Joe Arpaio stands convicted of a misdemeanor count of criminal contempt of court, for carrying out “targeted patrols aiming to catch illegal aliens in his Arizona jurisdiction.” Reports say that President Trump’s administration has filled out the paperwork for Arpaio to be pardoned. Arpaio is unrepentant and has not gone through the usual DoJ process for seeking a pardon. There are many reasons why pardoning Arpaio would be questionable.

This is . . . not one of them:

Joe Arpaio was convicted because he committed a crime. He should not be pardoned. https://t.co/YGvQkK6Kae — Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) August 23, 2017

Pardons, how do they work?

Yes, while it is possible to pardon someone not yet convicted of a crime, that is decidedly not the norm. Arguing that someone should not be pardoned because they have been convicted is kind of like arguing that someone should not be allowed to seek absolution through the Sacrament of Penance because they have sinned. That’s sort of the whole reason the thing exists.

A note about Senator Harris: she’s physically and demographically attractive, she’s a first-term Senator of no particular distinction, she’s from a large state, she’s a partisan Democrat trying to make a name for herself by criticizing the current administration, and she’s young. (Democrats have not elected someone President in their 60s or older since Truman.)

Does any of this sound familiar?

Say hello to the likely next Democrat presidential candidate.

Fortunately, at least we know she won’t be pardoning anyone who was convicted of a crime! So we got that going for us. Which is nice.

[Disclaimer]