Jump to content
skews13

Kamala Harris' Distinguished Career Of Serving Injustice

Recommended Posts

Harris, who served as San Francisco District Attorney from 2004 to 2011 and California Attorney General from 2011 to 2017, describes herself as a “progressive prosecutor­­­­.” Harris’s prosecutorial record, however, is far from progressive. Through her apologia for egregious prosecutorial misconduct, her refusal to allow DNA testing for a probably innocent death row inmate, her opposition to legislation requiring the attorney general’s office to independently investigate police shootings and more, she has made a significant contribution to the sordid history of injustice she decries.

 

 

https://truthout.org/articles/kamala-harris-has-a-distinguished-career-of-serving-injustice/

 

If Biden uses that last one against her in the next debate, she's done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, skews13 said:

Harris, who served as San Francisco District Attorney from 2004 to 2011 and California Attorney General from 2011 to 2017, describes herself as a “progressive prosecutor­­­­.” Harris’s prosecutorial record, however, is far from progressive. Through her apologia for egregious prosecutorial misconduct, her refusal to allow DNA testing for a probably innocent death row inmate, her opposition to legislation requiring the attorney general’s office to independently investigate police shootings and more, she has made a significant contribution to the sordid history of injustice she decries.

 

 

https://truthout.org/articles/kamala-harris-has-a-distinguished-career-of-serving-injustice/

 

If Biden uses that last one against her in the next debate, she's done.

 

There are some troubling allegations but many of them are too complex to bring up in a debate setting.

 

Perhaps “fought for the death penalty” or “refused to prosecute the foreclosure king Mnuchin while vigorously going after people of color” will be used.

 

Some others include. 

 

Quote

Harris refused DNA testing that could exonerate Kevin Cooper, a likely innocent man on death row, and she opposed statewide body-worn police cameras. Harris favored criminalizing truancy, raising cash bail fees and keeping prisoners locked up for cheap labor. She also supported reporting arrested undocumented juveniles to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, covering for corrupt police lab technicians and blocking gender confirmation surgery for a transgender prisoner.

 

Hopefully the primary will be about more than attacks and cheap shots but Harris opened herself up to it with her conduct in the debate. Live by the sword......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A prosecutor has a duty to prosecute.

 

People can possibly go after her for doing her duty, but that would be shameful.

 

There question of what she should have done compared to what she did do is a technical question that can't be answered by people who aren't lawyers and prosecutors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, laripu said:

A prosecutor has a duty to prosecute.

 

People can possibly go after her for doing her duty, but that would be shameful.

 

There question of what she should have done compared to what she did do is a technical question that can't be answered by people who aren't lawyers and prosecutors.

 

Questioning prosecutorial misconduct, or abusing prosecutorial powers, is well within any citizens right to question.

 

What we’re talking about here is political ambition. Everything in Harris’ background is fair game, as she so eloquently made clear in that first debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, skews13 said:

Everything in Harris’ background is fair game

 

Yup. I couldn't agree more.

But if you criticise her record as a prosecutor, send some time thinking about a prosecutor's duties 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, laripu said:

 

Yup. I couldn't agree more.

But if you criticise her record as a prosecutor, send some time thinking about a prosecutor's duties 

 

As State Attorney General her job was not just to prosecute. It was “to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced”. In the quoted article, Marjory Cohn argues that she failed in that duty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article, compiling Harris decidedly Conservative behavior while AG, first in San Francisco and later for the state of California.  From her shady efforts to withhold life-saving evidence in death-row cases;  To her opposition to police video cameras;  To her refusal to litigate against "foreclosure king" Steve Mnuchin who donated $2000 to her campaign for senate.  It was his only donation to Democrat.

 

Much of this material has been published previously.  Judging by her past record, Harris is a fake Progressive.  Now one of the Democratic hopefuls needs to make it known publicly.  It might be sweet revenge for Joe Biden, if he can pull it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, laripu said:

 

Yup. I couldn't agree more.

But if you criticise her record as a prosecutor, send some time thinking about a prosecutor's duties 

 

Correct. It's about skill-sets. Democrats really need her on Senate Investigation Committees, and drafting legislation. She is good in that role.

Presidential leadership is more about administration, and setting forth an overall vision for the country as a whole. They don't directly  investigate, or interrogate anyone. Governors have similar duties as presidents, but they rarely get elected to the highest office. Don't know why.

 

45 minutes ago, skews13 said:

 

Questioning prosecutorial misconduct, or abusing prosecutorial powers, is well within any citizens right to question. 

 

Truthout would probably have the same complaints about most Prosecutors.

Prosecutorial misconduct?  ...., you don't know the meaning of misconduct.

 

How about non prosecution agreements for billionaires?

Compared to Alex Acosta (Fmr Southern District of Florida), Kamala Harris looks like a relatively typical, and presumably effective Prosecutor.

 

Whether we need an effective former prosecutor, turned Senator as Commander in Chief is another question.

 

I'm leaning towards an effective former professor, turned Senator.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ExPDXer said:

Truthout would probably have the same complaints about most Prosecutors.

Prosecutorial misconduct?  ...., you don't know the meaning of misconduct.

 

How about non prosecution agreements for billionaires?

Compared to Alex Acosta (Fmr Southern District of Florida), Kamala Harris looks like a relatively typical, and presumably effective Prosecutor.

 

Harris went far beyond extraordinary efforts to convict.  From her shady efforts to withhold life-saving DNA evidence in death-row cases;  To her opposition to police video cameras;  To her refusal to litigate against "foreclosure king" Steve Mnuchin who donated $2000 to her campaign for senate.  It was his only donation to a Democrat.  To apologize for her behavior by saying other prosecutors are as bad, or worse, is like giving Recep Erdogan a free pass because his behavior is not unique among dictators and certainly not as bad as Kim Jong-un..

 

1 hour ago, ExPDXer said:

Democrats really need her on Senate Investigation Committees, and drafting legislation. She is good in that role.

Presidential leadership is more about administration, and setting forth an overall vision for the country as a whole. They don't directly  investigate, or interrogate anyone.

 

Agreed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bludog said:

To apologize for her behavior by saying other prosecutors are as bad, or worse, is like giving Recep Erdogan a free pass because he's not as bad as Kim Jong-un.

Yes I did point out other prosecutors are worse. I do not support the actions you described, I am not familiar with all her past misdeeds.

Did I apologize for her behavior?  No.  I think you are miss-interpreting my comparison of prosecutors relative evilness. I don't even support her as presidential candidate.

 

and BTW, I also do not support giving Erdogan, or Kim Jung-un a free pass.

Don't know where you got that idea from, and fail to see the purpose of that analogy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

Yes I did point out other prosecutors are worse. I do not support the actions you described,  I am not familiar with all her past misdeeds.

 

Thanks for being honest with full disclosure.  You did not have to do it.  But please familiarize yourself with Harris' past misdeeds as AG before trying to characterize them as normal or acceptable.  The OP article is a good source, but there are many others.  Her misdeeds are many and deplorable.

 

Just a few for example:

Why Kamala Harris is under attack for a decade-old anti-truancy ... - Vox

Feb 7, 2019 - Harris's anti-truancy program has become a flashpoint for her record on criminal ... district attorney and California's attorney general, when she at times .... the shame that you instill in them … impacts children and families.”.
Jan 24, 2019 - Kamala Harris at her San Francisco office in 2004 ... Harris has drawn on her record as a prosecutor, both in San Francisco and as California attorney general, to lend an intimacy to ..... The behavior of Harris and Hirono in Kavanagh SCOTUS hearings was a disgrace, both of these women are total slime.
Jan 9, 2018 - Harris' record as San Francisco D.A. has similar instances. ... As California Attorney General, Harris' office continued to display indifference ...
Jan 18, 2019 - As Kamala Harris positions for a likely presidential run that could be ... record as district attorney of San Francisco and attorney general of ...
Missing: shameful ‎| Must include: shameful

 

 

1 hour ago, ExPDXer said:

Did I apologize for her behavior?  No.

 

Yes.  Very much so.  Regardless of denials to the contrary

 

3 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

Truthout would probably have the same complaints about most Prosecutors.

 

Taken by itself, her record as AG is worthy of Truthout's criticisms.  And Truthout's documented criticisms should be taken by themselves.  Hypothetical complaints about other vague prosecutors are beside the point.  None of them is running for the highest office in the land.

 

1 hour ago, ExPDXer said:

and BTW, I also do not support giving Erdogan, or Kim Jung-un a free pass.

 

I did not say you do.  In fact I'm not at all surprised to hear you don't.  So you should appreciate the analogy all the more.

 

1 hour ago, ExPDXer said:

Don't know where you got that idea from, and fail to see the purpose of that analogy.

 

Methinks you do.  So if the shoe fits, wear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, she stuck it to Biden, but Harris’ positions are tough to pin down

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kamala-harris-shifting-positions-20190707-story.html

 

 

Quote

 

Harris’ policy gymnastics have created a strategic ambiguity that could cut both ways.

 

Supporters may hear what they want to hear and discount the rest, giving her running room to appeal to the left now but shift to the center if she gets the nomination.

 

Critics will paint her as inconsistent, flexible on principles, even ruthless. But those complaints have been leveled against successful male politicians throughout history, from Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard M. Nixon to Robert F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

 

Those traits might make Harris a candidate who can bridge her party’s left and center, as Clinton once did. But they also make her look like a politician whose core convictions are hard to pin down, as Clinton often was.

 

It’s a difficult strategy to pull off. Now that Harris has vaulted to the top echelon of candidates, she’s going to draw more scrutiny from the media and more attacks from her rivals.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who has ever done anything in the public field has done some things with which you will disagree, if you know everything about them.

There will be no purity of policy or ideas among any of them, unless you know nothing at all about them.

 

So the system of evaluating by picking out flaws is not a good system.

A better way is to tote up good on one side and bad on the other.

An even better way is to tote up good and bad and assign positive weights to the good and negative weights to the bad. Then decide on the whole, which choice is better.

 

No one would suggest that Trump is better than Kamala Harris, because that obvious. But to decide between Harris and (for example) Buttigieg, you'd have to weigh their positives and negatives, not only their negatives. Experience might be one factor that gives her one edge over him, but maybe her actions while Attorney General are a negative for you.

 

On the other hand, while experience is a plus for Biden, age is a negative.

 

I can't tell you how to assign weights to these factors. But I do ask that when you do, don't look for purity and weigh the good at the same time as the bad.

 

Vote for someone in the primary, and then whoever wins it, vote for that Democrat and don't be hurt if that Democrat isn't yours. The side of "not-the-Trumps" needs more than your vote, it also needs your enthusiasm, because you have influence over others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bludog said:

But please familiarize yourself with Harris' past misdeeds as AG before trying to characterize them as normal or acceptable.  The OP article is a good source, but there are many others.  Her misdeeds are many and deplorable.

 

You have opened my eyes to the utter futility of relativism.

Ranking everyone on a scale of deplorability from 0 to 1,000,000,000 is just too much work.

 

You're right. It's much easier to just have two absolute categories:

 

Delectable & Deplorable

 

Upon further research, I cannot with good conscious place Harris onto my delectable list.

I have no choice but to place her into the shameful, deplorable category. 

Along side Trump, Barr, Alex Acosta, Erdogan, Kim Jung-un, Pol Pot , and Kim Kardashian. 

 

 

11 hours ago, bludog said:

Methinks you do.  So if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

Now, who would be the best judge of whether the shoe fits my foot? You, or me?

Even the most talented shoe salesman does not override the torturous pain of ill- fitting shoes.

I choose not to purchase, or wear,  what you are trying to force onto to my foot.

 

 

My position of Kamala Harris has not changed.

There was never a chance that I would vote for her. There are too many other good progressive candidates.

I do not require researching more reasons to not vote for her, but I do apologize for my lack of adequate condemnation.

I have seen the light.

Perhaps now you can find a real Kamala Harris supporter to engage with.

There are many out there. It ain't me you're looking for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ExPDXer said:

There was never a chance that I would vote for her. There are too many other good progressive candidates.

 

On this we can agree.  The rest is insincere sarcasm, not worth an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, bludog said:

 

Thanks for being honest with full disclosure.  You did not have to do it.  But please familiarize yourself with Harris' past misdeeds as AG before trying to characterize them as normal or acceptable.  The OP article is a good source, but there are many others.  Her misdeeds are many and deplorable.

 

Just a few for example:

Why Kamala Harris is under attack for a decade-old anti-truancy ... - Vox

Feb 7, 2019 - Harris's anti-truancy program has become a flashpoint for her record on criminal ... district attorney and California's attorney general, when she at times .... the shame that you instill in them … impacts children and families.”.
Jan 24, 2019 - Kamala Harris at her San Francisco office in 2004 ... Harris has drawn on her record as a prosecutor, both in San Francisco and as California attorney general, to lend an intimacy to ..... The behavior of Harris and Hirono in Kavanagh SCOTUS hearings was a disgrace, both of these women are total slime.
Jan 9, 2018 - Harris' record as San Francisco D.A. has similar instances. ... As California Attorney General, Harris' office continued to display indifference ...
Jan 18, 2019 - As Kamala Harris positions for a likely presidential run that could be ... record as district attorney of San Francisco and attorney general of ...
Missing: shameful ‎| Must include: shameful

 

 

 

Yes.  Very much so.  Regardless of denials to the contrary

 

 

Taken by itself, her record as AG is worthy of Truthout's criticisms.  And Truthout's documented criticisms should be taken by themselves.  Hypothetical complaints about other vague prosecutors are beside the point.  None of them is running for the highest office in the land.

 

 

I did not say you do.  In fact I'm not at all surprised to hear you don't.  So you should appreciate the analogy all the more.

 

 

Methinks you do.  So if the shoe fits, wear it.


Kamala Harris's anti-truancy program helped keep kids in school.  And it put ZERO people in jail in her district, and only two elsewhere -- of which both had children missing over 100 days of school.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cecelia said:


Kamala Harris's anti-truancy program helped keep kids in school.  And it put ZERO people in jail in her district, and only two elsewhere -- of which both had children missing over 100 days of school.  

 

Here is a search tip. When looking for objective results on the Internet.....

On 7/10/2019 at 1:40 AM, bludog said:

 

............

Missing: shameful ‎| Must include: shameful

 

It works. I tried it on several other candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cecelia said:

Kamala Harris's anti-truancy program helped keep kids in school.  And it put ZERO people in jail in her district, and only two elsewhere -- of which both had children missing over 100 days of school.  

 

schools seems to do this to keep the funding up  does it actually improve or diminish the education of the children that didn't need to be picked and forced to go to school ?

 I think there are better answers and ways to procure funding  for the benefit of education

 

 her answer for  paying for universal healthcare is typical and stagnant and does not seem like a safe  or stable way to get things my government wants to offer

 

hear them all tell me we would have to loose everything we worked to achieve before they would offer us the same healthcare as people here illegally  is a hard pill to swallow

 

I want that money to go back into medicaid for Americans who need help  not the world 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ExPDXer said:
On 7/9/2019 at 11:40 PM, bludog said:

 

............

Missing: shameful ‎| Must include: shameful

 

It works. I tried it on several other candidates.

 

Falsifying a quote is a ploy usually reserved for Conservatives, in NHB.   I have never seen it done in LO before this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rrober49 said:

 

schools seems to do this to keep the funding up  does it actually improve or diminish the education of the children that didn't need to be picked and forced to go to school ?

 I think there are better answers and ways to procure funding  for the benefit of education

 

 

It's not just for funding purposes.  Kids who drop out of school are far more likely to end up in prison.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bludog said:

 

Falsifying a quote is a ploy usually reserved for Conservatives, in NHB.   I have never seen it done it LO before this.

 

Now you want me to try on some Hobnail Jackboots?

Sorry, they do not fit either. Besides they are ugly, and inappropriate for tropical climate.

 

Falsifying a quote is a strong accusation, Mr Prosecutor. I will plead to a lessor charge of truncating a quote.

 

Exhibit A:Let me try quoting your full post again, and see what happens......

On 7/10/2019 at 1:40 AM, bludog said:

 

Thanks for being honest with full disclosure.  You did not have to do it.  But please familiarize yourself with Harris' past misdeeds as AG before trying to characterize them as normal or acceptable.  The OP article is a good source, but there are many others.  Her misdeeds are many and deplorable.

 

Just a few for example:

Why Kamala Harris is under attack for a decade-old anti-truancy ... - Vox

Feb 7, 2019 - Harris's anti-truancy program has become a flashpoint for her record on criminal ... district attorney and California's attorney general, when she at times .... the shame that you instill in them … impacts children and families.”.
Jan 24, 2019 - Kamala Harris at her San Francisco office in 2004 ... Harris has drawn on her record as a prosecutor, both in San Francisco and as California attorney general, to lend an intimacy to ..... The behavior of Harris and Hirono in Kavanagh SCOTUS hearings was a disgrace, both of these women are total slime.
Jan 9, 2018 - Harris' record as San Francisco D.A. has similar instances. ... As California Attorney General, Harris' office continued to display indifference ...
Jan 18, 2019 - As Kamala Harris positions for a likely presidential run that could be ... record as district attorney of San Francisco and attorney general of ...
Missing: shameful ‎| Must include: shameful

 

 

 

Yes.  Very much so.  Regardless of denials to the contrary

 

Taken by itself, her record as AG is worthy of Truthout's criticisms.  And Truthout's documented criticisms should be taken by themselves.  Hypothetical complaints about other vague prosecutors are beside the point.  None of them is running for the highest office in the land.

 

I did not say you do.  In fact I'm not at all surprised to hear you don't.  So you should appreciate the analogy all the more.

 

Methinks you do.  So if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

There it is again... "Must include: shameful". Now, correct me if I am wrong. Google does not normally ask you this unless....

It thinks you wish to have the word 'shameful'  included in the results And the only reason for that is to include this particular superlative as part of the search criteria.

 

If the shoe fits, you must acquit.

The Defense rests.

 

I'm just looking for some basic footwear, in a size 12.25.

They have to fit, be comfortable, and made of quality material.

Got anything like that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to observe that the only political content in your post   ^   ^   ^  is in the quote of my post.  The rest is sarcastic spin, misrepresenting what I wrote.  My post is simply a rebuttal of your post.   It does not launch a personal attack against anyone.  And It does not attempt to misrepresent what you wrote.  But you chose to take it personally, as if it was an attack on you.

 

On 7/10/2019 at 11:33 AM, ExPDXer said:

Perhaps now you can find a real Kamala Harris supporter to engage with.

There are many out there. It ain't me you're looking for.

 

Please either return to reality and produce a legitimate rebuttal or drop the subject.  An example of a legitimate rebuttal can be found six posts up.  Unlike what you have been posting, it contains no hyperbole, fiction or false claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Kamala Harris, but I am not sure she inspires me enough. She is not strong enough in explaining the basic problems we have regarding things never getting done for the people. 

We do need inspiration, as well as instruction of what did not work and why certain policies should. We need inspiration, along with leaders describing the required nuts and bolts behind any policy measure. Yes, kids take out your graphic calculators, and draw upon what they can illustrate.

We need the Democratic Party to do its job regarding the most critical issues that we face as a people. Yes, we need solid debates, bolstered by some factual journalism upfront. Please do,  Utilize the moments when people are watching in order to 

educate. This what Congressional Oversight should do. 

If you cannot make change because you don't have the executive power, and you don't have half the congress, the Senate - what you should do is use that time to investigate and inform. 

Let them come at you from any side. Use good journalism, utilize strong oversight - use even judicial review. Let's bring in economist, and big bold graphs, and let's also benchmark what other democracies around the world are doing regarding a whole host of issue.

 

Dealing with climate change... Make folks understand how vital an issue this is and how it could affect everything from jobs to healthcare and our justice system. Isn't it all tied to the bottom line, and what is the bottom line? 

 

That's always a good question to ask. What is the bottom line?

 

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...