Another week, and another issue for the Media to use to bash Donald Trump.  For 8 years, the Media worshiped at the feet of Il Duce Obama, a chief executive who regularly exceeded his constitutional authority.  They found no fault with that.  Last week, when Donald Trump exercised his wholly constitutional authority to pardon Joe Arpaio, they lost their minds.  The former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona was convicted of misdemeanor criminal contempt for disobeying a court order.  The Sheriff had continued to detain suspected illegal aliens after the Obama Administration decided to stop enforcing immigration law, and the court told him to stop.  The Obama “Justice” Department, in the person of Attorney General Eric Holder (remember that name), went after Arpaio for years.  When Holder left the Justice Department and returned to the Covington and Burling law firm, that firm took over the civil case against Arpaio.  The Media never questioned this blatant conflict of interest.  Anyway, Arpaio was convicted by the judge and faced 6 months in jail.  Trump issued Arpaio a pardon, and the Media howled.  It’s not surprising.  The Left only approves when the federal government does things that the Constitution doesn’t permit it to do.  The power of a president to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States” is part of Article II of the Constitution.  In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that, “A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.”  In 1927, the Supreme Court wrote that a pardon “is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment [of the court] fixed.”  The Constitution makes the President the ultimate authority.  The first pardon was issued by George Washington.  But when Trump did it, the Left cried foul.  They said, “sure, Trump can do it, but he didn’t do it right.” (Am I the only one getting tired of that old song?)  Several complaints were voiced.  “Trump didn’t wait for Arpaio to be sentenced.”  In 1855 and in 1866, the Supreme Court ruled that a pardon may be granted before sentence, indeed it may be issued at any time after the commission of the crime.  “Okay, but Trump didn’t ask the Justice Department to investigate Arpaio’s case before issuing the pardon.”  Two things.  First, since the Senate has neglected to confirm hundreds of Trump appointees, what sense would it make to have an Obama holdover, who worked for the agency prosecuting civil and criminal matters against Arpaio, in the decision chain?  And since they had already spent some 7 years investigating Arpaio, what new investigation was necessary?  Secondly, there is ample precedent for the issuance of pardons without such investigation.  George Washington granted amnesty to those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion, Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson did the same for Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War, and Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to Vietnam-era draft evaders.  These were blanket pardons, issued without even the names of those to be pardoned being disclosed.  “Well, yes, but this pardon of Arpaio was different.  This wasn’t an ordinary crime.”  Arpaio disobeyed a federal court order, making this pardon “extraordinary” according to The Atlantic, editor Garret Epps, who questioned, “How Will the Supreme Court Respond to the Arpaio Pardon?”  Mr. Epps, we are told, teaches constitutional law.  Let me help you Professor, the Supreme Court will understand, because in 1925, the Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice (formerly President) Taft, settled that question.  It seems that in 1921, one Philip Grossman was convicted of criminal contempt for violating a federal court injunction.  Grossman was sentenced to a year in jail, but was pardoned by President Coolidge.  The federal judge ordered Grossman imprisoned despite the pardon, which he considered to be an infringement on the power of the judiciary by the executive branch.  The Supreme Court set Grossman free, ruling that a President has the power to pardon for criminal contempts, whether punishment is imposed by a court or a jury.  Chief Justice Taft noted that pardons for criminal contempts of federal courts had been issued 27 times between 1840 and 1925.  The Court stated that, “Executive clemency exists to afford relief from undue harshness or evident mistake in the operation or enforcement of the criminal law.  The administration of justice by the courts is not necessarily always wise or certainly considerate of circumstances which may properly mitigate guilt.”  That’s what Trump had in mind in the Arpaio case.  But wait, Eric Holder isn’t satisfied with Donald Trump’s one and only pardon, of an 85 year old man who faithfully served law enforcement for more than 50 years.  His President (Obama), issued 212 pardons and commuted 1,385 sentences, just edging out the President in second place, fellow Socialist Woodrow Wilson.  Think disobeying a federal judge is a heinous offense?  Obama released Oscar Lopez Rivera, a convicted terrorist who led a Marxist-Leninist militant group that committed more than 100 bombings in the U.S. and were responsible for many deaths.  Now, while I don’t advocate disobeying a judge’s order, let me note that “Thou Shall not Kill” came down with Moses from Mount Sinai, and Holder had no problem pardoning a killer.  Most of Obama’s pardons and commutations were for drug dealers, whose sentences Obama considered too harsh.  I guess Obama understood Chief Justice Taft’s opinion in the Grossman case.  The Arpaio pardon has been denounced as political, and that may be so, but so what?  At least there’s no allegation that Joe Arpaio bought his pardon.  Let’s return to the year 2001, when that same Eric Holder engineered President Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich.  Rich was a Democrat contributor, charged with mail fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion, and racketeering.  He fled to Switzerland.  Rich was rich, so he paid a lawyer $400,000 to take his pardon application to then Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder.  It seems that Rich’s wife had donated $450,000 to the Clinton library and $10,000 to Bill Clinton’s legal defense fund, so Holder got Rich his pardon.  Justice Department pardon counsel wasn’t consulted, as he might have questioned the issuance of a pardon to a fugitive from justice.  Have a problem with the Arpaio pardon?  Well, pardon me.