Quantcast
Connect with us

Judge rules ex-Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt

Published

on

Former Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio, who gained national prominence for his tough stance against illegal immigration, was found guilty on Monday of criminal contempt for violating the terms of a 2011 court order in a racial profiling case.

Arpaio, 85, who lost his bid for re-election as Maricopa County sheriff last November after 24 years in office, faces a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a fine when he is sentenced on the misdemeanor offense on Oct. 5.

ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton ruled on Monday that Arpaio “willfully violated” the order.

Arpaio declined to comment immediately on Monday, adding he was trying to reach his attorney.

Bolton delivered her verdict more than four weeks after the conclusion of a five-day non-jury trial in which Arpaio stood accused of deliberately violating the injunction issued six years ago by another federal judge.

Bolton found Arpaio guilty of contempt for intentionally defying the 2011 court order, which barred his officers from stopping and detaining Latino motorists who were singled out solely on suspicion that they were in the country illegally.

The judge in the underlying lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and others in 2007, held that such traffic stops were a violation of the motorists’ constitutional rights.

ADVERTISEMENT

But federal prosecutors said racial profiling of Latino drivers continued for about 18 months after the injunction ordered a halt to the practice, with 170 more people wrongfully detained.

Lawyers for Arpaio, a Republican who styled himself as “America’s toughest sheriff” for his no-nonsense treatment of jail inmates and aggressive crackdown on undocumented immigrants, argued during his trial that he was merely doing his job.

Arpaio admitted to having inadvertently disobeyed the 2011 injunction but said his behavior did not meet a criminal standard. He said the contempt prosecution was a politically motivated attempt by then-President Barack Obama’s administration to undermine his re-election bid.

ADVERTISEMENT

The former sheriff attended all the court proceedings against him but never took the witness stand in his own defense.

Arpaio already had been cited for civil contempt by another judge in the profiling case. That judge found that his deputies did commit racial profiling during the stops.

ADVERTISEMENT

(Editing by Bernadette Baum)


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s undermining of efforts to fight Putin detailed in ex-CIA agent’s disturbing new column

Published

on

A recently retired CIA agent reveals that President Donald Trump was a "wild card" that prevented a full-scale effort to combat Russian aggression against the U.S. and its allies.

Marc Polymeropoulos, who retired from the agency in June, said in column posted at Just Security that the CIA issued an informal "call to arms" in the wake of Kremlin interference in the 2016 election, but those efforts were hampered by Trump's relationship with Russia's president Vladimir Putin.

"The Call to Arms required a whole-of-agency effort to counter the Kremlin," Polymeropoulos wrote. "It involved moving resources and personnel inside CIA. Most importantly, it required a change in mindset, similar to what occurred within the Intelligence Community after 9/11, that an 'all-hands-on-deck' approach was required."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s ‘illegal payments’ under scrutiny as House conducts second probe running parallel to impeachment

Published

on

According to a report from Politico, some House Democrats are disappointed that Donald Trump's violations of the emoluments clause does not appear to have a future as part of the articles of impeachment against the president, so they are continuing on with their own ongoing investigation with the hope it may be added at a later time.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

What would the GOP do if Trump actually shot someone? A former government ethics chief explains

Published

on

President Donald Trump infamously said in 2016 that his supporters were so loyal that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose any support.

Walter Shaub, who served as chief of the Government Ethics Office under former President Barack Obama, hilariously imagined how elected Republicans would react if Trump actually did shoot someone on 5th Avenue.

"It was indecorous of the president to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue," Shaub said, imagining a scripted GOP response. "I would have preferred he not do that. In the strongest possible terms, I add that I find it to be generally inconsistent with the higher aims of responsible governance. And you can quote me on that."

Continue Reading