We need prosecutors; we need people who serve the public good rather than represent the interests of paying clients. WELL, THAT SURE ENOUGH AIN'T OUR BRIBES SUCKING LAWYER K.H.!
The best-case scenario is that she’s a progressive who repeatedly violated her own principles so that she could promote her career. In the worst-case scenario, she’s just another corrupt, rotten, regressive prosecutor.
JESSER HOROWITZ
THE MANY CROOKED DEEDS OF A CROOKED LAWYER WHO GOT AWAY WITH
IT BECAUSE THE LAWYER CLASS IS SO CROOKED!
9. Why did your office decline to investigate the health supplement fraud cases involving
companies your husband’s law firm represented? Did you, as California’s
attorney general, ever purposefully decline investigating or prosecuting
clients of your husband’s law firm?
IT IS COMMON FOR DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS TO SUCK OFF
BRIBES THROUGH MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILY (LOOK AT
JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON LAWYER HUNTER’S DEALS IN
THE UKRAINE AND RED CHINA).
FORMER CA SENATOR BARBARA ‘BRIBES’ BOXER, WHO WAS REPLACED BY
HARRIS, SIPHONED OFF BIG MONEY TO HER SON, LAWYER DOUG BOXER. WHEN THIS BRAZEN
FORM OF CORRUPTION WAS CENSORED IN THE U.S. SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE, WAR
PROFITEER AND AGENT FOR RED CHINA SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN VOTED HELL NO TO END
IT! IT CONTINUES TO THIS DAY!
25
Questions Kamala Harris Should Be Asked in the Debate
Wednesday’s vice presidential debate provides an opportunity for
the American public to get answers from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).
The Democratic vice presidential nominee should be asked the
following 25 questions. This list is by no means exhaustive.
Many of these questions were suggested by this author last month, but because they remain
unanswered, I offer them again in the hope that the debate moderator will see
fit to get answers from the California senator who, if elected, will be one
heart beat away from the presidency.
1. After President Trump
nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, many Democrats endorsed
the idea of “packing” the Supreme Court by expanding the number of seats and filling
them with liberal justices. You and Vice President Biden have refused to give your position on court-packing. Are you in favor
of packing the court?
2. Do you believe Judge Barrett’s
resume as a federal judge, former Supreme Court law clerk, and Notre Dame law
professor qualifies her for the job? If not, why not? If so, how do you—as a
feminist—justify your apparent ambivalence about even meeting with a qualified woman judicial
nominee?
3. Judge Barrett has been
attacked by members of your party because of her Catholic faith. This is of
great concern to many millions of American Catholics because this appears to be
a pattern with your party. In fact, you yourself once attacked a judicial nominee on the basis of his membership in
the Catholic organization the Knights of Columbus, which is the largest fraternal organization in the
world and includes among its past and present members many prominent
Americans like President John F. Kennedy, Supreme Court Justice Samuel
Alito, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Gov. John Bel Edwards (D-LA), and
Vince Lombardi. Do you believe that being a member of the Knights of
Columbus disqualifies a person from holding public office? Would you
refuse to hire someone on the basis of their membership in the
Knights of Columbus or any other Catholic organization? In your questioning
of this Catholic judicial nominee, you singled out the issue of the Catholic teaching on the sanctity of
life. Would you disqualify a job applicant on the basis of their Catholic
beliefs, including their beliefs about abortion? Do you believe that being
pro-life disqualifies someone from employment?
4. Your history of attacking a
judicial nominee solely on the basis of his membership in a Catholic
organization led former Speaker Newt Gingrich to describe you as an “openly anti-Catholic bigot.” Do you disavow this
characterization?
5. Should American Catholics or
Catholic organizations be forced to pay for other people’s abortions? If
elected, would you seek to force Catholics to fund abortions and other
practices that are fundamentally in violation of their faith?
6. You recently claimed that you chose to become a prosecutor because you wanted
to protect victims of sexual abuse. However, during your 13-year tenure as San
Francisco’s district attorney and then California’s attorney general, you refused to prosecute any of the sexual abuse claims brought
against Catholic priests, despite the pleas from victim groups. Why?
7. Also, why did your attorney
general’s office refuse to release the documents obtained from the San
Francisco archdiocese with all the information about priests accused of
sexual abuse? Victims’ rights groups have criticized your office for
deliberately burying these documents and thereby covering up the crimes
and leaving the public unprotected. Why did you do this? The San
Francisco district attorney’s office claimed in 2019 that they
no longer have these documents in their possession. What happened to them?
How can you claim to be a defender of children when you declined to
prosecute the abusers of children?
8. Last June, you encouraged your Twitter followers to donate to a bail fund to assist
protesters arrested in the Minneapolis, Minnesota, riots. Are you aware that in
July this bail fund sprang from jail a man who was accused of sexually assaulting an
8-year-old girl? In August, the fund posted bail for a man accused of assaulting a 71-year-old woman
whose home he had burglarized. In June, the fund helped bail out a man accused of stomping and robbing a victim in
Minneapolis on the same day George Floyd died. Between June and August, the
fund helped bail out six men who were accused of domestic violence, including
two who were accused of strangling women in their homes. Do you have any words for the
victims of these crimes?
9. Why did your office decline to investigate the health supplement fraud cases involving
companies your husband’s law firm represented? Did you, as California’s
attorney general, ever purposefully decline investigating or prosecuting
clients of your husband’s law firm?
10. You said you believed the women accusing Joe Biden of inappropriate
touching. Do you believe Tara Reade? If not, why not? If so, how do you justify supporting him
now?
11. Why did you single out journalist David Daleiden for prosecution for undercover
journalism that others do without penalty?
12. Your chief-of-staff, Karine
Jean-Pierre, wrote an op-ed last year attacking the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Americans who associate with it, stating “You
cannot call yourself a progressive while continuing to associate yourself with
an organization like AIPAC that has often been the antithesis of what it means
to be progressive.” Do you believe that pro-Israel activism is incompatible
with progressive values?
13. The Biden campaign has adopted
a version of the Green New Deal that calls for 100 percent renewable
electricity generation by 2035. California has adopted similar “green” goals,
but now it can’t keep the lights on due to the state’s reliance on wind and solar energy. California’s Democratic Gov.
Gavin Newson recently admitted that the Golden State needs a “backup” plan for energy
because the current blackouts caused by lack of wind and overcast skies have
shown the danger of relying solely on “green” energy. Why would the nation fare
any better than sunny breezy California in keeping the lights on if we adopt
100 percent renewable energy?
14. You said in the past that we “need to hold China accountable” for
trade violations, but you are against the use of tariffs. How do you intend to
hold China accountable? You also said that “we need to export American
products, not American jobs.” How do you intend to make sure we don’t export
more American jobs to China? How would your policy differ significantly from
the same policies that led to the loss of 4 million jobs to China?
15. You have supported the often violent Black Lives Matter uprisings and encouraged them to continue. Have you spoken to any victims of the
riots — people who lost loved ones or businesses?
16. Do you believe that the
looting of the Magnificent Mile in Chicago was a “form of reparations,” as one Chicago Black Lives Matter organizer claimed? Is
looting an appropriate form of protest as a means of reparations?
17. Seattle Black Lives Matter
protesters stormed a neighborhood, demanding that residents “get the f***
out” and “give black people back their homes” as reparations. Do you support
that style of protest? If not, have you condemned it?
18. You recently claimed that it is both “outdated” and “wrongheaded” to think that
adding police officers to the streets is the only way to make communities
safer. What do you propose we do to stop the current wave of violent
crime engulfing our cities?
19. What is the maximum number of
illegal immigrants you would allow into the country before securing the border
to stop more from entering?
20. The Obama administration deported an estimated 3 million illegal aliens. Was that a bad
thing?
21. With 30 million Americans unemployed due to the coronavirus, would you support a halt on work
visas for foreign workers competing with Americans for jobs? If not, explain to
us why CEOs will not use this huge increase in the supply of labor to freeze
and reduce salaries for American workers?
22. A number of prominent tech
industry leaders have endorsed your campaign citing your support for increasing the
number of H-1B foreign workers. Why is importing more foreign workers to
compete with Americans a good idea right now?
23. Wall Street has praised Vice President Biden’s decision to choose you as his
running mate. Why do you think financial special interests support you so much?
24. Will you be following the advice
of your Wall Street and Silicon Valley donors in negotiating with China?
If not, whose advice would you seek out in negotiating with China?
25. You have called on Congress to act on a coronavirus stimulus package, but you skipped
a vote on a Republican proposal that would have provided relief to Americans.
Are you putting any pressure on members of your party to stop blocking relief legislation for Americans?
Rebecca Mansour is a Senior Editor-at-Large for Breitbart News.
Follow her on Twitter at @RAMansour.
Next One: Nutrition Companies And Kamala’s Husband
PETER SCHWEIZER
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.
These excerpts are
from @peterschweizer‘s
2020 #1 bestseller, “Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s
Progressive Elite.
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.
Kamala Harris Gave 1.1%
of Income to Charity in 2019
Win McNamee
/ Getty
29 Sep 20201,298
2:15
Sen.
Kamala Harris (D-CA) and her husband, attorney Douglas Emhoff, gave 1.1% of
their income to charity in 2019, tax records show.
Harris reported giving $35,390 to
charity, while she and her husband earned $3,095,950 in taxable income.
Though earning far more than Joe Biden, who heads the Democratic
ticket, Harris and Emhoff gave slightly less to charity as a percentage of
their income than the former vice president and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, did.
They gave 1.5% in 2019.
Harris and Emhoff gave to several different charities, including
several universities and a foundation in memory of
Matthew Silverman, which focuses on suicide prevention.
The Biden/Harris campaign released several tax records ahead of
the first presidential debate to show a contrast with President Donald Trump,
who has not released his tax returns, but whose taxes have been the subject of
recent reporting by the New York Times.
The Times claimed
that Trump paid no taxes or very little federal tax in recent years, due to
business losses though it noted that he had in fact paid millions to the U.S.
Treasury and rolled over the payment to future taxable years.
Vice President Mike Pence has not released any tax returns since
taking office in 2017, though he has filed them. In 2015, he and his wife,
Karen Pence, gave about
8% of their income to charity.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior
Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday
evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His newest e-book
is The Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump’s
Presidency. His recent book, RED
NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary
from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak
Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Kamala Harris Failed to Investigate Client of
Husband’s Law Firm as California Attorney General
Democratic vice-presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)
failed as California’s attorney general declined to investigate faulty
advertising claims against one of the nation’s leading nutritional supplement
companies, which also happened to be a client of her husband’s law firm.
As California’s chief law enforcement officer between 2011 and
2017, Harris racked up a record as a tough on crime prosecutor. From cracking down on school truancy to opposing marijuana legalization—with more than 1900 people
being prosecuted for possession of the drug under her tenure—Harris was
California’s self-acknowledged “top cop.”
That record, however, did not extend to clients of Venable LLP,
the law firm where Harris’s husband, Douglas Emhoff, was a high-profile
partner. Harris, in particular, failed on numerous
occasions to investigate the nutritional supplement giant Herbalife. At
the time, Herbalife was a high-profile client of Venable, paying the firm
hundreds of thousands of dollars for its legal services every year.
One such instance occurred in 2015 when prosecutors from the San
Diego-branch of Harris’s attorney general’s office sent her a “lengthy
memorandum” expressing the need for an investigation to be opened into
Herbalife for fraudulent marketing practices, according to Yahoo News. Even before the memorandum was sent,
Herbalife had a long and complicated history in California, at one point even
generating nearly one thousand complaints about its marketing practices.
It is unclear if Harris ever saw the memorandum in question as
no investigation was ever opened by her office. More notably, shortly after the
memorandum was sent by the San Diego prosecutors, Harris appeared at a
$1,000-dollar-a-had fundraiser in Washington, D.C. hosted by the Podest Group,
which then represented Herbalife as a lobbying client. Later that same year,
Emhoff would be promoted to managing director of Venable’s West Coast
operations.
This was not the only time that Harris declined to take action
against Herbalife. In April 2015, Harris refused to
join 14 other state attorneys general in asking Congress to open an
investigation into the herbal supplements industry for not appropriately
disclosing ingredients in their products. At the time, Herbalife was explicitly
mentioned by the attorneys general as one of the companies that warranted
further scrutiny.
The revelations are detailed more fully in Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by
America’s Progressive Elite—a book released
earlier this year by Peter Schweizer, a senior contributor at Breitbart News
and president of the Government Accountability Institute.
Harris and her husband’s ties to Herbalife come back into view
as the California lawmaker has catapulted onto the national scene after
being chosen as Joe
Biden’s running mate.
The
best-case scenario is that she’s a progressive who repeatedly violated her own
principles so that she could promote her career. In the worst-case scenario,
she’s just another corrupt, rotten, regressive prosecutor.
JESSER HOROWITZ
Unethical conduct plagues legal career of Kamala Harris
On Jan. 2019, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris declared
her candidacy for President of the United States of America to great fanfare.
She
earned quick praise and frequent comparison to former President Barack Obama. A
recent Democratic Party straw poll by the Daily Kos ranked her in the top tier
of Presidential candidates, with 27 percent of respondents voicing their
support for her candidacy. So far, she has pitched herself to the American
people as a strong progressive with a particular passion for criminal justice
reform.
Harris
has a reasonable chance at winning the Democratic Party nomination. She’s
charismatic, smart and very likely to bridge the growing divide within the
party between the progressive left and the centrists. If she wins the
nomination, she might even defeat Donald Trump in the general election. I understand
why some voters in the party have decided to rally around her: She’s a
promising alternative for Democrats who want someone progressive like Bernie
Sanders but better than he is at speaking to identity politics.
However, I would like to encourage my fellow
Democrats to approach Senator Harris with a
healthy dose of skepticism. As a prosecutor and
California State Attorney General, Harris has
engaged in blatantly unethical behavior for her
profession and embraced positions that actively hurt
her constituents. While this does not
necessarily have to be a red line for everyone—and it certainly will not
prevent me from voting for her should she win the Democratic nomination—our
party should hold Harris’ feet to the fire here. Even more concerning than her past
positions is that she refuses to own up to them, portraying herself as a
long-time, progressive criminal justice reform activist.
I
want to clarify that I have no inherent issues with a prosecutor being elected
to the presidency. We need prosecutors; we need people who serve the public
good rather than represent the interests of paying clients. However, if
your job requires you to make decisions that could potentially ruin people’s
lives, the ethical standards should be higher, not lower. If you, like Kamala
Harris, decide you want to run for President of the United States, it becomes
imperative that the public thoroughly and mercilessly scrutinizes every facet
of your political career.
In
2015, law enforcement caught Robert Murray, a prosecutor in Kern County,
committing one of the most egregious offenses a prosecutor could perpetrate.
Specifically, he falsified a confession transcript that connected the defendant
with a far worse crime than that with what he had actually been charged. When
the defense demanded a copy of the original tape recording, Murray admitted to
his crime but said that it was merely a harmless joke. The judge disagreed. He
stated that the court refuses to tolerate such outrageous conduct and dismissed
the indictment on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct (Observer,
“California Prosecutor Falsified Transcript of Confession,” 03.04.2015).
How
does this incident involve Senator Harris? At the time, she was the Attorney
General of California. In that capacity, she appealed the indictment. According
to Sidney Powell of The Observer, this was the third time she had appealed a
prosecutorial misconduct dismissal in less than three months. As of March 2015,
Murray was still allowed to work as a prosecutor (Observer, “California
Prosecutor Falsified Transcript of Confession,” 03.04.2015).
As Attorney General, Harris has a history of fighting to keep
men she knew were innocent in prison and of hiding cases of significant illegal
activity conducted by law enforcement. In 1999, Daniel Larsen was sentenced to 27 years to life in
prison for possession of a concealed weapon. There had been nine witnesses who
could testify that Larsen was not guilty, but the court called none of them at
the trial because of his incompetent and now disbarred attorney. With the help
of the Innocence Project, he was able to prove his innocence, and the court
overturned his conviction in 2009.
How
does this involve Senator Harris? She challenged his release not because she
believed he was guilty—she did not dispute his innocence—but because he hadn’t
presented proof of his innocence quickly enough. And so, she fought to keep a
man she definitely knew was innocent behind bars for life (NBCLosAngeles,
“After 13 Years in Prison, Man Found Innocent of Crime Freed,” 3.20.2013).
In
another incident, law enforcement discovered that Deborah Madden had purposely
sabotaged the drug results of multiple cases as a technician at a San Francisco
crime lab. But even though the highest levels of
the district attorney’s office knew about Madden’s unreliability as a drug
expert, Kamala Harris and her office hid this information from defense
attorneys. Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo ultimately ruled that
Harris’ office had violated defendants’ rights through this act of prosecutorial
misconduct, calling into question the convictions of nearly 40 defendants
(SFGate, “Judge rips Harris’ office for hiding problems,” 05.21.2010).
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. How would the
Democratic Party call itself progressive if members threw their support behind
someone with such an atrocious record on civil rights issues?
Even
worse, Harris has yet to apologize for her actions and in fact has refused to
even acknowledge them (Reason.com, “Kamala Harris Hopes You’ll Forget Her
Record as a Drug Warrior and Draconian Prosecutor,” 01.31.2019). At a town
hall, she responded to a question calling her out on her past actions by
answering “I’ve been consistent my whole career,” and then explained how the
record supports her claim that she has been progressive on prison reform (CNN
Twitter, “I’ve been consistent my whole career,” 01.28.2019).
I
won’t delve into her argument because, in my view, it’s irrelevant. When you
actively cover up police misconduct, try to keep a man who you know is innocent
in prison and refuse to release nonviolent offenders because you need their
involuntary labor, you don’t get to reframe your narrative.
Kamala
Harris is not owed an audience. She is not entitled to one simply because she
wants to be president. We should not give her the benefit of the doubt, because
she refuses to even acknowledge her wrongdoings. We don’t have the right to
forgive her; that right belongs to all the people she’s wronged over the course
of her long career.
For
that reason, I ask you not to vote for Kamala Harris in the primary, no matter
how attractive a candidate she is or how well she explains away her
inconsistent career. It’s possible that her past really won’t have much of an
impact on how she’ll be as president, but why should we wait and see? The
best-case scenario is that she’s a progressive who repeatedly violated her own
principles so that she could promote her career. In the worst-case scenario,
she’s just another corrupt, rotten, regressive prosecutor.
Does Church Fund Kamala Harris? And Her Other Shady Shenanigans
August
14, 2020 1.1K
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment