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.

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.

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.

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

After a surge in home energy bills that left many New Jersey residents with costs that have doubled, or more, there have been widespread calls for hearings to hold the state utility commission, the governor and supporters of green energy accountable.

State Sen. Mike Testa, R-Salem, echoed those calls and said on Wednesday that much of the blame goes to Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy’s “Energy Master Plan,” launched in 2020.

“New Jersey is already one of the most unaffordable states in the United States of America. Now people are being hit with energy bills that are essentially doubled. And look, I get it that it was a hot July, but it wasn’t that hot that your energy bills should have doubled,” Testa said.

One constituent apparently told Testa they raised their thermostat four degrees on average this summer in the hopes of saving money but that the cost still somehow increased “significantly.”

GOP LAWMAKER TORCHES OFFSHORE WIND PROJECTS AS MAYOR WARNS OF ‘STAR WARS’ BACKDROPS

Homeowners in suburban Morris County vented about the news on a local social media group, according to the Morristown Daily Record, with a Parsippany resident questioning a $782 monthly bill.

“Quite frankly, what I think happened is, via the Murphy Energy Master Plan that I’ve often called the energy disaster plan, it seemed that the BPU (New Jersey Board of Public Utilities) and the Murphy administration are working in tandem chasing this green energy dream.

“It’s what I call the energy disaster plan. It’s a green energy nightmare,” he said, adding that BPU officials went so far as to wear windmill pins at public functions amid New Jersey’s kerfuffle over offshore turbines.

In a lengthy statement, BPU acknowledged it had received correspondence from New Jerseyans and offered several potential reasons for the rate hikes.

The board cited increases in generation costs and usage, and it asked customers to contact their utility or the board right away if they find an “anomaly and cannot determine an explanation” A one-time $175 bill credit program is also available, a board spokesperson said.

IDAHO FARMER BLASTS BIDEN’S WINDMILL PROJECT: ‘IT WILL DESTROY THE DESERT’

PJM, the energy transmission company that covers much of the Mid-Atlantic, offered data to Fox News Digital on the matter as well.

PJM research showed electricity demand is likely to increase in the region particularly due to “proliferation of high-demand data centers” and “thermal generators retiring at a rapid pace due to government and private sector policies as well as economics.”

Meanwhile, at the federal level, Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., fumed at the BPU this week in a letter obtained by Fox News Digital, which cited “thousands” of constituents discovering unbearable bill increases.

“Given these alarming reports, I demand that the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) hold a public hearing in South Jersey to allow residents to voice their concerns directly to the Board,” he wrote, adding the board must also determine whether there is a correlation between the rate hikes and the offshore wind turbine operations in his Cape May district.

Van Drew said New Jersey officials must take the situation seriously, and he dismissed claims that the “unseasonably warm summer” was the only variable.

“We need transparency and accountability from the NJBPU to ensure that the needs and concerns of South Jersey residents are being effectively addressed,” he said.

Van Drew previously noted how Danish green power company Ørsted withdrew its windmill plans for the Jersey Shore despite Murphy’s full support and taxpayer funding: “They still couldn’t make it.”

While Murphy’s office did not return a request for comment, the governor previously praised his Energy Master Plan’s goal of 100% clean energy by 2050 in the Garden State.

“The Energy Master Plan comprehensively addresses New Jersey’s energy system, including electricity generation, transportation and buildings, and their associated greenhouse gas emissions and related air pollutants,” he said.

In a statement Tuesday, the Murphy administration highlighted a “Residential Energy Assistance Payment (REAP) Initiative” to provide financial relief to thousands of households, of the same $175 figure cited by BPU.

“Making our state more affordable for New Jersey families has been the top priority since day one,” Murphy said in the statement.

State Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, D-Perth Amboy, added it is “great to see this resource added to the growing list of support available to residents who need a little extra help in our state.”

Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz, R-Summit, said price-per-kilowatt hour increases averaged 8.6% in Central Jersey.

“It’s simple economics: When supply drops and demand surges, prices go up,” she told Fox News Digital.

“I’m of the belief that Americans are innovative. … The government can’t be mandating deadlines at the same time that they’re … shutting down natural gas production.”

Munoz, who serves on the Budget Committee, said there are likely Democrats who agree the rate hikes are a problem: “That’s kind of a silly concept for them to think, like, do they not care that their constituents are the ones that are having to absorb these massive increases in cost?”

The Salem Nuclear Generating Station in Lower Alloways Creek Township, N.J., is pictured.

Fox News Digital reached out to state Senate President Nick Scutari, D-Clark, for such a perspective.

Citing attempts to make New Jersey vehicle sales 60% electric by 2035, Munoz said there won’t be the proper infrastructure to fulfill the need, regardless of opinions on EVs themselves.

When Testa was asked about other states’ similar green energy endeavors – such as then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo shuttering the Indian Point nuke plant on the Hudson River opposite Haverstraw in 2020 – he expressed relief that crackdowns hadn’t gotten that far at home.

A similar nuclear plant in Lower Alloways Creek Township remains operational, he noted, adding that he is proud to have it and its jobs and generation ability in his district.

Testa said the state’s energy portfolio is 50% natural gas, 40% nuclear and 10% other, which flies in the face of Murphy’s aversion to additional natural gas production.

While some energy experts fear crises arising from nuclear power, such as the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown in Dauphin County, Pa., Testa said technology has advanced since and that there are also small modular nuclear reactors similar to those on submarines that could generate safe, clean energy inland at low cost.

“By the way, we’re positive that those don’t kill whales,” he said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened to call a special session this fall as Democratic lawmakers wobbled on a package of energy bills that he wants to pass this week before the Legislature adjourns for the year, according to sources involved in the negotiations at the Capitol.

The governor delivered the last-minute ultimatum in private discussions with Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) this week as tension among Democrats escalated under a Saturday deadline to pass legislation.

The threat is intended to counter the pressure oil interests are putting on lawmakers to reject Newsom’s proposal to require petroleum refiners to maintain a stable inventory in order to prevent fuel shortages and price spikes when equipment is taken offline for maintenance.

The bill is part of a package on energy costs that the governor’s office has been negotiating with the Legislature. The governor is calling for legislation that would offer a customer credit for electricity and gas bills, accelerate environmental reviews for clean energy projects and require oil refiners to maintain reserves, among other proposals. Some environmentalists criticized the plan because of the push to expedite environmental reviews.

Mary Creasman, chief executive of California Environmental Voters, said the state must accelerate the development of clean energy and clean energy infrastructure, but needs to do so in a way that protects biodiversity and offers enough time for community engagement.

“Year after year trying to jam solutions to this through at the last minute is not how we tackle the toughest issues our state is facing in a powerful and effective way,” Creasman said.

A special session could force lawmakers to return to Sacramento this fall, instead of in January when the regular session begins, and shorten the time they have to spend with their families or to campaign for the election in their respective districts.

Sources involved in the discussions said Assembly Democrats in particular are concerned that adopting new requirements on oil refiners might ultimately increase the cost of gasoline. Rivas shared those reservations with Newsom, which prompted the threat of a special session to give lawmakers more time to weigh the proposal. The Assembly is prepared to embark on a special session if necessary, sources said.

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City) said she and her colleagues are concerned about gas prices, but “we haven’t really had time to digest the problem.”

“The special session is a good opportunity to talk about it,” Wilson said outside the Assembly chamber. “We either have to accept policy as is or craft the new policy together. I think it’s a good thing.”

Other legislators seemed more neutral.

“It’s a coin flip,” said Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park). “I’m ambivalent. I understand the argument to get it done now and that some others want to slow the process down a little bit.”

The threat is not necessarily idle from a governor who called a special session two years ago to penalize oil companies for excessive profits as gasoline prices spiked during his war with Big Oil.

Lawmakers were ultimately reluctant to adopt a penalty in the last special session and Newsom refined his request to instead demand more transparency from the industry.

Instead of enacting a cap and penalty on oil refinery profits, Newsom and lawmakers gave state regulators the ability to do so in the future. Consumer advocates and the governor celebrated the resulting law as a groundbreaking tool that could keep gas prices from escalating.

The law established the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight within the California Energy Commission, and gave it the authority to gather new data from the industry in order to investigate price spikes. Earlier this year, the division wrote a letter recommending the state impose minimum inventory and resupply requirements for refiners based on its findings so far, arguing that the oil companies did not maintain enough refined gasoline to backfill production shortfalls or protect against the impact of unplanned maintenance.

Newsom continued his fight with oil last week when he announced that he wants lawmakers to give regulators the ability to mandate the new supply requirements for oil refiners.

“Price spikes at the pump are profit spikes for Big Oil,” Newsom said in a statement at the time. “Refiners should be required to plan ahead and backfill supplies to keep prices stable, instead of playing games to earn even more profits. By making refiners act responsibly and maintain a gas reserve, Californians would save money at the pump every year.”

As Newsom goes harder on refiners, he’s also sought to delay parts of an existing law in order to give the industry more time to submit plans for leak detection and response on existing wells. The proposed changes do not affect a prohibition on new permits for oil wells within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, parks and hospitals, which is the main thrust of the original law that took effect after oil interests agreed this year to remove a referendum on Senate Bill 1137 from the 2024 ballot.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the California Department of Finance, said the Newsom administration asked lawmakers to delay the new leak-detection plans to give the state more time to implement that part of the law. Current staffing levels, he said, “are insufficient to make rapid progress on the implementation of SB 1137.”

A budget trailer bill was published on Tuesday evening that could reflect a compromise between the governor, lawmakers and environmentalists on the delay.

The governor’s office and the Assembly Speaker’s Office declined to comment about the possibility of a special session. A spokesperson for McGuire did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Staff writer Anabel Sosa contributed to this report.