“Joe Arpaio was convicted because he committed a crime. He should not be pardoned.”
Progressives and #NeverTrumpers across the nation shriek that President Donald Trump should stop tweeting.
In fact, former undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson wants to crowdfund enough money to buy Twitter so she can close President Donald Trump’s account.
However, someone should really tell California Senator Kamala Harris to take a break from Twitter herself. For instance, her latest legal opinion of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio possibly receiving a pardon from President Trump is a little thin on logic and reason.
Joe Arpaio was convicted because he committed a crime. He should not be pardoned. https://t.co/YGvQkK6Kae
— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) August 23, 2017
The President of the United States is allowed to issue a pardon under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment”. That means in order to obtain one, you have to have broken the law or likely to be convicted of doing so.
I’m not the only one who noticed the glaring non sequitor.
You don’t need a pardon if you haven’t been convicted. pic.twitter.com/MWipShfLyr
— Krystle Schoonveld (@TarheelKrystle) August 24, 2017
Did you tell this to Pres Obama who pardoned people who committed crimes? Hypocrisy.
— ASov (@AndreaSovich) August 23, 2017
Seriously, you're a Senator? If he wasn't convicted of a crime, or likely to be convicted, he wouldn't need a pardon. #DrainTheSwamp
— Michael A. Michail (@RealMikeMichail) August 24, 2017
In The Washington Times, Philip Wegmann offers an alternative explanation for the Harris tweet.
...[M]aybe Harris is just a legal monster. Sure, she might not oppose all pardons but as the Golden State's top cop, she certainly didn't mind breaking protocol to bolster her office's conviction record. At least that seems to be the opinion of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Two years ago that court refused to uphold a murder conviction in a case that the attorney general's office won previously using false evidence. Judge Alex Kozinski warned Harris to give up on the conviction "obtained by lying prosecutors." And if she didn't, he promised that the court would begin to "name names" and the result would "not be pretty."
Gearing up for her run for the Senate, Harris relented. But that episode encapsulates perfectly why pardons and clemency are necessary. So long as there are ambitious prosecutors such as Harris, convictions will continue to be flawed and sentences needlessly harsh.
Wegmann notes that Harris may be sloppy and ambitious. However, since she berated Justice Neil Gorsuch because he rules based on law and not feelings, the recent tweet seems consisted with her approach to law: Heavy on emotion and light on logic and reason.
Someone should really stage a Twitter intervention for Harris soon.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.