Kamala Harris Tells NPR Her Administration Would Have ‘No Choice’ but to Prosecute Trump
“Everyone should be held accountable, and the president is not above the law.”
During an interview with National Public Radio on Wednesday, 2020 Democratic hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) said that given everything she now knows from the Mueller report, if she wins the presidency, her administration would have to prosecute President Donald Trump after he leaves.
Two things are happening here.
First, Kamala Harris, like all of the 2020 Democratic candidates, is not speaking to most of the country when she says something like this. She is speaking directly to the so-called resistance, also known as Democratic primary voters. She has to say things that they want to hear to build excitement around her campaign, which has been lacking lately.
Second, Harris is a former prosecutor and is campaigning on what she knows. It’s no different than a career senator like Sanders or Warren proposing legislation as fixes for everything. People tend to offer solutions based on what they know best.
Scott Detrow writes at NPR:
Harris: Justice Dept. ‘Would Have No Choice’ But To Prosecute Trump After Presidency
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.”…
“I do believe that we should believe Bob Mueller when he tells us essentially that the only reason an indictment was not returned is because of a memo in the Department of Justice that suggests you cannot indict a sitting president. But I’ve seen prosecution of cases on much less evidence.”
Listen to the audio clip in the tweet below:
Listen to @KamalaHarris say that, if she was president, her Department of Justice would have “no choice” but to prosecute President Trump. pic.twitter.com/9GzUjyX4o7
— MRCTV.org (@mrctv) June 13, 2019
This is nothing new. Think back to the Democratic primary of 2008 and the issues that motivated the same kind of voters. Plenty of them fantasized about a new Democrat president prosecuting George W. Bush for supposed war crimes.
Greg Gutfeld made a great point about Harris on The Five yesterday. From FOX News:
Greg Gutfeld: Kamala Harris looks ‘desperate’ saying she would have ‘no choice’ but to prosecute Trump
Fox News’ host Greg Gutfeld dismissed Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ comments saying her DOJ would have “no choice” but to prosecute President Trump comparing her to a desperate man trying to meet women at a bar.
“That’s what candidates are like right now. They are the desperate guy at the bar who will say anything to get your number. It’s just to get some kind of media spotlight. And they are not trying to appeal to America. Because America doesn’t care,” Gutfeld said on “The Five” Wednesday…
“The Greg Gutfeld Show” host said he “didn’t believe” Harris and pointed out that Democratic presidential candidates are “being tricked” into taking hard-left points of view.
“They’re being tricked into thinking there is no lane for moderates. Like everybody has to go this way and actually, America actually likes a moderate. You don’t have to be a rabid flame thrower. I don’t believe her for a second. It’s interesting that she has to do this because she is not taking off. And I thought that she would have taken off,” Gutfeld said.
The coming year will be a competition among Democrats trying to ‘out-left’ each other.
They have no choice. The Trump-despising, social justice warrior left has become their party’s base.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Everyone should be held accountable, and the president is not above the law”
She has the cliches down pat.
She seems to have left out one of the big clichés: Guilt or innocence doesn’t matter; it’s the seriousness of the charge.
Kamala is guilty of illegal positions
in 50 states – per her partners!
SNARK!
When Harris’s audience at campaign stops invariably chants “Lock him up!” I predict CNN personalities will not get the vapors this time.
She’s so very Pro-Choice. Accountable for what?
She has the right idea. Former presidents can be tried criminally.
But when I think of recent presidents who should be prosecuted, Trump isn’t the name that comes to mind. Wasn’t there some guy before him that led a seditious conspiracy to block Trump from taking office and to undermine his presidency, with lots of spying, supported by lies etc. etc.?
Why I believe there was, Sen. Harris. Former president Obama!
Do we have this statement on video – “Everyone should be held accountable, and the president is not above the law” alright, audio is good enough. When the Trump DOJ indicts BHO – and many in his administration – with SOLID evidence, I want this clip played nonstop.
sometimes, I wonder how it is that they play so expertly into Trump’s hands. It is *almost* like they WANT to help Trump.
There is only one likely explanation for why Kamala Harris is still getting attention.
why the modifier “likely”?
What would happen if Trump pardoned himself before leaving office?
Then he can’t be prosecuted. The president’s pardon power is plenary.
Can’t be prosecuted Federally. He’s still vulnerable to whatever any state might choose to throw at him.
That’s true while he’s in office as well. He’s not the president of New York, so there’s no reason NY shouldn’t prosecute him if it can.
Obama spied, Clinton colluded, Biden obstructed, DNC denied, and the press prosecuted a multi-trimester witch hunt. As for Harris, #MeToo #SheKnew #SheProgressed
Actus reus?
Defeating HRC
Weird. There’s noise coming out of her mouth, but I can’t understand a word he/she/it says…
Whatever it is, it sounds angry.
Hey, let’s just make sh!t up as we go. Sit down and shut up, Kamala.
Kamala Harris: Justice Dept. ‘Would Have No Choice’ But To Prosecute former president 0bama for all of the 0bama admin abuse of power, corruption and criminal acts in using federal resources to illegally spy, lie and falsely accuse a political opponent of being in collusion with Russia. Kamala Harris is opening the door to Prosecute former president 0bama for all of 0bama’s criminal acts.
So she wants to bring on the next civil war by attempting to immediately turn us into a third world country…..
Interesting strategy.
She has to say things that they want to hear
She could stick with the classics, like, say, “if you like your medical care, you can keep your medical care.” That one works great.
I can’t see even the D’rats being dumb enough to establish the precedent of ex-Presidents being legally persecuted by their successors. That one will make retirement pretty painful for an awful lot of Dems.
In less insane times, Democrats would not dream of prosecuting former presidents for the opposition party. The prospect of being on the receiving end would be sufficient to deter them.
But thanks to a combination of Third World-level voting fraud (ballot harvesting, voting by mail, etc), a Federal judiciary that is an open sewer of corruption and partisanship, and a weak, spineless GOPe which often cooperates with Democrats on their dirtiest and sleaziest policy proposals (open borders, gun control, Obamacare), I think they may very well try it.
Democrats seem to believe they are beyond the reach of the Deplorables, and can do what they want with little fear of reprisal. They may be right.
You can tell how softball the interview was because the obvious immediate followup questions were not asked:
On what charges? Please be specific, because the Mueller report does not detail any criminal charge that could be leveled against the President. Have there been any other Presidential administrations in all of US history that have prosecuted previous administrations for actions taken while they were in office? Do you think this will set precedent for future administrations into having them prosecute their predecessors? If the President who takes office after you files charges against you on actions you take during your term, will you still defend their right to do so?
I mean if you plan on opening that can of worms, you better know what to do with the worms.
The Democrats opened a huge can of worms when they spied on the Trump Campaign. Trump, being a magnanimous victor said that he was not going to pursue charges against HRC and was content to ignore the previous actions against him. The Dems should have took him at his word and stopped right there. If they had, we would probably not be in the midst of the current investigation.
Trump won against the coup attempt. But, now, he is angry and people are going to pay for their attacks upon him, his family, his associates and the nation. And, unless he drops dead from a heart attack in the next few days, it is very likely that some important Obama Administration members will be going to jail. If I was a Democrat, I would not be threatening President Trump. While it is very difficult to file criminal charges against a sitting President, it is relatively easy to file them against a member of Congress. And, as we continually see, most Congress Critters have committed acts which are violations of criminal law, before, during and after their terms in office. These politicians really don’t want to go there.
Make no mistake, Obama and his legion spied on Breitbart and all big conservatives in the media – on air and online.
I heard when Willie arrested her for obstruction , it wasn’t her arms she held in the air.
This woman is a little hitler. She makes hillary clinton look kind.
Harris thinks she is above the law and can prosecute someone who hasn’t committed a crime, just because she disagrees with his politics.
When you f*** your way to the top, you’re an angry, bitter person.
Just look at hillary clinton and michelle obama.
Do you seriously think that applies to either of them?
“Everyone should be held accountable, and the president is not above the law.”
—————–
So she’s going to go after illegal aliens, politicians who declare themselves and their city/state a “sanctuary” place for illegals and help the states that have strict anti abortion laws?
Yeah, probably not. Witch with a b really doesn’t believe in laws, just fascist power.
So she denies the principle of prosecutorial discretion? You know, the one on which DACA is based?
What about marijuana? Will she “have no choice” but to prosecute all marijuana cases, since it’s still a federal crime?