Can someone remind me of the rules, again? I was under the impression, as shown by the breathless coverage of Donald Trump, that a President should never push his/her DOJ to prosecute someone, especially not a political opponent.
I guess things change quickly depending on who’s saying it.
We saw this last week when the media said absolutely nothing about Nancy Pelosi saying she wants to see Trump in prison. That wouldn’t be much of a story (as I’m not much for feigning outrage over political jabs) if the media and Democrats hadn’t lost their minds so thoroughly at Republican suggestions that Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted.
Lagging 2020 candidate Kamala Harris is now getting in on the act.
Would a Harris Administration DOJ prosecute former President Trump on obstruction of justice?
Kamala Harris: "I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes.”https://t.co/wjyXgqhsm0
— Scott Detrow (@scottdetrow) June 12, 2019
“I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes,” Harris told the NPR Politics Podcast, pointing to the 10 instances of possible obstruction that former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report detailed without making a determination as to whether or not the episodes amounted to criminal conduct.
“There has to be accountability,” Harris added. “I mean look, people might, you know, question why I became a prosecutor. Well, I’ll tell you one of the reasons — I believe there should be accountability. Everyone should be held accountable, and the president is not above the law.”
Well, except if you are Jussie Smollett or Kim Foxx, then you can break the law without comment from Kamala Harris (who has personal relationships with both).
That above quote is mostly bluster, which is something Harris has become good at. You see, she’s a tough prosecutor and only she can bring the weight of justice down on Trump’s head. In reality, the last thing any new President is going to want is the distraction of trying to bring nonsense charges against the former President. By that point, she’ll have already gotten what she wants out of the far-left and will have no reason to risk her re-election prospects with blatant lawfare.
There’s also the fact that there’s no case against Trump because thinking about doing something he had the constitutional authority to do is in fact not obstruction of justice. Crazy, I know.
This entire sequence from Harris just comes off flat. She’s trying to make her case a little bit too hard and it seems desperate. Her charisma ranks somewhere between Howard Dean and Kirtsen Gillibrand, which is to say that it’s not very high and she’s painfully awkward in live interviews.
The media’s lack of reaction and even their promoting of comments like this is probably the bigger story. We’ve been told for years that suggesting a political rival be locked up is out of bounds and disgraceful. Yet, the moment Democrats start doing it, the media perk up and tell us we should all take it very seriously. It’s comedically inconsistent and their lack of condemnation now that it’s a Democrat doing the talking is blatantly political.
By the way, that’s NPR doing the interview above, so congrats to your tax dollars for making it happen.
In the end, what Harris is saying isn’t going to be relevant because she won’t win. But it’s worth pointing out the ridiculous level of hypocrisy emanating from the media and Democrats over this topic.
Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.
I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.