Kamala Harris Is a Terrible Pick and Here's Why

[countryboy]

I just love all the partisan bs cheap shot at the longtime front runner for VP.

Not enough courage to make these claims Hoping it wouldn't happen.

Harris is an amazing pick. Strong proud American who is a great compliment to Biden.

All the personal attacks are evidence of fear and desperation.

Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Lol, the "partisan bs cheap shot" in this thread are from libs.

 

[Hypothetical]

Trump is clearly obese. No doctor has certified Biden as senile. He's just a normal old dude.

"he's not gonna take a test...c'mon man!"

 

[btthegreat]

These aren't personal attacks, these are factual indictments of Kamala Harris' record and her character. That Trump is patently awful doesn't somehow obviate her objectively terrible record as a prosecutor and AG.

Again, for the record, I will be voting Biden come November, but thanks to Kamala as VP, I will be doing so all the more grudgingly.

No, actually these are indictments of the jobs she took. You really need to understand what a prosecutor does, and who he represents in court, what a district attorney does and who he is supposed to represent in the performance of his duties and what an Attorney General does. You won't like any prosecutors, District Attorneys or Attorney Generals who stay long in their posts by these standards. Not one who is remotely effective or respected in their job, has a much different set of decisions to make in their history and most will not have made some of the calls that Harris made that defer to broad public or social justice interest beyond the more narrow public interest of being responsible for putting people behind bars.


She has what I consider a very nuanced and complicated history in her decisions in these positions. Some of them that you mention I agree with you, were bad calls as a Da or Ag. But most of them were consistent with her role and often they were only call that really was consistent with the job she took. She prosecuted violent crime, white collar crime, property crime and yes drug cases. She was not hired as a social justice warrior, she was not being paid to become one and she didn't. She was also not paid to do the work of defense council or replace a prosecutors/ AG argument with a judges ruling before it came near that judge.

 

[Surrealistik]

No, actually these are indictments of the jobs she took. You really need to understand what a prosecutor does, and who he represents in court, what a district attorney does and who he is supposed to represent in the performance of his duties and what an Attorney General does. You won't like any prosecutors, District Attorneys or Attorney Generals who stay long in their posts by these standards. Not one who is remotely effective or respected in their job, has a much different set of decisions to make in their history and most will not have made some of the calls that Harris made that defer to broad public or social justice interest beyond the more narrow public interest of being responsible for putting people behind bars.

Not at all. As Kamala herself said, the buck stops with her; moreover, not every AG makes these decisions no matter how much you may wish to believe otherwise in order to satiate your need to exonerate and excuse her and be at peace with what is a truly ugly and skeleton riddled record, presumably for the sake of political expediency or avoiding cognitive dissonance. None of the ethical lapses and failings I pointed out were at all necessity to doing her job whatsoever, upholding the law or enacting her duties, which is precisely why they stand out, why they were picked up on by the papers and media and why I collected and itemized them in the OP; they range from being exhibitions of poor judgement and mismanagement at best to straight up abuses of power at worst.

 

[btthegreat]

Not at all. As Kamala herself said, the buck stops with her; moreover, not every AG makes these decisions no matter how much you may wish to believe otherwise in order to satiate your need to exonerate and excuse her and be at peace with what is a truly ugly and skeleton riddled record, presumably for the sake of political expediency or avoiding cognitive dissonance. None of the ethical lapses and failings I pointed out were at all necessity to doing her job whatsoever, upholding the law or enacting her duties, which is precisely why they stand out, why they were picked up on by the papers and media and why I collected and itemized them in the OP; they range from being exhibitions of poor judgement and mismanagement at best to straight up abuses of power at worst.

Nope. Sorry. You really don't understand her role in the system at all. You just don't. You want her to be a social justice warrior and you want her to have that record of purity. That was not what she was paid to do. the fact that these decision were 'picked up by papers' just tells you that they pissed off defense attorneys, police watchdog groups, black advocacy or civil liberty groups. News flash. These jobs require a very astute sense of cognitive dissonance and they sure as hell demand a lot of political acumen which will occasionally demand some political expedience, especially in a state like California.

Now as I mentioned, there are some decisions she made here she did not need to, and there were times that more courage, than she showed would have lead to a more justice centered result. Its not some amazingly progressive record. But I did not see as I researched, what you see here, and my conclusion is different.

 

[john patriot]

Willie Brown would not let her on top! Q 2024

 

[Surrealistik]

Nope. Sorry. You really don't understand her role in the system at all. You just don't. You want her to be a social justice warrior and you want her to have that record of purity. That was not what she was paid to do. the fact that they were 'picked up by papers' just tells you that they pissed off defense attorneys, police watchdog groups, black advocacy or civil liberty groups. News flash. These jobs require a very astute sense of cognitive dissonance and they sure as hell demand a lot of political acumen which will occasionally demand some political expedience, especially in a state like California.

Actually, I don't care whether or not she is a social justice warrior, I care whether she abuses her power and prioritizes the advancement of her career and stats over justice which she clearly did, and repeatedly at that. To claim that such ongoing ethical malfeasance is a necessary requirement of the job is to truly exhibit the lack of understanding you accuse others of. Kamala's ethical lapses and failures made it to the papers because they were notable, serious, egregious and merited reporting.

 

[john patriot]

picking Kamala Harris proves Biden has dementia! Q 2024

 

[HennyBogan]

In a nutshell, Kamala Harris has proven herself a psychopathic career climber more concerned with getting ahead than getting justice, representation or any other such petty inconveniences. She is an appalling and utterly tone-deaf pick in this era of BLM and mass protests and unrest driven by police brutality, militarization, systemic racism, and injustice, the latter of which she is unfortunately exceedingly well versed in, featuring a laundry list of such egrigious offenses as:

#1: Repeatedly refusing the admission of potentially exonerary DNA evidence which was later court ordered by a judge to be submitted. Kamala Harris Refused DNA Test in Murder Case of Kevin Cooper

#2: Repeatedly refusing to release an innocent man from prison, then refused to compensate him for a decade wrongly served in prison.

#3: Repeatedly and systemically violated defendants’ rights by hiding damaging information about a compromised police drug lab technician getting high off evidence and resisted initial court orders by Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo to disclose such information, Kamala incredibly arguing that she was 'unfairly biased' because her husband was a defense attorney in an futile and ridiculous attempt to avoid doing so; this eventually resulted in the dismissal of approximately a thousand cases: 1,000 San Francisco drug cases to be dismissed in lab scandal – The Mercury News | https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5df094-392b-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html

#4: Largely ignored bombshell evidence exposing widespread deputy misconduct, perjury and evidence tampering/destruction until much later where she then dragged her feet in starting an ineffectual sham of a probe that found no one guilty or accountable, and resulted in 0 charges filed.

#5: Related to #4: appealed the dismissal of an indictment when a state prosecutor appended two fabricated statements to a confession in an attempt to maximize sentencing.

#6: Set up and oversaw a grossly ineffective Mortgage Fraud Strike Force meant to deal with foreclosure fraud; despite receiving hundreds of complaints, it prosecuted only 10 cases in a period of three years. Less equipped county district attorneys and AGs in other states incredibly filed many more California-based cases despite inferior resources.

#7: Failed to prosecute OneWestBank despite it repeatedly breaking California foreclosure laws ( Mnuchin's Bank Accused of "Widespread Misconduct" ) , and despite the presentation of uncovered evidence of widespread misconduct; Kamala Harris dismissed a year long investigation recommending civil enforcement action against the company, refusing to prosecute or act on those recommendations while offering no explanation for this at all.

It is to be noted that this list is by no means exhaustive.

Supporting/source articles:

When Kamala Was a Top Cop - The Atlantic

Kamala Harris Offers No New Hope - Paste

The Two Faces of Kamala Harris

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article233375207.html

In summary, Kamala was a patently idiotic choice that is diametrically opposite and opposed to the current and well-justified zeitgeist. Should Biden win, he will do so in spite, and not because of, Harris as VP.

All good points but Joe “Sniff” and Kamala “Blow” are obviously a match

 

[btthegreat]

Actually, I don't care whether or not she is a social justice warrior, I care whether she abuses her power and prioritizes the advancement of her career and stats over justice which she clearly did, and repeatedly at that. To claim that such ongoing ethical malfeasance is a necessary requirement of the job is to truly exhibit the lack of understanding you accuse others of. Kamala's ethical lapses and failures made it to the papers because they were notable, serious, egregious and merited reporting.

Let's shorten your list. Using the California state or federal ABA standards for ethical conduct. Please show exactly which of your accusations reach the level of an ethical breach of conduct and any formal complaints to either bar standard. Lets find out if you know her professional ethics standards as well as you claim. Now don't replace the professional standard with your own, quote the rule and her professional breach.

We'll find out if you know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[Surrealistik]

Let's shorten your list. Using the California state or federal ABA standards for ethical conduct. Please show exactly which of your accusations reach the level of an ethical breach of conduct and any formal complaints to either bar standard. Lets find out if you know her professional ethics standards as well as you claim. Now don't replace the professional standard with your own, quote the rule and her professional breach.

We'll find out if you know what the hell you are talking about.

Lol, okay.

First of all, let's be clear that cleaving to legality, or obeying a specific bar standard is not equivalent to ethical behaviour.

Second, sure, off the top of my head, she immediately fails the smell test per the Cali ABA 8.4 Misconduct (c) section:

engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,* deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation;

She deliberately concealed a lab tech's compromising misbehaviour who was stealing cocaine salts to use in order to avoid having cases justly overturned as they relied on the testimony and work of this compromised tech, and in order to avoid giving defense attorneys ammunition.

In another case, she attempted to annul and cover for a prosecutor's misconduct in falsifying a confession transcript by appealing the dismissal of an indictment that resulted from that falsification and pursued no penalties against this prosecutor (Robery Murray) despite a judge ruling his behaviour to be intolerable and outrageous. The deceit in this case was not her own, but she certainly tried her best to build a prosecution upon it, and thus her conduct intimately involved it in violation of the ABA.


I could go further, but at the moment, I don't have the time nor inclination to delve through the rest of the California ABA. Suffice to say, she has run afoul of it as per above, and she has committed many serious ethical missteps that you are clearly trying to minimize and excuse out of political motive.

 

[Surrealistik]

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention the following nugget in my OP; honestly she has so many serious ethical failings I've been unable to remember them all:

Unethical conduct plagues legal career of Kamala Harris – The Miscellany News

However, perhaps Harris’ most egregious example of immoral conduct happened in 2014. A federal judge ordered that all non-violent second-strike offenders be eligible for parole in California in an action against constitutional prison crowding. Kamala Harris, then the Attorney General of California, disagreed with the decision. She argued in court that by releasing these inmates early, prisons would lose “an important labor pool” (Los Angeles Times, “Federal judges order California to expand prison releases,” 11.14.2014). Despite pitching herself as a lifelong champion for criminal justice reform, Harris had advocated that the need to keep nonviolent offenders as slaves outweighs their constitutional rights.

 

[btthegreat]

Lol, okay.

First of all, let's be clear that cleaving to legality, or obeying a specific bar standard is not equivalent to ethical behaviour.

Second, sure, off the top of my head, she immediately fails the smell test per the Cali ABA 8.4 Misconduct (c) section:

engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,* deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation;

She deliberately concealed a lab tech's compromising misbehaviour who was stealing cocaine salts to use in order to avoid having cases justly overturned as they relied on the testimony and work of this compromised tech, and in order to avoid giving defense attorneys ammunition.

Need a link here.

In another case, she attempted to annul and cover for a prosecutor's misconduct in falsifying a confession transcript by appealing the dismissal of an indictment that resulted from that falsification and pursued no penalties against this prosecutor (Robery Murray) despite a judge ruling his behaviour to be intolerable and outrageous. The deceit in this case was not her own, but she certainly tried her best to build a prosecution upon it, and thus her conduct intimately involved it in violation of the ABA.

She gets to appeal and may feel duty bound to appeal any dismissal if she feels that there is sufficient evidence and grounds to move forward without that falsified confession. Its just like any other ruling. The Judge makes his call, and if she disagrees, she tries to move the indictment foreward on its merits without the confession There's nothing unethical there. As for the prosecutors misconduct, if the judge ruled a prosecutors conduct to be intolerable and outrageous the judge has more tools to handle it in his own courtroom than she will, or he can and may have referred it to the ABA or CBA. Judges do that stuffl. It would be logical that the judge deal directly with suspect ethical behavior he discovered in his court proceeding. Maybe for all his talk, he did not think it worth referring after all


I could go further, but at the moment, I don't have the time nor inclination to delve through the rest of the California ABA. Suffice to say, she has run afoul of it as per above, and she has committed many serious ethical missteps that you are clearly trying to minimize and excuse out of political motive.

Links please.

 

[Surrealistik]

Links please.

Links are in the OP; I've already wasted more than enough time on your naked, and frankly disgusting apologism.

Also Robert Murray's behaviour was indeed outlandish and indefensible given his outright fabrication, and thus there was no adequate basis for her dispute as the Court of Appeals so accurately determined when it staunchly rejected Kamala's absurd appeal per her pursuit of prosecution on the basis of his open deceit; this is especially bad because Robert has a history of misconduct. Since the OP does not contain a link with a more detailed overview, I've generously decided to do your homework for you, just this once:

>> CA: Prosecutor’s Fabrication is Tip of the Iceberg When It Comes to Government Misconduct in Kern County

 

[beerftw]

The more I see of this, the less I thinkbiden chose harris and the more I think the dnc told biden he was getting harris. With her record, she makes trump and hillary look like angels, any vetting team would have considered her a no go from the start, unless that vetting team was run by a party with an agenda rather than a candidate.

So far it looks like the dnc was betting on harris to shore up the black vote as biden has done poorly with them compared to obama and hillary, however the people vote for president not vice president, and historically vp has never gained votes, only lost votes.


Even if biden was completely losing his mind in his age, it is doubtful this would have been his decision,for someone as long in politics as him would have chosen a safe bet. My bet is the dnc forced a candidate choice for him, this is backed up by hillary obama bernie etc all praising the decision right as it was made like the dnc had it planned in ,lockstep with it's well known members,

 

[Lursa]

*snicker* I can see it's going to take awhile before they get it out of their systems.

That's cool. Do it now...and then it will be all old news by Nov. Buh bye shock value, BS sorted thru and facts revealed. She gets her airtime to respond and go after The Donald. That's why an articulate, fact-driven legal shark will be a plus here....cuz 'niceness' is only a hindrance to her right now.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[beerftw]

She's a fighter and former prosecutor. She'll eat Pence for lunch in debates. She's a great pick!

Doubt that gabbard destroyed harris in the debates just by bringing up her record, all pence has to do is bring up the same, any candidate who can only survive as long as no one bring up public record is doa, aka harris.

 

[beerftw]

Democrat voters did not want her.

I am reading that Harris has sided with police over suspects - even in cases where those suspects may have been wrongfully convicted and that although she's expressed personal opposition to the death penalty, she's supported its use while she's been in office. Conservatives will like her based on her record. Bernie supporters might catch a cold on voting day.

I can not say conservatives support her at all, law and order works both ways, prosecuting criminals as well as controlling and prosecuting police as well, nowhere does the constitution give exemptions for law and order, it is just law and order.

HArris tried to keep innocent men locked up, cover up evidence, and protect corrupt police from prosecution, no sane conservative would back that, nor would a sane liberal, the only ones who would back that are party shills who would defend hitler or stalin of nominated.

There is a reason her campaign tanked from gabbard just bringing up her record.

 

[2distracted]

In a nutshell, Kamala Harris has proven herself a psychopathic career climber more concerned with getting ahead than getting justice, representation or any other such petty inconveniences. She is an appalling and utterly tone-deaf pick in this era of BLM and mass protests and unrest driven by police brutality, militarization, systemic racism, and injustice, the latter of which she is unfortunately exceedingly well versed in, featuring a laundry list of such egrigious offenses as:

#1: Repeatedly refusing the admission of potentially exonerary DNA evidence which was later court ordered by a judge to be submitted. Kamala Harris Refused DNA Test in Murder Case of Kevin Cooper

#2: Repeatedly refusing to release an innocent man from prison, then refused to compensate him for a decade wrongly served in prison.

#3: Repeatedly and systemically violated defendants’ rights by hiding damaging information about a compromised police drug lab technician getting high off evidence and resisted initial court orders by Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo to disclose such information, Kamala incredibly arguing that she was 'unfairly biased' because her husband was a defense attorney in an futile and ridiculous attempt to avoid doing so; this eventually resulted in the dismissal of approximately a thousand cases: 1,000 San Francisco drug cases to be dismissed in lab scandal – The Mercury News | https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5df094-392b-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html

#4: Largely ignored bombshell evidence exposing widespread deputy misconduct, perjury and evidence tampering/destruction until much later where she then dragged her feet in starting an ineffectual sham of a probe that found no one guilty or accountable, and resulted in 0 charges filed.

#5: Related to #4: appealed the dismissal of an indictment when a state prosecutor appended two fabricated statements to a confession in an attempt to maximize sentencing.

#6: Set up and oversaw a grossly ineffective Mortgage Fraud Strike Force meant to deal with foreclosure fraud; despite receiving hundreds of complaints, it prosecuted only 10 cases in a period of three years. Less equipped county district attorneys and AGs in other states incredibly filed many more California-based cases despite inferior resources.

#7: Failed to prosecute OneWestBank despite it repeatedly breaking California foreclosure laws ( Mnuchin's Bank Accused of "Widespread Misconduct" ) , and despite the presentation of uncovered evidence of widespread misconduct; Kamala Harris dismissed a year long investigation recommending civil enforcement action against the company, refusing to prosecute or act on those recommendations while offering no explanation for this at all.

It is to be noted that this list is by no means exhaustive.

Supporting/source articles:

When Kamala Was a Top Cop - The Atlantic

Kamala Harris Offers No New Hope - Paste

The Two Faces of Kamala Harris

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article233375207.html

In summary, Kamala was a patently idiotic choice that is diametrically opposite and opposed to the current and well-justified zeitgeist. Should Biden win, he will do so in spite, and not because of, Harris as VP.

Thanks for the info...didn't know Harris was such a dud...just knew she was bad at running for president

 

[ultmd]

These aren't personal attacks, these are factual indictments of Kamala Harris' record and her character. That Trump is patently awful doesn't somehow obviate her objectively terrible record as a prosecutor and AG.

Again, for the record, I will be voting Biden come November, but thanks to Kamala as VP, I will be doing so all the more grudgingly.

Sorry, but your argument is absurd.

Harris' record as a DA and then an AG was not "objectively terrible". You raised issues (some entirely subjective) with a few cases. She presided over (literally) thousands upon thousands in her 14 years in those offices.

Your argument is simplistic and opportunistic to the point of absurdity, surrealistik. There is no other conclusion except that it's "personal". It certainly isn't objective. That's clear.

Kamala Harris was a close to a home run pick as we've seen since...Obama chose Biden. And it's silly critiques like the above that prove it.

 

[lurchadams]

Doubt that gabbard destroyed harris in the debates just by bringing up her record, all pence has to do is bring up the same, any candidate who can only survive as long as no one bring up public record is doa, aka harris.

Great, let Harris bring up Pence's disgusting record, both as gov of IN and as trump's bottom boy for 4 years. Bottom line: Mikey's toast!

 

[Surrealistik]

Sorry, but your argument is absurd.

Harris' record as a DA and then an AG was not "objectively terrible". You raised issues (some entirely subjective) with a few cases. She presided over (literally) thousands upon thousands in her 14 years in those offices.

Your argument is simplistic and opportunistic to the point of absurdity, surrealistik. There is no other conclusion except that it's "personal". It certainly isn't objective. That's clear.

Kamala Harris was a close to a home run pick as we've seen since...Obama chose Biden. And it's silly critiques like the above that prove it.

Kamala made clearly unethical missteps during her tenure as AG, some of them extremely serious, including wrongful incarceration (and denying compensation for such on the basis of technicality in what seems like a full blown act of malicious spite), willfully and repeatedly denying defense attorneys critical evidence, appealing a court order to diminish prison crowding so she could retain jail labour and so on, and some in explicit contravention of the California ABA guidelines. I know of no other modern AG who has a record quite as dirty; if you do, I welcome you to point it out to me (not that it would obviate the fact she's personally responsible for a litany of contemptible, life ruining actions). My overall take on Kamala may indeed be subjective and personal, but the facts of her history are not, which are in my view damning, and should merit serious pause at the least to anyone not wearing a jersey or drinking partisan koolaide, especially when she's an old man's heartbeat away from taking on the most powerful office in the world.

Also, on that note, it would seem most Democrats would agree about the gravity of her actions since Gabbard basically solo obliterated Kamala's primary campaign by bringing up not even the most egregious iniquities of her AG career (to be clear, you can still support a Biden/Kamala ticket over Trump/Pence without being a fan of the veep's history).

Sadly, there is precious little that's a home run about this unprincipled, if not full on psychopathic career climber; also that you would describe Kamala as being the closest thing to a homerun pick since Biden, i.e. she's a better pick than the milquetoast, utterly forgettable Tim Kaine, is uh... faint praise indeed to say the least.

 

[iguanaman]

If you vote for Biden and he wins count on Harris sitting in the Oval Office within two years of the Inauguration. Take that to the bank.

As long as Trump is no where in sight I could care less who is there. I do expect Biden to complete his term though and Harris will be far better than Trump regardless. It is high time we had a women President and Trump was the sign that we have reached the very bottom of the male barrel.

 

[Surrealistik]

*snicker* I can see it's going to take awhile before they get it out of their systems.

That's cool. Do it now...and then it will be all old news by Nov. Buh bye shock value, BS sorted thru and facts revealed. She gets her airtime to respond and go after The Donald. That's why an articulate, fact-driven legal shark will be a plus here....cuz 'niceness' is only a hindrance to her right now.

I'm not sure what you're trying to assert. I mean, I'm certainly no Trump supporter; I think other than Dubya, he's the worst president of the modern era. I'm a progressive, FDR democrat that plans to vote for Biden regardless of his disastrous VP pick who simply doesn't much care for the corrupt former AG that is Kamala Harris.

As to 'getting it out of my system' and 'BS sorted thru and facts being revealed', I want to be clear that I've never been a Kamala supporter, that these same issues are what sunk her candidacy in the Dem primaries, and further, that not a single one of the misdeeds mentioned in the OP is 'BS'; they are all entirely factual as you will see per the sources provided, virtually none of which lean to the political right.

 

[Citizen]

Actually I plan to vote Biden regardless, but that doesn't make her any more palatable or less patently awful a VP choice. Honestly Kamala was easily one of the worst possible picks in contention, if not the worst for the many, many reasons mentioned in the OP.

Contrary to the views of some on this forum, not everyone who finds something to criticize about a Dem is their political opponent, a Russian troll or a Republican.

So who would have been your pick