On Wednesday, California Senator Kamala Harris issued a tweet warning President Trump not to pardon former Maricopa County, Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Harris referenced a CNN story about Trump’s speech at a Phoenix rally on Tuesday in which Trump hinted he might pardon Arpaio. Trump had asked the audience, “Do the people in this room like Sheriff Joe?” He continued, “So was Sheriff Joe convicted for doing his job? … You know what, I’ll make a prediction: I think he’s going to be just fine, OK? But I won’t do it tonight, because I don’t want to cause any controversy. But Sheriff Joe should feel good.”
In July, Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt for disregarding a federal district court order in a racial profiling case.
On August 15, Trump retweeted a post by Fox & Friends which referenced the network’s report that Trump might pardon Arpaio.
Harris thinks that Arpaio shouldn’t be pardoned because he committed a crime? As the Department of Justice notes:
Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those adjudicated in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President. In addition, the President’s pardon power extends to convictions adjudicated in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and military court-martial proceedings.
The DOJ adds that a presidential pardon is “ordinarily a sign of forgiveness and is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or release from confinement. … The power to grant pardons is vested in the President alone.”
Therefore the only question as to the legitimacy of Trump pardoning Arpaio is whether he was convicted of a federal crime, which he was.
And just where was Harris when Barack Obama pardoned over 200 people during his tenure? Nowhere to be found.
Harris should pipe down about pardons that are issued, especially since she has been guilty of over-zealous prosecution herself: in January 2015, when Harris was still California’s State Attorney General, her underling, Deputy Atty. Gen. Kevin R. Vienna, was admonished by Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, who asked whether Harris wanted to defend a conviction “obtained by lying prosecutors.” Kozinski warned that if Harris and Vienna didn’t give up the case, the court would “name names” in a ruling that would not be “very pretty.”