Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state’s attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent.
Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors....I'm giving this my "NYT pushes Kamala" tag, though it counts against the proposition for which I created the tag.
In “The Truths We Hold,” Ms. Harris’s recently published memoir, she writes: “America has a deep and dark history of people using the power of the prosecutor as an instrument of injustice.... I know this history well — of innocent men framed, of charges brought against people without sufficient evidence, of prosecutors hiding information that would exonerate defendants, of the disproportionate application of the law.”
All too often, she was on the wrong side of that history....
It would be interesting to see Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party nominee, up against Trump, with Trump able to claim a more progressive record on criminal justice reform.
Posts
74 comments:
I guess we're in for a year of this sort of sniping. It's going to be interesting to see how the media avoids describing Democrats as "divided" or "in chaos."
I'm sure those violations of prog orthodoxy can be ignored or papered over easily enough. If she ends up being the nominee they sure as hell will be, for The Good of The Party and the defeat of the Bad Orange Man. Democrats have ignored and excused far worse many times before.
Perhaps she's evolving, so to speak.
She's toast.
Californians have been trying to tell the rest of the nation about Kammy. Maybe we got through to the Times.
Why is she toast? She has a record...and if NYT isn't treating you like Hillary, you are not the chosen one.
Comparing Immigration and Customs agents to the KKK was a great move.
Keep talking.
"... it counts against the proposition for which I created the tag.'
Not at all. Though no doubt Ms Bazelon is sincere in her opposition to Harris, NYT's publication of op eds like this are helpful to the necessary positioning of the Senator as not too much of a crazy lefty to be president.
It's going to be interesting to see how the media avoids describing Democrats as "divided" or "in chaos."
"In an energetic debate last night..."
"A lively discussion about differences in platforms...."
"Candidates enjoyed sparring with each other...."
It won't be interesting. It will be just as I wrote: in other words, Predictable.
It would be interesting to see Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party nominee, up against Trump, with Trump able to claim a more progressive record on criminal justice reform.
It would, wouldn't it? Those of us who are pleased and pleasantly surprised by Donald Trump's policies mostly mention his economic policies, his dealings with Iran, and his efforts to wind down wars poorly handled by his two predecessors, however his efforts on behalf of criminal justice reform are a wildly overdue step in the right direction.
Doesn't matter to Libs if Trump was more progressive than Harris on prison reform.
He was for gay marriage long before Hillary evolved on the issue.
Did Libs give him credit?
She's a law enforcement officer (fundamentally).
She's not "black-black".
Her husband is white.
The race-purists and BLMenonites are going to come at her and her record.
Some woke-black-gender-queer-pyro-fox with nipple-rings is going to jump on stage at one of her rallies, grab the mic, and speak truth to power.
I have promised myself that if this happens I'll start drinking again. I'll deserve it.
CNN determines the dem candidate, not the NYT.
The dem nominee will be Michelle Obama.
That answer explains so very many fact patterns we are witnessing in both the media and on the dem side (but I repeat myself).
As governor, Bill Clinton executed a mentally deficient man. In most democrat circles, the former Commander-in-Heat remains a hero.
Oh no, the dreaded 'wrong side of history', the go-to phrase of idiots.
You know how Kammy became DA of San Francisco?
We had this crazy aged leftist, Terrance Hallinan, as DA. He was a criminal defense attorney, who as DA, indicted the Chief of Police and and most of his police leadership on BS charges.
Compared to this wacko, Kammy seemed sane, and beat Hallinan.
But Kammy had much higher ambitions and that required some normalcy when she was California AG. But, she's a leftwing wacko, who is savvy enough to understand that you can't play the leftwing wacko card in every circumstance.
Did Willie Brown get her the job? I have read she worked her way up!!
Prominent on my "Phrases That Need To Die" list is "...the wrong side of history." Used unironically, it's a wholly trustworthy sign that rest of the content is codswallop.
I think that I too am on the wrong side of history, so I have something in common with Kamala Harris.
On the other hand, some communities have a perception that Harris is a secret member of the Ku Klux Klan. That troubles me.
I wonder if Harris ever has talked with anyone at the Kasowitz Benson & Torres law firm. If she has done so, then that too would trouble me.
It would be interesting to see Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party nominee, up against Trump, with Trump able to claim a more progressive record on criminal justice reform.
I don't think so since we all know what will happen: the media will portray her as if she held the positions they prefer regardless of reality.
I think the more revealing election will be the Dem primary. Will black and intersectional progressives place racial solidarity above their policy preferences to support her? We already saw this with Obama (answer: yes) but the left is much more openly and stridently left now than it was then. Is that all just cover for partisanship as it has always been in the past?
I know which way I'm betting.
"CNN determines the dem candidate, not the NYT."
Agreed.
CNN is the Dem candidate.
Did Willie Brown get her the job? I have read she worked her way up!!
@wendybar, I have read that she went down.
Is it OK to call her a whore? After Clinton and Trump's pecadillos that would be sexist. She's probably out of my price range anyway. Evita!
"NYT's publication of op eds like this are helpful to the necessary positioning of the Senator as not too much of a crazy lefty to be president."
IDK. Centrists aren't exactly pro-"official misconduct," "false testimony" or suppression of evidence.
IMHO, her initial problem is that this level of abstraction makes her look like a tool of the privileged (to lefties) and of the government elites (to righties). Her longer term problem is that people will dig into those old cases and find something even worse.
Roy Jacobsen said...
Prominent on my "Phrases That Need To Die" list is "...the wrong side of history." Used unironically, it's a wholly trustworthy sign that rest of the content is codswallop.
You're right, of course. History doesn't have sides. It just is what it is. According to Progressive/Marxist (but I repeat myself) types, there is an unstoppable course to human events that will end up in their "workers' paradise". Journalists (all too often of the Progressive/Marxist persuasion) have their all powerful "narrative", which is how they believe things must be described to further their agenda, truth and actual facts be damned. My favorite example was what was said after the Duke Lacrosse phony scandal was proven to be a pack of lies: "The narrative was right but the facts were wrong."
'I guess we're in for a year of this sort of sniping. It's going to be interesting to see how the media avoids describing Democrats as "divided" or "in chaos."'
Democrats never seem to miss an opportunity to miss... you know the rest.
CNN? I would have thought MSNBC. Not even Dems are watching CNN anymore...
Don't even get me started on Harris and Backpage, where she twice brought bogus lawsuits against them and then used the sex trafficking hysteria to attack Section 230. She's awful on many many levels. She's one of these people who think that if a man hires a sex worker, they should both go to jail but if cops are passing around an underage prostitute like a party favor -- as they were doing in Oakland -- that's not her problem.
Anyone who uses the term "wrong side of history" without a touch of irony automatically loses.
Who is this white chick to question KH's lived experience?
"I guess we're in for a year of this sort of sniping. It's going to be interesting to see how the media avoids describing Democrats as "divided" or "in chaos."
Recall how HRC stole the previous nomination from Comrade Sanders. The media glossed over it so quickly it was as if it didn't happen. Just like ServPro.
NYT article early in the election cycle so they can say they covered the story?
Check.
Next up, a spot on Maddow's show to confess her sins and receive absolution just like Gillibrand.
However, Maddow didn't let her off the hook for her old views on issues like guns and immigration in the introduction to their interview, discussing what she called Gillibrand's "conservative bona fides" in unseating a GOP congressman in New York in 2006. Gillibrand used the expression "illegal aliens," now a huge no-no for progressives, called for making English the country's official language, and had an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association.
"Senator Gillibrand has had a transformation. She has changed a great deal on policy in the decade since she was a card-carrying member of the Blue Dog Democrats," Maddow said. "She has been on her own party's right. She has been on her own party's left."
Asked to explain her "transformation," Gillibrand told a familiar story about meeting families in Brooklyn that motivated her to fight more strongly against gun violence.
"I recognized I didn't know everything about the whole state … I just knew I was wrong," she said, going on to tout being a "leader" on gun control measures.
Maddow reminded Gillibrand she once said she was "embarrassed" by her previous positions on immigration.
She will be REBORN! Praise MARX, LENIN, MAO AND CHAVEZ! She has SEEN THE ERROR OF HER WICKED WAYS!
Just like ServPro.
Would make a great SNL skit. Too bad we'll never see it.
It's not her fault. She was a combination FuckToy/AffirmativeActionHire, so she had no idea what she was doing, and just went along with whoever lied to her last.
Before we conclude if this is supposed to end her or it's front running the story so it won't harm her later, let's see if we hear from a cop or two who say her actions undermined their work and 'we all' lost confidence in her. That scheme's a plain vanilla 'Martha Coakley' and is supposed to end her.
Yes, Harris sounds awful.
"You know how Kammy became DA of San Francisco?
"We had this crazy aged leftist, Terrance Hallinan, as DA. He was a criminal defense attorney, who as DA, indicted the Chief of Police and and most of his police leadership on BS charges.
"Compared to this wacko, Kammy seemed sane, and beat Hallinan."
He doesn't sound like a wacko at all. He did what more DAs should be doing.
It would be interesting to see Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party nominee, up against Trump, with Trump able to claim a more progressive record on criminal justice reform.
Who's going to do more for minorities going forward? A Republican who's already done things for them, or a Democrat who's very sorry about her past actions and needs to do something dramatic to make up for it?
That's how it will be pitched in the barber shops and hair salons.
Blogger Big Mike said...
...Those of us who are pleased and pleasantly surprised by Donald Trump's policies ..., however his efforts on behalf of criminal justice reform are a wildly overdue step in the right direction.
For the first time since Eisenhower we have a president who is not owned.
"For the first time since Eisenhower we have a president who is not owned."
WTF's the difference if he's enriching himself at the expense of the American people? It's rhetorical, you don't have to answer - you can just call me a name or insist I voted for Stalin.
This woman has been an ugly corrupt official and ambitious partisan hack for years. Of all the candidates on all sides, I find her the most untrustworthy and distasteful. Some of the Democrats are crazy, some stupid, some evil. She is not crazy or stupid. It seems clear at this point that many of our voters will vote for anybody now: crazy, stupid or evil, and therefore she could win. I'm not sure what would be worse: evil and corrupt or a dumbell like Bernie, but God help us.
I wish Trump didn't piss off so many people, because although I like that he pisses off the right people, he also turns off a lot of fence sitters. I'm hoping our immune system finally creates some immunity to T.D.S. before 2020. We sure are getting enough exposure to do the job by then.
Trump is held afloat only by the good results that are hard to ignore, but the tiniest backslide in the economy or foreign relations and he will get kicked aside. No President has had such a difficult grading curve applied to their administration.
"WTF's the difference if he's enriching himself at the expense of the American people? It's rhetorical,..."
Of course it is. You don't want a debate.
1) How exactly is he enriching himself?
2) Did the Clintons and Obamas enrich themselves, becuase they all increased their wealth many times over in office.
3) How would Trump even do that?
"For the first time since Eisenhower we have a president who is not owned."
It's as if you hadn't read a newspaper or turned on a news report during his presidency. "Who, Trump???"
You want to talk about Clinton and Obama. I know. Let's fix that.
Get lost.
Yes, all the Left-wing freaks think she wasn't Left-wing enough.
Is Sister Souljah still around? Harris might give her a call.
"How would he do that?"
On Perry Mason the guilty party would always give himself away on the witness stand with "Why would I do that?"
Here we have a 21st c improvement worthy of 1950s television. "How would I do that?" So guileless.
"I wish Trump didn't piss off so many people, because although I like that he pisses off the right people, he also turns off a lot of fence sitters."
Well, the dumbshit "Fence-sitters" voted for Trump in 2016, and if they vote Democrat in 2020, they get what they deserve.
Its amazing how the Democrats can be corrupt arrogant assholes who run the USA into the ground every chance they have enough power, but the "fence-sitters" don't care. All they want is to have a POTUS who says soothing things in a soothing way and drinks his tea with his pinky raised.
Of course he couldn't enrich himself, his family or his business at the expense of the ... how the hell would do that?
In the meantime daily news reports Trump, his family and a number of cabinet members are doing exactly that.
Some of you wouldn't read a NYTimes if they stuck bamboo underneath your nails. How can you even argue with someone like that? Pretty much down to berating you for ... well you can figure it out.
She has requalified her monotonic ideology to match their judgment.
WintersTale said...
...you can just call me a name...
Chuck!
So Kamala Harris is not quite Hillary with a tan, but close enough. She was Willie Brown's plaything and then she married a rich white dude who was happy to be a cuck.
The NYT was soft on her, but the Guardian and Mother Jones aren't happy with her. So, again, Trump should be happy with his enemies.
There might be a Willy Horton times ten story lurking there. Imagine proof KH defended railroading a black man.
It appears Chuck has been unshackled and freed from having to maintain a particular online persona.
Much healthier this way.
If you understand where progressives and conservatives have common ground on criminal-justice and police reform, Harris has been on the wrong side throughout her career. Compared with her, Trump is a visionary on these issues.
Democrats are on the wrong side of mathematics.
You just need to look at the photo the Times chose. When they start rolling out the black and white and the unattractive profiles, they're telling their readers what to think. And here they're telling you to think ugly.
This is all untrue. Harris wrote the book "Right on Crime" which lays out her leftist, empty-the-prisons philosophy. She participated in conferences and led commissions to roll back any prosecution of crimes as serious as home invasion. She was entirely immersed in political activism to dismantle our criminal justice system.
Anyone with five minutes to spare could find this.
Facts matter.
Bazleton, another trust fund white girl who's only humping her ass because she's determined to save black men.
It's not like she's got an obsession with black dick.
No, No, No!
Both Bazletons are nasty cunts playing the dirty Irish game that was popular in the NE in the 19th century.
It's not people like her father and grandfather who are the abusers and racists. No, it's those dirty Irish, those disgusting, filthy working class white men..
Both Bazletons are obnoxious, vicious cunts pretending to be world saviors. They're really just on the make.
Yep, Donald can outprog progs.
Judicial nominees aside, he is doing what lefties like Bernie wanted until the day before yesterday:
More jobs, higher wages, limits on immigration.
Blow up trade deals, get better terms with protection for US labor.
Increase tariffs to take it to the cheatin' Chinese.
Get out of stupid wars. No more imperialism.
Reduce punishment for federal crimes, empty the prisons.
Of course, the judicial nominees are the key. Dems needs the pro-abortion Althousian vote, so they must vilify Trump.
That's one reading, but Reagan was soaring with trade deals or open ended military interventions.
I would not underestimate Kammy, though. She's like a dogged, corrupt, sanctimonious prosecutor, who can nail a target she deems worthy of nailing.
She'll be 56 in 2020, but looks much younger. If I had to predict, she will be President one day. I just hope it's not 2020.
I think Winters Tale needs to “Exeunt Pursued By A Bear.”
WintersTale,
I didn't really expect an intelligent argument, but you didn't even try. I understand.
"I would not underestimate Kammy, though. She's like a dogged, corrupt, sanctimonious prosecutor, who can nail a target she deems worthy of nailing. "
I agree, but in the recent hearings she comes off pretty nasty, unreasonable, and partisan. I suppose the base on that side finds that attractive, but not the independents. I bet we see her try to play both audiences by going soft and reasonable sometimes, but that's not who she really is at all. It probably won't sell.
Trump seems to be one of the few politicians who shows you exactly who he is, like it or not.
The more progressive the prosecutor, the fewer crimes prosecuted.
More importantly, she got her political start through poontronage as Old Willy Brown’s girlfriend.
get this shit out early and defuse it
@WintersTale,
"President Donald Trump's net worth has declined by more than $1 billion since the year he launched his presidential campaign at the foot of Trump Tower's escalator, Forbes reported Tuesday." - 10/2/2018
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/trump-forbes-400-spot-tumbles-as-net-worth-declines.html
A big issue around cow country I have nowadays is that I cannot find offal, meaning hearts, livers, sweetbreads, kidneys, etc, because the farms tell me that I need to get on a waiting list behind the Primal Dog Food customers.
God Bless America: We sell our corn for fake fuel, and our (formerly prime) meat for pet fodder.
NYT dumps on Kamala. Well, it still won't get me to read it, or believe much of what they print, if I do. (I wonder WHY they're dumping on Kamala. Oh, they MUST be RAAAAACIST.)
It would be interesting to see Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party nominee, up against Trump, with Trump able to claim a more progressive record on criminal justice reform.
But don't forget that Trump has both race and gender against him.
She has limited appeal outside doctrinaire California/coastal liberals. Once the rest of the country hear about her refusal to enforce the laws on a cop killer, but yet was willing to keep innocent men in prison despite exculpatory evidence, she's done.
She does not have the "yeah I could have a beer with him/her" thing that apparently Obama had enough of (I would find him insufferable I think, but whatever, maybe we could joke about how he was sent downstate because he wasn't monetizing his position sufficiently in Chicago).
Post a Comment