Zack Beauchamp interviewed California gubernatorial candidate, Tom Steyer:

In the plan you have on your website, there’s a very interesting line about not just arresting ICE agents but imposing criminal liability on “their leaders.”

So do you think if you were governor and your policy were enacted that it would be right for California state agents to arrest, say, Stephen Miller if he showed up there and was shown to be responsible for some of these things that you believe to be illegal actions by ICE agents?

Obviously that’s really hard to do on a legal basis because there’s so many steps in terms of that chain. But do I think that what he’s doing is illegal in terms of inciting criminal behavior in the state of California? Yes.

I understand how hard it is to make that case. But the point I’m making is these guys aren’t acting on their own — ICE is an organization which is fundamentally set up to break the law. And there’s an assumption, made very clear in Minnesota, [that] we will do what we want. And if that involves shooting innocent Americans, so be it. And that is not something [ICE thinks] people should be punished for.

Just so I’m clear: You think that Stephen Miller is engaged in criminal activity right now through his role in directing ICE.

I think that if you set up an organization that racially profiles Americans and uses violence indiscriminately to control them and involves actually killing innocent people for no reason other than your desire to control them, that sounds like the definition of illegal to me. Which part am I missing?

So would you order California state police or the attorney general’s office to open up an investigation into a potential Miller arrest if you were to win office?

We would pursue it.

And Zack, it’s funny: In this campaign, the first week of the campaign, we talked about breaking the electric monopolies’ power. And this reporter said to me, “Well, do you have a white paper on that, a 50-pager?” And I was like, “This is the first week of the campaign, man.”

And I would say to you: Dude, this is the primary. Would we in fact pursue this? Of course we would. But how exactly will it work out? You’re asking me, Tom, 59 steps down the road, where are you going to be? And it’s like, well, give me a chance.

But I am saying — wait, let me ask you a question, Zack. Do you believe that a federal officer has the right to murder an American in cold blood and for no reason, no discernible acceptable reason, and walk away with impunity?

No, I definitely don’t. The reason I’m pushing this is not because I expect you to have the answer to every problem or to tell me how this investigation will work out, but more as a way of getting into a really hard question about how to deal with an authoritarian federal government at the state level.

I can understand the impulse behind your policy. But at the same time, if you were to really go down that route and follow this logic to its endpoint, you’d end up in this pretty massive confrontation with the federal government.

Well, that is true. That is true. And how to do it really matters. God is in the details. I get that.

But let me put back to you your initial question. Your initial question is, are we an authoritarian crisis? And you were clearly implying, Tom, you dolt, of course we’re in an authoritarian crisis.

That was you, not me.

I then say to you: You think you’re getting out of an authoritarian crisis without standing up for something? That’s the whole point of why I said I was disappointed in so many American leaders: They’ve been unwilling to stand up and tell the truth. They’ve been unwilling to tell the truth if it’s going to mean a confrontation or they’re going to be hurt in any way. [Continue reading…]