Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Hold onto your hats folks, Trump may not have had a good reason to pardon Arpaio   ( lawfareblog.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, President of the United States, White House, pardon, pardon statement, official pardon statement, Arpaio pardon, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Arizona  
•       •       •

9385 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Aug 2017 at 7:31 PM (15 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



284 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-08-26 05:34:59 PM  
He doesn't need any reason. I bet he did it just to piss off liberals.
 
2017-08-26 05:38:51 PM  
It pains me to say this, but feckingmorons is right.

He's President, He doesn't need a reason. He has the Constitutional right to pardon as many people as he wants, whether it pisses off us liberals or not.
 
2017-08-26 05:39:49 PM  
...also forgot to add... It's a good thing that Presidential pardons are irrevocable, otherwise Trump would be busy un-pardoning everyone that Obama pardoned.
 
stk [TotalFark]
2017-08-26 05:44:04 PM  
Discretionary powers require discretion to not be petty and used as a middle finger. Who'da think?
 
2017-08-26 05:48:32 PM  
Trump: the staunch defender of law and order.
 
2017-08-26 05:51:19 PM  

feckingmorons: He doesn't need any reason. I bet he did it just to piss off liberals.


Good thing we didn't elect a irrational emotional women to the office.
 
2017-08-26 05:53:26 PM  
Don't get worked over this one. We have the first Troll-in-Chief sitting in the WH. I wager only 10% of this was for loyalty or The Base. There is a >90% chance that he did it just to drive 'the left' nuts. Don't fall for it.

Yes I know that there are all sorts of implications from this but trust that trump doesn't care. It's like the transgender ban. I doubt trump really gives a shiat one way or another. What he does know is that the ban will drive 'the left' nuts.

This shiat is a problem but it is not what will bring him down. Hopefully the most mileage will be gotten out of this pardon during the 2018 elections.
 
2017-08-26 05:54:07 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: It pains me to say this, but feckingmorons is right.

He's President, He doesn't need a reason. He has the Constitutional right to pardon as many people as he wants, whether it pisses off us liberals or not.


President Obama commuted sentences of armed felons who went out to be felons again. That pissed off a lot of law abiding people. It didn't piss me off as I've long ago given up being outraged.
 
2017-08-26 05:54:52 PM  

optikeye: feckingmorons: He doesn't need any reason. I bet he did it just to piss off liberals.

Good thing we didn't elect a irrational emotional women to the office.


Justice Gorsuch.
 
2017-08-26 06:00:38 PM  

Vermithrax Perjorative: Don't get worked over this one. We have the first Troll-in-Chief sitting in the WH. I wager only 10% of this was for loyalty or The Base. There is a >90% chance that he did it just to drive 'the left' nuts. Don't fall for it.


Little late for that clarion call.

Vermithrax Perjorative: This shiat is a problem but it is not what will bring him down. Hopefully the most mileage will be gotten out of this pardon during the 2018 elections.


It is not a problem at all, and it is inconsequential. It won't factor into the election at all. It is not as if people who were going to vote for a Republican will suddenly switch, they're OK with the pardon.
 
2017-08-26 06:17:16 PM  
That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.
 
2017-08-26 06:20:06 PM  

what_now: That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.


Yeah, who exactly will be suing him for criminal contempt of court?
 
2017-08-26 06:26:24 PM  

what_now: That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.


And he can't claim 5th amendment protection.
 
2017-08-26 06:27:42 PM  

feckingmorons: what_now: That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.

Yeah, who exactly will be suing him for criminal contempt of court?


The thousands and thousands of people who's civil rights he has violated.
 
2017-08-26 06:28:36 PM  
I was going to say the State of AZ could still prosecuted jailer joe but then I looked at AZ AG Mark Brnovich and saw he is close to a trump clone.
 
2017-08-26 06:30:39 PM  
Of course he did

It plays to his base, who approve of Arpaio's actions, and who love seeing liberal butthurt.

And the only people who will moan about it are the ones who already hate Trump

So all win, no downside
 
2017-08-26 06:33:21 PM  

what_now: feckingmorons: what_now: That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.

Yeah, who exactly will be suing him for criminal contempt of court?

The thousands and thousands of people who's civil rights he has violated.


Yeah well he was covicted of contempt of court, and really admitted to no crimes, in fact he continues to deny any criminal activity.

You can't just make things up.
 
2017-08-26 06:39:09 PM  

feckingmorons: Eddie Adams from Torrance: It pains me to say this, but feckingmorons is right.

He's President, He doesn't need a reason. He has the Constitutional right to pardon as many people as he wants, whether it pisses off us liberals or not.

President Obama commuted sentences of armed felons who went out to be felons again. That pissed off a lot of law abiding people. It didn't piss me off as I've long ago given up being outraged.


Citation Fecking Needed.
 
2017-08-26 06:49:03 PM  

feckingmorons: what_now: feckingmorons: what_now: That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.

Yeah, who exactly will be suing him for criminal contempt of court?

The thousands and thousands of people who's civil rights he has violated.

Yeah well he was covicted of contempt of court, and really admitted to no crimes, in fact he continues to deny any criminal activity.

You can't just make things up.


SCOTUS has ruled in the past that in order for a pardon to be effective, it must be accepted, and that constitutes admitting your guilt. And his conviction for contempt of court was that he had violated a court order not to violate civil rights by profiling people.
 
2017-08-26 06:54:09 PM  

RminusQ: feckingmorons: Eddie Adams from Torrance: It pains me to say this, but feckingmorons is right.

He's President, He doesn't need a reason. He has the Constitutional right to pardon as many people as he wants, whether it pisses off us liberals or not.

President Obama commuted sentences of armed felons who went out to be felons again. That pissed off a lot of law abiding people. It didn't piss me off as I've long ago given up being outraged.

Citation Fecking Needed.


Do you not have google?

Here is one, you can look up more on your own.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/10/obama-g​r​anted-her-clemency-less-than-a-year-later-shes-going-back-to-prison/?u​tm_term=.13b9c002c1cd
 
2017-08-26 06:54:52 PM  

RminusQ: feckingmorons: what_now: feckingmorons: what_now: That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.

Yeah, who exactly will be suing him for criminal contempt of court?

The thousands and thousands of people who's civil rights he has violated.

Yeah well he was covicted of contempt of court, and really admitted to no crimes, in fact he continues to deny any criminal activity.

You can't just make things up.

SCOTUS has ruled in the past that in order for a pardon to be effective, it must be accepted, and that constitutes admitting your guilt. And his conviction for contempt of court was that he had violated a court order not to violate civil rights by profiling people.


Yeah, that isn't how it works.
 
2017-08-26 07:01:02 PM  

feckingmorons: RminusQ: feckingmorons: Eddie Adams from Torrance: It pains me to say this, but feckingmorons is right.

He's President, He doesn't need a reason. He has the Constitutional right to pardon as many people as he wants, whether it pisses off us liberals or not.

President Obama commuted sentences of armed felons who went out to be felons again. That pissed off a lot of law abiding people. It didn't piss me off as I've long ago given up being outraged.

Citation Fecking Needed.

Do you not have google?

Here is one, you can look up more on your own.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/10/obama-gr​anted-her-clemency-less-than-a-year-later-shes-going-back-to-prison/?u​tm_term=.13b9c002c1cd


That's a non-violent felon who was sent back to jail for non violent probation violations.

You can't just make stuff up.
 
2017-08-26 07:09:13 PM  

what_now: feckingmorons: RminusQ: feckingmorons: Eddie Adams from Torrance: It pains me to say this, but feckingmorons is right.

He's President, He doesn't need a reason. He has the Constitutional right to pardon as many people as he wants, whether it pisses off us liberals or not.

President Obama commuted sentences of armed felons who went out to be felons again. That pissed off a lot of law abiding people. It didn't piss me off as I've long ago given up being outraged.

Citation Fecking Needed.

Do you not have google?

Here is one, you can look up more on your own.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/10/obama-gr​anted-her-clemency-less-than-a-year-later-shes-going-back-to-prison/?u​tm_term=.13b9c002c1cd

That's a non-violent felon who was sent back to jail for non violent probation violations.

You can't just make stuff up.


Try this one then, but really can't you use a search engine? Of do you think if you don't see it it didn't happen?

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/San-Antonio-man-freed-​b​y-Obama-pleads-guilty-to-11140162.php
 
2017-08-26 07:12:16 PM  

feckingmorons: what_now: feckingmorons: RminusQ: feckingmorons: Eddie Adams from Torrance: It pains me to say this, but feckingmorons is right.

He's President, He doesn't need a reason. He has the Constitutional right to pardon as many people as he wants, whether it pisses off us liberals or not.

President Obama commuted sentences of armed felons who went out to be felons again. That pissed off a lot of law abiding people. It didn't piss me off as I've long ago given up being outraged.

Citation Fecking Needed.

Do you not have google?

Here is one, you can look up more on your own.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/10/obama-gr​anted-her-clemency-less-than-a-year-later-shes-going-back-to-prison/?u​tm_term=.13b9c002c1cd

That's a non-violent felon who was sent back to jail for non violent probation violations.

You can't just make stuff up.

Try this one then, but really can't you use a search engine? Of do you think if you don't see it it didn't happen?

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/San-Antonio-man-freed-b​y-Obama-pleads-guilty-to-11140162.php


It's entirely irrelevant but I understand your need to attempt to find some sort of equivalence.
 
2017-08-26 07:13:24 PM  

feckingmorons: what_now: feckingmorons: RminusQ: feckingmorons: Eddie Adams from Torrance: It pains me to say this, but feckingmorons is right.

He's President, He doesn't need a reason. He has the Constitutional right to pardon as many people as he wants, whether it pisses off us liberals or not.

President Obama commuted sentences of armed felons who went out to be felons again. That pissed off a lot of law abiding people. It didn't piss me off as I've long ago given up being outraged.

Citation Fecking Needed.

Do you not have google?

Here is one, you can look up more on your own.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/10/obama-gr​anted-her-clemency-less-than-a-year-later-shes-going-back-to-prison/?u​tm_term=.13b9c002c1cd

That's a non-violent felon who was sent back to jail for non violent probation violations.

You can't just make stuff up.

Try this one then, but really can't you use a search engine? Of do you think if you don't see it it didn't happen?

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/San-Antonio-man-freed-b​y-Obama-pleads-guilty-to-11140162.php


That's another non violent felons who was pardoned for drug crimes and then reoffended with other non violent crimes.

I think what you're looking for is something like the rapist that Mike Huckabee pardoned because the victim was a relative of Bill Clinton's, and Huckabee personally hates the Clinton's.

That guy went on to kill four cops: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/11/mike-hucka​bee-s-u​nfortunate-pardon/347438/
 
2017-08-26 07:14:18 PM  

holdmybones: It's entirely irrelevant but I understand your need to attempt to find some sort of equivalence.


You're right there is no equivalence, those people are a danger to society, some old guy in Arizona pissed off a judge.
 
2017-08-26 07:18:08 PM  

feckingmorons: holdmybones: It's entirely irrelevant but I understand your need to attempt to find some sort of equivalence.

You're right there is no equivalence, those people are a danger to society, some old guy in Arizona pissed off a judge.


You must really hate Mike Huckabee.

I can do it, too!
 
2017-08-26 07:18:25 PM  

feckingmorons: what_now: feckingmorons: what_now: That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.

Yeah, who exactly will be suing him for criminal contempt of court?

The thousands and thousands of people who's civil rights he has violated.

Yeah well he was covicted of contempt of court, and really admitted to no crimes, in fact he continues to deny any criminal activity.

You can't just make things up.


Arpaio's conduct in continuing to do the thungs that gave tise to his civil contempt and then criminal contempt were clearly unconstitutional.  And he can't claim qualified immunity if he was ordered by judges to stop.

So he's potentially on the hook for a lot of money in a Sec 1983 lawsuit.  Of course Maricopa County probably eats most of the damages.

But your usual amateur lawyering is as usual worthless.
 
2017-08-26 07:20:50 PM  

feckingmorons: RminusQ: feckingmorons: what_now: feckingmorons: what_now: That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.

Yeah, who exactly will be suing him for criminal contempt of court?

The thousands and thousands of people who's civil rights he has violated.

Yeah well he was covicted of contempt of court, and really admitted to no crimes, in fact he continues to deny any criminal activity.

You can't just make things up.

SCOTUS has ruled in the past that in order for a pardon to be effective, it must be accepted, and that constitutes admitting your guilt. And his conviction for contempt of court was that he had violated a court order not to violate civil rights by profiling people.

Yeah, that isn't how it works.


Fecking is The Authority on how the law works.

He's a doctor one day, the librarian of Congress the next, a lawyer the day after that.

It's so cool to have Trump's lovechild here.
 
2017-08-26 07:21:46 PM  
Trump can pardon anyone he wants.  That doesn't change the fact his reason for pardoning someone is incorrect.

"I'm pardoning your conviction of beastiality because I know you don't fark goats"
"Right, I fark pigs"
"Whatever.  You're pardoned."
 
2017-08-26 07:22:30 PM  

feckingmorons: holdmybones: It's entirely irrelevant but I understand your need to attempt to find some sort of equivalence.

You're right there is no equivalence, those people are a danger to society, some old guy in Arizona pissed off a judge.


Pissed off a judge

BY VIOLATING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF CITIZRNS FOR YEARS.

Just come out and cheer the racist old shiat but stop pretending he was law-abiding.
 
2017-08-26 07:22:30 PM  

wejash: feckingmorons: RminusQ: feckingmorons: what_now: feckingmorons: what_now: That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.

Yeah, who exactly will be suing him for criminal contempt of court?

The thousands and thousands of people who's civil rights he has violated.

Yeah well he was covicted of contempt of court, and really admitted to no crimes, in fact he continues to deny any criminal activity.

You can't just make things up.

SCOTUS has ruled in the past that in order for a pardon to be effective, it must be accepted, and that constitutes admitting your guilt. And his conviction for contempt of court was that he had violated a court order not to violate civil rights by profiling people.

Yeah, that isn't how it works.

Fecking is The Authority on how the law works.

He's a doctor one day, the librarian of Congress the next, a lawyer the day after that.

It's so cool to have Trump's lovechild here.


Don't forget cop.
 
2017-08-26 07:30:02 PM  

feckingmorons: what_now: feckingmorons: RminusQ: feckingmorons: Eddie Adams from Torrance: It pains me to say this, but feckingmorons is right.

He's President, He doesn't need a reason. He has the Constitutional right to pardon as many people as he wants, whether it pisses off us liberals or not.

President Obama commuted sentences of armed felons who went out to be felons again. That pissed off a lot of law abiding people. It didn't piss me off as I've long ago given up being outraged.

Citation Fecking Needed.

Do you not have google?

Here is one, you can look up more on your own.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/10/obama-gr​anted-her-clemency-less-than-a-year-later-shes-going-back-to-prison/?u​tm_term=.13b9c002c1cd

That's a non-violent felon who was sent back to jail for non violent probation violations.

You can't just make stuff up.

Try this one then, but really can't you use a search engine? Of do you think if you don't see it it didn't happen?

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/San-Antonio-man-freed-b​y-Obama-pleads-guilty-to-11140162.php


Since I found those two cases via google, and neither of them were "armed felons", I wondered if you had actual facts behind your claim or were just making shiat up. I see we now have our answer.
 
2017-08-26 07:30:53 PM  

holdmybones: feckingmorons: holdmybones: It's entirely irrelevant but I understand your need to attempt to find some sort of equivalence.

You're right there is no equivalence, those people are a danger to society, some old guy in Arizona pissed off a judge.

You must really hate Mike Huckabee.

I can do it, too!


Yes, but my initial answer way up top still applies, and it is quite clear it does.
 
2017-08-26 07:33:07 PM  

feckingmorons: holdmybones: feckingmorons: holdmybones: It's entirely irrelevant but I understand your need to attempt to find some sort of equivalence.

You're right there is no equivalence, those people are a danger to society, some old guy in Arizona pissed off a judge.

You must really hate Mike Huckabee.

I can do it, too!

Yes, but my initial answer way up top still applies, and it is quite clear it does.


Obama didn't pardon those people solely to piss off conservatives, so no it doesn't apply. Though, I'm sure you believe it does and will continue to insist it does.
 
2017-08-26 07:33:52 PM  
Arpaio was a practice pardon for Flynn, Manafort, and Kushner.
 
2017-08-26 07:34:57 PM  

stk: Discretionary powers require discretion to not be petty and used as a middle finger. Who'da think?


Obama missed a huge opportunity to give back executive authority before the 2016 election.

Pardons are the least of our trouble.
 
2017-08-26 07:36:41 PM  

enry: what_now: That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.

And he can't claim 5th amendment protection.


So then the real question is: Did Arpaio WANT to be pardoned? Because if he can now be sued for civil rights violations and cannot claim any 5th Amendment protections....he may be really f*cking pissed that Trump just magnanimously cleared him of a charge that would have netted him six whole months in jail IF he did any time at all.

And I'm sure Mueller is busy writing up another subpoena just for Joseph Arpaio even as we speak.
 
2017-08-26 07:36:44 PM  

Bowen: stk: Discretionary powers require discretion to not be petty and used as a middle finger. Who'da think?

Obama missed a huge opportunity to give back executive authority before the 2016 election.

Pardons are the least of our trouble.


"Give back executive authority" to who?
 
2017-08-26 07:36:56 PM  
Lots to unpack in this thread.

1. Regardless of how people may have felt about Obama's pardons and commutations, he did not do them with the intention of antagonizing political opponents.

2. Trump did not pardon Arpaio to piss off liberals. That's just a happy side effect for him. He did it because Arpaio is an ally and Trump supports him in kind. Arpaio was an early backer of Trump. They worked the Obama birth certificate case together.

3. That said, a not-insignificant motivational factor of the right is indeed "pissing off liberals". Ideas and policy be damned.
 
2017-08-26 07:37:10 PM  

Gyrfalcon: enry: what_now: That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.

And he can't claim 5th amendment protection.

So then the real question is: Did Arpaio WANT to be pardoned? Because if he can now be sued for civil rights violations and cannot claim any 5th Amendment protections....he may be really f*cking pissed that Trump just magnanimously cleared him of a charge that would have netted him six whole months in jail IF he did any time at all.

And I'm sure Mueller is busy writing up another subpoena just for Joseph Arpaio even as we speak.


Arpaio can reject the pardon
 
2017-08-26 07:38:44 PM  

qorkfiend: Gyrfalcon: enry: what_now: That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.

And he can't claim 5th amendment protection.

So then the real question is: Did Arpaio WANT to be pardoned? Because if he can now be sued for civil rights violations and cannot claim any 5th Amendment protections....he may be really f*cking pissed that Trump just magnanimously cleared him of a charge that would have netted him six whole months in jail IF he did any time at all.

And I'm sure Mueller is busy writing up another subpoena just for Joseph Arpaio even as we speak.

Arpaio can reject the pardon


That would be funny as shiat.
 
2017-08-26 07:39:10 PM  

Notabunny: Arpaio was a practice pardon for Flynn, Manafort, and Kushner.


Mueller has subpoenas on the ready for when Trump issues those pardons, as it means they've admitted guilt and can't plead the Fifth.
 
2017-08-26 07:39:48 PM  
White supremacists have to look out for each other, because no one else will.  Is that not a good enough reason?
 
2017-08-26 07:40:44 PM  

feckingmorons: RminusQ: feckingmorons: Eddie Adams from Torrance: It pains me to say this, but feckingmorons is right.

He's President, He doesn't need a reason. He has the Constitutional right to pardon as many people as he wants, whether it pisses off us liberals or not.

President Obama commuted sentences of armed felons who went out to be felons again. That pissed off a lot of law abiding people. It didn't piss me off as I've long ago given up being outraged.

Citation Fecking Needed.

Do you not have google?

Here is one, you can look up more on your own.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/10/obama-gr​anted-her-clemency-less-than-a-year-later-shes-going-back-to-prison/?u​tm_term=.13b9c002c1cd


Oh wow what a dangerous felon. A non violent offender gets 14 months for administrative violations and sixty dollars of detergent. Your right tricky history's greatest monster.
 
2017-08-26 07:41:28 PM  

dustman81: Notabunny: Arpaio was a practice pardon for Flynn, Manafort, and Kushner.

Mueller has subpoenas on the ready for when Trump issues those pardons, as it means they've admitted guilt and can't plead the Fifth.


I don't know, but I think you have to be convicted before you can be pardoned. Flynn, Manafort, and Kushner can refuse to cooperate knowing Trump has a pardon waiting for them.
 
2017-08-26 07:41:30 PM  
It's also extra classy that he waited until a national disaster struck to do it.
 
2017-08-26 07:42:00 PM  

feckingmorons: what_now: feckingmorons: RminusQ: feckingmorons: Eddie Adams from Torrance: It pains me to say this, but feckingmorons is right.

He's President, He doesn't need a reason. He has the Constitutional right to pardon as many people as he wants, whether it pisses off us liberals or not.

President Obama commuted sentences of armed felons who went out to be felons again. That pissed off a lot of law abiding people. It didn't piss me off as I've long ago given up being outraged.

Citation Fecking Needed.

Do you not have google?

Here is one, you can look up more on your own.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/10/obama-gr​anted-her-clemency-less-than-a-year-later-shes-going-back-to-prison/?u​tm_term=.13b9c002c1cd

That's a non-violent felon who was sent back to jail for non violent probation violations.

You can't just make stuff up.

Try this one then, but really can't you use a search engine? Of do you think if you don't see it it didn't happen?

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/San-Antonio-man-freed-b​y-Obama-pleads-guilty-to-11140162.php


Non violent offender arrested for a non violent offense. I am still waiting for the violent offender that Obama released.
 
2017-08-26 07:42:39 PM  
Trump doesn't have a good enough reason to breathe.
 
2017-08-26 07:42:47 PM  

wejash: feckingmorons: what_now: feckingmorons: what_now: That's nice. Now that Arpaio has accepted the blame for his crimes he can be sued for civil damages.

Yeah, who exactly will be suing him for criminal contempt of court?

The thousands and thousands of people who's civil rights he has violated.

Yeah well he was covicted of contempt of court, and really admitted to no crimes, in fact he continues to deny any criminal activity.

You can't just make things up.

Arpaio's conduct in continuing to do the thungs that gave tise to his civil contempt and then criminal contempt were clearly unconstitutional.  And he can't claim qualified immunity if he was ordered by judges to stop.

So he's potentially on the hook for a lot of money in a Sec 1983 lawsuit.  Of course Maricopa County probably eats most of the damages.

But your usual amateur lawyering is as usual worthless.


If he doesn't have qualified immunity for the incident involved in the lawsuit, doesn't that mean that the county doesn't have to pay one cent of the damages?
 
Displayed 50 of 284 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report