So how much will Trump’s promise/threat to prosecute and jail Clinton be the takeaway from the debate? And will the popular public reaction be the cheering we heard from the audience? Or will it be horror that a major-party candidate announced it as a plan for his presidency, to the opponent’s face and to the world? Not to mention announcing its outcome. This is not supposed to happen in a mature political system. But will enough people recognize the seriousness of that line?
The easy distinction is that the prosecution would not be for the “crime” of opposing Trump for office, but for her crimes while serving as Secretary of State. But that does not work. First, no one ever is prosecuted just for running for office, but for some other, hyped-up charge. Second, in the U.S., no matter the wrongdoing, no one has ever sought to punish the ancien regime, if for no other reason than appearances. It is why the Obama administration did not pursue investigations of those who enacted a system of what might have amounted to torture. It is impossible to separate law from politics in this situation (if it ever is), so we avoid a situation that would blur the line too much.
Not this time and not this candidate–Trump has a tweet quoting the exchange and highlighting the “you’d be in jail” line.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 10, 2016 at 01:08 AM
Comments
Thank you for your response, but it seems to come close to saying a person simply cannot be charged for any crime that may have been committed while in government service. And I would dare say that most suits filed are not based on an objective belief that a wrong was committed–only a genuine belief.
But I suppose all of that is beside the point. My main contention is that I think it is a bit alarmist to say that Trump was threatening political violence and pogroms.
Posted by: YesterdayIKilledAMammoth | Oct 11, 2016 2:17:04 AM
Well, gather people will in each case “genuinely believe [x] broke the law and then used [his/her] influence to avoid persecution.” She was in the Obama Administration at the time. That was a key factor — there isn’t some equal concern about alleged criminal wrongdoing when she was in private life.
And, there is a norm that you simply do not target people of past administrations in that fashion, even if it is based on genuine belief. Finally, basically, the belief here is probably not objective. Conservative experts of the statute, e.g., have argued the non-indictment probably was the right call. If it was someone else, Trump et. al. wouldn’t be saying this.
As to being able to carry the threat out, finding prosecutors et. al. to do it might be difficult, but figure it’s possible. You can find people who will make a legal case for an indictment. Is she immune from suit?
Posted by: Joe | Oct 10, 2016 8:31:49 PM
Though no fan of Trump, I think interpreting this as a threat of political violence is a bit overblown. Trump’s threat to put her in jail isn’t because she served in the “ancien regime”, but because he (or at least his supporters) genuinely believe she broke the law and then used her influence to avoid prosecution. The statement scored political points with his base, and I am interested how, even if he won the election, he would be able to carry out the threat.
Posted by: YesterdayIKilledAMammoth | Oct 10, 2016 7:52:08 PM
Garry Kasparov on fb:
“Based on his own words, this is Donald Trump’s “President Day One” checklist:
1) Jail his opponent. 2) Crack down on the media. 3) Support Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
Coincidentally, this was also Vladimir Putin’s checklist.”
Posted by: Michael | Oct 10, 2016 6:20:07 PM
Leaving aside the issue of corruption (and the stupidity of getting into a political discussion in blog comments): I have a serious, genuine question for Guest. Why do you think that Trump would “stop the nonsense?”
I understand that he has been campaigning against aforesaid nonsense, but from the standpoint of a Hillary supporter, it’s hard to see how someone like Trump could ever be trusted to reign in elite corruption, as opposed to massively benefit from it (like he has been his entire life). Why do Trump supporters disbelieve every political claim made by everyone except the person with the life-long history of profoundly self-interested dishonesty?
Posted by: Paul Gowder | Oct 10, 2016 5:39:41 PM
Triggered.
Posted by: YesterdayIKilledAMammoth | Oct 10, 2016 5:29:17 PM
Howard, I would encourage you to reconsider. First, the fact that the Bush Administration plainly committed torture actually seems to be essential to your argument. Else, there would be reasons other than the one you mention for the Obama Administration not to prosecute. Second, you are using the word torture not as a pure fact word, but as a word that involves the application of facts to a legal standard. For words like that, a legal writer like yourself has a few choices: (a) own the legal judgment and call torture torture; (b) avoid the question of legal judgment by using a pure fact word, like water-boarding (which, by the way, is admitted); or (c) invoke the question of legal judgment and then hedge on the answer with words like “may be” or “might.” You chose Door C, which I submit is the worst option. It is open to interpretation that you personally deny that the facts (water-boarding) meet the legal standard (torture). And, even if that is not your personal view or your intent, by casually suggesting that the legal characterization of the facts as torture is open to debate, you give breathing room and comfort to the deniers. Next time, at least, please take Door A or B.
Posted by: PB | Oct 10, 2016 4:35:28 PM
Perhaps you should’ve added a trigger warning for PB.
Posted by: YesterdayIKilledAMammoth | Oct 10, 2016 2:56:51 PM
I did not want to get into a discussion of whether this was torture or not. It was beside the point for this post.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Oct 10, 2016 1:35:09 PM
Howard, “[W]hat might have amounted to torture”??? Seriously? Here’s what the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded. Do you think the Committee investigation got the facts wrong or that these facts aren’t plainly torture?
#3: The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.
Beginning with the CIA’s first detainee, Abu Zubaydah, and continuing with numerous others, the CIA applied its enhanced interrogation techniques with significant repetition for days or weeks at a time. Interrogation techniques such as slaps and “wallings” (slamming detainees against a wall) were used in combination, frequently concurrent with sleep deprivation and nudity. Records do not support CIA representations that the CIA initially used an “an open, non- threatening approach,”^ or that interrogations began with the “least coercive technique possible”^ and escalated to more coercive techniques only as necessary.
The waterboarding technique was physically harmful, inducing convulsions and vomiting. Abu Zubaydah, for example, became “completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, fullmouth.'”^ Internal CIA records describe the waterboarding of Khalid Shaykh Mohammad as evolving into a “series of near drownings.”^
Sleep deprivation involved keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours, usually standing or in stress positions, at times with their hands shackled above their heads. At least five detainees experienced disturbing hallucinations during prolonged sleep deprivation and, in at least two of those cases, the CIA nonetheless continued the sleep deprivation.
Contrary to CIA representations to the Department of Justice, the CIA instructed personnel that the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah would take “precedence” over his medical care,^ resulting in the deterioration of a bullet wound Abu Zubaydah incurred during his capture. In at least two other cases, the CIA used its enhanced interrogation techniques despite warnings from CIA medical personnel that the techniques could exacerbate physical injuries. CIA medical personnel treated at least one detainee for swelling in order to allow the continued use of standing sleep deprivation.
At least five CIA detainees were subjected to “rectal rehydration” or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity. The CIA placed detainees in ice water “baths.” The CIA led several detainees to believe they would never be allowed to leave CIA custody alive, suggesting toonedetaineethathewouldonlyleaveinacoffin-shapedbox.^ One interrogator told another detainee that he would never go to court, because “we can never let the world know what I have done to you.”^ CIA officers also threatened at least three detainees with harm to their families— to include threats to harm the children of a detainee, threats to sexually abuse the mother of a detainee, and a threat to “cut [a detainee’s] mother’s throat.”^
Posted by: PB | Oct 10, 2016 1:23:31 PM
The average person commits many things that in theory, especially if the rules were applied real strictly, could result in criminal prosecution.
But, it doesn’t happen. It would cause many problems. People regularly take advantage of unlicensed, illegal, plumbers etc. but don’t think anything of it. They don’t think of them as “illegals” or anything. Since rules aren’t applied strictly, including colloquially in everyday conversation.
Guest voices some “gut” concern of the powers that be getting special treatment. Of course they do to some degree but then so did Trump, who is such a powers to be. He got in some legal trouble but has connections with foreign leaders, the mob and there is evidence of various criminal actions he might have been involved in — doing business repeatedly involves that.
But, there is some inconsistency there, including Trump supporters acting like he is some independent crusader type there. Putting aside any claim on the merits that “wrongdoing” of HRC is overblown.
Posted by: Joe | Oct 10, 2016 10:50:31 AM
“ordinary man” —> just say “person” from here on out. Then you won’t have to grovel so awkwardly at the alter of being PC-correct (your words, not mine).
Posted by: YesterdayIKilledAMammoth | Oct 10, 2016 3:40:40 AM
The campaign is surreal but I understand the palpable frustration felt by the public. What Trump is doing is unmasking the games and telling it like it is. There really does seem to be 2 standards of “care” one for the ordinary man (to be PC correct I mean women too), and one for the rich people such as bank CEOs, financial institution executives, Hillary, etc. We all know the game – lets not lie to ourselves. The nation is in serious trouble and dare I say decline. Trump is correct – if a regular gut commits a fraction of what she did theyd be prosecuted harshly, made out as an example, etc. Meanwhile she has a get out of jail free card, rakes in huge donations from foreign interests and of course she will be beholden to them. I fear for America’s path. I only hope Trump gets in and stops the nonsense.
Posted by: Guest | Oct 10, 2016 2:50:14 AM