Candidates shouldn't be endorsing potential prosecution of political opponents

[struggle4progress]

1:17 PM ET
Quinta Jurecic
Contributing writer at The Atlantic and managing editor of Lawfare

“I want to see him in prison,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi reportedly told House Democrats in a closed-door meeting earlier this month. And asked by the NPR reporter Scott Detrow whether, as president, she would support bringing an obstruction case against Trump, the Democratic presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris answered: “I believe that [the Department of Justice] would have no choice and that they should, yes.”

Harris framed her answer in the language of justice: “Everyone should be held accountable, and the president is not above the law.” Yet her comments should be concerning to anyone who cares about maintaining the independence of law enforcement from political influence.

The idea that a presidential candidate can permissibly endorse the potential prosecution of a political opponent is itself a sign of how much damage Trump has done to that principle. Part of that damage comes from Trump’s own insistence on treating the Justice Department as a personal political tool, which eats away at the codes of behavior that have, in the past, barred politicians from making similar promises. Part of it also comes from the strain Trump has put on the constitutional system. Trump’s conduct is what has forced these questions on presidential candidates and political leaders: What, after all, do you do with a possibly criminal ex-president? What does it mean to balance accountability against the importance of preserving an apolitical system of law? How, in the wake of the Trump presidency, are Americans to understand what “justice” means? ...

Harris’s statement, and to a lesser extent Pelosi’s, is a long, long way from “Lock her up!” But it is also a lot closer to that promise than anyone should be comfortable with. In a liberal democracy, the government is constrained by a network of rules, such as the presumption of innocence, that limits the deployment of power. Trump’s own efforts to use the Justice Department to go after those he dislikes have provided us with a vivid demonstration of the importance of independent law enforcement. Nothing good will come of a system in which the chief executive may direct the full force of the state against those he believes have wronged him. And nothing good will come of a political candidate running for high office on the suggestion that her administration would prosecute a particular individual ...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/kamala-harris-shouldnt-endorse-prosecuting-trump/591664/

[mopinko]

1. it's the part where they drag us down into the mud w them

where the really worst of the damage is done.

justice now.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. It's a fine line, but they must speak out for the Rule of Law, and that includes bringing criminals

To justice, No matter how powerful they are. No more "looking forward" and ignoring past crimes of past regimes.

In addition to the numerous other crimes, I think the next administration should hold Nuremberg style hearings to punish all those involved in the kiddie concentration camps, even those contractors who were "just following orders".

[Thekaspervote]

3. +1000