Below is my column in USA Today on the Arpaio pardon and its historical context. While I have been critical of the Arpaio pardon, the history of presidential pardons is quite checkered. Moreover, I agree with critics that the Justice Department made a major mistake in the timing of its prosecution of Arpaio shortly before the election. That does not change the fact that Arpaio was in flagrant violation of a court order and warranted the contempt conviction. I also disagree with New Jersey Christ Christie in aspects of the following statement:
“I think the pardon power is an extraordinary power for any executive, both the governor, and I’ve used it, and the president. My understanding has always been that one of the prerequisites you look for in giving a pardon is contrition for what you were convicted of. I didn’t see that in Sheriff Arpaio. And so, to me, one of the things that you need an acknowledgment of is an acknowledgment of guilt, first off, is required for pardon.”
While Christie can demand that from individuals as governor, it is certainly not a mandatory requirement for a presidential pardon. Contrition is a common element in presidential pardons in the review of petitions but it is not a threshold requirement. While a smaller subset of pardons, some pardon beneficiaries, like Richard Nixon, maintain that they were not guilty of any crime. Indeed, pardons can be used in cases where a president believes that someone was wrongly charged or convicted — as is the case with Trump’s rationale for the Arpaio pardon. Of course, in such case presidents normally give the courts an opportunity to review the conviction on appeal before executing a pardon. This is not one of those cases. Arpaio might have good-faith arguments in favor of his immigration arrests, but those arguments do not give him license to ignore a court order — which he did for 17 months.
Here is the column:
Yesterday, 
I 
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the call from both the right and the left for protesters to be declared domestic terrorists. With rising anger over protests and counter protests, politicians are rushing to join calls for the government to not simply investigate these groups for hate speech but actually terrorism.
I have been writing and speaking about the movement to remove statues that range from confederate leaders to Columbus to Supreme Court justices to Founders (
The NAACP’s interim president Derrick Johnson is requesting 
Without much notice or debate, Maryland officials ordered the
Below is my column in USA Today on a troubling warrant issued by the Justice Department to force the disclosure of visitors to an anti-Trump site. The DisruptJ20 case raises very serious questions regarding political speech and associational rights.
The California State Senate is considering a bill that would make it a crime to “willfully and repeatedly” refuse “to use a transgender resident’s preferred name or pronouns” in a public health, retirement or housing institution. State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) has introduced 
I have been writing for years about the rising wave of intolerance for free speech that has swept over Europe and is now reaching our own shores in the United States. Attacks on free speech are increasing from the left which has cracked down on speech deemed offensive or intimidating to any group. Thus far, the United States has been a bulwark against this trend, but 
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has always displayed a rather fluid view of constitutional rights (though in fairness, that is not a major distinction from other politicians). However, this week Pelosi appeared to embrace content based discrimination in the area of free speech. Pelosi is demanding that the National Park Service reconsider a permit for what she called a “white supremacist rally” in San Francisco. In light of the violence in Charlottesville, Pelosi insists that “The NPS should reevaluate its decision and its capacity to protect the public during such a toxic rally.” The problem is leaving it to the government to declare what groups are toxic from Pelosi’s list of constructive banned viewpoints. I felt ill watching the torch march of neo-Nazis in Charlottesville as white supremacists yelled disgusting anti-Semitic and racist chants. It reminded me of the Nazi rallies before World War II — before my father and so many others went off to fight fascism. However, despite that revulsion, I remain committed to the right of everyone to speak and protest regardless of the content of their views.
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the most recent suggested crime committed by President Donald Trump or his family. This allegation focuses on a greeting sent through President Trump’s attorney, John Dowd, to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It appears that Trump is obstructing if he voices criticism or appreciation of Mueller.