Okay—well, remember when it was unseemly for one to suggest locking up your political enemies? Yeah, that was thrown out there because Donald Trump threatened to do that during the 2016 election. So, out goes “lock her up.”
“Lock him up” is the new Democratic war cry at least for one 2020 candidate. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is promising to use the Justice Department to indict Donald Trump should she win the Democratic nomination and the general election next year. If you thought Obama’s politicization of the DOJ, which led to the alleged FISA abuses and Spygate fiasco, was bad—this will be Chernobyl –level damage to the institution. It’s funny. Again, for all the talk about how Trump is ruining institutions, staining them—they’re the ones that are actually doing the most damage from within (via NPR):
California Sen. Kamala Harris says that if she's elected president, her administration's Department of Justice would likely pursue criminal obstruction of justice charges against a former President Donald Trump.
"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 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."
Belief is not evidence. Sorry, there wasn’t enough to bring formal charges against President Trump on obstruction over the two-year Russian collusion witch-hunt that turned out to be a pure myth. There was no Russian collusion. The report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller torpedoed that narrative. It exposed it as a liberal lie that was fanned for two years. This was the Left’s best hope to make an impeachment case. It’s now dead. But after two years of propping this trash up, liberals have no choice but to double down. Harris’ promise to charge Trump shows, which we all knew, that the Mueller investigation was going to be weaponized in order to get Trump and charging him post-presidency is the tax he has to pay for beating Hillary Clinton. I think Trump will win in 2020, but after he leaves, he’s still not out of the clear. That’s the message: watch your back. And people tell me it’s the GOP who intimidates people.
Out of fairness, here’s Ed Morrissey’s take over at Hot Air:
Let’s note up front that hypocrisy extends in both directions. Trump made the same dumb campaign pledge with Clinton, too. How did that work out? Trump won, but not because he was going to prosecute Hillary; he won because Hillary never showed up in Wisconsin and barely paid attention to Michigan and Pennsylvania. Trump ended up backing off his “lock her up” promise immediately after winning, but still does little to discourage that chant at rallies, when it occurs at all any more. Anyone feigning shock, shock at this breakdown of American norms from Harris’ pledge had better first note the obvious precedent.
That said, it’s still hypocritical for Harris to now adopt the “lock him up” pledge. Had Barack Obama’s DoJ done its job, it had plenty of evidence to prosecute Hillary under 18 USC 793 for her use of a private e-mail system in transmitting classified information. There is at least as much evidence for obstruction with Clinton too as there is for Trump, with her destruction of records, namely the e-mails, and destruction of electronic devices in covering up those records. Don’t forget that the entire purpose of that system was to obstruct Congress and the courts from exercising legitimate oversight over her actions at the State Department, which she allowed to repeatedly misrepresent her e-mail status in FOIA court actions.
The statute of limitations on obstruction charges for Clinton’s e-mail system actions doesn’t run out until next year at the earliest, in fact. Would Harris cheer an effort by William Barr to indict Clinton and her team now? Especially as a demonstration of “equal justice under the law”? I’d say that’s doubtful in the extreme, which underscores the hypocrisy at play.
And yes, that’s another thing. There’s evidence of wrongdoing with Hillary Clinton. There are even more unanswered questions concerning the deals and inner machinations of the Clinton Foundation. There’s an IG report about Hillary’s email server; folks Hillary destroyed electronic devices with hammers. Even Bill Maher, a staunch opponent of President Trump, admitted that Hillary obstructed justice.
All that is supporting the ‘Trump obstructed justice, despite no crime being committed’ is a lot of hot air bellowed from the mouths of former Obama officials, disgruntled liberals, and insufferable progressive that make up the commentator corps on this network called CNN.
***
UPDATE: On an NPR's Politics Podcast, Harris reiterated that Trump would be charged because there "would be no choice (via RCP):
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 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."