What You Didn’t Read About Elite’s Continuing Attack On Sheriff Joe Arpaio
By DEXTER DUGGAN
PHOENIX — Arizona’s quotable Sheriff Joe Arpaio was in national news again on April 23, but a key remark he made was buried or ignored in various reports. So, to avoid burying it now: Arpaio testified in court that a tipster said the wife of a judge overseeing the sheriff was heard to say that the judge “wanted to do everything to make sure I’m not elected.”
Defeating Arpaio would be quite a task. The popular, nationally known sheriff plans to run again after being elected to six consecutive four-year terms to head up law enforcement in a county that has grown to more than four million people, with Phoenix as county seat.
Arpaio also testified on April 23 that “I guess” the wife’s remark was checked out and was confirmed to have been made.
The Catholic sheriff, who employs a significant number of Latinos at his Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, agrees with the views of most Americans who oppose massive illegal immigration.
However, that puts Arpaio at odds with Arizona’s open-borders establishment. This includes powerful politicians, business leaders, judges, bishops, and media members determined to discourage substantial immigration enforcement, even though their state has suffered the effects of the massive unauthorized entry across its southern border.
Arpaio and his office are under stern scrutiny for contempt by U.S. District Judge Murray Snow, who’d ordered that the office stop enforcing federal immigration law. Snow started his own surprise line of questioning against Arpaio on April 23.
A Los Angeles Times story posted April 23 waited until its 18th paragraph to mention that the wife “purportedly made a comment that about [sic] the judge not wanting the sheriff to get re-elected in 2012,” even though the Times story was headlined, “At hearing, Sheriff Joe Arpaio says his lawyer investigated judge’s wife.”
Still, that was more specific than the editorial headlined “New Arpaio: Almost pitiable” that blazed forth on The Arizona Republic’s editorial page the morning of April 24. The official opinion voice of Arizona’s largest daily paper, which long has loathed Arpaio while loading its coverage against him, waited until the 16th paragraph to say this:
“On Thursday, Arpaio acknowledged Judge Snow’s wife was investigated for something she purportedly said about the sheriff in a restaurant.”
And that was it. Didn’t the Republic editorial writer know very well that the wife was purported to have said her own husband the judge wanted to prevent Arpaio’s re-election? It was a startling remark that, if true, should serve to remove Snow from the case.
But the seething editorial said not a word about this, even though it used graphic words to express its contempt for the sheriff — his case “is enough to make one’s skin crawl,” “breathtaking indifference,” “show-stopping testimony,” “chasing down and harassing Hispanic people,” “self-delusion,” “harass,” “his own claptrap,” “pathos,” and “almost pitiable.”
Meanwhile, stretched all the way across the top of the same day’s Republic front page was the headline, “Arpaio: Judge’s wife targeted.” The story began by referring to the “bombshell” revelation of the investigation of the wife. Not until the story’s ninth paragraph did one read that Arpaio said he received a tip that Snow’s wife said the judge wanted to prevent his re-election.
It would have more accurate if that banner headline had said, “Arpaio: I was targeted,” but that wouldn’t have served the Republic’s propaganda purpose.
Despite some media attempts to make it sound as if Arpaio had ordered broad snooping against Snow’s wife or family for vindictive reasons, the topic mentioned in court was whether the wife made that particular damaging comment about her husband. Serious judicial bias is no minor matter.
The tenth paragraph of the Republic news story said Arpaio said his counsel hired a private investigator to look into this matter. Then, the 11th paragraph in its entirety:
“ ‘Results confirmed that your wife was in that restaurant,’ Arpaio told Snow. ‘I guess (the investigator) talked to the witness, confirmed that that remark was made’.”
What would any law-enforcement officer be expected to do with such a grave assertion? Ignore it? It would have to be looked into, just as if, for instance, someone said a juror on some ongoing case already made up his mind about a defendant despite the evidence, or was taking a payoff to deliver a certain verdict.
Snow’s wife may have been mistaken in her thinking, but she probably knows her husband better than most other people. The Republic news coverage chased down blind alleys but didn’t show interest in determining the truth of this assertion about Snow’s partiality.
The article noted that back in 2009, another federal judge, Mary Murguia, recused herself after Arpaio’s office complained of statements her twin sister, Janet Murguia, “had made in her role as leader of a national Latino-rights group.” That would be the leftist, open-borders National Council of La Raza. Maybe it’s time for that judge’s successor, Snow, to recuse himself.
Arpaio’s media office didn’t respond to four requests by The Wanderer asking, “If this remark by the judge’s wife was confirmed, does the sheriff have any plans to seek a recusal or anything else against the judge remaining on the case?” Then, just past deadline, an Arpaio spokesman said this newspaper should contact an attorney for the sheriff.
