NYT Op-Ed: Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’

[Rampage]

You are right it is an OP-ED.

I guess the OP-ED made up the facts about her railroading or the fact that she was against body cameras for police? I guess in your world made up facts are facts that do no agree with your point.

Click to shrink...

As a senator, she cosponsored a bill for the adoption of more body camera for police and ICE.

Reviewing her record as AG is important. But it should not be separated from her positions as a senator. People evolve.

As AG
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article22451643.html

"I as a general matter believe that we should invest in the ability of law enforcement leaders in specific regions and with their departments to use ... discretion to figure out what technology they are going to adopt based on needs that they have and resources that they have," Harris told reporters in Sacramento.

"So, I don't think we can have a one-size-fits-all approach to this," she added.


As Senator
https://www.harris.senate.gov/news/...tablish-body-worn-camera-programs-at-cbp-ice-

"Our government functions best when it is transparent and accountable to its citizens," said Senator Harris. "This is something I prioritized as Attorney General of California and continue to fight for in the United States Senate. Body-worn cameras can not only lower use-of-force incidents, but can also help reduce grievances against officers and ultimately improve trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve."

 

[Stardestroyer]

As a senator, she cosponsored a bill for the adoption of more body camera for police and ICE.

Reviewing her record as AG is important. But it should not be separated from her positions as a senator. People evolve.

As AG
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article22451643.html

"I as a general matter believe that we should invest in the ability of law enforcement leaders in specific regions and with their departments to use ... discretion to figure out what technology they are going to adopt based on needs that they have and resources that they have," Harris told reporters in Sacramento.

"So, I don't think we can have a one-size-fits-all approach to this," she added.


As Senator
https://www.harris.senate.gov/news/...tablish-body-worn-camera-programs-at-cbp-ice-

"Our government functions best when it is transparent and accountable to its citizens," said Senator Harris. "This is something I prioritized as Attorney General of California and continue to fight for in the United States Senate. Body-worn cameras can not only lower use-of-force incidents, but can also help reduce grievances against officers and ultimately improve trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve."

Click to shrink...

Good for her, for finally doing the right thing. I guess she realize the optics might not be so good for her ambitions. however, it doesn't explain why she was against it in the first place. Why would a minority progressive be against common sense policy that disproportionately affected minorities.

 

[8byte]

Don't forget this little number:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/17/opinion/sunday/kevin-cooper-california-death-row.html

She refused to allow a potentially innocent man to undergo DNA testing that might absolve him. Why? Who knows. She certainly says she didn't.

Or Larry Wallace. She seemingly is unaware of shady ongoings that happened under her watch as AG...which is arguably the same defense that Rudy Guliani is presenting for Trump today. Literally saying "well they might have done it, but we didn't know about it and weren't involved."

It'll be difficult for her to survive the primary if this turns out to be the case.

 

[Powdered Egg]

Guys, do not fuck this election up for Liberals. Kamala can speak in full sentences AND passes the paper bag test. Who cares if she's destroyed Black families on her rise to the top? You waste black ink when you fill out a voting ballot, so what's the difference! You don't want another four years of Trump, right!? RIGHT!!?

/s

Can we convince Stacey Abrams to run? I'm tired of these sellouts.

 

[Hey Please]

She is progressive enough for me and obviously she won't do something like her past actions again.

She remains a viable candidate for me.

Click to shrink...

Lol, this is exactly what the conservatives said about Trump when his talking points were being weighed against his past actions and competence.

 

[Rampage]

Good for her, for finally doing the right thing. I guess she realize the optics might not be so good for her ambitions. however, it doesn't explain why she was against it in the first place. Why would a minority progressive be against common sense policy that disproportionately affected minorities.

Click to shrink...

Read the quotes. It was like funding issue at the state level. CA is a big place with lot of budget variances between departments. Camera are great for departments flush with cash. But poor, rural areas- what do you cut for cameras? Where is the funding coming from?

As a Senator, it much easier to demand cameras across the board, cause she has access to fund her legislation.

 

[intheflorsh]

"Our government functions best when it is transparent and accountable to its citizens," said Senator Harris. "This is something I prioritized as Attorney General of California and continue to fight for in the United States Senate. Body-worn cameras can not only lower use-of-force incidents, but can also help reduce grievances against officers and ultimately improve trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve."

Click to shrink...

It would help me believe she's "evolving" on issues if she wasn't so flagrantly disingenuous about her career.

 

[collige]

As a senator, she cosponsored a bill for the adoption of more body camera for police and ICE.

Reviewing her record as AG is important. But it should not be separated from her positions as a senator. People evolve.

As AG
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article22451643.html

"I as a general matter believe that we should invest in the ability of law enforcement leaders in specific regions and with their departments to use ... discretion to figure out what technology they are going to adopt based on needs that they have and resources that they have," Harris told reporters in Sacramento.

"So, I don't think we can have a one-size-fits-all approach to this," she added.


As Senator
https://www.harris.senate.gov/news/...tablish-body-worn-camera-programs-at-cbp-ice-

"Our government functions best when it is transparent and accountable to its citizens," said Senator Harris. "This is something I prioritized as Attorney General of California and continue to fight for in the United States Senate. Body-worn cameras can not only lower use-of-force incidents, but can also help reduce grievances against officers and ultimately improve trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve."

Click to shrink...

I agree with your general point, but those quotes don't really read like evolving to me as much as they read like her lying about her history as AG.

 

[Advance.Wars.Sgt.]

The excuses being made for this piece of shit are straight up embarrassing and pathetic. Way to have no standards whatsoever.

Click to shrink...

People everywhere, not just here, will gladly turn the other way on a person's injustices as long as the victims are black.

Then they have the nerve to turn around and call themselves "allies".....Ha!

 

[Rampage]

It would help me believe she's "evolving" on issues if she wasn't so flagrantly disingenuous about her career.

Click to shrink...

I just spent time going through her bill sponsorship and voting record. Yes her AG time is problematic. But that is a small part of her whole. She is quite progress in her pursuits at the Federal level. Difference between being a legislator, where you can make the laws, and being part of the judicial branch where you have to follow the laws.

And yes, I get, criminal justice reform is (rightfully) very important to some people. But again, she joined in passing the recent, The First Step Act, Congress's criminal justice reform bill.

She not perfect, but she shows great promise. I'm not going to rule her out based on one OP-ED.

 

[Deleted member 4346]

Guys, do not fuck this election up for Liberals. Kamala can speak in full sentences AND passes the paper bag test. Who cares if she's destroyed Black families on her rise to the top?

Click to shrink...

Oof that's a gut punch right there. Obama was a great candidate but it seems silly for the Democratic establishment to look at black candidates by how "Obama-like" they are and use that as a test of whether or not they are legitimate. Meanwhile ignoring problematic past stuff because of it...

 

[MasterSummerSmith462]

Lol, this is exactly what the conservatives said about Trump when his talking points were being weighed against his past actions and competence.

Click to shrink...

As if this is even comparable to what conservatives waved off for Trump.

 

[Spiderz]

Hopefully a cop isn't nominated to represent the interests of the party.

 

[Googleplex]

Mother fuckers trying to lay the sins of the ENTIRE criminal justice system at a black womans feet. But continue to dickride Bernie "Not wanting to vote for a person of color doesn't make you racist" Sanders.

 

[Betelgeuse]

Glad to see the dismissive sycophantic apologism shut down. Her record is extremely troubling. More than that, it's time to stop giving prosecutors - and others involved in the legal system - a free pass for just "doing their jobs." It's time to hold these folks to a higher standard, or we're never going to have anything resembling a justice system.

 

[The Statesman]

It's not that she wasn't progressive, it's that she was a terrible AG.

You can disagree with people without thinking they were terrible at their jobs.

I dislike Pelosi and I disliked Reid, but I don't think either is/was terrible at their jobs.

 

[gogosox82]

Please forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of articles designed to spread negative press around potential Democratic candidates coming out long before the primary has even started. We're gonna see this shit for every single candidate and the Russians are just going to make it worse.

Click to shrink...

Did you read the article? I thought it was critical but still fair. And the criticisms aren't stuff out of left field either. These are criticims that have surrounded Harris for years. Its fair to ask pointed questions about candidates since we are going into to primary.

 

[CopperPuppy]

As if this is even comparable to what conservatives waved off for Trump.

Click to shrink...

Analogy =/= equivalence

I don't know why this point has to constantly be made, and why it is so hard to understand.

The comparison is meant to show that blind loyalty and handwaving past actions is foolish when evaluating political candidates. We could see that it was foolish when Trump's army of morons did it and we should hold ourselves to the same standard.

 

[Stardestroyer]

Mother fuckers trying to lay the sins of the ENTIRE criminal justice system at a black womans feet. But continue to dickride Bernie "Not wanting to vote for a person of color doesn't make you racist" Sanders.

Click to shrink...

Who else should we blame for her actions?

No one forced her to railroad that man. No one forced her to be against body cams. No one made her consider arresting parents for truancy. No one did, she is responsible for all those things. I would think as a black AG, she would be more progressives when it came to basic items such as required body cams for corrupt cops.

 

[Deleted member 3542]

I've soured on her with every year she doesn't address some of her past decisions as AG. Especially after I voted for her as my senator in thinking she has progressed. But I don't know if she has if she's going to handwaive it.

This whole "she has plenty of time to address it" is bullshit. She's had plenty of time to address but brushes it off. If this Op-ed doesn't ignite that conversation then I have no interest in supporting her future political career.

 

[Dick Justice]

If anyone had any kind of standard whatsoever they would just roll over and die, politics are a game of compromise.
If you ever find the fabled unicorn of flawless candidate, you should either wake up, wonder why you're not told the full story or why your standards are so low.

Click to shrink...

I wasn't aware that jailing innocent people on technicalities was just a common flaw.

 

[mael]

I wasn't aware that jailing innocent people on technicalities was just a common flaw.

Click to shrink...

Welcome to the politics of the US of A.

 

[klonere]

She did her job or what was necessary to keep her job. You can put together a piece like this for every AG in the country.

Click to shrink...

You might be on to something

 

[Titik]

Do you smell that? That's the smell of new presidential candidates, a new primary season and new vetting process in the morning.

May the odds be ever in thier favors. Hopefully whoever survives mean we are all finally rid of Trump.

 

[MajorGripex]

She's from my state and I never really liked her for this reason. She also fought on the wrong side of the violent video game case that went to the Supreme court. Always just struck me as a politician trying to score political points rather than someone genuine but I guess that's par for the course when it comes to politics.

I really hope her running exposes her as a moderate and opens the door for her to be primaried by an AOC type of politician.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

How and when Harris is finally forced to face her past will make or break her run for office

 

[DOT_mjo]

I have little to no respect for prosecutors. Kamala Harris at least has the capabilities of explaining any previous actions that may come up.

 

[Powdered Egg]

Mother fuckers trying to lay the sins of the ENTIRE criminal justice system at a black womans feet. But continue to dickride Bernie "Not wanting to vote for a person of color doesn't make you racist" Sanders.

Click to shrink...

I would take an elderly White person that's dumb about race over a sellout that went after vulnerable poor Black folks anyday. I don't speak for all Black people though.

If the Democratic Party were rap, Bernie Sanders is Rakim or Nas. He changed the game for the better and its very baffling for people why the Party doesn't get it. It's no surprise that many Dems and the party itself borrowed from his platform.

 

[samoyed]

Yeah I alluded to this in another thread. Harris can turn this around if she owns up to her past and puts justice reform near the center of her campaign. Her being based in Atlanta means she can't dodge this issue forever, activists and civil rights leader will hold her feet to the fire over this.

Would still vote for her over Tulsi "homosexual extremists" Gabbard or Booker, but she's a bit below Beto right now for me.

 

[Advance.Wars.Sgt.]

I would take an elderly White person that's dumb about race over a sellout that went after vulnerable poor Black folks anyday. I don't speak for all Black people though.

If the Democratic Party were rap, Bernie Sanders is Rakim or Nas. He changed the game for the better and its very baffling for people why the Party doesn't get it. It's no surprise that many Dems and the party itself borrowed from his platform.

Click to shrink...

It's baffling to me some people hold the expectation of black people to automatically dick ride other black individuals despite them clearly pushing an anti-black agenda.

I don't give a fuck if she's supposedly on "our" side - pushing in any form for the further subjugation of black bodies, ESPECIALLY when said perpetrator is black, warrants a hard "Hell Nah" from me, period. In my mind there's no walking away, or apologizing away, those type of transgressions.

 

[Pet]

So the shit flinging begins. 2020 is going to be ugly.

 

[Deleted member 22490]

So the shit flinging begins. 2020 is going to be ugly.

Click to shrink...

Is this really shit flinging though?

 

[Powdered Egg]

It's baffling to me some people hold the expectation of black people to automatically dick ride other black individuals despite them clearly pushing an anti-black agenda.

I don't give a fuck if she's supposedly on "our" side - pushing in any form for the further subjugation of black bodies, ESPECIALLY when said perpetrator is black, warrants a hard "Hell Nah" from me, period. In my mind there's no walking away, or apologizing away, those type of transgressions.

Click to shrink...

Agreed, that's where I'm at too. I think she's dug too deep of a hole for me to vote for her.

 

[Thordinson]

If she truly has changed, I would like to see her own up to her time as a terrible AG. I was really high on her until a fellow poster enlightened me on how she, essentially, targeted poor black families and was more for retributive justice than rehabilitative. Now, learning about what she did to innocent people...It's just really soured me on her.

 

[Stardestroyer]

Agreed, that's where I'm at too. I think she's dug too deep of a hole for me to vote for her.

Click to shrink...

Nah, she is black, I am black so clearly we are suppose to vote because she is black.

I would argue that her actions are even far worse. You would think a black AG would be less likely to use such horrible tactics, but she is willing to put blacks down for her career. Why the fuck should I reward her by supporting her.

 

[Orayn]

Kamala Harris fucking loves jail and putting people into it

 

[samoyed]

I would argue that her actions are even far worse. You would think a black AG would be less likely to use such horrible tactics, but she is willing to put blacks down for her career. Why the fuck should I reward her by supporting her.

Click to shrink...

If I was being charitable, I'd say she has the double whammy of being a WoC in criminal justice, so she probably felt she needed to compensate by being more odious than is typical.

That said this does not actually justify her actions, explains them perhaps but does not vindicate. No one wants a president who feels the need to sell out PoCs to earn brownie points under white supremacist systems.

I am reminded of the hubbub over Gina Haspel.

 

[Jeremy]

If we're going to put every Democratic candidate through the ringer, at least there's some meat on the bone when it comes to addressing Kamala's past, unlike that last round of Warren nonsense where people attacked things like her beer choice.

I still think Harris is an excellent candidate even if she's clearly an opportunist...

Ultimately, we'd need a Tulsi Gabbard or something as a candidate to discourage me in 2020.

 

[danm999]

Someone on the debate stage is going to ask her Senator Harris why did you oppose body cams for cops in 2015 and that's going to be a bit of a minefield to answer.

 

[lmcfigs]

If I was being charitable, I'd say she has the double whammy of being a WoC in criminal justice, so she probably felt she needed to compensate by being more odious than is typical.

That said this does not actually justify her actions, explains them perhaps but does not vindicate. No one wants a president who feels the need to sell out PoCs to earn brownie points under white supremacist systems.

I am reminded of the hubbub over Gina Haspel.

Click to shrink...

If that's the reason, it's odd to think being a woc as president would not elicit the same behavior then.

 

[samoyed]

If that's the reason, it's odd to think being a woc as president would not elicit the same behavior then.

Click to shrink...

In many ways, being president is the highest office you can achieve in the US. There's no more going 'up' from there so there's no need to 'sell out' for the sake of career advancement.

On the other hand the fact that she's willing to throw innocents under the bus at all is a black mark on her moral character and might carry negative ramifications. For example, she might justify expanding Guantanamo (one of Obama's major failings) if it meant passing a particular bill.

 

[Deleted member 22490]

 

[samoyed]

Come to think of it this echoes the Trumpet sentiments about "he's incorruptible because he's already rich (narrator: he isn't)", maybe I fell into this trap myself.

 

[Maneil99]

Click to shrink...

Idk if this is sarcasm or not

 

[TAJ]

So the shit flinging begins. 2020 is going to be ugly.

Click to shrink...

This isn't even dirt. It's work history. You know... the most basic shit possible when it comes to hiring.

 

[Deleted member 22490]

Idk if this is sarcasm or not

Click to shrink...

Sarcastic

 

[samoyed]

Idk if this is sarcasm or not

Click to shrink...

Rest assured.

 

[OtherWorldly]

As to the litmus test I had mentioned yesterday. Yes Kamala Harris was and probably still is a hardline prosecutor instead of a public defender. She might not be progressive enough for many in era but she has the electability factor while being liberal enough to be a competent president and in fact be a great president given her views beyond. Her hardline prosecution might not play well with the left of left of democrats but for most of the electorate it is normal course for being a prosecutor who is admittedly hardline. Her numbers are high among Hispanic folks and Black folks. Her numbers are high among independents who you need to defeat Trump handily.

You cannot chose a candidate who is barely going to win you need a candidate who is definitely going to win and you need folks like Harris, Klobacher, Biden and Beto who might not be Kumbaya with left folks but they are primed to attract the folks you need to win elections while being democratic enough to be progressive overall. I don't know why that is hard to understand.

In this election you need a candidate from your head not your heart. Compromises on progressive ideals have to be made because the electorate is not progressive enough for someone like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. You are going against a nut, falling in line republicans and an independent electorate who will vote for Trump unless they find inspiration from the democratic candidate.

You can send a moderate candidate with heavy baggage and lose
You can send a candidate who is too progressive for electorate and lose

Or you can send a candidate who is not baggage heavy for all electorate and is an attractive opposition against Trump and GOP

 

[OtherWorldly]

Someone on the debate stage is going to ask her Senator Harris why did you oppose body cams for cops in 2015 and that's going to be a bit of a minefield to answer.

Click to shrink...

Is that different from this ?

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article18792072.html

 

[Deleted member 15440]

As to the litmus test I had mentioned yesterday. Yes Kamala Harris was and probably still is a hardline prosecutor instead of a public defender. She might not be progressive enough for many in era but she has the electability factor while being liberal enough to be a competent president and in fact be a great president given her views beyond. Her hardline prosecution might not play well with the left of left of democrats but for most of the electorate it is normal course for being a prosecutor who is admittedly hardline. Her numbers are high among Hispanic folks and Black folks. Her numbers are high among independents who you need to defeat Trump handily.

You cannot chose a candidate who is barely going to win you need a candidate who is definitely going to win and you need folks like Harris, Klobacher, Biden and Beto who might not be Kumbaya with left folks but they are primed to attract the folks you need to win elections while being democratic enough to be progressive overall. I don't know why that is hard to understand.

In this election you need a candidate from your head not your heart. Compromises on progressive ideals have to be made because the electorate is not progressive enough for someone like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. You are going against a nut, falling in line republicans and an independent electorate who will vote for Trump unless they find inspiration from the democratic candidate.

You can send a moderate candidate with heavy baggage and lose
You can send a candidate who is too progressive for electorate and lose

Or you can send a candidate who is not baggage heavy for all electorate and is an attractive opposition against Trump and GOP

Click to shrink...

the democratic party has repeated this line for decades now. it doesn't work.

telling people to shut up, lower their expectations, and just vote against the evil republicans is morally bankrupt and a losing strategy to boot.