Equal justice under the law is not retribution.
“Going after” (i.e. prosecuting) Trump and allies for lawbreaking isn’t about retribution, it’s about protecting democracy (and justice). If politicians can break the law like Trump and his allies have done, without prosecution, then it won’t take long for someone to try and do it again.
I’m all in favor of prosecuting people right now. Trump, all his staff members who have violated court orders, ICE agents who have been indifferent to the law…
I think prosecuting even a few of them would go a long way towards encouraging the others to pay a little more attention to the law.
But i don’t want prosecution to be a major plank of a candidates platform. I want those planks to be “civil rights” and “law abiding”.
If a candidate can’t be straight up and say they’ll appoint an AG who will vigorously investigate and prosecute violations of the law by the last administration and their allies, then I seriously doubt they’ll have any chance at the nomination. At least one of them, and probably most, will say some variation of this.
To avoid having to compromise with the most conservative members of the Democratic coalition on every issue or risk losing a majority if a reasonably predictable number of people die or resign or are persuaded to change parties, Democrats need to win 222 House seats and 53 Senate seats.
To become filibuster-proof they need 60 Senators. To be able to actually convict anyone in an impeachment trial they need 67 Senators. Without those thresholds any attempt at prosecuting or removing anyone is a total waste of time.
Even winning a majority of electoral votes for President and the two chambers is no sure thing. It certainly won’t happen if Kamala Harris or another world-historically bad idea candidate is the nominee. To go beyond the 2016-2024 coalition and actually win a supermajority is going to require serious platform changes, with repudiation of the “white males bad” stuff at the top of the list. All moral considerations aside, writing off 36% of the population as voters is terrible politics.
This is irrelevant to a potential Democratic-appointed AG under a Democratic president prosecuting violations of the law.
OK, as mentioned, THIS part —
—is a non-starter. DO promise that you’ll clean up DOJ and that you will make sure any wrongdoing will swiftly face the full consequences of US law w/o being afraid of being called names. As in,
But “I’ll hand them over to foreigners if that’s what it takes”? You lose, badly.
And stop at that you will make the rule of law stand strong. DON’T turn it into a promise specifically, personally, to destroy Trump and other MAGA leaders. Be the one who can say “if you did nothing wrong all that will happen is you’ll be mildly inconvenienced to clear your name”.
Yeah, I can’t imagine a worse idea to campaign on. Half the electorate voted for the guy, and most of the people who didn’t will still have very serious concerns about violating American sovereignty like that.
post deleted
Maybe we need a white man in order to win. But we sure as Hell don’t need someone who acts like the toxic caricatures of “white” and “male”. Anyone who wants that is going to vote for Trump, and isn’t moveable.
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. There are other ways to be charismatic.
The thing is, Newsom is not doing that. Of the multiple methods he uses to communicate with the public, exactly one (his “press team” Twitter account) parodies that sort of behavior in order to mock it. Mistaking that for Newsom himself exhibiting the behavior himself is beyond silly.
I like Newsom mocking Trump. I don’t think it matters much, but it’s funny and annoys Trump. I still hate Newsom, but not for that.
Yeah, but he’s gay.
I don’t really know much about Newsom. I suspect he’s in the news more on the West Coast than here on the East Coast.
I think “from California” might hurt him, but hey, Obama was from Hawaii, even more liberal and “out of touch with central America” than California, and Obama won the election.
He’s also short. That makes more difference than I’d like it to.
It’s such a shame. I think Pete Buttigieg has Obama level skills. Maybe in a few decades.
For now, my money is on Newsom.
Matthew McConaughey will portray him on Saturday Night Live, and that will propel his popularity into office.
The critical thing Buttigieg lacks is charisma. He’s skilled and knowledgeable enough to be an excellent President, but he doesn’t emotionally captivate enough people to win an election. He may have a comparable skill set to Obama with regards to being able to run a government, but he lacks Obama’s charisma. Obama is fun to watch because he’s so comfortable, warm, engaging and entertaining. I’ve never thought that about Buttigieg. He certainly knows his stuff, but I’ve never watched him just for fun like I have with Obama.
I’m still pulling for AOC. I think she has incredible natural charisma, and it’s fantastic on camera, and I think she’ll inspire a broad swath of voters. But plenty of time to see who stands out.
So suppose Trump pardons himself and his cronies on the way out the door. Are we supposed to just accept that? “Too bad, they’re on base, there’s nothing we can do, guess they got away with it”? That’s where the threat of international justice comes into play. The next president needs to be willing to hand them over to a body that can prosecute them if our system proves incapable of doing so, and at the Nixonian approval ratings he’s been getting lately, people are going to love the idea.