material for Harris to mine, much of it known. But that does not necessarily matter, because it comes in the context of more convictions – some of which are felony convictions. Presented in that way, by a new opponent who was a former prosecutor, it might sway voters still on the fence about Trump who worry about his narcissism and authoritarian tendencies.
An example of how his can be done was evidenced by Harris herself, within days of being endorsed as the Democratic nominee for president. At that time, Harris said that, when serving as Attorney General of California, she prosecuted people who committed sexual assault, people who had committed fraud, people who declared bankruptcy. She said she knew the type, implying Trump.
From such a background, she would bring gravitas when speaking about Trump’s character before the American people. She can speak to the fact of what it means when pointing out that Trump and his company have been engaged in 4,000 lawsuits. She can speak to the fact of what it means that Trump and his companies have filed bankruptcy six times. She can speak to the fact Trump had to pay $25 million as part of a settlement with Trump University to reimburse students for tuition, after fraud charges were brought. She can speak to the fact Trump had to post a $91 million bond, as he appealed his conviction of sexual assault and defamation against E. Jean Caroll.
Of equal importance Harris can speak to what it means that Trump had to post a $450 million bond, as he appealed not the conviction but only the size of the penalty for his tax evasion in New York. She can speak to what it means that Trump has been found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records by a jury of his peers in a unanimous verdict for engaging in ‘catch and kill’ schemes – one involving a story of an affair with a porn star – intended to undermine the integrity of the 2016 presidential election (which he won by the narrowest of margins) to become the first former or sitting president of the United States to ever be convicted of a felony. And, she can speak to what it means to be the target of multiple court cases in which he is currently involved: trying to influence Georgian officials to overturn the 2020 election results, retaining and refusing to turn over classified documents (a case thrown out by a Trump appointee, which is now under appeal by the Justice Department), and promoting insurrection after losing the 2020 presidential election.
These are facts, about which Trump may complain but can’t deny. And being a prosecutor, Harris can move beyond just another candidate complaining about the opposition’s record to an authority on the subject. Again, she brings gravitas – particularly being a woman.
But Harris must also make the case this behavior ties into proposals Trump has put forward about what he would do if reelected. Trump has gone on record about his intentions.
Trump has explicitly said he wants, if elected to the presidency, to be dictator for a day.3
Harris can point out how dangerous this would be, as Trump has acknowledged that the Trump Administration will be built around spite, retribution, and political reprisals.4 Moreover, she can point out that it is only if he were given dictatorial powers could he accomplish many of the things he said he will do if reelected:
•
•
•
•
87