As I’ve noted before, I’m writing an occasional “Election Chronicle” for the Tocqueville 21 web magazine. It is also coming out, in French and Spanish translations, for Le/El Grand Continent. I’m not cross-posting all of the columns here, but thought this newest one might be of interest:
As to the flexibility of prosecutorial discretion, it is a power that can be used for good or ill regarding the lives and freedom of the high and low. A prosecutor can allow a truly remorseful first time offender to go home and learn better ways of being; and go after a Trump who has flagrantly proclaimed exception from the social contract both in Fifth Avenue hypotheticals and in explicit — if couched in slightly incoherent fighting words — admission/challenges (as on tape or in numerous ralles).
As to trump’s self-proclaimed Teflon cloak, I would note that what he seeks from SCOTUS is not just “immunity for any and all actions as President” but really for all acts “while President” and in other cases pursues claims of permanent or temporary immunity while a candidate for President and while a former President.
The big difference between Hart and Trump is that Hart stepped down because he feared that he no longer had a chance to win. But the Trump pursuit is just because Trump has a good chance of winning. The court cases are simply an attempt by political opponents to prevent the public from voting for him. They would be more honest and democratic if they tried to persuade the public that they will do a better job of meeting their needs.
I found this very helpful for understanding the NY trial. The Gary Hart parallel or non-parallel shows that the stakes of keeping Stormy quiet were high.
Yes, indeed.
As to the flexibility of prosecutorial discretion, it is a power that can be used for good or ill regarding the lives and freedom of the high and low. A prosecutor can allow a truly remorseful first time offender to go home and learn better ways of being; and go after a Trump who has flagrantly proclaimed exception from the social contract both in Fifth Avenue hypotheticals and in explicit — if couched in slightly incoherent fighting words — admission/challenges (as on tape or in numerous ralles).
As to trump’s self-proclaimed Teflon cloak, I would note that what he seeks from SCOTUS is not just “immunity for any and all actions as President” but really for all acts “while President” and in other cases pursues claims of permanent or temporary immunity while a candidate for President and while a former President.
The big difference between Hart and Trump is that Hart stepped down because he feared that he no longer had a chance to win. But the Trump pursuit is just because Trump has a good chance of winning. The court cases are simply an attempt by political opponents to prevent the public from voting for him. They would be more honest and democratic if they tried to persuade the public that they will do a better job of meeting their needs.
I found this very helpful for understanding the NY trial. The Gary Hart parallel or non-parallel shows that the stakes of keeping Stormy quiet were high.