Lion of the Blogosphere

Ford pardoned Nixon

Just reminding people. And Ford wasn’t even elected for the job. I’ve heard so much “it’s insanely unprecedented for a President to pardon someone.” I think people have already forgotten the 1970s.

Andrew Johnson pardoned every Confederate soldier.

George Washington pardoned some people who took up armed rebellion against the new federal government (in what’s called the Whiskey Rebellion).

In comparison, Joe Arpaio’s pissing contest with the federal government over whether the states can enforce immigration laws (in my opinion Arpaio is right that the states should be allowed to enforce immigration laws) was small-time stuff. And kind of ironic: unlike past rebellions against federal law, Arpaio’s small personal administrative rebellion was in favor of enforcing federal law.

* * *

We Still Have Zero Evidence That Trump Colluded With Russia (long read, but excellent)

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 30, 2017 at 2:16 PM

Posted in Law

24 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Ford’s pardon of Nixon is usually considered a major contributing factor in his loss to Jimmy Carter in 1976.

    Mike CA

    August 30, 2017 at 2:22 PM

    • Right, that was Ford doing something was actually a big deal. This is less important than that, to wit not a big deal. But MSM can’t help itself from freaking out regardless.

      Greg Pandatshang

      August 30, 2017 at 4:11 PM

  2. “In comparison, Joe Arpaio’s pissing contest with the federal government over whether the states can enforce immigration laws (in in my opinion Arpaio is right that the states should be allowed to enforce immigration laws) was small-time stuff.”

    Joe Arpaio was convicted of disobeying a judges order to stop profiling people so he could question their immigration status. Now you and Trump might disagree with the judge’s order, but rule of law requires that you appeal ruling or ask Congress to change the law, not just ignore the court order because you don’t like it.

    Mike CA

    August 30, 2017 at 2:28 PM

    • Like I said, it was a small personal rebellion on the part of Joe Arpaio. But now he has been pardoned. Deal with it. Imagine what northerners who lost family members in the war felt about Southerners being pardoned by Johnson.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 30, 2017 at 2:43 PM

      • “Stop profiling people” is a request that is literally impossible to enforce while still doing the job of enforcing immigration law.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        August 30, 2017 at 5:00 PM

      • Your question imagines that some large percent of Northern troops were committed to the war in the first place rather than there by coercive means. There’s a reason Union Army tactics included keeping a rearguard element to shoot frontline soldiers who didn’t want to fight. A reason there were draft riots. A reason Lincoln was forced to import mercenaries from Ireland. A reason newspapers in the North were shut down. A reason letters from Northern soldiers express sympathy for their opponents. A reason political opponents were jailed.

        Northerners who lost sons during the war likely knew that Lincoln started it and that it was unnecessary.


        August 31, 2017 at 10:30 AM

    • When the DOJ is mobilized to go after a person or entity over racial issues, there is no hope that the defendant will get a fair opportunity at justice. The defendant will either be bankrupted or put in jail regardless of the merits of the case. I have no idea if Arpaio should have been in jail for actual crimes, but I do know that he didn’t have a chance at getting a fair hearing. The rule of law is a farce when it comes to high profile racial cases.


      August 30, 2017 at 4:27 PM

    • Actually, it might well be argued that any judicial order preventing law enforcement from “profiling” is itself grounds for impeachment, at least in the absence of any evidence of LE bad faith. Think about it: what if a federal judge simply ordered LE to desist from enforcing law, period? Given the danger in which that would place the public, wouldn’t that be grounds for impeachment? What difference, then, if the public’s interest in border control is to stop violent crime, as it manifestly was for Arizonans?

      Explainer 21

      August 30, 2017 at 11:07 PM

    • You might have a point if Trump had had the judge arrested, but In this situation, the law clearly gives Trump the authority to throw out Arapaio’s conviction, simply because he doesn’t like it. So you are wrong about “rule of law.”

      Perhaps more importantly, the Left cares not one bit about “rule of law,” it only cares about Rule of the Left. “Rule of Law” is simply a useful phrase to bandy about in this situation to disguise the Left’s utter lack of principles.


      August 31, 2017 at 5:44 AM

  3. Yeah, like Democrats care about the rule of law. What a joke. How about Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders where he bypassed Congress and tried to rule by decree like a third world dictator? Did Mike CA or other liberals complain about that? No, of course not, they cheered Obama on. President Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Joe is completely legal and constitutional. The constitution gives the President almost unlimited pardon power. The only exception is he can’t un-impeach himself. The Executive’s pardon power exists in part to counteract judicial or prosecutorial excesses. Which is exactly what happened here. The Obama administration and a liberal judge went after Sheriff Joe for purely political reasons, the law was abused and the President corrected that. You can cry now liberals, but it’s a done deal. No one can change it.


    August 30, 2017 at 2:57 PM

  4. What other federal laws are states and local governments not allowed to enforce? Sorry we can’t arrest or stop that bank robber or bust that cocaine smuggler that’s up to the feds.

    SEAN C

    August 30, 2017 at 3:35 PM

  5. Let’s remember that Reagan was accused of colluding with Iran to protract the embassy crisis. Nixon was accused of colluding with North Vietnam during the 1968 election to make things look bad for the Democrats. If true, those are serious acts of betraying our country’s interests for political gain. Nothing Trump has even been accused of is anywhere near that level, and yet we’re intended to believe that he is worse than Hitler, or even worse than Robert E. Lee.

    Greg Pandatshang

    August 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM

    • LOL those accusations were just yesteryear’s version of the crazy “Russian collusion” talk we’re hearing this year. Democrats simply cannot believe that Republicans can win a election fair and square, and feverishly try to delegitimize it with talk of secret deals with foreigners.

      (PS Nixon was accused of colluding with South Vietnam not North Vietnam.)


      August 30, 2017 at 11:10 PM

      • Specifically they cannot believe that Trump, who acts very prole and says things they believe are “racist,” can win an election fair and square. (Although that’s entirely inconsistent with their belief that every white person is “racist.” If every white person is “racist,” then common sense says that in a DEMOCRACY you would get a “racist” president.)

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 31, 2017 at 8:01 AM

      • To be honest, I don’t know enough to judge the merits of these accusations. All I’m saying is that they used to come up with severe accusations which would be very serious if true (and then they forgot about those accusations once their PR value was spent). This Trump-Russia stuff is a joke.

        Greg Pandatshang

        August 31, 2017 at 12:10 PM

  6. Your problem, Lion, is that you know too much. The only things Leftists know about is the liturgy of the White Man’s Sins: Crusades, Slavery, WW2, Civil Rights. Nothing else exists, nothing else matters. In some ways it’s almost admirable to be this ignorant, you don’t have to have any depth or moral complexity to your thought. Everything you love can be the best thing ever, and everything you dislike can be the worst, and you’re never required to develop maturity beyond that.

    Panther of the Blogocube

    August 30, 2017 at 5:10 PM

  7. On his last day in office, Bill Clinton pardoned convicted fugitive fraudster Marc Rich.

    …Clinton’s critics alleged that Rich’s pardon had been bought, as Denise Rich had given more than $1 million to Clinton’s political party (the Democratic Party), including more than $100,000 to the Senate campaign of the president’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and $450,000 to the Clinton Library foundation during Clinton’s time in office…

    E. Rekshun

    August 30, 2017 at 5:33 PM

  8. Your lead example out of the huge array you could pick from is the one presidential pardon widely considered to have cost the president who made it his reelection.


    August 30, 2017 at 5:43 PM

  9. and clinton pardoned marc rich after yuge campaign contributions. the msm allows democrats to be 100% corrupt.

    ron burgundy

    August 30, 2017 at 6:04 PM

  10. Trump is his own words. This why we love him.


    August 30, 2017 at 7:42 PM

  11. Carter pardoned all the draft dodgers


    August 30, 2017 at 8:12 PM

  12. Your fans want reviews of Tombstone, Brotherhood and the novel American Psycho

    Otis the Sweaty

    August 31, 2017 at 1:30 AM

    • Or how about a review of the Mila Kunis-William Shatner-Michael Kremko vehicle American Psycho 2?

      Greg Pandatshang

      August 31, 2017 at 12:15 PM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: