The pardon of Arpaio (which can, by definition, only be for one conviction per pardon) is not dissimilar to any other executive pardon issued in the last ~230 years: there are good aspects, bad aspects, and neutral aspects.
Just because the NYT (and I like them) seem to be losing their minds over Trump (or really increasing readership) doesn't mean we all have to go with them. Look, he's a buffoon, but it's very unlikely he is going to destroy the country. We have plenty of checks and balances to prevent such a thing.
Clinton's pardon list is pretty unsavory too. Like it or not, it's just one of the perks of the job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controvers...
Not really. You don't even need to be convicted of anything to be pardoned. E.g. Richard Nixon.
1. Arpaio did not ask for a pardon.
Almost every other President has only pardoned people who asked for a pardon.
2. It's for a misdemeanor conviction that resulted in only a short jail sentence (six months), which I believe he has not even started to serve.
Almost every other pardon is for a felony with a long sentence, which already has had significant time served.
Nope. Try again. Famously with Clinton & Ford.
This fucktard of a president just endorsed this behavior, which means we're now going to see more of this. This is more flame on the fire of the clearly upcoming race war.
But for all the things he's done which we're pretty repulsive, what he was "caught" on reminds me of getting Al Capone in tax evasion...and not for murder, illegal liquor sales, etc