evil Zero already had it covered

[sharksoup]

So to save Arizona is it OK to assault a paraplegic? Let a woman's baby die for no reason? Strap people into a chair so tightly they are maimed and injured? Refuse medical treatment to someone who is in obvious distress? Place someone who is suicidal into solitary confinement with no one watching? Arrest journalists because you don't like their reporting? (that one only cost $3.75 million). Arrange a fake assassination plot against yourself to help get reelected? Spend county dollars trying to prove Obama was not born in the US? Fail to investigate rapes and sexual assaults? Feed rancid food to prisoners?  Is this idea of what constitutes law and order?

[bruce MN]

Before there had been a formal appeal.  Before there had been a sentencing. 

Not it sure that any of these cheerleaders have the slightest grasp on what actually just happened and the comfort it gives to the most ruthless.

[r3020]

He was unjustly persecuted for enforcing the law. Trump did the right thing.

[Edmund55]

(Not it sure that any of these cheerleaders have the slightest grasp on what actually just happened and the comfort it gives to the most ruthless.)

Oh quit being a drama queen Bruce, I have already stated that I did not agree with Sheriff Joe's pardon, and I like Sheriff Joe and I am aware that it was a political prosecution by the Obama administration.   The only people I see that are having a real hissy fit about this pardon are the main stream / liberal media and some alt-left folks that hate Trump + a few politicians trying to be politically correct.

I also disagreed with many pardon's by previous administration's including traitor's, murderer's and drug dealers.  Now if you would have just once disagreed with a liberal politician whom pardoned a traitor, or a drug dealer or a Marc Rich, you would have a little more credibility, instead you parrot stupid CNN statements like "comfort it gives to the most ruthless".  Pardoning Sheriff Joe is not even close to being one of the most controversial pardons ever.

[bruce MN]

Find us another, other than Ford's of Nixon, where there had not been a proper succession of legality.

Trump addressed the possibility of a pardon with Justice before the conviction. That would be with the Sessions Justice Department, which declined for strong legal reasons.

Trump has the Constitutional right to grant pardons and could let a tried, convicted Charlie Manson out if he wanted to.  But not in this manner. It's not the pardon that is the bigger issue here. 

I know now you only read and follow what you know going in will be in line with your views but it might not hurt to check in to what legal minds on the conservative side of the aisle are saying about this. 

[r3020]

He was convicted by a judge on 7-31 and granted a pardon by the president. End of story. Nothing improper. Nothing illegal.