephens compares him to pol pot, rhetorical overreach eleventy

    ww.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-rips-Harris-office-for-hiding-problems-3263797.php

    narciso (d1f714)

  85. i don’t like Bret Stephens he’s too poopy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  86. Its what they did to dentin, day, Stockdale and maverick

    http://babalublog.com/2017/08/25/cuban-political-prisoners-recall-acoustic-torture

    narciso (d1f714)

  87. BUt I am curious why you feel the need to escalate the rhetoric and personally attack people when you get frustrated in discussions.
    DRJ (15874d) — 8/25/2017 @ 4:25 pm

    I can’t speak for the Colonel, DRJ, but for a continuous nine months all we hear is Trump, Trump, Trump for every negative occurrence world wide and it’s wearing thin. It is frustration. Just because we’re not against Trump does not mean we are for Trump. We’re for America and if people are just gonna bash it ends up hurting America. If all the haters hate Trump so much just join antifa and overthrow the government. But shut up already.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  88. Hmmm

    Is FEMA an approved Gubmint freebie?

    Anyone can feel free to chime in..lol

    Ben burn (786e20)

  89. Breaking news- Trump Pardons Arpaio.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  90. Walking Layton delayed the Andrew disaster declaration for two days to hurt geirgw bush sir, they ate that petty.by contrast staynpuft allowed Obama to slow walk aid for sandy for minthes

    narciso (d1f714)

  91. Hmm. Trump’s apparently pardoned Arpaio. The only surprising aspect of it, is that it apparently wasn’t done by tweet.

    Q! (267694)

  92. Breaking news– Gorka ‘resigns’ as Deputy Assistant to the President.

    Another nut shelled.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  93. Did Trump mention he won the electoral vote?

    Ben burn (786e20)

  94. As opposed to be Rhodesia who soldcoutvto Iran and the Castro regime? He had been thevsubject of a smear campaign by the slimy max blumenthal in the forward.

    narciso (d1f714)

  95. And so we continue the slide into lawlessness — because now it’s fine to disobey a court order as long as the President agrees with your politics.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  96. Had w been wiling to pardon Libby, and end that travismockasham engineered by comedy?

    narciso (d1f714)

  97. Where I come from, offering opinions and criticism is very American.

    DRJ (15874d)

  98. Telling people who disagree with you to shut up or calling them names is common in some places, too, but not where I live.

    DRJ (15874d)

  99. Ask sail mehta or Robert Spencer or Thomas victor how much leeway neutral google affords them, for that matter ask Robert e lee.

    narciso (d1f714)

  100. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StJS51d1Fzg

    “It’s good to be the King.” – Mel Brooks ‘History of the World, Part 1

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  101. Google is not the government, no matter how big it is.

    kishnevi (10c258)

  102. It is the contempt power of judges which is the closest thing we have to lese majeste in our system.

    I might feel differently if a jury had found Arpaio guilty. Or if Arpaio’s defiance had been in front of the judge, in the judge’s courtroom. Or if the judge had locked up Arpaio or imposed a daily fine while Arpaio was in a position to comply or defy. But the way it worked out, it was just petty peevishness.

    nk (dbc370)

  103. it was just petty peevishness.

    IOW, very Trumpian.

    kishnevi (10c258)

  104. You wonder hi things happen, he was supported by among others cage prisoners

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Debradelai/status/901253785615511553?p=v

    narciso (d1f714)

  105. “BUt I am curious why you feel the need to escalate the rhetoric and personally attack people when you get frustrated in discussions.”

    So if I highlight what I perceive as the repetitive nature of some of your comments – much like you characterized mine – that becomes a personal attack.

    Okay then…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  106. Jails and prisons are full of people who escalated well beyond asking people to stick a sock in it. Even in Texas.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  107. And I’m upset that Gorka “resigned”. I grew to appreciate a man who tells it like it is.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  108. Any person who is able to bunch the panties of the Pantifa crowd – especially worn-out TCM addicts – is very often a person I admire.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  109. Well there is that, but mote importantly it was the nature of the current crisis we face

    narciso (d1f714)

  110. This in this specific case is appropriate-say hi to Willie Brown at the baggage claim-

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9JJVn-_W2M

    Bugg (cac325)

  111. One thing McCain and Romney both got wrong running against Obama is the conceded the high ground to him. GOP and Trump have to mock and belittle Ms. Harris and her utter lack of accomplishment at every turn. If you let her pretend she is all that she will with the MFM’s help put her ridiculous ascendancy beyond the discussion. It needs to be front and center.

    Bugg (cac325)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3584 secs.