To me, it’s a yawner, sorry. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a patriot. He tried to enforce existing border law. He stepped on some judge’s order and was then targeted for prosecution by the Obama administration. He was found guilty, under the letter of the law. The Constitution lets the President pardon people. Some lefties are calling it the end of the Constitution, that President Trump would have pardoned Arpaio; but it’s the usual misleading hyperbole. In reality, the whole thing from start to finish is an exercise of the Constitution.

Here’s video of former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (a clean government guy) making the point (among others) that President Obama pardoned or commuted the sentences of 1700 people, from drug dealers to forgers to the traitorous Chelsea Manning.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SidClrFCjlI[/youtube]

UPDATE: Who can forget Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich? By any objective standard, Arpaio deserves his pardon more than Rich or Manning.

Which is what makes it so boring. The Left gins up non-controversy #1,388,544,877 over a pardon as reasonable/constitutional as any.

UPDATE: Our intrepid commenters point out other matters where Arpaio might deserve prosecution. I could be fine with that. Operative word, “other”.

In this post, I’m discussing the one contempt-of-court charge. I assumed that Trump’s pardon was tailored to that. I looked for the actual text of the pardon and didn’t find it. But I think it would have to be (since conviction comes before pardon).