I have not followed the trial but I know how the progressives and their pet judges work the legal system. I think that the key point made in the article was this:
“He faced repeated civil-rights complaints for immigration crackdowns, and was ordered to halt traffic stops that critics said amounted to illegal racial profiling and unconstitutional searches. A judge ruled that he failed to comply with that order, resulting in the misdemeanor contempt conviction.”Notice that it is a “misdemeanor contempt conviction”. The judge ordered him to stop doing his job and then threw the book at him. I realize that is simplistic but so is their version of justice. My opinion is reinforced by the way the ACLU criticized the idea of a pardon. That is what the pardon is for, counteracting convictions by corrupt political machines. It is not for rewarding contributors to your campaign as Clinton did.
homo unius libri
I liked the guy and am for the pardon. My wife thinks he's a horrible fellow. Such is marriage.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if that is one of those differences between men and women that are not supposed to exist.
DeleteGrace and peace