As I quoted him above, CO. repeatedly claimed that a conviction of criminal contempt did not constitute an "Offense[] against the United States" within the meaning of Article II. This claim is baseless for all of the reasons that were explained to him back then.
Now CO. claims claims to have found Larry Tribe making the very same argument he made. But not only does Tribe not make CO.'s argument, he instead makes an argument that necessarily assumes that criminal contempt is an "Offense[] against the United States" -- Trump would have the power to pardon a criminal contempt under Article II, but at least in Arpaio's case that would violate the Fifth Amendment.
Again, for emphasis, CO. claimed that Trump lacks authority to pardon Trump under Article II, while Tribe concedes that Trump would have that Article II power, but that Article II power is limited by the Fifth Amendment in Arpaio's case. CO.'s claim that Tribe is making his argument is flatly false. In fact, Tribe's argument contradicts CO.'s claim. They both reach the same conclusion, but for mutually exclusive reasons. Getting this wrong requires shitty lawyering.
Now CO. claims that he is engaged in some higher form of lawyering where obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty, and logical fallacies reign supreme. It disturbs me that non-lawyers might mistakenly imagine that this sort of nonsense is what lawyers do, when in fact it is merely what CO. Hoosier does.