xml:space="preserve">
xml:space="preserve">
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sheriff Joe's Questionable conviction

We Sun readers know the editors have penchant for reporting alternative facts. The problem is when they omit reporting of certain facts that could complete the story. With regard to the president's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio ("Trump defends Arpaio pardon, says timing during hurricane was for better ratings" Aug. 28), there are some clear issues about the process of his conviction. First of all the judge that ultimately referred the case to the Obama Department of Justice should have recused himself since his brother-in-law was a member of the prosecution and such conflicts are covered by appropriate statute which was rejected and reportedly illegally waived. Once the Obama DOJ took over with a Clinton-appointed judge, the deck was stacked against Mr. Arpaio as the criminal complaint was downgraded to a misdemeanor, meaning any jail time would be six months or less. How convenient as this meant the sheriff's fate would be in the hands of a liberal-minded federal judge. Sheriff Arpaio sought a trial by jury of his peers and while the judge had the option of granting one, she denied his request. It is painfully obvious that President Obama and his DOJ were not enamored with Mr. Arpaio.

Sheriff Arpaio might never have been put into such a position had the government strictly enforced an immigration law that was incidentally signed into law by Bill Clinton. Chief Justice John Roberts stated in defense of much detested Obamacare that "Congress did not make laws to fail." If that premise applies to one unpopular law, it should apply to all. Sheriff Joe was just doing his part to prevent that failure.

Advertisement

Michael V. Ernest, Catonsville

Send letters to the editor to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement