Kamala Harris tells Don Lemon some Trump DOJ officials should FACE JUSTICE | RISING

[00:00:01][music] >> I'm not a politician, but I think that the people who deserve to be prosecuted or whatever it is uh for misusing the Justice Department and uh abusing, I believe, American citizens and American politicians are whatever you want to say, political rivals or whatever. I think that they should face, you know, some sort of justice.

[00:00:25]>> Oh, well, I absolutely believe that. And I believe that there should be that that there should be accountability.

[00:00:33]>> Former Vice President Kamala Harris catching heat from some on the right over comments she made during an appearance on Don Lemon's podcast.

[00:00:40]>> Harris also touched on the Electoral College. Let's listen to that.

[00:00:44]>> Having the majority of Americans' freedoms uh diminished or restricted because we're being governed by the minority.

[00:00:53]>> Yes, and I think that there is some real shaking up that we have to do of the rules and the structure.

[00:01:01]And >> Is that get rid of the Electoral College?

[00:01:05]>> I think we should that should be a a discussion that we should have. I don't think we should eliminate that.

[00:01:12]As a point of of of discussion for potential action.

[00:01:17]>> [snorts] >> Oh, [sighs] oh, Kamala.

[00:01:20]>> Well, I mean, I I don't know a huge believer in her political abilities, but I don't I mean, there are two parts there like the Electoral College and the the action being taken against people who have um acted unfairly where there's been prosecutorial misconduct or other things. I >> Would you be a little bit more specific there? Let's let's name names. It's just uh It's just if some people Okay, well, that's a vague enough statement that fine. If yes, people broke the law, they should be prosecuted. That's a belief I hold.

[00:01:54]>> Sure.

[00:01:54]>> Um when and just making it sound like everyone is crooks and they're getting away with it. That's like the mirror image of like the the deep state is out to get me and we're getting I mean that's the Trump the Republican view is that they're correcting um the over prosecution of Trump and Republican allies or whatever um by finding very tenuous things to but that were had some legitimate basis to go into like with Leticia James or whoever else um you know the James Comey is not going to stick at all it shouldn't.

[00:02:27]>> Right.

[00:02:28]>> But >> Well, I mean that well the Comey thing is an example though of the specifics. I think it is I think Comey can make an obvious argument that he was vindictively prosecuted for something that is not criminal activity at all and it doesn't begin and end there. I mean you were looking asking about specifics.

[00:02:47]There have been a number of cases relating to um purported attacks on ICE or other immigration personnel that have just fallen apart because somebody's been lying about it. There was the video of the Democrats the video that the Democrats made saying that um troops should not obey uh should disobey illegal orders. Uh there was no way that that was criminal.

[00:03:15]A grand jury thankfully threw it out but that was again uh vindictive or politically malicious prosecution. There was yet another example um recently the Broadview four well initially Broadview six in Chicago a situation where the um prosecutors seem to engage in egregious misbehavior in front of the grand jury saying things like essentially trust us we have more evidence which you can't do in front of a grand jury for obvious reasons. Uh and so there are specific examples of the kind of misbehavior that I think Lemon and and Kamala Harris are perfectly aptly drawing attention to.

[00:03:56]>> But are those criminally actionable when a if a pro if a overzealous prosecutor takes some action gets, you know, gets beaten back by a grand jury, that's just kind of the system, man. Uh it's not I don't love it at all, but uh it is it is kind of how it works.

[00:04:16]>> Well, it >> A lot of overreach by administrative agencies staffed by progressive bureaucrats and they get eventually the court says no, that's insane and there's no criminal liability there. It's just it's we extend vast immunity to agents of the Justice Department, various aspects of our justice system to engage in business as they see it and yes, there's all of course there's room for politics to come into it, but >> Mhm.

[00:04:41]>> But but that that life in this I think jumps over the actual danger that is caused, setting aside the most famous cases like >> Comey or the or the Democrats in that video. Obviously, citizens should not be exposed to the danger of either prosecutors or agents of the state lying about them and making false charges of criminal conduct. Where that happens, it is the people who are making the false accusations who should face some form of accountability to use Kamala Harris's words for that.

[00:05:19]>> If that's what she means, fine.

[00:05:20]Prosecutors who engage in criminal wrongdoing in their effort to score convictions should be held accountable.

[00:05:26]I agree with that.

[00:05:27]>> Excellent.

[00:05:27]>> Um >> We're all in agreement there.

[00:05:29]>> We're all in agreement. I'm not in agreement that the Electoral College should necessarily be scrapped, although I I guess I'm open to the I mean, Trump would have won either way this time is the funny thing.

[00:05:38]Uh but >> What do you think of that? I mean, cuz that is an interesting debate, setting aside the fact that it's Kamala Harris and and gave a sort of very Kamala Harris answer where she implied she was open to it without saying anything terribly firm. But I mean, what do you That's a debate that goes on forever.

[00:05:55]What do you think about it?

[00:05:57]>> I I mean, I think that most of the people who really want to get rid of it have not fully thought through that it that would not just be like the magical answer to all their people I of a progressive orientation are like, we have to get rid of the Electoral College so we can, you know, the Republicans have this unfair stranglehold over the because there's all these states that don't have people in them and it There's actually a lot of little states in the Northeast that reliably give to Democrats. And if you just if it was just a different system, then Republican strategies for trying to win would be completely different. Republicans don't contest the state of California at all because there's and there's millions of Republicans who live there whose votes are who are totally disenfranchised in this process.

[00:06:39]Now their votes wouldn't be would be relevant. The campaigning would be totally different. Maybe that would be good.

[00:06:45]This would dilute the importance currently of Pennsylvania.

[00:06:50]Would it be better for us all if if Pennsylvania didn't matter so much? I probably the answer is yes.

[00:06:59]So I'm like kind of for it. I I mean, I think I'm maybe more in for uh making it proportional the Electoral College rewarding it's uh instead of the winner-take-all nature of the state.

[00:07:12]Uh something like that I'd be open to. I I mean, I'm very I I I can't get myself excited about procedural changes to the way we do things for the most part because they're so This is not what makes me excited. It it wouldn't We would just do the elections differently then.

[00:07:27]>> Well, we would. But I mean, I think just aside from the argument about which political side would benefit from it, I do find, every time this comes up, the Electoral College at the presidential level harder and harder to defend because the effect of it is that you do automatically under the current system effectively disenfranchise liberals in Alabama and conservatives in Vermont.

[00:07:58]>> Right.

[00:07:59]>> And Massachusetts and New York.

[00:08:01]>> Right. I mean not as a as an effect of where they've chosen to live. Right.

[00:08:05]They could all move to Pennsylvania and then their votes would matter more than anyone else. I mean it's it's not but that I mean the system doesn't say by order of the system we've created in the Constitution if you live in California Republican your vote doesn't count. Like that's just that's the consequence >> Right.

[00:08:21]>> of a system whose rules are known.

[00:08:22]>> I know but I mean I just think that at a fundamental level it would in fact be fairer to just have a nationwide popular vote. I get that there are arguments against it like then just politicians would essentially camp out [snorts] in the 10 biggest cities or or the 10 biggest states and just try to get try to glean the most votes possible from LA and New York and Chicago but like it just seems fundamentally fairer that if you're electing a national leader the way to do it is by national popular vote.

[00:08:55]>> Yeah. I mean the reason we don't do it that way is when our system was envisioned states were an important you had solidarity with your state and your state had unique interests. Over the last 250 years that has probably become less relevant for the most part although you know I am more of a federalist than you are. I I don't want to be ruled by California either. I think California should rule California and we should mostly not have giant sprawling federal policies that we all fight over and Texas should rule Texas and Florida should rule Florida and then New York can rule New York. I don't agree with how New York's going to rule New York but it's none of my business as long as they're not ruling me and that would be a better system.

[00:09:33]I guess I would say there are if I was making like changes to our system, this would not be one of my top >> Mhm.

[00:09:42]>> uh tweaks. I would I would I would abolish primaries is what I would do.

[00:09:47]Primaries are just insane at this point.

[00:09:49]>> Well, then but then how would you literally select every >> should select the candidates.

[00:09:53]>> By by what >> organization.

[00:09:55]>> By what means? They they should like have a vote of party officials?

[00:09:59]>> Smoke-filled rooms was a perfectly fine system. There's democracy for who wins the elections. I don't know why it has to be democratic who We we've we uh we um absorbed the party system >> Mhm.

[00:10:11]>> into our actual electoral system. It should not be that way. The party should just be a private organization that picks its membership and its candidates however it wants.

[00:10:20]>> Yeah.

[00:10:20]>> And a different party can do it a different way, but having like actually mandated primaries >> Yeah.

[00:10:27]>> are creating just total radicalism in our country in both directions because the primary voters are both parties are nutjobs who want insane people. And then the the general election voters are like, "Oh my god, why am I picking between >> Yeah.

[00:10:43]>> you know, whatever and whoever?" And instead of some normal where it used to be in the smoke-filled rooms, they say, "Oh, that's a good-looking young man. He should run in wherever." And >> Well, >> like they they considered things that primary voters don't.

[00:10:58]>> Well, but a better solution in my view to that problem of the self-selecting radicalism would be just if you had less gerrymandering of political of house districts because those gerrymandered house districts on both sides create a scenario where even an incumbent is always defending him or herself against a challenge from their own flank in the vast majority of districts as opposed to >> I would also be in favor of limiting gerrymandering, but I I don't I'm suspicious of the well, they answered draw the lines differently because how the lines are drawn will also always be political and there's the lines aren't real. There's no fair way to do it. It's It's however you do it is going to result in political considerations that favor one side or the other. So, I would prefer to just have like a vote of the people of Tennessee and whatever proportion of the vote the Republicans get is how many seats they get in Tennessee based on the population. I would just do it that way.

[00:12:00]>> You could do it that way, but then you would it would make it less localized in terms of you your representative would be just a little less I don't care about that.

[00:12:08]>> to lose that at this point. Also, I would do it that way and then we can have representation from third parties.

[00:12:13]So, if if the Libertarian Party got in New Hampshire, that's their best shot. They get 30% of the vote in New Hampshire, they get 30% of the congressional seats and the Socialist Party too and anyone else.

[00:12:24]>> We'll return We'll get to your European multi-party system yet. The Democratic Socialists and the Libertarians will rise again.

[00:12:30]>> That's how we do it.

[00:12:31]All right, we got a lot more to talk about on Rising. Please stay with us.