Holder gunning for Sheriff Joe

[Verily]

A colossal waste of time and money and a classic case of thuggery on the part of Holder

Does hating Sheriff Joe justify the cost of this?

Yes. Arpaio's antics, in addition to being unconstitutional and immoral, also contribute to higher crime rates in Phoenix and deprive the entire county of proper and effective law enforcement.

[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?

Arpaio is breaking laws left and right, and in serious ways. He's a sheriff, he doesn't get to make policy or overrule constitutional guarantees. But the people he's going after, he's nailing with trumped up charges purely to harass them and they always get thrown out of court.

Ok, and what I'm asking is, do you feel they're going after him on merit, or because they just hate the guy?  I feel it's the later, personally.

You guys forget my overall disdain for law enforcement (the feds especially), but just overall disdain.  I think they're all thugs.

So... they shouldn't go after him for breaking laws and being a menace to society simply because they also dislike him? Frankly, anyone who doesn't dislike Arpaio scares me a little. But it sounds like you're the one with the biased perspective.

[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?

Arpaio is breaking laws left and right, and in serious ways. He's a sheriff, he doesn't get to make policy or overrule constitutional guarantees. But the people he's going after, he's nailing with trumped up charges purely to harass them and they always get thrown out of court.

Ok, and what I'm asking is, do you feel they're going after him on merit, or because they just hate the guy?  I feel it's the later, personally.

You guys forget my overall disdain for law enforcement (the feds especially), but just overall disdain.  I think they're all thugs.

So... they shouldn't go after him for breaking laws and being a menace to society simply because they also dislike him? Frankly, anyone who doesn't dislike Arpaio scares me a little. But it sounds like you're the one with the biased perspective.

Perhaps, Verily, perhaps.  I still think the level of assualt against him by the Justice Department is interesting, given that he's held the job since the dawn of man.

Well, yeah, the Bush administration never went after him because it would have destroyed their popularity in Arizona. (And Clinton before him, too, although Arpaio was not as bad back then.) Arizona politicians cater to his every whim or they lose reelection (or represent the few communities that oppose him).

He's gotten away with scummy behavior for so long because no one had the political guts to do what the Justice Department is doing now. If anything, the political persecution is against those who oppose him.

[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.