Holder gunning for Sheriff Joe

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Arpaio engages in exactly the type of behavior that goes on in more corrupt and repressive third world countries and yet somehow gets praised for it. Whenever stories of people acting like Arpaio in Mexico get out everyone thinks it's horrifying.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Arpaio engages in exactly the type of behavior that goes on in more corrupt and repressive third world countries and yet somehow gets praised for it. Whenever stories of people acting like Arpaio in Mexico get out everyone thinks it's horrifying.

I hear ya, but he can't not get elected.  No one can unseat the guy, and his supporters are more emboldened every time someone comes after him, like in this case.

It's truly a unique situation.......I can't think of another story that compares to this one.

[Sbane]

I guess those of you who hate Sheriff Joe (which is fine, he is a polarizing figure), aren't disturbed by what appears to be the government doing the same thing you hate Sheriff Joe for, going after your enemies just because they're your enemies?

I don't know what the personal feelings about Arapio are within the justice department, but I don't think they are pursuing trumped up charges against the guy.  Do you think they are? He thinks he is above the law, and the justice department is rightly putting him in his place. The better question is why the Bush era justice department didn't do this.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I guess those of you who hate Sheriff Joe (which is fine, he is a polarizing figure), aren't disturbed by what appears to be the government doing the same thing you hate Sheriff Joe for, going after your enemies just because they're your enemies?

I don't know what the personal feelings about Arapio are within the justice department, but I don't think they are pursuing trumped up charges against the guy.  Do you think they are? He thinks he is above the law, and the justice department is rightly putting him in his place. The better question is why the Bush era justice department didn't do this.

Or the Clinton era... 

[??????????]

Gramps, why do you dislike LEOs so much?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Gramps, why do you dislike LEOs so much?

Honestly, I just don't trust them at any level, even though I know there are some good ones out there who actually care.

It's mostly the feds, States.  The FBI especially has claimed nearly unbridled power all in the name of national security.  They make the Hoover FBI look like choir boys when it comes to thuggery.  The TSA is a joke.

U.S. Attorneys use the FBI for political prosecutions and DA's do the same thing with their detectives, especially around here.

The state boys, to me, are little more than ticket writing revenue generators.  Public safety?  Neh.  I love Click and Ticket, which has morphed into a legalized DUI checkpoint.  Overall, negative view.

The inner city guys will do anything possible for a conviction, but I wouldn't want their job honestly. 

[??????????]

I agree with you about the feds. However I respect the state and locals, they do a very tough job with little thanks or praise and literally risk their lives daily. I don't agree with every law they are made to enforce but I respect most of their goals.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I agree with you about the feds. However I respect the state and locals, they do a very tough job with little thanks or praise and literally risk their lives daily. I don't agree with every law they are made to enforce but I respect most of their goals.

Hey I'm not bashing the inner city ones too hard.......there isn't enough pay for those jobs.  But as a I said, it's the Feds I could never trust......and the State boys are just useless tools IMO.

[??????????]

Its different depending on the state. The sheriffs do as much as the city/town police do. The DOT officers are the real douchebags, they do NOT give warnings just tickets.

[Verily]

I guess those of you who hate Sheriff Joe (which is fine, he is a polarizing figure), aren't disturbed by what appears to be the government doing the same thing you hate Sheriff Joe for, going after your enemies just because they're your enemies?

I don't know what the personal feelings about Arapio are within the justice department, but I don't think they are pursuing trumped up charges against the guy.  Do you think they are? He thinks he is above the law, and the justice department is rightly putting him in his place. The better question is why the Bush era justice department didn't do this.

Or the Clinton era... 

The reasons are fairly clear on both.

Bush probably didn't like or approve of Arpaio or his tactics, and had it really been up to him, he would have had the Justice Department pursue charges. But Bush was surrounded by people who did approve of Arpaio, including each of his AGs. Moreover, there was always strong political pressure within the national Republican Party not to move against Arpaio because he was a big part of the party's success in Arizona.

Back when Clinton was President, Arpaio didn't make the news. His most obviously unconstitutional behavior didn't begin until Bush began attempting immigration reform, bring immigration to the fore of the political consciousness. (This is no fault of Bush's, of course, as Bush disagreed strongly with Arpaio on immigration policy; just pointing out that it wasn't a politically salient issue in the '90s.) Before then, Arpaio actually did some good because his main focus was on cracking down on drug cartels, which he has ignored in favor of politically juicier targets since 2004. Additionally, in the '90s Arpaio had yet to discover that he could do basically whatever he wanted and still get reelected--he was just testing the waters back then, and so his actions were not so extreme as they are now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think it's worth noting that in recent years Arpaio's popularity has dropped and many believe he might lose if he runs again 2012 (seems unlikely to me.)

Honestly, anyone who opposes this basically is saying there should be no oversight of local law enforcement. If there is anyone who has overstepped their bounds and committed illegal actions in any sheriff's department, it's Arpaio. The Feds tolerating this would be no better than turning a blind eye to the actions of Ted Stevens or Rod Blagojevich, not to mention would set a horrifying precedent for how local law enforcement would start behaving if they essentially had free reign to do whatever they wanted with no oversight. The fact that Arpaio is unquestionably the most powerful person in Maricopa County is itself reason to crack down, having the head of law enforcement being more powerful than anyone else in government isn't much different than a situation like in Turkey where the military has close to de facto veto power over any government actions they don't like. The fact that Arpaio is fond of flaunting makes it even worse.

[Torie]

Obviously if Sheriff Joe has done something illegal, and the prosecutors think they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, he should be prosecuted. But an indictment has not been brought yet, so the Feds obviously don't think they have enough evidence yet. And then there is the matter of the jury, for such a highly political case. There may be some who will nullify. So, even if Joe is a crimbo, he may well be very hard to bag.

I have no idea what the merits are of any of this by the way. I don't follow Sheriff Joe's career and his doings.