Lock Him Up: Harris Says Justice Department Would Have “No Choice” Under Her Administration But To Prosecute Trump

For years, many of us have criticized Donald Trump for his signature campaign mantra of “Lock her up” against Hillary Clinton. Now, however, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) seems to be adopting a “Lock him up” pledge to jumpstart her campaign, which remains struck around fifth in the pack. Last week, Harris pledged to prosecute Trump. This morning, she said her Justice Department would have “no choice” but to prosecute Trump after he left office.

Harris has been one of the most vocal critics of Trump’s relations with the Justice Department, objecting that he has failed to recognize the independence of the Department in making prosecutorial decisions.

Yet, this morning, Harris insisted that “I believe that they would have no choice, and that they should. Yes. There has to be accountability.”

She seems to be referencing an obstruction case despite the fact that the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General have already made the prosecutorial decisions that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal charge. Harris is suggesting that her Justice Department would “have no choice” but to reverse that prior decisions and prosecute even though no new evidence has been produced since the release of the Mueller report.

That is a rather curious pledge for a new and independent Justice Department. Moreover, as a longtime criminal defense attorney, I would relish the opportunity to defend on a case that was expressly rejected as insufficient for prosecution but then flipped with the entry of a new administration from the opposing party.

Before “lock him up” becomes the alternative mantra in this election, the Democrats need to consider if they are objecting to Trump’s approach on the principle or merely the subject of his pledge to prosecute his political opponents.

159 thoughts on “Lock Him Up: Harris Says Justice Department Would Have “No Choice” Under Her Administration But To Prosecute Trump”

  1. Worth a million votes for Constitutional Centrism and our Representative Constitutional Republic … per state. Motor Mouth Harris shoots her self in the …. again….

  2. That seems to be a contradictory position given the fact that Kamala Harris allegedly violated divorce law by committing adultery with Willie Brown and is pursing the subversive and unconstitutional act of seeking candidacy for the office of president without meeting the constitutional requirement to be a “natural born citizen.”

    To wit,

    Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

    Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.

    – A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

    – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

    – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

    – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

    – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

    – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations,1758, did.


    Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

    Book 1, Ch. 19

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”


    Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

    “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”


    To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

    From John Jay

    New York 25 July 1787

    Dear Sir

    I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

    Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

    Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

    which sailed Yesterday.

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

    provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

    administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the

    american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

    Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

    I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

    John Jay

  3. When Democrats lost the election, they resorted to politics by “other means.” In order to null the will of voters across the country, they tried on one accusation after another. He’s got dementia. Personality disorder. Cardiac disease. He’s an antisemite. He’s racist (this last one was pushed hard through selective editing of his comments). He’s a Russian Manchurian candidate. One after another was disproven. The last was a hoax perpetuated by the losing political candidate and activists in the FBI using, ironically, a fraudulent dossier prepared by Russian spies. When the last was disproven, now they want to impeach him for obstructing an investigation into a crime he didn’t commit.

    Constitutional crisis? How about an out of control, politicized Leftist administrative bureaucracy that is trying to subvert the balance of powers?

    1. Democrats have nothing to run on besides opposition to Trump. The economy is going well. Minorities are enjoying the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded.

      When you’ve got nothing else, fall back on hate.

      Nowhere, in any of these platforms, is there anything about protecting American interests, or ensuring Americans have their best chance of success. It’s all high taxes, which would kill that booming economy and the jobs, high spending, Socialism, and hate Trump.

      How interesting that we went from Russia being heard repeatedly all day long, to now it’s all quiet on the Russian front. Now it’s obstruction. If that fails, what will be next?

    2. Karen, the will of the voters can be measured by the Popular Vote. That’s why it’s called the ‘Popular’ Vote because it represents which candidate is ‘most popular’.

      1. Peter – the will of the people count in all states, not just the two most populated ones.

        That is why the Electoral College was set up, so that the will of the people in all states choose a president. As I have pointed out, Democrats disenfranchising states by going around the electoral college would make 48 states have no say in the election, and become a dumping ground. It would mean that, really, only two states would need to vote at all, and there would be zero point in any other state even bothering. Does that sound like the will of the people to you?

        Why are you defending the tyranny of two states over the other 48?

        Democrats have passed laws in some states that would require their electoral college votes to go to whomever wins the popular vote. That would mean that if a state voted red, but the popular vote went blue, then the state would be forced, agains the will of its people, to vote blue. If all the states passed these laws, then every single election would be unanimous, just like in many dictatorial nations euphemistically named elections. What part of this are you not understanding?

        In order to defraud an election, all they would have to do is target only 2 states out of 50. Hack their voting machines, gather up mail in ballots…whatever method, it would only need to target two states. It would be so easy to cheat in elections.

        1. The people who voted for Hillary came from all 50 states and outnumbered the voters for Trump, also from all 50 states. Karen is defending the minority electing our president, not democracy.

          By the way, you could maintain the electoral college and make the votes proportional, not winner take all, and be more democratic. That is the way the EC was originally and changed in the mid 1800s to appease slave states.

          1. there is a balancing between the states with higher populations and lower populations which has been an issue ever since the beginning.

            if you project the increasing urbanization, the most populous states will get more populous. and in fact they will become the only states that matter.

            i am all for secession again if it comes to that. and millions of others will be too. it is probably the predictable end of the US, may devolve into parts like the former USSR.

            and probably the elites will let it go like the did the USSR. too much trouble to keep it together and what did all those soviet states really have in common anyways?

            people who want to live in urban megapolis enclaves will keep on gravitating to big cities in texas, new york, california, and florida. other cities will drain out gradually, and the countrysides have much thinned already.

            but massive population concentration is only tenable with certain economic arrangements, and technologies. those seem pretty durable and resilient to me, so I don’t predict a mad max scenario

            but it could come. and of course if they big cities want to try and impose a forcible solution on the countryside, that’s impossible. good luck feeding those big cities if it comes to blows.

            1. mass migration favors Democrat party bosses. thats why they like it and attack critics are racists and nativists and why they really hate the Donald. Because he’s the first who is serious about cutting off the flow, maybe the first serious one since Eisenhower at least. They hate him for this– it has an immediate threatening effect on their main growth strategy. Importing new Democrats from abroad! Luring them here with free stuff, plundered from the natives.

              the Democrats are electing a new population when they advocate for mass migration and they precisely understand this.


              Anna Maria Mayda, Giovanni Peri, Walter Steingress
              NBER Working Paper No. 21941
              Issued in January 2016
              NBER Program(s):Political Economy
              We empirically analyze the impact of immigration to the U.S. on the share of votes to the Republicans and Democrats between 1994 and 2012. Our analysis is based on variation across states and years – using data from the Current Population Survey merged with election data – and addresses the endogeneity of immigrant flows using a novel set of instruments. On average across election types, immigration to the U.S. has a significant and negative impact on the Republican vote share, consistent with the typical view of political analysts in the U.S. This average effect – which is driven by elections in the House – works through two main channels. The impact of immigration on Republican votes in the House is negative when the share of naturalized migrants in the voting population increases. Yet, it can be positive when the share of non-citizen migrants out of the population goes up and the size of migration makes it a salient policy issue in voters’ minds. These results are consistent with naturalized migrants being less likely to vote for the Republican party than native voters and with native voters’ political preferences moving towards the Republican party because of high immigration of non-citizens. This second effect, however, is significant only for very high levels of immigrant presence.


              that means, it’s all coming down to big city Democrat bosses and their teeming hordes of Johnny come latelys, packing the ballot boxes like Tammany Hall signing up the Irish in Gangs of New York– versus the rest of us.

              Kind of been that way all along in a way; makes you wonder if this wasnt just the most clever ploy in the political history of the world. enshrine a permanent state of civil war.

              In history has there ever been a country such as America which “leadership” valued its own native born so cheaply?

              1. If Trump was serious he’d have a plan and he’d be working hard to implement it. He doesn’t, he hasn’t. all he has is a stunt.

            2. Kurtz, 75% of America lives in the 20 largest states. That’s a lopsided margin already. The Electoral College harks back to an era where most families lived on farms.

              1. so i guess you are ok with reducing the less populated states into internal colonies governed by the Megapolis.

                Kind of like what was that movie? Hunger Games

                great plan Peter. and you can see where such fictional ideas come from

              2. Kurtz, 75% of America lives in the 20 largest states. That’s a lopsided margin already.

                Peter, the ’20 largest states’ make up 40% of the population units. That they encompass 75% of the population makes for an ordinary skew distribution. (Presuming the talking point mill from which you got this datum didn’t make a hash of it like they did with the population growth of Des Moines).

                1. Tabby, ’20 Largest Stat’ is NOT from any ‘Talking Points Mill’. That’s only ‘you’ being ignorant!

                  Add them up yourself. Go to Wikipedia: ‘State Populations’. Add up the first 10 and see what you get. It’s more than half of the country’s population. The Top 5 alone account for 37% of the country.

                  Tabby, correct me only if ‘you’ know what you’re actually talking about. You seem to think the smaller states are vastly bigger than they are. And you don’t seem to know that several red states rank among the biggest.

            3. people who want to live in urban megapolis enclaves will keep on gravitating to big cities in texas, new york, california, and florida. other cities will drain out gradually, and the countrysides have much thinned already.

              No, even in the Plains states, concentrated population centers which had achieved a critical mass by 1950 have held their own in intervening years. The states as a whole are not declining demographically. Rather, population is redistributing itself within the states. A critical mass for such settlements in Kansas and Nebraska would be about 15,000.

              Farther east, you’re not seeing a whole lot of demographic decline in rural areas and non-metropolitan towns. You see stasis. West Virginia south of Charleston and Huntington is declining (as are parts of Eastern Kentucky), but that’s atypical.

              1. Tabby, I’m not sure what you’re saying here. The Plains States have been largely stagnant for years in terms of population growth. Omaha remains a vital city because its insurance industry seems to weather every recession. Yet neither Omaha nor Lincoln has grown that much in the past 3 to 4 decades. Neither has Des Moines or Wichita.

                1. Lancaster County, Nebraska has seen its population grow by 48% since 1980. The populations of Pottawatamie County, Iowa; Sarpy County, Nebraska; and Douglas County, Nebraska have since 1980 grown by 48% in sum. That of Sedgwick County, Ks has grown by 31%. The populations of Polk, Dallas, and Warren Counties in Iowa have grown by 69% in sum. In case you need it spelled out, that covers, respectively, the dense settlement around Lincoln, Omaha, Wichita, and Des Moines.

                  The population of the United States as a whole has grown by 44% in that time.

                  1. Tabby, if these statistics were representative of growth throughout the heartland, those states would be booming. They aren’t!

                    I’m from the Midwest. I know that region of the country. From Ohio to Nebraska state population counts have been relatively flat in the past 40 years.

                    Americans don’t like cold weather and that’s a cold fact. So they move instead to hot regions where water supplies are often low. It makes no sense, actually. America should be centered around the Great Lakes (as it was for much of history).

                    I would be all for a national policy of rebuilding Great Lakes ports and motivating Americans to relocate and, or, stay there.

                    1. Peter, you made a factual statement which is false. You said, “The Plains States have been largely stagnant for years in terms of population growth. ” The term ‘stagnant’ does not mean what you fancy it means. Of the thirteen states touching on the Plains, all have seen population growth since 1980 and all but two (Iowa, North Dakota, and Illinois) have grown by at least 20%.

                      What you have seen is redistribution of population between small towns and rural areas and the cities on the Plains. The counties encompassing the 2d and 3d tier cities on the Plains have all had satisfactory (> 30%) demographic growth since 1980, bar two: those around the Quad Cities on the Illinois-Iowa border and that surrounding Rockford, Illinois. The counties surrounding the 4th tier cities are a mix, some with robust growth and some with slow growth. Only three have declined: that around Waterloo, Iowa; that around Decatur, Illinois; and that around Belleville, Illinois.

                      It’s not difficult to form a sensible hypothesis about what’s going on on the Plains, and has been going on since 1930 is some areas and since 1950 in others. Areas that were highly specialized in agriculture or specialized in providing services to an agricultural population have seen population losses as labor has been released in the agricultural sector and farm properties consolidated. A common pattern among non-metropolitan counties in Nebraska and Kansas is to see the population in country homesteads off its peak by 2/3, the population in service villages and small towns off its peak by about 40%, and the population in towns with 15,000 or more in 1950 at least holding their own.

                      An auxilliary hypothesis might explain the problems Downstate Illinois is having: it’s appended to the rapacious rent-seekers in greater Chicago.

                      Americans don’t like cold weather and that’s a cold fact.

                      Some don’t like hot weather either. As a co-worker of mine who returned to New York from Georgia said, “you can always put stuff on”. Some don’t like Californians. For obvious reasons.

                    2. Tabby, population growth in the country has been primarily in the west and south. There might be ‘some’ growth on the plaines, but that part of the country isn’t really happening as major growth centers. And you’re just making a ridiculous argument if you’re saying they are. It’s like you’re just being a contrarian for the purpose of being a contrarian and not for any intelligent reason.

            4. i gave you a citation proving that mass migration favors Democrats
              any reasonable person might conclude, perhaps Democrat leadership favors mass migration,
              because it favors them

              it’s kind of like the Teamsters and illegal immigrants

              I talked to one of my friends from a long time organizing family about this. why don’t the Teamsters speak up about the mass migration that is diluting the wages of the working drivers all over the country?

              simple answer:

              a) they organize at higher rates than natives
              b) a lot more of the migrants who organize at higher rates means a lot more members

              and DUH he did not say this but we are not naive– a lot more members means more money
              which is what all such rackets are all about

              that said I still like the Teamsters

              1. Kurtz, the troll Anon offered you her pills

                Kurtz, take a pill.

                Don’t do it. You we daily see the results from her ingesting pills, snorts, injections and slamming in her veins. As Nancy Reagan once said

          2. Karen, doesn’t know that deep red Texas is bigger than New York and that purple Florida is also bigger than New York.

            And Karen still doesn’t get what ‘Popular’ means.

  4. https://19thwardchicago.blogspot.com/2019/01/kamalas-dirty-laundry.html

    Kamala’s Dirty Laundry

    A week ago on January 21, 2019, she officially announced her campaign to run for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in the 2020 United States presidential election. In the first 24 hours, her campaign already raised $1.5 million in mostly small contributions.
    Her announcement renewed questions about how Harris got her start in politics.

    According to Wikipedia, in 1993, 31 years younger and fresh out of law school, Kamala Harris began “dating” California Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown, “who introduced her to many powerful individuals in the California and Sacramento political and campaign management establishment.”

    Brown later became a two-term mayor of San Francisco. In Willie Brown: A Biography, p. 404, James Richardson writes that Kamala Harris was Willie Brown’s “girl friend” although he was — and still is — married to his wife Blanche Vitero.
    More than introducing her to powerful people in politics, the Washington Free Beacon points out that Brown also appointed Harris to two well-paid state commission assignments on the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission. SF Weekly reported back in 2003 that the two positions earned her more than $400,000 over five years.

    Willie Bown
    In his weekly column in the San Francisco Chronicle last Saturday, January 26, 2019, Willie Brown admits to his adulterous affair with Kamala Harris in a casual “what’s the big deal?” demeanor. He writes:
    Elephant in the room: I’ve been peppered with calls from the national media about my “relationship” with Kamala Harris, most of which I have not returned.

    Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago.

    Admitting that “I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco,” Brown then breezily dismisses his nepotistic patronage, saying “I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians.”

    Are we to think that Pelosi, Newsom and Feinstein also screwed Willie Brown into politics?

    Brown’s admission that he had dated an adulterous affair with and “assisted” Kamala Harris into politics may just the beginning of the airing of her dirty laundry.

    According to a Crazy Days and Nights blind last June, Kamala Harris began her political career by being the mistress of the powerful and married Willie Brown — former mayor of San Francisco and speaker of the California State Assembly — who took her to swinger parties that were “glorified orgies” where she engaged in sex with “large numbers of men and women”. CDAN claims there are compromising pictures of Harris at these orgies, “which is why senior leaders from her party are quietly trying to discourage her presidential ambitions”.

    1. the senior leaders of the Democrat party are money men who are certainly not discouraging her.

      Not yet at least

      And if they do, it won’t be because she has some naughty pictures floating around. most women from California probably do by now. The ones in Hollywood never seem to be harmed by them.


    Until Donald Trump, presidential nominees never threatened to jail their opponents. Threats like that had no place in American politics. Jailing threats were considered features of Third World politics.

    Therefore I don’t condone Harris’ pledge to prosecute Donald Trump. The threat is especially ill-advised when no clear-cut case has been made. But that was also true when Trump threatened to jail Hillary. And again it illustrates how Trump lowered the standards for campaign conduct. Sadly Trump’s low standards will reverberate for years as others seek to imitate the stunts he has pulled.

    Trump will be the most controversial ex-president in American history. Revelations of Trump misconduct will probably be a news staple long after he leaves office. And those revelations will create huge pressure for investigations and, or, prosecutions. Trump is guaranteed to be an all-poloraizing figure beyond even his death.

    1. Hillary Clinton broke numerous federal laws. It took a politicized DOJ and FBI to keep her out of prison.

      Answer me this. Do you believe that it is legal to be a Secretary of State, who was throughly trained in how to handle classified information and the Records Act, to:

      1. Use a private email in order to avoid the Records Act
      2. Use a private server kept in her bathroom to handle her email correspondence, including classified and Top Secret Information, with physical access to people with zero security clearance
      3. Back up the illegal server to the Cloud, using IT technicians with zero security clearance, and basically shouting classified information to foreign nations
      4. Not turn over her emails to the State Department before leaving
      5. To delete thousands of emails in defiance of the Records Act
      6. To communicate with President Obama, who used a different email account, on this unprotected, illegal, unsafe server.
      7. For President Obama to lie and claim he heard about her server when we did, when he actually used a different email address to communicate with her on the server
      8. For her to lie about the illegal server she had in her bathroom
      9. For her to delete emails, wipe her server clean with Bleach Bit, while under subpoena
      10. For her to smash her and her staff’s Blackberries, laptops, and desktops with hammers while under subpoena

      Think this was legal, do you? Think it is shocking that Trump called for her to be held criminally responsible, rather than shocked that she did it?

      Jailing, or threatening to jail (or impeach or overthrow) innocent people are the marks of dictatorial regimes. Holding everyone accountable to the law is just called equal justice.

      1. Karen, Republicans controlled government for the first two years of Trump’s presidency. So this garbage you spew about a ‘politicized DOJ and FBI’ is perversely ridiculous. It was Comey’s letter to Congress that put the final nail in Hillary’s electoral coffin.


      Peter, you really are nutty. Harris wasn’t forced by Trump to do anything though you are proving Democrats have no policy. Real crimes were committed by Hillary. She wasn’t indicted but they were crimes non the less and it appears she was given a pass for political reasons.

      How high up that went is unknown but it appears that the origins of the Trump investigations may have begun in the Secretary of State’s office and they may even have involved our allies. We have to wait for the release of reports and statements made by those in our own government and foreign governments.

      In the meantime Kamala has nothing to offer except a pledge to jail Trump based on a lengthy investigation that found nothing against Trump. This is how Democrats howl.

  6. https://lawnews.tv/my-classmate-kamala-harris-rode-affirmative-action-leop-willie-etc/

    How my classmate Kamala Harris rode Affirmative Action

    Kamala Harris and I were both in the Class of 1989 at UC Hastings College of Law, but I did not know her personally — Hastings was in 1986-1989 a large law school (about 1500 students). Although I passed the bar exam the first time I sat for it and was admitted in December of 1989, for some reason Kamala was not admitted until June of 1990 so I’m guessing she failed her first attempt.

    If in fact she failed, that’s really amazing since she had advantages not available to me. Her close grandfather was a diplomat, but I didn’t even grow up with a lawyer in the family. More importantly, while I was flailing around the first year trying to adjust to this new way of studying called “law school” which to me seemed like torture, she as a minority student in the Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEOP) was getting first-rate tutorial assistance, including special course outlines only available to those LEOP students. Considering that a single final exam counted for 100% of the grade in these year-long classes, that was extremely unfair!

    Apparently affirmative action of a different sort continued after graduation. Willie Brown admits to dating Kamala and helping her career. Wille Brown never dated me or helped my career. But he did help Gavin. Hmmm. (I recall that Willie gave our Class of 1989 commencement address — which I skipped, heading home early — maybe they hooked up there and that had something to do with her not passing the bar?)

    1. a crazy thing for a lawyer to post. he will probably get an 8.4 beef laid against him for questioning affirmative action. racist!

  7. This morning, she said her Justice Department would have “no choice” but to prosecute Trump after he left office.

    Which is why no American should trust the FBI, DOJ or any Member of Congress. Thank you Kamala “I failed the bar exam” Harris for asserting our right to hold you and the US legal system in contempt

  8. Partisan Democrats have responded to their embarrassment with brazen lying. Why does this not surprise me?

  9. Kamala Harris had backing from Hillary boosters and California Democrat money machine
    She can’t even make it past the polls running against a gay mayor from the Rust Belt
    Credit to Mayor Pete I guess.
    Who’s number four?

    And they continue to ignore Tulsi Gabbard like she doesnt exist

    Kamala is a weak candidate. In due time, the bigger money will tell her to drop out, and she will follow orders and comply.

  10. Latest Quinnipac poll:

    Root Canal 46%, Trump 42%
    Day old gas station sushi 46%, Trump 40%
    Home vasectomy kit 47%, Trump 41%
    Nickleback covering Who Let the dogs out 49%
    Trump 41%

    Biden 53%, Trump 40%
    Sanders 51%, Trump 42%
    Harris 49%, Trump 41%
    Warren 49%, Trump 42%
    Buttigieg 47%, Trump 42%
    Booker 47%, Trump 42%

      1. “its going to be a landslide for sleepy joe. just like it was for hillary”

        …And Trump will be President for four more years.

  11. I lived in downtown San Francisco (Sutter at Jones) during Kamala Harris’ tenure as San Francisco’s District Attorney and was also a crime victim. Too bad Harris didn’t apply her “Lock him up” philosophy to her job as SF’s top prosecutor.

    We were awaked by a 3:30am knock at the front door of our 6th floor penthouse condo by an SFPD officer, who informed that an alert neighbor spotted a burglar crouched in front of the French Doors on the balcony outside our kitchen, and that our entire building (that backed up into Cosmo Alley) was “surrounded by police officers”.

    When the would be burglar spotted the cops he threatened to jump and hostage negotiators were brought in. We also served coffee to an entire engine company of firefighters in our hallway who where brought in.

    It took until dawn to take the man into custody. It turns out he was on TWO SEPERATE felony burglary probations, was high on meth, and had in his possession a knife, rope, and duct tape.

    Kamala Harris dropped all charges from that night, even though an entire shift of police officers and an engine company of firefighters were occupied all night. Per Harris plea bargain, the man admitted to a violation of felony probation and was sentenced to time served, and was released back onto the streets (he lived two blocks from us) 45 days from the night of his arrest.

    In another matter, Harris gave a press conference to announce that she would not be seeking the death penalty against a man who ambushed and wounded a police officer and killed his partner, SFPD officer Espinoza with an AK-47. The announcement was made quickly (before the dead officer’s funeral was even held) and without even speaking to Officer Espinoza’s widow. (To this day, Harris has never tried to speak with Officer Espinoza’s widow.)

    After that, to retain the political support of the POA, Harris refused to institute a policy of making Brady disclosures to criminal defendants until her laxity in enforcing constitutional standards led to the wholesale dismissal of 1,000 drug cases by a judge.

    Harris is a political climber, not a career prosecutor. She parlayed her role as the mistress of married Willie Brown, Jr. (62 to her 30) to get her job as SF DA, and that and every job since has merely been a stepping stone on the way to her ambition to be president.

    As San Francisco District Attorney Harris was ranked LAST (#50 out of 50) with the worst felony trial record of any county district attorney in California. LINK http://www.sfweekly.com/news/a-lack-of-conviction/

    I did not know LA DA Steve Cooley when he ran for CA AG, but just to attempt to keep Harris out of the job I sent Cooley’s campaign $500.00 At lest he wanted to put bad guys in jail. Harris only wanted another entry in her political CV.

    1. Just amazing what a collection of grotesques are to be found in federal politics in the Democratic Party, many of whom were grotesques at lower levels. Another case file in the archive of our garbage elite.

    2. wow! did you make that up? really? amazing, it sounds like a storyline from Dirty Harry movies

      Weren’t those set in SF? Maybe Kamala never watched em. I sure did.

      “Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?”

    3. out here in flyover, a creeper climbing the exterior of a dwelling intent on B&E can and often does catch a bullet from the homeowner. one fool I went to school with as a little kid eventually got his ticket punched this way.

      terminating a forcible felony with lethal force is lawful, and often a service to society.

    4. It turns out he was on TWO SEPERATE felony burglary probations, was high on meth, and had in his possession a knife, rope, and duct tape.

      And now Peter Shill trolls on these forums menacing JT’s readers without knife, rope and duct tape but driven by crystal meth

    5. Stephen, D A’s don’t have to seek the death penalty. And here in California, support for the death penalty is probably less than 50%.

      With regards to that burglar outside your penthouse, Harris’ plea deal saved you the trouble of going to court. You might have wasted several days on that matter as various continuances were requested and accepted. Witnesses can waste several court days on even lesser cases than that.

  12. For a prosecutor, she’s not that smart. There has to be a crime to prosecute. Maybe she needs to go back to law school rather than run for president. Saying “there’s a witch hunt” when there is a witch hunt is not a crime. Saying “if you can find the 33,000 deleted emails” when there was 33,000 deleted subpoenaed emails is not a crime. Elections have consequences, and Trump won. Get over it Kamala.

      1. He was guilty of obstructing the obstruction investigation! Andrew Weismann’s previous efforts at engineering such self-licking ice cream cones have been tossed out by appellate courts, but for partisan Democrats

      2. swearing out false affidavits in support of bogus fisa warrants is a crime too
        and conspiracy to obstruct justice
        and abuse of office
        i can think of a lot of things. maybe they will too

  13. Helloooo! Mueller said there times in front of witnesses that DOJ policy had nothing to do with his non-decision on obstruction.

      1. Then Mueller can present and defend his reasons for disagreement with DOJ……he has not only that right but that duty. If his version of the consultation he had with DOJ is different from what DOJ says about it, Mueller should say how and why he differs with Barr and Rosenstein, instead of doing his disappearing act.
        This behavior on Mueller’s part is off, and seems to stem from a willingness to make a claim about something,vtgen not discuss it. So we had the hyperr-secrecy of the investgations with virtually no updates for 2 1/2 years because of “the need for secrecy, then we have the guy responsible for wrapping up the investigation failing to present conclusions, failing to make himself available for interviews/ testimony, because of HIS need for hyper-spin secrecy.

        1. Mueller stated clearly his opinion and explained his course of action. There was nothing logically inconsistent or incompatible with DOJ policy which does not spell out the conflict between the Special Counsel law and their policy on charging a sitting president.

          I would have loved Mueller to make a finding on Trump, but the attacks on him now by the right are just more well poisoning by those like Tom who will say anything to defend the low life grifter who is his leader.

  14. ” I would relish the opportunity to defend on a case that was expressly rejected as insufficient for prosecution but then flipped with the entry of a new administration from the opposing party.”

    Two people, both appointed by Trump said he’s innocent. A thousand former prosecutors, Democrat and Republican say he’s guilty. Who to believe?

      1. Have you read the report or are you accepting Barr’s distorted version of it? Barr says the Justice Dept. Opinion that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime wasn’t a factor in Mueller’s decision. If you read the report, you would know that not to be true.

        1. “If you read the report, you would know that not to be true.”

          You are blowing wind as usual Enigma. If you had any proof you would have provided it here with your best quotes from the Report and an explanation of your own. You don’t have it and you didn’t read the Report.

          Last time we had an argument about documents where you pretended the results were different than they were I provided you with what the document concluded along with who signed the document proving you wrong as usual.

          You make too much cr-p up.

          1. “Mueller said it was because his hands were tied by Justice Department policy that forbids indictment of a sitting president—a statement already being interpreted as an invitation for Congress to impeach Trump.

            “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider,” he said in a surprise press conference at DOJ headquarters.

            The special counsel investigation reported 10 episodes of possible obstruction-of-justice offenses allegedly committed by Trump, including the president’s failed efforts to fire Mueller. At the press conference, Mueller said the lack of an official charge of misconduct against Trump should not be interpreted as an exoneration—as Trump and his allies have endlessly claimed.

            “If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so,” Mueller said.

            Instead, Mueller said “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

            1. Mueller hasn’t been totally honest. He wasn’t arm’s length from the problems to begin with which is unethical. He didn’t investigate paths that led to Democratic involvement. He didn’t draw a conclusion which was his job. The 400 plus pages wasn’t necessary. Mueller had to know within days or a month that Trump was not involved.

              Though people like Anon may not recognize it today and will find out later if they don’t, it appears Obama’s State Department was likely at the center of this entire hoax. That is not good for the nation and is rather scary. That is likely why foreign government’s inadvertantly became involved (Great Britain, Italy and Australia). The warnings not to use Steele for their FISA applications were numerous and stated by different people. That was done anyway and was illegal.

              Mueller’s Report contradicts Mueller and his statement along with the legal facts. In fact no statement was needed from Mueller and was done so for political reasons.

              1. Mueller’s statement was in complete sync with his report. If Allan thinks not, he should say where and how.

                1. Anon, you have questioned multiple times like Peter and then when given the answer you have run away. Then you repeat the ignorant statement you previously made. You can search for yourself now a days. It should be easy because Mueller’s lack of consistency has been stated over and over again and I think that includes statements made on this blog.

                1. “No linky, you stinky.”

                  You are no cupid but you are stupid.

                  Wally, you can wait until the news hits the rags you read.

                    1. …And when the news finally filters to YNOT he will be just as dumb then as he is now.

            2. A Special Counsel is expected to come to conclusions, and render an opinion if he feels that a crime has been committed. That
              can and should be done regardless of the DOJ policy that a sitting president should/ can not be indicted.
              Barr himself stated that in Congressional testimony. Mueller’s decision to give an opinion on the “collusion” issue, but punt on the conspiracy issue, guaranteees that the circus in Congress over impeachment “talk but no impeachment” will play out for at least another c18 months.
              It’s bad enough that Mueller failed to present an OSC opinion on obstruction; now, he’s doing everything he can to “remain underground, no defend his report, not support his written allegations that DOJ misrepresented his report, etc. This is a model for how not to wrap up an OSC investigation, regardless of that lame excuse about DOJ policy on indicting a president.

              1. Yes Tom, it’s unfortunate that impeachment can take so long and that Special Councels sometimes have a president under investigation which conflicts with DOJ policy. Barr’s opinion is of course situational based on how he sees it affecting his client – which is not the US Government – and one he’s tried to falsely justify as being shared with Mueller.

                1. IMPEACHMENT or the decision on whether to impeach, can and should be made after “talking impeachment” since Jan. 2001. You’re defending Mueller’s failure to present a conclusion on conspiracy, his failure to explain/ fefent his report or his accusations, and now you’re defending the dithering of those in Congress who want to “talk impeachnent”, and only talk about it, but not go beyond talk.

                  1. 2001? WTF?

                    Mueller presented a conclusion on criminal conspiracy – not enough evidence.
                    His report his detail laden an explains his reasoning. What are you talking about?
                    Congress should carefully explore the evidence before deciding an issue as important as proceeding with impeachment .

                    1. I’m talking about Mueller not presenting a determination on the conspiracy issue, not defending his report ( or at least clarifying his reasoning), and making brief, “somewhat snitty” accusations against DOJ , then going underground/ disappearing.
                      It should be relatively simple to understand “WRF” I’m talking about to most people, but there are exceptions.

                    2. To repeat myself, though that’s all Tom has done –

                      Mueller did make a determination on conspiracy – not sufficient evidence – explained his reasoning, and I don’t recall any “snitty” comment about the DOJ, unless you mean the letter he wrote to Barr which was not intended to be made public and which Barr lied about – by virtue of pretending ro the House that he didn’t know Mueller’s thoughts on his own statement.

                      Clearly Mueller is doing his best to not be political and to stick to what he sees as his “nothing but the facts M’am” approach. You want him on The View?

                    3. “not sufficient evidence”

                      If one-hundred people in the vicinity of a bank were rounded up by the police when it was robbed and did ‘t include the actual robbers we would find 100 people leaving the police department based on not sufficient evidence.

                      I wonder if a hammer and nail demonstrate more ability in logic than Anon.

                    4. it’s been decided already. stop lying; you full well know that.

                      they never intended to bring articles. that was clear from pelosi’s comments for quite some time

                    5. PS Kurtz – I posted a response to your accusations against the NYTs and other mainstream media relative to the Hong Kong protests. If you have not reviewed them I suggest you do. The NYTs covered the protests starting on Sunday and published an editorial on Monday.

                  2. Kurtz, don’t call someone a liar with out knowledge of or obvious intent.

                    It is my opinion that Pelosi and the House Democrats will pursue the evidence in various House hearings, and depending on how that affects public opinion decide then whether impeach or not. This issue is not settled and it is my opinion that you are wrong to think so, though I won’t call you a liar.

                    1. OK, I would generally agree with that.

                      but the other day I made that point about trump, like maybe some of his lies are not intentional, just mostly just mistakes and overstatements and inaccuracies, and i got mocked for this by the peanut gallery.

                      i am not the only one who thinks it was settled very quickly. i just repeated what i read. the articles are out there, you can read them. what do I know, anyways? not much

                    2. Well, what the democrats will do is at this point a matter of opinion and even among them one guesses.

                      I don;t think Trump intends to lie, he just compulsively intends to get attention and make himself look good and whatever does that is what he’ll say. He doesn’t care one way or the other if it’s a lie and probably doesn’t know. He may really thinks there weren’t thousands of Brits protesting against him in London the other day, or not and it doesn’t interest him which is true.

              2. Mueller was never operating in good faith. See Alan Dershowitz remarks on the denoument of this.

                An experienced defense attorney I correspond with offered the Mueller was a figurehead and that the investigation was conducted by his subordinates, who made all the crucial decisions, Andrew Weissman foremost among them.

                    1. I’ll let my statement in these threads about Anon/ JanF. “speak for themselves”. JT Civility Policy and WordPress filter prevent me from comment further on the “”good faith” issue”.
                      How’s that? I know you understand and support that kind of decision.

                  1. To a liar like Anon everybody is lying except for him. Same thing with crazy people who think everyone else is crazy. Anon seems to have both

                    1. Allan,
                      I think that you also spotted that “anon/ anon1” were reviously posting comments here as “JanF”. Maybe Natacha was ghost- writing for JanF when “JanF” said she was new here.😉
                      I posted a few of “JanF’s- now-anon’s” Feb 23, 2019 comment thread. The thread appeared with JT’s column of the same date about Bernie Sanders.
                      Those sample JanF/ anon comments should appear directly below if they are posting in sequence.

                    2. “I think that you also spotted that “anon/ anon1” were reviously posting comments here as “JanF”.”

                      Yes, Tom, I disputed Jan F. when he first appeared and before he left. I copied his own words after he lied. Shortly after he left the scene and reappeared as Anon. DSS was the first to recognize that Jan F. and Anon were the same. When people have to change their names like that you immediately know they are dishonest.

                    1. JanF/ Anon/ now “anon1,
                      Then we are in agreement that “Mueller has got nothing” by making accusations against DOJ, then not bothering to answer questions, give interviews, or give testimony.
                      Elsewhere ( I think in this same thread) I noted your Feb.23, 2019 remark when you were “Jan F” and said you were new here to this blog.
                      Your “reasoning”, extreme bias, and intellectual dishonesty were on full display when you (as Jan F) “introduced yourself” to these comment threads.Usually it takes a while for an extremist with a total lack of objectivity to reveal those characteristics, but you went to work right away making it clear that you’d be incapable of any degree of rational debate on issues.
                      At least you’ve got company with Natacha, although her rants are relatively infrequent. Maybe you decided to become ” Anon” because you had some level of awareness that you miscalculated in immediately displaying your extreme bias as “Jan F”.
                      Switching aliases for the purpose of covering your tracks/ disassociating yourself from previous comments is not “acting in good faith”.
                      If you or anyone else have memory problems, they can look at tyour comments in the Feb.23 etc. thread related to the JT column about Bernie Sanders. When you were “Jan F.”

                    2. Jan F on February 23, 2019 at 3:45 PM
                      I’m sorry, but I already won this argument. To recap, anyone in the lily white GOP is the one with some ‘splainin’ to do about identity politics and since I’m not, I won’t. Thanks for playing.

                    3. Jan F says: February 24, 2019 at 2:03 PM
                      No informed, sane, and decent person can defend Trump. That’s a fact, not an opinion

                    4. Reply
                      Jan F says: February 24, 2019 at 3:53 PM
                      My remark is a statement of fact. Anyone who doubts it is a moral or mental defective.

    1. “Two people, both appointed by Trump said he’s innocent. A thousand former prosecutors, Democrat and Republican say he’s guilty. Who to believe?”
      There used to be thousands of folks — some quite prominent –who believed blacks were politically inferior. A relatively small cadre rejected that notion. Does your “believe the mob” mentality still hold up?

      1. mespo – You worded that far too kindly. Thousands of folks — some quite prominent believe far worse than that about blacks and no that doesn’t make it so.
        I don’t dispute that there is an aspect of vindictive prosecution when it comes to Trump. However, I also firmly believe he’s guilty of numerous crimes, especially involving his finances he desparately wants to keep hidden, that and obstruction of justice, FEC violations, and yes conspiracy. (Wonder id Don Jr will be taking back any of his lies before the Senate today?) Both things can be true at the same time, Trump can be the victim of vindictive prosecution and guilty as hell. One thing for certain, he’ll never go to jail for his crimes. Only lower level people ever actually do time and they get minimal sentences or eventual pardons. Pardons in advance of sentencing in the case of Trump friends (Arpaio).

        1. “However, I also firmly believe he’s guilty of numerous crimes, especially involving his finances ”

          Of course you believe all that cr-p and make up even more. But even here you cannot demonstrate that Trump has done anything wrong as President.

          As far as his business career except for his desire for publicity Trump acted pretty much like other developers. Maybe you don’t like the idea that some developers got very rich and that is your real gripe with Trump.That goes along with your leftist credentials.

          1. Allan says all this without a clue as to how rich Trump is and while defending his desperate hiding of his tax returns and financial entanglements with foreign interests.

            1. What do I care about how rich Trump is. He lives a very rich life. Why would anyone but a fool base his ideas on what Trump’s tax returns would tell us? It shows what a fool you are Anon.

              Foreign entanglements can be claimed against most Americans that have significant assets. Do you think assets are only invested in American things? What a fool.

              1. The IRS doesn’t pass judgement on how compromised by debt someone is, whether he lies in public about how much he makes or loses, how successfully he’s dodged taxes – the IRS is very good on income reported by 3rd parties (W-2s, 1099, etc) but not on self reported income (this is partly due to limited resources when dealing with lawered-up and accountant-up “tax payers”) – and some clues as to where claimed income and losses came from.

                1. The IRS does not deal what a person’s total assets are. The big writeoff is already known and has been known for years. The IRS has reviewed his claims and their review is pretty inclusive.

                  What else? Nothing I can think of and nothing of importance that Anon will provide. Anon shoots blanks and has a pretty poor understanding of what he is talking about..

          2. The NY AG is trump’s biggest worry. She has his tax returns. DonnieDoughboy will go down on state charges. The DoJ OLC opinion doesn’t apply to state indictments. Ooops! Hope he likes Sing Sing!

            1. “The NY AG is trump’s biggest worry.”

              Wally, think what you may. Trump has been used as an example to other builders and promotors in NY and he has won. You don’t know your history.

        2. “especially involving his finances he desparately wants to keep hidden”

          What finances does he want to keep hidden?

              1. Your belief that politicians can and should be trusted and you have no interest in knowing who – if anyone – owns them is duly noted. As already explained to you the IRS also doesn’t care if someone is owned or not, whether someone lies to voters about their wealth, and if they have avoided taxes, as long as the taxes are handled properly, Of course that may not even be known by the IRS since they are ill equipped to do battle with those who have a boatload of lawyers and accountants, so you faith that if the IRS passes on them everything must be proper is unfounded.

                The courts and the Congress have the right to that information.

                1. “The courts and the Congress have the right to that information.”

                  Maybe under certain circumstances, but your grubby hands do not have any right to them.

                  Amazing you feel people lose their right to privacy because you think that there might be something wrong without any proof.

                  Also, glad to know you have such little faith in a big govt. organization as the IRS. I hpe you apply that to other govt entities.

                  1. Jim, I’m OK with the courts and House for now but favor full financial disclosure for Presidents regardless of Party. Of course before our grifter-in chief, all major party candidates dating back to Reagan voluntarily released their tax returns and if you’ve forgotten, Trump promised he’d release his. Now we know cherry tree Donald couldn’t have possibly been lying, so no doubt we’ll see them soon.

          1. Jim22 – You really must not be paying attention. The financial statements he’s sued to keep his accountants from releasing to Congress in compliance with a subpoena. The bank records from multiple banks he’s sued to keep from releasing his records to Congress in compliance with subpoenas, his tax returns which he’s refused to release and his Administration has failed to comply with subpoenas. Keep in mind he’s been accused under oath of manipulating financial taxes to cheat on his taxes and insurance rates and fraudently obtain loans. That’s off the top of my head.

                1. Oh, so know it’s one big conspiracy because if there was something there, no one in the IRS would love to take President Trump down. Get real.

                  1. Out of curiousity Jim22, how old are you and where do you get your news? You seem to have no knowledge of what even Trump’s staunchest supporters would admit. He doesn’t want anyone to see his finances. You seem to think someone at the IRS is going to go after the President without permission from the top. You haven’t brought one ostensive fact to the conversation, only doubt. Just wondering.

              1. The IRS can only investigate non-compliance with tax laws, not money laundering, being in deep debt, borrowing from shady foreign sources, or violations of the Emoluments law. Jim, you’ve been told this repeatedly. What is wrong with you?

    2. mostly retired and proportionately a pittance among all those who have ever worked in a the AUSA office, and are still for hire in fancy paid commercials. lots of them were flunkies. we covered this.

      1. The ones that still work for the Justice Department dare not speak up. They won’t risk their pensions that Trump will surely go after. Tell the truth, you don’t have any person knowledge about the character of those former prosecutors that have examined the available evidence and soken out? You only know they number over a thousand and include both Republicans and Democrats.

        You might know that Barr basically lobbied for the job in his letter to the Justice Dept saying the President can’t commit obstruction,

        1. “Tell the truth, you don’t have any person knowledge about the character of those former prosecutors that have examined the available evidence and soken out”

          No. I don’t. And neither do you.

          You a big fan of federal persecutors? I’m not

            1. doesn’t impress me at all. they’ve been together in past decades on lots of stupid things. most of all running roughshod over criminal defendants due process rights. they grow in their power by doing that and throwing their offensive overly valued opinions around. far as I am concerned these opinions are all just like the other wafting odors coming out of their stinking orifices.

              but, thank you for checking in and I welcome your further contributions to our conversations here.

  15. Harris used to be a waitress.
    Well I went out with a waitress…
    That I hardly knew…
    How was I to know…
    She was with the Russians too?

  16. JT: “…. the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General have already made the prosecutorial decisions that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal charge. ”

    As if the AG had not proven himself a political animal lacking any pretense to principled objectivity. It is ludicrous to pretend, as JT does, that his decision has the weight of some kind of precedent. Yeah, and about as durable as the half empty carton of milk in my refrigerator.

    1. Anon, people don’t end up in the high profile positions without some degree of political activity. So far (and previously) Barr has demonstrated that he takes his job seriously and for you to demean him without proof is reprehensible. We have to learn to live with your type of arrogant, animalistic and ignorant behavior.

      1. AG Barr is in favor of the unitary executive. Google, ooops, Bing it. Google is run by a bunch of California libs.

        1. Yes, and they are craven protectors of the Chicom regime in the PRC


          China Uncensored
          Published on Jun 3, 2019

          30 years ago the Chinese regime sent tanks into Beijing to crush student protesters in what became known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre. And China has spent that time trying to make sure everyone forgets it ever happened. Mention of the “June 4th Incident” is censored on the internet. And around the world, the Chinese regime has encouraged Western society to forget it as well. Like when YouTube demonetizes videos about the anniversary…Check out our interview with Tiananmen Survivor Zhou Fengsuo!

          1. they meaning the google apparatchiks who run youtube censorship routines and protect the Communist capos of the China from bad press

    2. Of course the proof of Barr’s “reprehensible and arrogant” behavior is clear to intelligent observer’s. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it animalistic, a term more rightly used for our base president.

      1. “Of course the proof of Barr’s “reprehensible and arrogant” behavior is clear to intelligent observer’s.”

        Of course Anon doesn’t provide proof so that must mean he isn’t an intelligent observer.

    1. So, you prefer a President who obsesses over Bette Middler while attending a DDAY memorial with other world leaders?

      1. When you can assemble a real reply, I’ll respond. I guess you’re an example proving there is a dependable pool of partisan voters with poor analytical skills available to the democratic party. The question is, “are there enough of you.” Answer is, “very well could be.” Carry on.

        1. I’ll take the time when you assemble a real post. In the meantime the one i did is about right for you.

          1. OK. Just keep telling yourself you have it all figured out while there is a mountain of clear information to the contrary. Have fun in the garbage heap of history!

Leave a Reply