Main Menu

Arpaio conspiracy disproven

Conspiracy theories swirled when the US Justice Department announced that it had ended it’s criminal investigation of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Some birthers thought that Arpaio had cut a deal, a quid pro quo to end his birther investigation of Obama. The idea that the Justice Department would make such a loony deal is absurd.

Now it’s official. Sheriff Joe’s gonna keep on birthin’, reports WorldNetDaily in its article: “Sheriff Joe won’t abandon Obama probe”.

9 Responses to Arpaio conspiracy disproven

  1. avatar
    BillTheCat September 4, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    Grifters gotta grift.

  2. avatar
    Bernard September 4, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

    Crazy Joe could have done Obama more damage if he dropped his birfer crusade simultaneous with the DOJ decision. If he had done so, it would have, to many (or most) people, LOOKED as if a deal had been struck so that the his birfer campaign was terribly important to the Administration and was the sole reason for the criminal investigation.

    But since he continued his campaign we can see that it’s not important to the Obama Administration and the DOJ’s decision was entirely separate and the criminal accusations were seriously raised and not merely political fencing.

  3. avatar
    G September 4, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    But of course Arpaio isn’t done with his dog-and-pony show here… the election hasn’t taken place yet, so his WND handlers’ still need to press on with their lame Swift Boating scheme…

  4. avatar
    Paul September 4, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

    The DOJ case would have been nearly impossible to prove to a jury. The charges involved potential misuse of county-issued credit cards.

    A financial case like this is damn near impossible to prosecute. Without knowing the particulars of the charges, I would imagine this would involve a lot of small transactions, probably charged for personal items like meals. And it would be relatively easy to explain them away (or at least muddy the water in the eyes of the jury) by explaining that they were related to county sherrif work. Hell, even charges at a strip club could be attributed to undercover cases.

    A town near me recently has dealt with a similar situation — a city manager was using city accounts as a sort of personal slush fund. She was taking money out and paying it back as needed, and because many of the charges fell into gray areas of “official duties,” it would be a hard case to prosecute.

    And then she dipped into a fund earmarked for the town’s senior center, and spent the money on fancy underwear and travel to a hotel where the police chief of a different suburb was attending a conference. Boom. Unless you got something obvious like that going on, it’s a bitch to get to stick.

  5. avatar
    James M September 4, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    Paul:
    The DOJ case would have been nearly impossible to prove to a jury. The charges involved potential misuse of county-issued credit cards.

    A financial case like this is damn near impossible to prosecute. Without knowing the particulars of the charges, I would imagine this would involve a lot of small transactions, probably charged for personal items like meals. And it would be relatively easy to explain them away (or at least muddy the water in the eyes of the jury) by explaining that they were related to county sherrif work. Hell, even charges at a strip club could be attributed to undercover cases.

    A town near me recently has dealt with a similar situation — a city manager was using city accounts as a sort of personal slush fund. She was taking money out and paying it back as needed, and because many of the charges fell into gray areas of “official duties,” it would be a hard case to prosecute.

    And then she dipped into a fund earmarked for the town’s senior center, and spent the money on fancy underwear and travel to a hotel where the police chief of a different suburb was attending a conference. Boom. Unless you got something obvious like that going on, it’s a bitch to get to stick.

    I’m trying to picture underwear that is fancy enough to be price equivalent to even the most squalid of “senior centers.”

  6. avatar
    MN-Skeptic September 5, 2012 at 12:00 am #

    Didn’t you hear? The agreement was not that Arpaio had to stop his investigation. It was that he had to agree to never testify for Orly. (Feel free to share that revelation with Orly.)

  7. avatar
    Sudoku September 5, 2012 at 12:45 am #

    I agree, but then, like a moth to a flame, he just cannot resist the limelight.

    Bernard: Crazy Joe could have done Obama more damage if he dropped his birfer crusade simultaneous with the DOJ decision.

  8. avatar
    G September 5, 2012 at 2:15 am #

    That too…

    Sudoku: I agree, but then, like a moth to a flame, he just cannot resist the limelight.

  9. avatar
    The Magic M September 5, 2012 at 8:16 am #

    Bernard: If he had done so, it would have, to many (or most) people, LOOKED as if a deal had been struck so that the his birfer campaign was terribly important to the Administration and was the sole reason for the criminal investigation.

    Still, at this point, I doubt anything related to Arpaio would have any influence on the elections. All your scenario would’ve brought would’ve been another case of “Arpaio makes a claim that nobody outside the fringe believes”. (Since you can bet your bottom dollar no-one in the GOP would’ve jumped on the issue.)