Connect with us

Politics

Column: Lock him up? Donald Trump's crimes present a challenge for Kamala Harris' campaign

Published

on

Column: Lock him up? Donald Trump's crimes present a challenge for Kamala Harris' campaign

When Hillary Clinton referred to Donald Trump’s 34 criminal convictions during last week’s Democratic National Convention, a loud chant of “Lock him up!” arose from the crowd. Clinton, the target of countless “Lock her up!” chants stoked by Trump eight years ago, permitted herself a nod and a smile.

There’s no gainsaying the hunger of many in the crowd at Chicago’s United Center, and of Democrats across the country, to see Trump behind bars. They wish it for many reasons: as condign punishment for his crimes against democracy, the subject of a new federal indictment filed Tuesday; payback for his exploitation of the criminal justice system for his own ends; petty vengeance against an obnoxious antagonist; and a means of ridding the country of his toxic presence.

The yearning to see Trump brought down is one component of the wave of enthusiasm that has so dramatically boosted Kamala Harris’ candidacy over the last month. In fact, Harris has stoked that desire in at least a limited way. Her standard stump speech includes the sure ovation bait, “I took on perpetrators of all kinds. … So hear me when I say: I know Donald Trump’s type.”

Speaker after speaker at the convention likewise brought up Trump’s list of proven and alleged crimes. They also repeatedly invoked Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation agenda suggesting Trump intends to convert the Department of Justice to an instrument of political retribution against his enemies.

But for Harris, a top official in the government carrying out two of Trump’s prosecutions, her supporters’ lust to see Trump locked up is a tricky topic. There is a fine but crucial distinction between calling out Trump’s criminal conduct and calling for him to be “locked up.” To date, she has been able to walk that tightrope effectively.

Advertisement

When the vice president confronted the same chant at political rallies in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania earlier this month, she was quick with a response that was markedly different from Clinton’s: “We’re gonna let the courts handle that. Our job is to beat him in November.”

Politically and ethically, that was precisely the right answer.

It’s right partly because of the clear contrast with Trump. It immediately puts Harris on the opposite side of the spectrum from Trump’s animating spirit of petty nastiness.

More than that, calling for the imprisonment of one’s political opponents — particularly when, as with Clinton, they have not been charged with or convicted of any crime — is a defining trait of a banana republic. And as the scholars Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt have persuasively documented, Trump’s first term pulled the United States sharply in that direction.

In addition, even the slightest tangible sign of official support for incarcerating Trump is likely to breed complications in the actual cases. Trump would seek to leverage it to support his claim that the charges against him amount to a political railroading.

Advertisement

Most important for the current campaign, Harris’ careful retort to the crowd brandishes her institutionalist credentials. Our democracy is designed to depend on neutral arbiters — namely, the courts — to deprive citizens of liberty, not the say-so of a ruler. That principle is especially fundamental to a prosecutor — the professional experience Harris is leading with as a candidate — who must not confuse her zeal with the law’s judgment.

It’s particularly fitting for Harris to insist on confidence in the courts. Their reputation — especially the Supreme Court’s — has declined precipitously in the Trump era based on the growing perception that they can be bent to the will of the powerful.

Harris is announcing to the country that although she is seeking power, she believes her power should be constrained by the checks and balances that Trump openly flouted — even if her supporters might wish it otherwise for the purposes of punishing an adversary.

Harris’ stance is not a given. Unlike Clinton in 2016, Trump is a convict as well as a criminal defendant in three additional cases. Harris could take the position that now that a jury has decided his guilt, a judge should impose a certain sentence — or that he deserves to be convicted in the other cases against him. But that too would put her in the role of telling the courts what they should do. Avoiding that appearance is more important — and more commendable — than revving up Trump haters.

Harris has been performing other delicate balancing acts in her young campaign: talking tough on borders but welcoming legitimate asylum seekers; affirming Israel’s right to exist but calling for an end to hostilities in Gaza; embracing President Biden while presenting herself as the change candidate.

Advertisement

Of course, one problem with walking a high wire is that your opponent can try to knock you off. And we can expect Trump and his surrogates to continue to suggest that Harris is trying to “lock him up” for political purposes.

But as a longtime prosecutor, Harris is well practiced at leveling harsh accusations while insisting on the indispensable institutional role of juries and courts in the ultimate decisions. That experience should continue to serve her well.

Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the “Talking San Diego” speaker series. @harrylitman

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Opinion: Merrick Garland's integrity saved the DOJ only to doom it again

Published

on

Opinion: Merrick Garland's integrity saved the DOJ only to doom it again

In 2016, the American Bar Assn. couldn’t say enough good things about Merrick Garland, then the chief judge of the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, when it sent the Senate a report giving him its highest rating. So at Garland’s confirmation hearing, a bar official gave senators samples of the unanimous praise from hundreds of lawyers, judges and law professors who were contacted by the group’s evaluators.

“He may be the perfect human being,” effused one anonymous fan. Another: “Judge Garland has no weaknesses.”

Opinion Columnist

Jackie Calmes

Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.

Advertisement

Therein lies the tragedy of Merrick Garland. A man who could have been a truly supreme justice — but for then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s unprecedented Republican blockade — instead became a seemingly ineffectual attorney general, at least regarding the defining challenge of his tenure: holding Donald Trump accountable for trying to steal the 2020 presidential election.

The traits that the bar experts saw as Garland’s strengths — deliberative caution, modesty, judicial temperament, indifference to politics — turned out to be weaknesses for the head of the Justice Department in these times.

So intent was Garland on restoring the department’s independence and integrity — after Trump, in his first term, openly sought to weaponize it against his enemies — that the attorney general initially shied from investigating and prosecuting Trump for his role in the postelection subversions culminating on Jan. 6, 2021. By all accounts, Garland feared the optics of the Justice Department turning its legal powers against the man President Biden had just beaten at the polls.

Advertisement

Of course Trump, the master of projection, was going to, and did, accuse the attorney general of the very thing that Trump himself was guilty of: weaponizing the Justice Department. Yet in a nation based on the rule of law, the case against Trump needed to be pursued.

Garland succeeded in reviving the department’s post-Watergate norms, which restrict contacts between law enforcement officials and the White House, norms that Garland, as a young Justice lawyer in the Carter administration, helped develop in response to Nixon-era abuses. But so much for Garland’s achievement: Trump, saved by his election from having to answer for Jan. 6 or for a separate federal indictment for filching classified documents, will be back in power next week, more emboldened than before and backed by appointees willing to do his vengeful bidding at the Justice Department and the FBI.

Last week, there were small victories for accountability, if not for Trump’s alleged federal crimes. On Friday he was sentenced for his one conviction, in New York state court in May, for falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to a porn star ahead of the 2016 election. Judge Juan M. Merchan gave the president-elect no penalty, but at least the sentencing underscored Trump’s distinction as the only felon-president. Separately, Garland indicated he would make public the final report from special counsel Jack Smith detailing the evidence for Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6.

The 72-year-old attorney general soon leaves office having angered all sides — Republicans for going after Trump at all, Democrats for not going after him fast and hard enough. California Sen. Adam B. Schiff, formerly a member of the House Jan. 6 committee, was among the first Democrats to publicly blame the Justice Department, at least partially, for letting Trump avoid trial before the 2024 election, complaining on CNN that the department had focused too long on “the foot soldiers” who attacked the Capitol “and refrained from looking at … the inciters.”

A recent CNN retrospective on the Trump prosecution called 2021 “the lost year.” At a time when the former president was still on the defensive about Jan. 6, the Justice Department followed a bottom-up strategy targeting more than 1,500 rioters in its largest criminal investigation ever. Prosecutors insisted they were chasing leads involving Trump and close allies, while sorting out the legal complexities of trying a former occupant of the Oval Office.

Advertisement

By 2022, questions about Garland’s deliberative dillydallying became unavoidable. In March, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled in a civil case that “the illegality of the [fake electors] plan was obvious.” The next month FBI Director Christopher Wray authorized a criminal investigation into the scheme. Then in June the House Jan. 6 committee held its televised hearings, essentially a daytime drama about Trump’s multipronged efforts to keep power, starring Republican eyewitnesses.

That development, finally, prodded Garland to get serious about the man at the top. In November 2022, Garland named Smith as special counsel. As fast as Smith seemed to work, it wasn’t until August 2023 — two and a half years after the insurrection — that Trump was criminally indicted. Months of legal challenges from the Trump team followed, delaying everything and putting forward what seemed like a crazy claim, that Trump should have presidential immunity.

Yet to point fingers solely at Garland for letting Trump off the hook shifts blame from those even more deserving of it. McConnell, for instance, who engineered Trump’s Senate acquittal in February 2021 after his impeachment for inciting the insurrection; conviction could have been paired with a vote banning Trump from seeking federal office. And the Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority, which took seven months before mostly siding with Trump’s claim that he and future presidents are immune from criminal charges for supposedly official acts.

Even if Garland had moved aggressively, there’s a good argument that all the delays available to Trump would’ve made a trial and verdict before the election unlikely. And this fact remains: The ultimate jury — voters — had more than enough incriminating facts available to decide Trump was unfit to be president again. A plurality decided otherwise.

Still, Garland’s performance makes me doubly sad that he ended up at Justice instead of becoming a justice.

Advertisement

@jackiekcalmes

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden Awards Medal of Freedom to Pope Francis

Published

on

Biden Awards Medal of Freedom to Pope Francis

President Biden awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction to Pope Francis on Saturday, granting one of the nation’s highest honors to a figure he called “the People’s Pope.”

“Pope Francis, your humility and your grace are beyond words, and your love for all is unparalleled,” Mr. Biden wrote on X. “You are a light of faith, hope, and love that shines brightly across the world.”

Mr. Biden honored the pontiff during a weekend in which he was scheduled to meet with the pope in person at the Holy See. The president, however, canceled the three-day trip to Italy to coordinate the federal response to raging wildfires in Los Angeles, according to a White House statement.

Rather than the usual award ceremony, in which the president places the award around the neck of the recipient, Mr. Biden posted on X an image from the Oval Office in which a military aide presented the medal. The White House announced the honor after Mr. Biden spoke to Pope Francis on Saturday and informed him of the award.

It was the first time during Mr. Biden’s term that he had awarded the medal “with distinction,” a more prestigious version of the honor. Mr. Biden received the recognition from President Barack Obama in 2017. Other recipients include Pope John Paul II and Colin L. Powell.

Advertisement

Mr. Biden, a Catholic, has seen Pope Francis as an admired ally on the global stage and turned to him as a sounding board, and the pope has lobbied for Mr. Biden to use his presidential power during his final weeks in office.

Last month, Pope Francis called Mr. Biden and asked him to commute the sentences of those on federal death row. Days later, Mr. Biden used his clemency power to soften their sentences to life in prison without the possibility of parole, sparing their lives.

A citation included in the White House announcement for the award said that Pope Francis was “unlike any who came before.”

“His mission of serving the poor has never ceased,” the statement read. “A loving pastor, he joyfully answers children’s questions about God. A challenging teacher, he commands us to fight for peace and protect the planet. A welcoming leader, he reaches out to different faiths.”

Mr. Biden awarded the honor days after bestowing the Presidential Medal of Freedom to 18 leaders of the political, financial and celebrity establishment.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Pence reveals words exchanged with President-elect Trump at Carter funeral

Published

on

Pence reveals words exchanged with President-elect Trump at Carter funeral

Former Vice President Mike Pence revealed his brief exchange with President-elect Trump, which was caught on camera at former President Carter’s state funeral.

The pair have not been seen publicly together since leaving the White House in disagreement over the 2020 election results. At the service at the National Cathedral, Pence stood up to shake Trump’s hand, and they appeared to exchange pleasantries. 

Former second lady Karen Pence, who was seated next to her husband, did not stand up or acknowledge Trump.

JIMMY CARTER MEMORIAL: SUSPECT ACCUSED IN CAPITOL HILL SECURITY BREACH DURING TRUMP VISIT IDENTIFIED

In an interview with Christianity Today, Pence said he “welcomed” the opportunity to speak with Trump.

Advertisement

“He greeted me when he came down the aisle. I stood up, extended my hand. He shook my hand. I said, ‘Congratulations, Mr. President,’ and he said, ‘Thanks, Mike,’” Pence said.

Former Vice President Al Gore, left, watches as former Vice President Mike Pence, center, shakes hands with President-elect Trump before a state funeral service for former President Carter at the Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., Jan. 9, 2025.  (Mandel Ngan/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

Pence also recalled one of his final conversations with Trump in 2021, when he told Trump he would continue to pray for him. Trump responded, “Don’t bother,” the outlet reported. 

“I said, ‘You know, there’s probably two things that we’re never going to agree on. … We’re probably never going to agree on what my duty was under the Constitution on Jan. 6.’ And then I said, ‘And I’m never going to stop praying for you,’” Pence told Christianity Today. “And he said, ‘That’s right, Mike, don’t ever change.’”

He said he kept his word.

Advertisement

RFK JR. SAYS HE PLANS TO ALSO MEET WITH DEMS IN BID TO GET CONFIRMED AS TRUMP HHS HEAD

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., speaks before former President Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, at a campaign event, Nov. 1, 2024, in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)

While the two appeared to remain cordial at the service for Carter, Pence told the outlet he doesn’t think Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the right fit to manage Health and Human Services and was concerned about former U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard serving as national intelligence director.

Fox News Digital reached out to Trump and Advancing American Freedom, a public policy advocacy organization founded by Pence, for comment, but did not immediately receive a response.

Fox News Digital’s Andrew Mark Miller contributed to this article.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Trending