Donald Trump, the Great Uniter, bridged the gap between sports labor and management on Friday night with his comments about the NFL in Alabama.  At a campaign event for a Senate candidate, the President commented on the football players who refused to stand during the national anthem, saying, “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, say: ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now.  Out.  He’s fired!’”  NFL ratings are way down of late, for the reasons I mentioned in Frank on Friday two weeks ago, namely, when fans turn on the game, they want to hear about football, not social problems or protests.  Former 49’ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick started the national anthem protest stating, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”  Before Trump’s comments, about five players continued the protest.  After the Trump comments, entire teams knelt or locked arms.  The Pittsburgh Steelers didn’t come out for the anthem at all, giving the ultimate middle finger to military veterans, and at Chicago’s Soldier Field no less.  The sports media immediately went into knee-jerk liberal mode.  ESPN’s Howard Bryant spewed, “it’s a 70 percent black league.  This is an issue that’s very important to them.  There’s a quarterback named Colin Kaepernick who this league still did not hire and still has not even brought in for a tryout.  I think.”  Uh, where do I begin?  It’s very important to the players?  See above.  It was an isolated issue until Trump weighed in.  Kaepernick hasn’t even got a tryout, you think?  Think again.  Ray Lewis had the Baltimore Ravens ready to hire Kaepernick, until his girlfriend posted a photo of Lewis hugging the team’s white owner, and compared it to a slave hugging his master.  MSNBC was predictable.  “Donald Trump may be the American President (may be?), but he doesn’t understand the importance of American values — particularly freedom of expression, pluralism and tolerance.  In fact, he is a threat to them.”  Really?  Perhaps someone can tell me, what do liberals tolerate?  And Trump also enjoys freedom of expression; the 1st Amendment isn’t just for left-wing nuts.  NFL players took to Twitter to fight back against the President.  Washington Redskins linebacker Zach Brown tweeted, “Trump stay in ur place… football have nothing to do wit u.,”  Even basketball players got into he act.  The owners also distanced themselves from Trump, “Comments like we heard last night from the president are inappropriate, offensive and divisive.”  Two forces are at work here.  The Left’s hatred of Trump, and the owners’ love of money.  The hatred of Trump is the factor driving the athletes and the media.  Had Trump demanded that they kneel, they would have stood at attention just to prove they could.  What rebels.  I must say though that I do agree with Zach Brown to some extent. His advice, less the fractured grammar, which I will attribute charitably to the constraints of Twitter, is good advice – for the players.  “Stay in your place.”  Like it or not, Donald Trump was in his rightful place.  You players are performers.  Your place is on the field playing the game for which you are so richly compensated.  And don’t give me the 1st Amendment, freedom of expression line, because it doesn’t apply.  An employee has a right to stand on his soapbox and spout any position he wishes to spout, on his time, in an appropriate place, and in an appropriate manner.  There is no right to make a spectacle at your place of business, on your employer’s time.  Let me take a stab at Freedom of Expression for Dummies (a/k/a/ Liberals).  You run a health food and cannabis store in Denver.  You are fervently pro-choice.  Some of your employees decide to hold a pro-life protest in your store, and they call in the local TV station to broadcast it.  Do you say, “well, they’re just exercising their freedom of expression,” or do you shut it down and fire them?  You know the answer.  The owners?  That’s a different story.  Simply put, they’re scared.  Like the GEICO commercials say, “In this media culture, you disagree with Donald Trump, it’s what you do.”  The owners are painfully aware that more than 70% of their employees are black, and they rightfully don’t wish to antagonize them, but encouraging this protest, should it continue, is dangerous.  First of all, players making $1 million a year may not be the best spokesmen for the oppression of people of color in America, even if their cause is just.  Secondly, remember, this is the NFL, The No Fun League.  The League whose own rules prevented the Dallas Cowboys from wearing a decal on their helmets honoring five murdered police officers; the league that stopped Titans linebacker Avery Williamson from honoring 9/11 victims by wearing cleats that read “9-11/01” and “Never Forget;” the league that fined Robert Griffin III $10,000 for wearing a shirt during a press conference that said “Operation Patience” because the shirt was made by Reebok and the league contract is with Nike; the league that prohibited Griffin from wearing a shirt that said “Know Jesus, Know Peace;” the league that fines players for wearing non-regulation socks.  The NFL Operations Manual is clear and sensible on this issue.  “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking.  It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country.  Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline … for violations of the above, including first offenses.”  The league’s not handing down discipline for last week though.  The owners are thinking about their pocket books, not civil rights.  And they are walking a tightrope between their players on one side and pissed-off fans turning off their games on the other.  They took the easy way out.  Tell Trump he’s wrong.  Their statement put me in mind of a line from the movie Network, “You have meddled with the primal forces of nature Mr. Trump, and you will atone!”  For the owners, the primal force of nature is their cash-flow.  The players should take heed of this force as well.  Their pay is based on 55% of all revenue.  If league revenue declines, their new contracts get cut.  Let’s see how important they think this issue is when they have to pay for it.

Hillary Clinton is out and about trying to sell her latest book, What Happened.  As I say, this is just the latest book from Hillary.  She was paid millions for the one she published after she left the White House in 2001.  I remember walking into a book store back then (remember bookstores?) which had stacks of her book on each side of the door and musing, “Gee, I didn’t know you could pile bullshit that high?”  Well, she now has her doctorate, because she’s managed to pile it even higher and deeper.  What Happened is Hillary’s explanation for why she lost the 2016 election.  Her explanation put me in mind of a line from the movie Presumed Innocent.  In it, Harrison Ford’s character says, “I am a prosecutor.  I have spent my life in the assignment of blame.”  Hillary never was a prosecutor, but she now seems to have dedicated her life to the assignment of blame.  Here is a short list of the people and things that Hillary has blamed for her election loss – so far:  The FBI, James Comey, The Russians, Vladimir Putin, Anti-American Forces, Low Information Voters, Everyone who assumed she’d win, Bad polling numbers, Obama, for winning two terms, People wanting change, Misogynists, Suburban women, The New York Times, Television executives, Cable news, Netflix, Democrats not making the right documentaries, Facebook, Twitter, Wikileaks, Fake news, Content farms in Macedonia, The Republican Party, The Democratic Party, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Jill Stein, and Bernie Sanders.  Let’s examine some of Hillary’s excuses.  For the sake of the reader, I will endeavor to translate Hillary’s dialect (Hillarese?) into plain English.  1) Russian interference through either a disinformation campaign via WikiLeaks or Trump-Russia collusion.  She’s also pointed blame at Russian President Vladimir Putin, “What Putin wanted to do was…influence our election, and he’s not exactly fond of strong women, so you add that together and that’s pretty much what it means.”  Translation – blame something on which there is no evidence, and which can never be proven or disproven.   And she’s complaining about Russian disinformation?  Plus, Putin feared Hillary?  Sure.  2) The DNC: “I’m now the nominee of the Democratic Party.  I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party.  It was bankrupt…I had to inject money into it – the DNC – to keep it going.” Translation – Obama ran the DNC into the ground by raising money for his own slush fund (OFA) instead of the DNC.  Plus, when a business has a product the public doesn’t want, it goes bankrupt.  No surprise.  3) Bernie Sanders: “His attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election.”  Translation – “I can’t stand up to any competition.”  4)  Wikileaks: “The Comey letter, aided to great measure by the Russian WikiLeaks, raised…doubts again.  And so even though I won the popular vote, enough people in a few states…were just raising all these questions.”  Translation- The truth leaked out, and voters noticed.  Also, the electoral college was to blame, which means, the Constitution was to blame.  The popular vote?  Here’s an inconvenient truth.  Hillary got 2,868,691 more votes than Trump.  But she got a plurality of 3,365,054 votes from New York City and Los Angeles alone.  So, by her own argument, maybe Hillary should be the Mayor of New York or the Alcalde of Los Angeles, but not President.  5) Political journalists: “[Journalists] helped elect Trump, providing him free airtime to giving my emails three times more coverage than all the issues affecting people’s lives combined.”  Translation – The truth leaked out, and the media favored Trump.  Really?  6) Campaign financing: “You had Citizens United come to its full fruition.  So unaccountable money flowing in against me, in a way that we hadn’t seen and then attached to this weaponized information war.”  Translation – The other side fought back.  That’s not fair.  In any case, Hillary spent twice as much as Trump.  7)  Her traditional campaign.  “I was running a traditional presidential campaign…while Trump was running a reality TV show that expertly and relentlessly stoked Americans’ anger and resentment.”  Translation – He had a message and was interesting, I had no message and was boring.  8) The debate questions helped Trump.  “I was waiting for the moment when one of the people asking the questions would have said, ‘Well, so, exactly how are you going to create more jobs?'”  Translation – The media favored Trump over me.  (Really?).     9) President Obama: “I do wonder sometimes about what would have happened if President Obama had made a televised address to the nation…warning that our democracy was under attack. Maybe more Americans would have woken up to the threat in time.”  Translation – Huh?  Obama should have warned us about who?  Putin or Trump?  10) Low-information voters: “You put yourself in the position of a low-information voter, and all of a sudden your Facebook feed, your Twitter account is [posting negative information about my campaign.]”  Translation – The truth got out.  When the voters get the facts, Democrats can’t win.  11) James Comey: “The determining factor was the intervention by Comey on October 28…but for that intervention, I would have won.”  Translation – “If Comey hadn’t reminded voters that I was corrupt, I might have pulled off this scam.”  12) Women under pressure from men: “They will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl.'”  Translation – Really?  Liberals never tire of lecturing us about stereotypes.  Hillary’s painting all men with a pretty broad brush here.  What an insult.  13)  TV coverage of the campaign: “When you have a presidential campaign and the total number of minutes on TV news…was 32 minutes, I don’t blame voters.  Voters are going to hear what they hear…and if they don’t get a broad base of information to make judgements on.”  Translation – The media favored Trump over me.  Whew!  14) Bad polling.  Translation – “The team I hired to do polling screwed up.  I hired them, but it’s their fault.”  15) Sexism and misogyny: “Sexism and misogyny played a role in the 2016 presidential election.  Exhibit A is that the flagrantly sexist candidate won.”  Translation – “Any voter who voted for a man instead of me is sexist and misogynistic.”  Hillary, the real reason for your loss is staring you in the face.  Just look in the mirror.

Pro football is, or has been, my favorite sport.  Lately however, it is getting harder even for me to watch this stuff.  The NFL has been a virtual money machine, but a couple of years ago things began to change.  The NFL, which had been a refuge from the press of everyday problems, became the focus of those problems.  The teams are not responsible.  The NFL is suffering because it has come under the scrutiny of an ever more left-leaning media.  The coverage of the NFL has became about subjects other than football.  The league seemed immune from the problem, but last year reports of low ratings for NFL games made the problems too big to ignore.  Now it was serious.  The television contracts are coming up for renewal.  Some advertisers dropped their ads, while others balked at paying exorbitant prices for NFL commercials.  Excuses were made.  The ratings were down because the country was distracted by the presidential election.  Not likely.  Once the election was over the ratings didn’t rebound.  I’ve long believed that, during a game, the average NFL fan is wholly unconcerned with world events, never mind national politics.  The announcers on Monday Night Football bring a celebrity into the booth at halftime.  I think that they could bring Putin in to announce that Russia had taken over our government, and the reaction of most fans would be “We better score some points in the second half.”  The election wasn’t the problem.  The problem was, and is, that the top story week after week stopped being football.  “Deflategate” was bad enough, but at least the issue was about something that happened in a football game.  Then there was Ray Rice.  Now, I make no excuses for Ray Rice, because domestic violence is a serious problem which cannot be tolerated, but the media, including the sports media people, who are, if possible, even more liberal than your average commentator on MSNBC, went totally overboard on the story.  No coach could be interviewed without the issue coming up.   You turned on the game to escape the world, and all you heard about was domestic violence.  The NFL discipline policy only made things worse, as the league has no consistent standard for proof of guilt, and its blanket penalty fails to distinguish between a push during an argument and attempted homicide, both of which are domestic violence.  So, a new season, and a new domestic violence story; this time that of Ezekial Elliot.  And once again it’s not about football.  When they weren’t talking about domestic violence, we were lectured about concussions.  Of course the league should protect the players, but I don’t want to hear about the latest concussion lawsuit during the game.  Let’s move on to the saga of Colin Kaepernick, the former quarterback of the ’49ers.  Kaepernick made headlines for refusing to stand during the national anthem to protest police brutality.  He later wore socks depicting pigs wearing police caps.  Kaepernick said, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”  “There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”  When some other players joined the protest, the top story became, again, not the game, but racial politics; and the sports media fanned those flames constantly.  While I am sure Kaepernick genuinely believed the things he said, he is hardly the best spokesman for America’s oppression of people of color.  He had an NFL contract worth $129 million, and had been paid over $39 million when he walked away from the ’49ers, who seemed poised to cut him due to his poor performance.  Unsurprisingly, he has found it difficult to sign with a new team.  Few teams want to import that kind of distraction.  Kaepernick, like anyone else, is entitled to his opinions, however one is not entitled to make a spectacle of one’s opinions at work, especially when one works for an NFL team and the spectacle is on national television.  Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones understands this.  He has promised to fire any player who fails to stand for the anthem.  He has every right to do so, and as a result, the Kaepernick protest is not an issue in Texas.  But the Kaepernick story doesn’t go away.  Over the summer we endured reports suggesting that Kaepernick was being blackballed by NFL teams because of his opinions.  The NAACP threatened a boycott of the NFL.  In August, an Atlanta NAACP leader announced, “There will be no football in the state of Georgia if Colin Kaepernick is not on a training camp roster and given an opportunity to pursue his career, this is not a simple request.  This is a statement.  This is a demand.”  Not for nothing, but if you want to see bodies in the streets, just try to keep NFL fans from getting to their pregame tailgate parties.  As this is written the boycott has not materialized, perhaps because somebody told the NAACP that 70% of the players in the NFL are black, and the average NFL player is oppressed by a median salary of $860,000.  Funny thing is Kaepernick almost had a job with Baltimore.  Team executive Ray Lewis, who’s not a white oppressor, says he was about to be signed until his girlfriend tweeted a photo of Lewis hugging the team’s white owner, and compared it to a slave embracing his master.  Baltimore chose to avoid that distraction.  But the media’s obsession with issues other than football doesn’t stop.  On Monday night, ESPN reporter Sergio Dipp opened the coverage by stating of Vance Joseph, Denver’s new head coach, a 44 year old African-American, that “the diversity in the coach’s background is helping him a lot tonight.”  No Sergio.  First, the fact that he’s a black man doesn’t make coach Joseph “diverse.”  More importantly, Joseph’s talent and experience got him the job, not diversity.  But what can you expect from ESPN, the network that fired Curt Schilling for his opinion on the North Carolina transgender bathroom policy, fired Mike Ditka for his opinion of Obama, and this week didn’t fire reporter Jemele Hill who said, “Donald Trump is a white supremecist; the most offensive president of my lifetime (she’s young), who was elected as a result of white supremecists.”  Job hunter Colin Kaepernick immediately agreed with Hill’s statements.  The point is, most football fans simply don’t want to listen to this crap, and that’s what’s wrong with the NFL.

This week, President Trump announced that he is ending Il Duce Obama’s illegal amendment of the immigration laws known as DACA  (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  Predictably, Democrats went ballistic.  This gave them a new opportunity to denounce the President as a heartless dictator who wants to tear children from their families.  I guess that the facts that these people are no longer children, and that the rest of their families are also here illegally, doesn’t matter.  DACA, we are told, was supposed to prevent the deportation of some 800,000 illegal aliens under the age of 36, children brought to the U.S. by their illegal alien parents.  In an effort to garner sympathy, these former children are called “Dreamers.”  This quaint name comes from the DREAM Act (Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), which has been around since 2001, and has repeatedly been defeated in Congress.  That Act would give the Dreamers permanent resident status, and eventually citizenship.  After the last time the DREAM Act was defeated in 2011, Il Duce Obama dispensed with the Constitution, and issued an executive order establishing DACA.  Obama had no constitutional authority to unilaterally amend federal law.  In fact, he said that 22 different times.  No matter.  He did it anyway.  He later tried to expand his illegal amendment with a new illegal program called DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of American and Lawful Permanent Residents).  This was sort of a reverse chain migration program.  DACA shielded the former children from deportation proceedings.  After all, these former children had no control over their parents who brought them here.  True enough.  DAPA would shield the parents who presumably knew they were entering illegally.  The federal courts held DAPA to be an unconstitutional action by Obama.  Six State Attorneys General were about to amend their lawsuits to challenge the temporary  DACA program, which was instituted by means of the same rogue executive action that created DAPA.  Even supporters of DACA knew it wouldn’t pass constitutional muster.  Faced with the prospect of having to defend Obama’s illegal presidential act, the Trump Justice Department announced the end of the temporary program, and President Trump did what Obama had done, he called upon the Congress to pass legislation to solve the problem.  Of course, Democrats howled, “How dare Trump end such an essential program?”  The inconvenient truth, however, is that even Il Duce Obama knew his executive action couldn’t be permanent.  When he launched DACA in 2012, Obama decried the failure of Congress to pass the DREAM Act.  Obama said, “Now, let’s be clear — this is not amnesty, this is not immunity.  This is not a path to citizenship.  It’s not a permanent fix.  This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people.”  As one who will never tell the truth when a simple lie will do, Obama claimed, “we prioritized border security, putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history — today, there are fewer illegal crossings than at any time in the past 40 years.”  Obama later remedied the drop in illegal crossings, and bolstered DACA, by permitting more than 70,000 unaccompanied minors to cross the southern border.  True to form, now ex-President Obama, denounced the decision to end his temporary program, as “political.”  The man really has no shame.  The truth is that DACA and DAPA were purely political acts by Obama.  DACA really should have been called APAC (the Alien Political Action Committee), and DAPA really stood for (Democrats Always Prefer Aliens).  Democrats aren’t as interested in bettering the lives of the Dreamers so much as they are interested in expanding the roles of Democrat voters.   This is so because the Democrat obsession with granting illegal aliens benefits which are denied to American citizens, such as exemption from the enforcement of laws, and discounted college tuition, is a fairly recent development.  In 2006, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer all voted to build a wall on the southern border to reduce illegal entry.  That’s right, a border wall.  Sound familiar?  They now say Trump’s plan to build the wall they authorized 11 years ago is racist.  What changed?  The Democrats need new voters.  In 2009, no less a liberal than Chuck Schumer (and there is no less), announced, “The American people are fundamentally pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration,” Schumer explained, “We will only pass comprehensive reform when we recognize this fundamental concept.”  After Trump ended the temporary and unconstitutional DACA program, Schumer said, “The president’s decision to end DACA was heartless, and it was brainless.”  Apparently Chuck thinks two wrongs do make a right.  Schumer now threatens to append the DREAM Act to every bill until it passes.  Two things.  Uh, Chuck, you don’t run the Senate, and no bill seems to pass in the Senate anyway, even without the DREAM Act attached to it.  The media got right into the act too.  The Washington Post claimed, “Trump shifts the burden [of regulating immigration] on the Congress.”  Here’s a bulletin.  Trump shifted nothing.  Article I, section 8 of the Constitution lists the subjects on which the Congress may enact legislation.  These are subjects, you understand, on which the Congress actually has a duty to act, not the long list of subjects which are properly the province of the States, into which the federal government insists on sticking its nose.  The Constitution provides that, “The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”  That makes immigration a congressional duty.  President Trump merely called upon the Congress to do its job.  Any Congressman who considers this a burden is in the wrong business.  Congress should pass legislation to address this problem.  Nobody wants to see these people deported, and there are no plans to do so.  I don’t object to a system that permits these resident aliens to remain and to work.  However, any such relief must be tied to funding for border security.  It’s true, the so-called Dreamers aren’t to blame for being brought to this country.  But neither should they benefit from the illegal acts of their parents.  Let them stay, let them work and pay taxes, but don’t grant them citizenship ahead of those who followed the rules.

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.