Monday, September 28, 2020

KAMALA HARRIS ON JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT - I'LL TAKE THAT BREEDER BITCH DOWN! - SHE'LL BE LAP DANCING THE POPE WHEN I GET FINISHED WITH HER!!!

 SHE’S CORRUPT, AMORAL, BRIBES SUCKING BUT ISN’T THAT WHY BIDEN WANTED HER TO BE V.P?

SHE’S A SOCIOPATH LAWYER!

https://kamala-harris-sociopath.blogspot.com/2020/09/kamala-harris-amoral-corrupt-bribes.html

Tucker Carlson of Fox News calls Harris a corrupt and dangerous fraud who sees laws and powers only as means to punish her enemies, pursue her agenda, and get elected. 


CITY JOURNAL ON JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT

 

Adam Freedman

September 27, 2020 

Politics and law

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom President Donald Trump has nominated to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is a distinguished scholar whose judicial philosophy balances a commitment to originalism with a respect for precedent. Dire predictions circulate about the consequences of adding another conservative-leaning justice to the Court, but Barrett’s record suggests that she will do credit to the institution.

In many ways, Barrett’s resume is a testament to the trail blazed by Ginsburg. Like the late justice, Barrett graduated at the top of her law school class and served as a judicial clerk, first for federal appellate judge Laurence Silberman and then for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. After a stint in private practice, Barrett joined the faculty at Notre Dame Law School, where she was named “distinguished professor of the year” three times.

Barrett has earned lavish praise from colleagues across the ideological spectrum. In 2017, when Trump nominated Barrett to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, her Notre Dame colleagues unanimously supported her in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The law professors wrote that they had a “wide range of political views” but were “united however in our judgment about Amy.” She was also endorsed in a letter signed by every former Supreme Court law clerk who clerked while Barrett worked for Justice Scalia. The former clerks’ letter described Barrett as a “woman of remarkable intellect and character,” as someone who “conducted herself with professionalism, grace, and integrity” and “was able to work collaboratively with her colleagues (even those with whom she disagreed) on challenging legal questions.” Barrett was ultimately confirmed to the Seventh Circuit with bipartisan support.

Now, however, with a Supreme Court seat in the balance, Barrett has become the subject of scathing—and misguided—criticism from the left. The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus, for example, asserts that Barrett “would not hesitate to jettison decisions with which she disagrees,” a glaring mischaracterization of the nominee’s record on adherence to precedent, the principle known as stare decisis. Barrett has in fact defended the Supreme Court’s existing presumption in favor of stare decisis—a presumption that promotes stability while affording the justices’ flexibility to depart from precedent.

Before overruling a precedent, according to Barrett, a Supreme Court justice must “think carefully about whether she is sure enough about her rationale for overruling to pay the cost of upsetting institutional investment in the prior approach. If she is not sure enough, the preference for continuity trumps.” In her academic writings, Barrett has also recognized the concept of “superprecedents” such as Brown v. Board of Education that enjoy such broad consensus that no judge would seriously consider overturning them. Barrett’s fidelity to precedent is evident from cases like Price v. City of Chicago (2019), in which she joined an opinion relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hill v. Colorado (2000) to uphold a Chicago ordinance that bars anti-abortion protestors from approaching within eight feet of women entering an abortion clinic. Given her views on stare decisis, it appears unlikely that Barrett would vote to overturn the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade; however, she would likely be more sympathetic than Ginsburg was to state laws that limit the unfettered right to abortion on demand. In a 2018 case, Planned Parenthood v. Commissioner, for example, Barrett joined a dissent that cast doubt on a Seventh Circuit decision that struck down an Indiana law prohibiting abortions motivated solely by the race, sex, or disability of the fetus.

As a professor and a judge, Barrett has been a proponent of textualism, the doctrine that courts should apply a statute’s text as it was understood by those who enacted the statute. In constitutional law, this doctrine is better known as “originalism”—that is, a commitment to the original public meaning of the Constitution’s various provisions. Barrett’s defense of this interpretive approach is not a mere pretext to achieve conservative results; rather, it is based on judicial deference to the democratic process that gives statutes their legitimacy. Barrett has, for example, criticized Chief Justice John Roberts’s “saving construction” of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a tax (NFIB v. Sebelius) because “a judge who adopts an interpretation inconsistent with the text fails to enforce the statute that commanded majority support. If the majority did not enact a ‘tax,’ interpreting the statute to impose a tax lacks democratic legitimacy.”

Barrett’s originalist approach led her to dissent in the 2019 case Kanter v. Barr in which the Seventh Circuit upheld federal and state laws that prohibit gun ownership for people convicted of felonies—even nonviolent felonies. The plaintiff in that case had been convicted of one count of federal mail fraud for falsely representing that his company’s therapeutic shoe inserts were Medicare-approved and for billing Medicare on that basis. In her dissent, Barrett reviewed Founding-era legislation and commentary, concluding that a legislature can prohibit violent felons from possessing guns without violating the Second Amendment, but a blanket dispossession of all felons goes too far.

Perhaps Barrett’s most influential ruling to date came in Doe v. Purdue University (2019), in which she led a decision reinstating a lawsuit against Purdue University by a male student who had been suspended for committing sexual violence against a female student. The student, known as John Doe, alleged that Purdue’s Dean of Students had found him guilty without ever speaking to his accuser and that a university review committee also blindly accepted the accuser’s account without hearing from John or allowing him to present any evidence. Writing for a unanimous panel of three judges —all women—Barrett wrote that Doe had stated a plausible claim that he had been “denied an educational benefit on the basis of his sex” in violation of Title IX. The court also held that Doe’s allegations stated a claim for violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. “Purdue’s process,” Barrett wrote, “fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension.” The Purdue decision, already widely cited in other circuits, shows a clear-eyed skepticism about lopsided college disciplinary procedures that have been criticized by experts on the right and left, including the late Justice Ginsburg.

With an election just weeks away, the timing of Barrett’s nomination has predictably provoked controversy. But today’s political squabbles should not overshadow the intellect and judicial temperament that make her a superb choice for the high court.

 


JUDGE AMY - I KNOW ABOUT KAMALA HARRIS! SHE'S THE TOWN SLUT - SHE USED TO DO THE SAN FRANCISCO DOCKS - ISN'T THAT WHERE SHE MET WILLY BROWN?

Tucker Carlson of Fox News calls Harris a corrupt 

and dangerous fraud who sees laws and powers 

only as means to punish her enemies, pursue 

her agenda, and get elected. 

Willie Brown and Kamala Harris in the 1990s.  (Screenshot, Washington Examiner)

Former San Francisco Mayor and Mentor to Kamala Harris Urges Her to ‘Politely Decline’ Potential VP Offer


Video: Kamala’s Shockingly Rotten Road to Biden’s VP Pick

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/08/video-kamalas-shocking-rotten-road-bidens-vp-pick-frontpagemagcom/

A disturbing odyssey into a moral sewer.

 

Does Church Fund Kamala Harris? And Her Other Shady Shenanigans

 

Now that Kamala Harris is going to be the Democrat Party’s vice-presidential candidate, I am plugging here excerpts from a book that I had tweeted about a few months back. Sadly, I don’t think a single Indian news site or portal has reviewed or covered it.
So here goes:

Kamala Devi Harris was born to Donald Harris, her Jamaican-born father and Dr. Shyamala Gopalan, her Tamil Brahmin mother from India. Her father is a Marxist economist who taught at Stanford University.

Who Is Willie Brown And What’s The Connection?

“In 1994, she met Willie Brown, who at the time was the second-most-powerful man in California politics. As Speaker of the State Assembly, Brown was a legend in Sacramento and around the state.

Brown was under investigation several times,by the State Bar of California, Fair Political Practices Commission,the FBI.
In 1986 …as California Assembly Speaker, he “received at least $124,000 in income & gifts…from special interests that had biz before the Legislature.”

Now this is neither here nor there for me, except for the political angle:
“Brown was sixty at the time he began dating Kamala, who was twenty-nine. Brown was actually two years older than her father. Their affair was the talk of San Francisco in 1994.

Kamala’s mother defends her daughter’s decision – and offered choice comments about Brown. “Why shouldn’t she have gone out with Willie Brown? He was a player. And what could Willie Brown expect from her in the future? He has not much life left.

He (Willie Brown) put Kamala on the State Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and later the California Medical Assistance Commission. The MAC paid $99k a year in 2002.. UIAB ~$114k. Both posts were part-time. At the time, she was working as a county employee making ~$100k”

During his tenure, Brown came under FBI investigation twice for corruption involving lucrative contracts flowing from the city to his political friends.

I thought it was only in Third World countries that people were forced to pay bribes to get services they’re entitled to from their government,” said U.S. district judge Charles Legge about the rampant corruption under Brown. “But we find it right here in San Francisco.

In January 2003, shortly after announcing her campaign, (Kamala) Harris had signed a form saying that she would stick to the city’s $211,000 voluntary spending cap for the campaign (for the San Francisco district attorney election).

Harris signed the pledge-and then blew right past the spending limit. By the end of Nov, she had raised $621,000…
The San Francisco Ethics Commission vote to fine Harris was unanimous. Her campaign had to pay a $34,000 fine, a record in city elections.

Moving On To The Next, And By Far The Most Disturbing Aspect: Church Sex Abuse Scandal

Harris often recounts her background as a sex crimes prosecutor earlier in her career to attack others for their legal failings in this area.

During her decade-and-a-half tenure as a chief prosecutor, Harris would fail to prosecute a single case of priest abuse and her office would strangely hide vital records on abuses that had occurred despite the protests of victims groups.

Harris’s predecessor as San Francisco district attorney, Terence Hallinan, was aware of and had prosecuted numerous Catholic priests on sexual misconduct involving children. And he had been gathering case files for even more.

Hallinan’s office had launched an investigation and quickly discovered that the San Francisco Archdiocese had extensive internal records concerning complaints going back some seventy-five years.

In spring of 2002, Hallinan demanded the church turn them over to his office. A month later, the archdiocese reluctantly complied.

The secret documents were explosive and reportedly contained the names of about forty current and former priests in the San Francisco area who had been identified in sexual abuse complaints.

Hallinan used the information from the files to begin pursuing legal cases against them. In nearby San Mateo and Marin County, prosecutors obtained the same church records and those in Marin charged Father Gregory Ingels in 2003

But by June 2003, Hallinan and other prosecutors had hit a roadblock: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California’s law extending the statute of limitations for priest abuse cases was unconstitutional.

The records that Hallinan had in his possession touched on well-connected institutions at the heart of California’s power structure. St. Ignatius College Preparatory School, in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, counted California governor Jerry Brown … as alumni.”

Now Comes Church Sexual Abuse And The Kamala Connection

According to San Francisco election financial disclosures, high-dollar donations to Harris’s campaign began to roll in from those connected to the Catholic Church institutional hierarchy.”

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.
Victims’ groups wanted the documents released and Harris was stopping it.

They’re full of shit,” said Joey Piscitelli, the northwest regional director of Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), the largest and most active victims’ group. “You can quote me on that. They’re not protecting the victims.

With the outcry of victims groups, Harris’s office then attempted to shift blame, claiming that the idea of burying the evidence had been first suggested by her predecessor, Hallinan.

But he [Hallinan] responded angrily to her claims. “I told Jack Hammel [the archdiocese’s legal counsel] in no uncertain terms that I wouldn’t go along with anything like that.

James Jenkins..the founding chairman of the archdiocese’s Independent Review Board… resigned from the board… 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, a journalist with the San Francisco Weekly asked for the records through California’s Public Records Act. Harris’s office denied the request, offering conflicting explanations as to why they could not provide them.

In 2019, I requested those records through a California attorney. The San Francisco district attorney’s office responded that they no longer had them in their possession. Were they destroyed? Were they moved somewhere else? It remains a disturbing mystery.

She somehow served as San Francisco district attorney from 2004 to 2011, and then as California attorney general from 2011 to 2017, and never brought a single documented case forward against an abusive priest.

To put this lack of action in perspective, at least fifty other cities charged priests in sexual abuse cases during her tenure as San Francisco district attorney. San Francisco is conspicuous by its absence.

The Next One: Prostitution But No Prosecution

At San Francisco’s adult entertainment clubs, dancers were taking customers behind closed doors and having sex for money. … After repeated complaints … the San Francisco Police Department decided to take action.

The police action caught the attention of newly installed district attorney Kamala Harris, and her staff sent the message to hold off on the enforcement.

Meanwhile, in response to continued complaints, the police conducted a pair of sting operations. Three undercover officers went into each of the two clubs and were quickly solicited by female employees for paid sex.

At both the Market Street Theater & New Century Theater, it happened “within minutes.”
When the operations were done, 9 women were arrested, as was the GM of the New Century. The cops claimed that they were “slam-dunk cases. But Kamala Harris dropped the cases.

It just leaves me in amazement,” said San Francisco Police Department vice captain Tim Hettrich. It was “almost legalizing prostitution.

Harris’s strange objections to prosecuting prostitution cases connected to these raids have a possible explanation. The owner of both the Market Street and New Century theaters was a company called Déjà Vu.

An owner of Déjà Vu, Sam Conti, had a long history with Willie Brown. Conti had first hired Brown as his defense attorney back in 1977. They remained friends. At Conti’s 2009 funeral, Brown delivered a videotaped eulogy.

Next One: Construction And Conflicts Of Interest

Ricardo Ramirez ran a cement and concrete company called Pacific Cement. As of 2003, a full one-third of the public works projects in San Francisco used Pacific. … Those contributions often went to the Willie Brown machine and were not always legal.”
39/51″In 1997, state officials found that Ramirez had illegally contributed $2,000 to Brown’s 1995 mayoral campaign.

Ramirez never faced charges for delivering substandard concrete. Instead, Harris’s office settled for a plea deal involving a single environmental count, illegally storing waste oil at one of his production facilities.

Harris & her office refused to offer an explanation as to why they were going so light on Willie Brown’s friend & donor. “Harris’ office had no explanation for why it dropped the concrete case,” – the Chronicle.””Kamala Harris’s signature program as San Francisco district attorney was called Back on Track-a program designed to give first-time drug offenders an opportunity to avoid a criminal record.

Those (in the program) included were not just nonviolent, first-time offenders who had committed a single drug offense. Some were illegal immigrants and violent criminals such as Alexander Izaguirre.

Amanda Kiefer was walking down the street when Izaguirre snatched her purse and jumped into a waiting SUV. Rather than drive off, the SUV sped toward Kiefer to run her down. Kiefer jumped on the hood and saw Izaguirre and the driver laughing.

The driver slammed on the brakes throwing Kiefer to the ground. The impact fractured her skull.

Harris did not offer an explanation. Instead, she simply explained that enforcing federal immigration law was not her job.

Next One: Nutrition Companies And Kamala’s Husband

In 2015 the attorneys general from fourteen other states, including New York, launched an effort to investigate nutrition companies on the grounds of false advertising and mislabeling.

The Obama administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) was also going after dietary supplement producers, charging them with exaggerated claims

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opened an investigation into Herbalife in March 2014. In July 2016, the FTC won a $200 million settlement against Herbalife. But Harris never even investigated the company.

It is worth noting that those corporations in question all happened to be clients of her husband’s law firm, Venable LLP. GNC, Herbalife, AdvoCare International, Vitamin Shoppe, and others were represented by Venable.

In 2015, prosecutors from Harris’s own attorney general’s office based out of San Diego sent her a long memorandum arguing that Herbalife needed to be investigated. … Harris declined to investigate or provide the resources-and never offered a reason.

These excerpts are from @peterschweizer‘s 2020 #1 bestseller, “Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite. A pity this book’s not received the coverage it deserves in India.

amzn.to/3iCKPt9 Feature Image Credit – Breitbart

Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite, by Peter Schweizer

Disclaimer: views expressed are personal.


Willie Brown and Kamala Harris in the 1990s.  (Screenshot, Washington Examiner)

 

 

 Former San Francisco Mayor and Mentor to Kamala Harris Urges Her to ‘Politely Decline’ Potential VP Offer

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/andrew-davenport/former-san-francisco-mayor-and-mentor-kamala-harris-urges-her

By Andrew Davenport | August 10, 2020 | 11:36am EDT



(CNS News) -- The former San Francisco mayor and Speaker of the California State Assembly, Willie Brown, urged Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) to ”politely decline” a potential offer as Joe Biden’s vice-presidential pick.

On Saturday, in a commentary published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brown said that Sen. Harris should decline to be Joe Biden’s vice-presidential pick, if he offers, and that instead Harris should seek a position as the attorney general. Brown argued that the position of vice president has no real power and that Harris would have more power as the attorney general. 

“The vice presidency is not the job she should go for — asking to be considered as attorney general in a Biden administration would be more like it,” Brown wrote.

“True, the vice president does have an advantage the next time the party needs a new nominee, which in Biden’s case could be four years from now,” said Brown. “But in the meantime, the vice president has no real power and little chance to accomplish anything independent of the president.”

“On the other hand, the attorney general has legitimate power,” Brown argued. “From atop the Justice Department, the boss can make a real mark on everything from police reform to racial justice to prosecuting corporate misdeeds.”

Brown added that, best of all, being attorney general would give Harris enough distance from the White House to still be a viable candidate for the top slot in 2024 or 2028.

Brown, 86, and Harris, 55, used to date in the 1990s, and Brown has admitted that he had an impact on her political career.  According to The Washington Times, the two started dating when Harris was 30 and Brown was 60.

Starting in 1994, the two started “showing up arm-in-arm at numerous high-profile functions, including Brown’s lavish parties and celebrity galas. He has been separated but not divorced from his wife Blanche Vitero since the 1980s and has maintained a string of girlfriends over the years,” reported The Times.

“Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly Speaker,” said Brown. “And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco.”

Joe Biden has said that he will pick a woman to be his vice-presidential pick. Sen. Harris reportedly has emerged as a finalist on a short list of female candidates. Recently, speculation increased that Harris may be Biden’s choice after a photographer captured a photo of notes in Biden’s hands 

 

Kamala Harris Enabled Sexual Harassment Throughout Her Career

Now she can do it for Joe Biden.

Fri Aug 14, 2020 

Daniel Greenfield


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

“The Democratic Party has become an enabler to sexual predators," Tara Reade, Biden's former Senate staffer, who accused him of sexual assault, recently told an interviewer.

In May, Reade revealed that she tried to get Kamala Harris to listen.

"Kamala Harris is my representative, so I tried to reach out to her in particular for help, like I wanted to get a safe place to tell what happened. And I didn't get a response. So I kept, again, trying to get it out there," she said.

A senior adviser to the Kamala Harris campaign claimed that never happened.

Last year, Kamala Harris had expressed support for Democrat female activists who had complained about Biden touching them inappropriately. Many of the complaints were not new and Biden had not yet entered the campaign.

"I believe them and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it," Harris said, and implied that Biden might want to consider the consequences of running.

By next year, she had dropped out and was hoping Biden would pick her as the nominee.

Kamala Harris told a San Francisco Chronicle podcast that she would be "honored" to be chosen and defended Biden against Reade's accusations by praising him as a feminist.

Within the space of a year, Kamala Harris had gone from believing Biden accusers to disbelieving them.

In 2019, she believed Biden's accusers, but by 2020, she was insisting that the "Joe Biden I know is somebody who really has fought for women and empowerment of women."

Like Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris built her career around powerful men. The most important of these was Willie Brown, the San Francisco political boss whom Kamala had an affair with, who gifted her with a BMW and, more valuably, an introduction to his political network.

Back then, the 60-year-old political boss would "go to a party with his wife on one arm and his girlfriend on the other.”

One of the women on his arm was Kamala, then in her twenties.

"I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker," Brown coyly said. "And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco."

But there were women who didn’t fit on Brown’s arm and had a different experience.

In the 90s, two aides filed a lawsuit alleging that Willie Brown had fired them for reporting sexual harassment by one of his allies. They were able to settle their cases for $100,000.

"Under my leadership as speaker, the Assembly adopted a zero-tolerance policy against sexual harassment," Brown claimed.

He neglected to mention that it was zero tolerance for women complaining about sexual harassment. The allegations against Connolly were investigated by a Brown ally and the future mayor took part in strategy sessions to smear the women to get them “to back off or go away”.

“As soon as we complained, the top man in the state Legislature was out to get us so he could protect his friend Tom Connolly," one of the women claimed.

Connolly was sentenced to two years in prison shortly thereafter for taking a 14-year-old runaway to a motel and engaging in sex with her.

When Willie Brown protected Connolly, the Democrat had quite the past with allegations of cocaine use. The San Diego vice squad even caught Connolly with a pregnant hooker in his car.

Brown's cover-up was backed up by future Rep. Jackie Speier who falsely claimed "at no time . . . did Brown become active or intervene". Rep. Speier is a Kamala Harris ally who recently wrote a letter accusing Facebook of sexism for not removing criticism of the California senator.

A year later, a top Brown ally, John Barry Wyatt, was sued by an assistant who accused him of harassing and even assaulting her. The accuser was paid $59,500 to go away.

Wyatt was appointed Brown's director of field operations.

His accuser claims that she was demoted to the typing pool, investigated, and forced to quit her job. The typing pool was where women who complained about harassment were dumped.

Wyatt's accuser claimed that Brown had rejected the settlement and blamed him for what happened to her.

The Brown operative, who had also worked on Ted Kennedy’s campaign, had previously been arrested after being accused of raping a teenage hitchhiker at knifepoint.

This bottomless pit of sleaze was the way things were in the Brown camp. And Brown is the hub around which California’s Democrat politics, from its governor, to its two senators, and San Fran’s current mayor, has been built. They all owe a good deal to Willie Brown.

Did Kamala Harris not know what was going on at the time?

Her connection to these abuses may have been tentative, but that wasn’t the case with another powerful man.

In 2012, Kamala Harris endorsed Bob Filner for mayor. The Democrat politician was running to head San Diego, and he had a compulsive habit of groping and choking women.

A year later, 'Filthy Filner' had racked up seventeen accusers including a great-grandmother, a military veteran, a future congresswoman, and a rape victim.

Attorney General Kamala Harris negotiated a plea deal in which Filner served no jail time and wouldn’t even be listed in the state’s sex offender database.

Kamala had given ‘Filthy Filner’ the Jeffrey Epstein special.

But there was another powerful man even closer to Kamala Harris.

Larry Wallace had spent fourteen years working with Kamala Harris. He had been "a longtime aide and one of her closest professional confidantes" who followed her from job to job.

He ran her security, appeared in her campaign book, and acted as her senior adviser.

Wallace was accused of sexually harassing his assistant. Xavier Becerra, Kamala's successor, settled for $400,000 with a non-disclosure agreement. That allowed Wallace to follow Kamala to D.C. as her senior adviser, until the story came out, and Wallace had to resign.

Wallace then got a job working as a corruption investigator for Contra Costa DA Diana Becton. Becton, who is backed by George Soros, was endorsed by Kamala. Becton has made headlines for profoundly mishandling the criminal justice system and illegally charging a couple who painted over a Black Lives Matter sign with a hate crime.

Becton was so close to Kamala Harris that she had even plagiarized one of her letters.

The Wallace case wasn't unusual. Public records show that Kamala's office looked a whole lot like Willie Brown's office.

Under Kamala, the California DOJ had paid out over $1 million in sexual harassment and retaliation claims covering everything from groping to verbal harassment.

Kamala claimed that she was unaware of the Wallace lawsuit, but Nathan Barankin, her Deputy AG, who would normally have reviewed these matters, went on to become her Senate chief of staff, and then joined her Fearless for the People PAC.

All this made it very clear that nothing was going to change.

In the spring of this year, Senator Kamala Harris had already gotten into the business of covering up Joe Biden’s sexual assault problem.

Unlike the presidency, it’s a job that the new senator is wholly qualified for. Kamala Harris has little national experience and could potentially go from Attorney General of California to President of the United States in four years. But when it comes to stepping out on the arms of powerful men, and playing defense for their peccadillos, Kamala is overqualified.

Between Biden’s long history of inappropriate touching and the assault allegations, Kamala is likely to have her hands full.

Joe Biden’s habit of sniffing, stroking, kissing, and otherwise inappropriately touching women is not likely to improve as his mental condition declines. And it will be his running mate’s job to step out, smile, and repeat the familiar talking point that the, “Joe Biden I know is somebody who really has fought for women" while trying to keep his hands away.

This is the job that Kamala has been auditioning for since she was 29 and on Willie’s arm.

Even as the Democrats roll out false accusations of sexism against Republican critics, the real sexism had always been coming from inside their own house. Kamala has spent a quarter of a century looking away from or covering up sexual harassment by Democrat bosses. Her reward is repeating that the “Joe Biden I know is somebody who really has fought for women"  until the fall of the year or until the day he dies.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard," H.L. Mencken once observed.

Kamala Harris always knew what she wanted. Now she has it.

 


Willie Brown and Kamala Harris in the 1990s.  (Screenshot, Washington Examiner)

Levin: Kamala Harris 'Will Do Anything for Power'

 By Bailey Duran | August 13, 2020 | 5:26pm EDT

(CNS News) — Conservative radio host Mark Levin called Kamala Harris a “fraud” who “will do anything for power” while questioning her motives for being Joe Biden’s running mate during Wednesday’s episode of "The Mark Levin Show."

"She said she believed all the women, Tara Reade, all the women who complained about Joe Biden fondling them and in Tara Reade’s case, molesting," he said. "She said she believed them, so you know she’s a complete fraud and will do anything for power."

Levin also alluded to hypocrisy in the mainstream media's praise of Harris.

“Across the entire top of the front page of the Washington Post, 'Harris Joins Biden Ticket, Achieving a First' and I’m thinking to myself, we’re celebrating the fact that she, that this is a historic appointment by the very people who denied her the nomination to the presidency of the United States, Mr. Producer," he said.

"These very same Democrats and media types could have insisted that Kamala Harris or any other woman running should be the nominee of the Democrat party. Now that would have been a historic first."

Below is the full transcript from this portion of "The Mark Levin Show": 

Across the entire top of the front page of the Washington Post, "Harris Joins Biden Ticket, Achieving a First" and I’m thinking to myself, we’re celebrating the fact that she, that this is a historic appointment by the very people who denied her the nomination to the presidency of the United States, Mr. Producer. 

These very same Democrats and media types could have insisted that Kamala Harris or any other woman running should be the nominee of the Democrat party. Now that would have been a historic first.

And so they rally around Biden, who’s historic in terms of age but in no other respect whatsoever. So the same party and the same media that rally around Biden, that are the praetorium guard for Biden, now expect you to celebrate them and the choice for the second slot. 

And the voters in the Democrat party rejected Kamala Harris in a major way. She didn’t even get to the second or third tier. Out of the gate, yes, and then just unraveled. That’s their voters. That’s their party. That’s their media. Now we’re celebrating a historic first.

So the Democrats want it both ways. They always do. They deny Kamala Harris the nomination for president -- for the Democrat party in an overwhelming way. She could have been the first woman of color nominated for president of the United States, but the Democrats stopped her in their own primaries.

She didn’t win anything! I don’t even think she ran in any of them by the time it was over. The number three Democrat in the Hous is a black man—James Clyburn—he wouldn’t even support her! Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, they wouldn’t even support her. None of them supported her! 

But now we celebrate her. Why? Because Joe Biden picked her. Now, why did Joe Biden pick Kamala Harris? He had a tough time. It took him a long time. Why did he pick her? Well, he says he picked her because there was never any question how brilliant she is, how experienced she is, his late son Beau knew her well, and so forth.

So they’re lying. They’re lying. When they spoke today, they were both lying through their teeth. She said she came to really admire and know Joe when Beau was alive—he was the attorney general of Delaware—and he would tell her how great his father was and stories about his father and she came to admire him. 

And yet when she debated him, she was the most vicious person on the stage attacking him, more vicious than I can think of any Republican that would have been against Joe Biden. I mean, she accused him of making nice-nice with segregationists, hammered the hell out of him.

She said she believed all the women, Tara Reade, all the women who complained about Joe Biden fondling them and in Tara Reade’s case, molesting. She said she believed them, so you know she’s a complete fraud and will do anything for power because now she says she knew all about Joe Biden from Beau. 

Well, if she knew all about Joe Biden from Beau, then why should she—why would she—on the stage humiliate him and his segregationist friends? Why would she believe all the women if she believed Joe had great character? 

Bailey Duran is a CNSNews intern and a rising senior at Liberty University, where she is studying journalism with minors in digital media performance and graphic design. She is an ambassador for the Falkirk Center for Faith and Liberty and is the opinion editor for the Liberty Champion. She is also a part-time Liberty Flames hockey reporter on ESPN+. 

 

Willie Brown and Kamala Harris in the 1990s.  (Screenshot, Washington Examiner)