I can understand why she (or her team) thinks that is a beneficial frame. Prosecutors enjoy a halo in the eyes of juries, one they definitely do not deserve given how much misconduct they engage in. Juries should be at least as skeptical of anything the government claims as anything defendants do; but the defendant stands accused, and the prosecutor is supposed to be the agent of justice. So too police who testify, for the same reasons.
All the same, it's a bold choice. Setting herself up that way sets her up to be knocked down by the same blows that killed her candidacy the last time. Her record as a prosecutor demonstrates that she is unworthy of any office.
Dad29 points out another case that didn't make Tulsi's list:
... “In 2003, a district attorney in San Francisco named Terence Hallinan was investigating Mayor Willie Brown’s friends. He was also investigating the priest scandal of sexual abuse in San Francisco, and that touched some very powerful institutions, including an elite prep school that involved the Gettys, Gov. Jerry Brown, etc. Their involvement with that school.”......“The priestly abuse scandal that was taking place, she never prosecuted a single case, Sean,” Schweizer added. “Of the 50 largest cities in America, San Francisco was the only one that that didn’t prosecute a single case, and she covered it up by deep-sixing documents that her predecessor had obtained.
That by itself will be a damaging question to ask her; usually the priest-abuse scandal is a favorite of Democrats, as it undermines the Church's authority in favor of the State. Worse, it opens another question for public consumption: what was her relationship to Mayor Willie Brown? Pursuing that line of inquiry very deeply is impolite as well as vulgar, however; doubtless the ethical journalist will totally avoid it.
I see what you did there... :>)
ReplyDelete"Pursuing that line of inquiry very deeply"