Sheriff Joe was up against the lawlessness of the Obama years
President Obama gave city and state politicians, sheriffs, and police a complete pass as long as they chose not to enforce immigration laws. They had to agree with his agenda.
While sanctuary cities and states were allowed to exert their sovereignty to ignore immigration laws, Obama and the Justice Department sued Arizona for daring to enforce immigration law, saying it is a federal function, and they clearly targeted Sheriff Joe for forcefully enforcing the law against people who willingly and illegally crossed our borders. How is it a sovereign issue if they didn't enforce the law and not a sovereign issue if they chose to enforce the law?
That action against Sheriff Arpaio came from a Justice Department where President Obama kept an attorney general who committed perjury to Congress in testimony on the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal. He was never tried for a felony.
Obama illegally spied on individuals for years.
Obama knowingly allowed Hillary Clinton and her aides to violate the nation's security laws for years. The Justice Department's FBI didn't even consider it an actual investigation and did not record its interview with Hillary or require her to take an oath to tell the truth.
Obama issued many pardons and commutations to serious criminals and even a terrorist, FALN's Oscar López Rivera.
President Clinton sold a pardon to Marc Rich with the help of Eric Holder and commuted the sentences of sixteen Puerto Rican terrorists.
Clinton committed perjury (a felony) and suborned perjury to prevent Paula Jones from receiving justice in a sexual abuse case. He did not get sentenced for a felony.
But according to the Wall Street Journal and others, it is Trump who is a bad symbol for law and order because he dared pardon a sheriff who was too harsh on criminals (illegal aliens violated the law, and that makes them criminals) and who was clearly targeted by Obama because he dared defy his political agenda (not the law). What a crock!
It appears that the WSJ, along with most of the media, would be happy with the Clintons back in the White House because they are such a good symbol for law and order. We could again have the Clintons accepting excessive speech fees and donations (kickbacks), we could again sell the Lincoln bedroom and have White House coffees because according to Al Gore there was no controlling legal authority. Maybe we could have Bill getting serviced by young interns and telling us it depends on what the definition of "is" is.
A president who supports law enforcement, goes hard after gangs, defends the border, and enforces immigration laws is a much better symbol for law and order and freedom than a president who chose to ignore and unilaterally change laws. Obama was a president who cared little about the border; who gave no attention to gangs in Chicago and elsewhere; and who clearly targeted political opponents, whether they were peaceful Tea Party members, a sheriff in Arizona, or the Little Sisters of the Poor because they dared believe they had political and religious freedom as the Constitution says, or who believed that the law means what it says.
Does anyone really think Hillary and Bill are good symbols for the rule of law?