Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Senator Kamala Harris Doesn’t Know How a Pardon Works

    Senator Kamala Harris Doesn’t Know How a Pardon Works

    “Joe Arpaio was convicted because he committed a crime. He should not be pardoned.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rshx1U9JgZM

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     6
    inspectorudy | August 25, 2017 at 2:33 pm

    What about the drug dealing scum that jug ears pardoned? For this moron to not see any issue with pardoning drug selling thugs but to go after a law officer who was using every means he could to control the illegal invasion has to be convicted and jailed? No wonder California is as screwed up as it is. She was their AG! I am still fuming over the way she treated Jeff Sessions in his confirmation hearing. She treated him like he was a street thug who was about to be convicted. This idiot has no class or common sense.


     
     0 
     
     3
    tom swift | August 25, 2017 at 3:53 pm

    Harris is no blinding spark of intellectual light, but she’s not so dumb that she doesn’t know what a pardon is.

    This is just another brick in the Democratic plan to associate Trump with foreigners, criminals, boogey-men and assorted ne’er-do-wells in the minds of the militantly unreflective. When one of the dimmer voters hears “Trump” they want him to think “The Russians!” or “The Nazis!” or, now, “Convicted criminals!”. Not a terribly clever trick, nor a new one—they put great faith in a similar bit of Pavlovian response before the election, hoping that voters would equate Trump with an imaginary “War on Women!”—but they’ll keep at it because it’s pretty much all they have.

    Krazy Kamala: and this hysteric was attorney general of California. Imagine?

    Re today’s “arguing with a troll” count – and remembering that when you argue with a fool, you then have two fools arguing – we have 9 fools today, including the troll.


     
     0 
     
     0
    inspectorudy | August 25, 2017 at 4:58 pm

    A new name perhaps? Kamala Kazi!


       
       0 
       
       1
      Anchovy in reply to inspectorudy. | August 25, 2017 at 5:25 pm

      I like Karamel Kolored Harris. This babe is half Indian (dot not feather) and part Jamaican. She was raised by a doctor and a professor. No real street black experience. At most she is about 1/4 black and none of that has anything to do with American blacks.

      So why does everybody keep calling her black? Are we back to the one drop theory? How can any American black identify with her? She has no street creds.


         
         0 
         
         2
        alaskabob in reply to Anchovy. | August 25, 2017 at 7:27 pm

        Because she is more of a person of “color” than American Blacks who have more “white” blood in them than she.

        The irony is that “people of color” coming to the USA have better success…. which if there was true racism couldn’t be.


           
           0 
           
           1
          Walker Evans in reply to alaskabob. | August 25, 2017 at 10:26 pm

          That’s because the immigrants haven’t had the Democrats pounding it into their heads for decades that they are “victims”. Since no one has inculcated them with victim-hood they go ahead and succeed; they just don’t know any better!

    Kamala Harris is a nearly direct result of affirmative action and Democrat kneepads. This is the future?!?


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend