HAVEN’T WE YET LEARNED ABOUT LAWYERS? THAT THEY ARE AMORAL SOCIOPATHS? LOOK AT HILLARY BILLARY CLINTON AND THE OBOMBS!
Kamala Harris Failed to
Prosecute Priest Sex Abuse Cases Despite Victims’ Pleas
603
6:31
Joe Biden announced
Tuesday he has chosen Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) as his running mate, a person
the presumptive Democrat nominee described as
a “fearless fighter for the little guy, and one of the country’s finest public
servants.”
During Harris’s tenure as San
Francisco’s chief prosecutor, however, she showed no signs of fighting for “the
little guy” when she failed to prosecute any of the sexual abuse claims brought
against Catholic priests in the city, despite outcries from victim groups.
In fact, as
Breitbart News senior contributor Peter Schweizer, president of the Government
Accountability Institute, observed in his book titled Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s
Progressive Elite, during her 13-year
tenure as district attorney and then attorney general, Harris failed to
prosecute even one case of priest sexual abuse, though during that same period
at least 50 major cities had brought charges against priests.
At the same time Harris failed
to pursue prosecution of cases of priest sexual abuse, her office “would
strangely hide vital records on abuses that had occurred,” Schweizer revealed.
The bombshell details show that
while Harris’s predecessor, former San Francisco District Attorney Terence
Hallinan, had launched an aggressive investigation into priests of the
Archdiocese of San Francisco accused of sexual abuse, Harris’s campaign to unseat
Hallinan showed an unusual influx of unparalleled donations from high-level
officials of the Catholic Church.
Schweizer wrote:
Harris had no particular ties
to the Catholic Church or Catholic organizations, but the money still came in
large, unprecedented sums. Lawyer Joseph Russoniello represented the church on
a wide variety of issues, including the handling of the church abuse scandal.
He served on the Catholic Church’s National Review Board (NRB) of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops. The purpose of the NRB was to review Catholic
Church abuse cases. Russoniello was also a partner in the San Francisco law
firm Cooley Godward. Russoniello donated the maximum amount by law to her
campaign, $1,250, and his law firm added another $2,250. He also sat on
Harris’s advisory council when she was San Francisco district attorney. Another
law firm, Bingham McCutcheon, which handled legal matters for the archdiocese
concerning Catholic Charities, donated $2,825, the maximum allowed. Curiously,
Bingham McCutcheon had only donated to two other candidates running for office
in San Francisco before, for a total of $650. As with Russoniello, their
support was unusual.
In addition to campaign
donations from multiple law firms defending San Francisco priests against abuse
claims, Schweizer observed that “board members of San Francisco Catholic
archdiocese-related organizations and their family members donated another
$50,950 to Harris’s campaign.”
As Schweizer noted, Harris’s
ties to those working to block exposure of the archdiocese’s secret documents
containing information about priests accused of sexual abuse were extensive.
The author explained that
attorney Paul Renne of Cooley Godward was the husband of former San Francisco
city attorney Louise Renne, a mentor to Harris. Paul Renne worked with lawyer
Joseph Russoniello, who, as Schweizer wrote, “negotiated the agreement to bury
the abuse records from public view.”
Though Harris has touted her
early career as a sexual crimes prosecutor, after she won her run-off campaign
against Hallinan, her office actually worked to cover up the records of claims
of sexual abuse by priests of the San Francisco archdiocese.
According to Schweizer:
Hallinan’s office had used the
archdiocese files to guide its investigations and talked publicly about
releasing the documents after removing victims’ names and identifiers. Harris,
on the other hand, abruptly decided to bury the records. For some reason, she
did not want the documents released in any form. Harris’s office claimed that
the cover-up was about protecting the victims of abuse. “District Attorney
Harris focuses her efforts on putting child molesters in prison,” her office
claimed. “We’re not interested in selling out our victims to look good in the
paper.”
Victims’ groups, however, were
quite eager for the documents to be released.
“They were outraged by her
actions,” Schweizer noted. “Far from protecting victims, they argued, the
cover-up was actually protecting the abusers by keeping their alleged crimes
secret.”
“They’re full of shit,” Joey
Piscitelli, the northwest regional director of Survivors Network of Those
Abused by Priests (SNAP), said, reported Schweizer. “You can quote me on that.
They’re not protecting the victims.”
Similarly, attorney Rick
Simons, who represented victims of clergy sexual abuse, said Harris’s action of
covering up the documents “shows a pattern and practice and policy of ignoring
the rights of children by one of the largest institutions of the city and
county of San Francisco, and in the Bay Area.”
When Harris attempted to shift
the blame for hiding the records to Hallinan, her predecessor responded that
she engaged in “the kinds of deals that have allowed the church sex scandal to
go on as long as it has.”
As a result of Harris’s efforts
to cover up the documents, Schweizer wrote that psychologist James Jenkins, who
founded the archdiocese’s Independent Review Board – which oversaw the methods
to handle abuse claims – “abruptly resigned from the board”:
He accused the church of
“deception, manipulation and control” for blocking the release of the board’s
findings. Jenkins argued that Harris’s deal with the archdiocese not only
denied the rights of known victims, it also prevented other possible cases from
coming forward.
In April
2010, Schweizer reported Harris’s office denied a request from a San
Francisco Weekly journalist who sought the archdiocese’s abuse
records. Similarly, Schweizer wrote he requested the same documents in 2019,
through an attorney in California.
“The San Francisco district
attorney’s office responded they no longer had them in their possession,” he
noted.
“Were they destroyed? Were they
moved somewhere else?” Schweizer asked. “It remains a disturbing mystery.”
No comments:
Post a Comment