"Mr. Trump’s musings on his planned prosecutions serve an immediate political purpose, highlighting his argument that his conviction in New York..."

"... was the product of an effort by Democrats to keep him from being elected again and providing the red meat of prospective retribution to his base. But they also have the effect, partly incidental and partly calculated, of undermining faith in the integrity of the criminal justice system, a development that could have profound effects in a nation where the rule of law has been foundational. Mr. Trump and his supporters have argued that the system is already politicized, pointing to the four criminal prosecutions against him as irrefutable evidence — an assertion rejected by those who say that no one, including a former president or leading presidential candidate, is above the law.... The president can certainly instruct his attorney general to investigate given individuals. In his 1960 presidential campaign, for instance, John F. Kennedy pledged to target Jimmy Hoffa, the labor leader.... "

Writes Adam Liptak, in "Trump’s Vows to Prosecute Rivals Put Rule of Law on the Ballot/Donald Trump’s promise to seek retribution challenges long-established norms. The election could hinge in part on what kind of justice system the country believes it has now and wants in the future" (NYT).

I think Trump's campaign rhetoric is mostly designed to force his adversaries to proclaim principles that support his own arguments. Liptak acknowledges that as he contends that what Trump is threatening to do to his political opponents is different from what they are doing to him. Trump's political enemies will appreciate the asserted difference. His supporters won't. And what is it? The most obvious difference is that Trump's opponents are currently deeply engaged in prosecuting him, but Trump did not prosecute his enemies in his first administration and he's only referring to the potential to do so the next time around. He's issuing a credible threat in a game of tit-for-tat that he did not start. Won't we need to see what charges his next administration brings (if there is to be a next administration)? These might be solid charges that rest on the proposition that no one is above the law... as Trump's opponents like to say about the charges brought against him.

Liptak quotes something Justice Alito said in the oral arguments in the case about presidential immunity:

"As soon as they pulled near the barn, [Jimmy] Hoffa was dragged out of the car, and bound and gagged."

"A shallow hole was already dug in the barn floor. He put up a fight, but he was easily overpowered. …(One of the men) picked up a shovel and cracked Hoffa over the head with it. …They threw him into the hole, and buried him alive. He wasn't shot, he wasn't stabbed, nothing like that. A cement slab of some sort was placed on top of the dirt to make certain he was not going to be discovered. And that was it. End of story."

UPDATE: Under that slab, no Hoffa found.

Jimmy Hoffa's "Let’s take these sons of bitches out" speech — take 2.

I've already blogged about this speech, but I woke up this morning thinking there's something else about the speech that's worse than the murderous metaphor. Let's look at the text. I'll add some boldface to focus your attention on what I want to talk about now:

We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war... President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march… Everybody here’s got a vote... Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.

Hoffa is a labor leader, pushing the agenda of labor unions.  The interests of the actually people who work may converge or diverge with the interests of labor unions. Don't let him conflate the 2 entities. He may say "we," but that doesn't mean he embodies everyone who works (or wants to work) in America.
He can't even get to supersede the individuality of the members of the Teamsters Union (the union he heads). Yes, he's empowered to bargain for them, but that eradicate their individual minds and personal political preferences. Yes, they take the deal he gets for them, but that doesn't mean that they all want what he brings them or that they want only that. Some of them, obviously, support different politicians. Some may hate being in a union. Some may like the union but prefer different policies.

Right now, unions are fighting to preserve unions, and that might be best for workers. But the individuals who work — or want to work — may very well think their interests lie elsewhere. I'd like to think that the vast majority of people who work resist the assertion that there is a "war on workers." It's quite clear that every serious politician in America cares about what happens to individual citizens. They're not aligned in an army against the citizens! They have different ideas about how to improve things. Hoffa announces that there are 2 sides aligned in a fight against each other, and he would like anyone who has or wants a jobs to perceive himself or herself as a "worker" and thus a foot soldier in his army, with no independent mind.

That's quite repulsive.

And by the way, the constant use of this word "workers" reinforces the notion of the collective. You can see that for Hoffa, "workers" mean "soldiers" — and obviously, soldiers take orders. They don't think for themselves.

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers."

“And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war... President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march… Everybody here’s got a vote... Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong."

Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa, trying perhaps to sound feisty and combative, goes way too far. "Let's take these son of bitches out"? That connotes murder. Whatever happened to the civility Obama talked about last January? Obama took the stage after Hoffa and expressed approval!

I realize "let's take these sons of bitches out" can be interpreted to mean let's vote these terrible people out of office. But "take them out" is not an idiomatic expression that corresponds to "vote them out." Take them out? Maybe that's not the phrase he intended to use, but if it was unintended, it was still a gaffe. A revealing gaffe. Unless you're speaking in a positive way — referring to taking someone out on a date, for example — "take them out" is a violent command. With "sons of bitches" right there, it's unmistakably violent. Now, you can say it's only metaphorical, and all Hoffa really wants is to oust these people from office.

But it was only last January that Obama and many other Democrats were saying that violent metaphors, including a simple target on a map, were dangerous incitements for the unstable irrational folk out there.

UPDATE: On reflection, I'm more concerned about something else Hoffa said.