Wednesday, August 23, 2023

THE BIDEN REGIME OF CAREFULLY SELECTED TOTAL MORONS - NO, NOT JUST KAMALA! - Karine Jean-Pierre: Simply the Worst If talent and ability had any role in her career, she wouldn’t have one.

 

Karine Jean-Pierre: Simply the Worst

If talent and ability had any role in her career, she wouldn’t have one.

There is one universal truth in politics in the United States of America: Liberals fail up.

It doesn’t matter how awful they are, either as people or in their jobs (or both), liberals will always fail upward to a better position, more money or whatever else is a step-up in their careers. Talent and ability have zero role in this, no place whatsoever.

Exhibit A in this new and decidedly political phenomenon is Karine Jean-Pierre, the fumbling, stumbling former public face of the rabid left-wing Move On group created to excuse Bill Clinton’s every sin, moral or criminal, imploring the country to just “move on” from them. It’s funny how someone who used to make their living telling people to “move on” spends most of her day blaming the previous administration for her current boss’s failures.

But that’s how the left works – the administration of Barack Obama was nothing more than celebrating him for his skin color while scrambling to blame the George W. Bush administration for every one of his failings. Somehow, after eight years, Barack Obama wasn’t responsible for never having achieved three percent growth in any given year, but under President Donald Trump, when the economy finally kicked into gear after his economic policies were implemented, that was because of Obama…or something.

Democrats are exceedingly good at moving the goal posts. They are that guy who shows up to the job site at the end of the work, breaks a sweat standing around in the hot sun, and used the word “We” loudly about the project when the boss is around.

But Obama is considered a “great” president by people who aren’t critical thinkers, particularly in media (and there are a lot of people who are not critical thinkers in media).

That lack of ability to think critically brings us back to Karine Jean-Pierre.

I don’t know, maybe when not on camera she’s whip-smart; an eloquent genius able to convey complex ideas in a clear and easy to understand way. But at the podium in the White House press briefing room she can’t even read what you have to assume she either at least had a hand in writing or had time to familiarize herself with a little beforehand in her huge binder.

White House Press secretaries have always had notes and papers with them to aid them in the job; something to refer to for stats and specifics. KJP lives in hers. Can’t live without it.

In media appearances she’s lost. KJP, like the president and vice president, only does appearances where no difficult or even remotely challenging questions will be asked. It’s sad that a grown adult can’t handle a challenge, sadder still that an administration would order their mouthpiece to ignore half the country, and saddest of all that a grown adult would comply. Often times KJP ignores Fox News in the briefing room, unable to handle even polite challenge.

But the saddest thing about KJP is all the profiles of her, the glowing write-ups in newspapers and magazines, or the polished pieces on television about her, which are about her gender, sexual orientation and skin color. When you’re as bad as she is at her job, anything else has to be the focus. And you can count on Democrats to immediately go to the least relevant, most divisive characteristics. People, when pushed, will usually end up there, but Democrats start there too.

They have to. Imagine having to cover for someone so horrible at their job that they tweet under their own name when writing for the boss, as KJP did just on Tuesday. Or, even more pathetically, when there is a natural disaster that destroyed parts of Hawaii, this woman who has worked in Democratic Party politics her entire adult life, could not be bothered to pronounce the names of the state’s two Democrat Senators properly. Everyone makes verbal gaffes, people with an IQ larger than their shoe size notice and correct them almost immediately. KJP never notices them and makes them constantly.

The saddest part of all is she’s reading what she’s saying, having apparently been deemed untrustworthy or incapable of speaking off the top of her head. A person with any amount of self-respect would resign, refusing to be a puppet to their bosses behind the scenes. KJP isn’t about to resign out of self-respect because if she had any she wouldn’t have taken the job in the first place.

Of course, if talent and ability had any role in her career, she wouldn’t have one. The same goes for pretty much all of them, yet they keep failing up to new, higher paying positions. At this point, when she finally does leave the White House, KJP won’t just get a show on MSNBC like Jen “Ginger Goebbels” Psaki did, she’ll be running NBC News. Given how bad they are, you probably wouldn’t even notice the difference.


Biden Commerce Secretary To Visit Beijing After China Hacked Her Emails

Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo / Getty Images
August 23, 2023

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo will travel to China next week for meetings with senior Chinese government officials and U.S. business leaders, the department said on Tuesday, marking the latest in a recent series of high-level visits.

Last month, Raimondo vowed to go forward with the visit despite the reported Chinese hacking of her department's emails.

U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan said Raimondo will carry a message that the United States is not seeking to decouple from China, but will protect its national security. She will reinforce that the United States is focused on sustaining an economic relationship with China, he added.

Raimondo met with Xie Feng, China's ambassador to the United States, on Tuesday ahead of the trip.

Raimondo "raised issues of importance to the United States and American businesses and workers and discussed issues relating to the U.S.-China commercial relationship, challenges faced by U.S. businesses, and areas for potential cooperation," the Commerce Department said.

On Tuesday, China welcomed the department's decision to lift export control restrictions on 27 Chinese entities, saying it is conducive to normal trade between Chinese and U.S. firms. The U.S. Commerce Department on Monday removed the 27 Chinese companies from its "Unverified List."

Companies are given that designation if the United States cannot complete on-site visits to determine if they can be trusted to receive sensitive U.S. technology exports. Companies on the list cannot use license exceptions for exports.

Commerce said the removal "demonstrates the concrete benefit companies receive when they or a host government cooperates" to complete checks.

Raimondo "looks forward to constructive discussions," during the visit to Beijing and Shanghai from Aug. 27-30, the department said in a statement.

Last week, China said it welcomed Raimondo's expected visit.

Raimondo said recently that she wanted to raise "really serious concerns about the way they are targeting U.S. tech companies, about the way they don't respect intellectual property but also try to find lanes of commerce."

Her trip follows a four-day visit last month by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who held more than 10 hours of meetings with senior officials in Beijing.

The U.S. and China agreed this month to approve twice the number of passenger flights now permitted by air carriers between the two countries, in a rare sign of cooperation between the world's largest two economies.

Raimondo was among a group of senior U.S. officials whose emails were hacked this year by a group Microsoft said was based in China, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Earlier, China's embassy in Washington said that identifying the source of cyber attacks was complex and warned against groundless speculations and accusations.

In July, Raimondo said the Biden administration was seeking to carefully target U.S. controls on exports to China.

Raimondo met Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in May, discussing trade, investment and export policies in what was until then the first U.S.-China cabinet-level exchange in months, after a string of trade and national security disagreements derailed plans for re-engagement.

In April, Raimondo warned Chinese cloud companies could pose threats. Some Republican senators want her to add such companies to the entity list that imposes U.S. export controls on foreign companies.

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Clarence Fernandez, Marguerita Choy and Bill Berkrot)

Published under: China Gina Raimondo


Sherrod Brown Demands Financial Transparency. For Years, He Failed to Disclose Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars in Assets.

Ohio Democrat attacked GOP opponent for late financial disclosures before botching his own

Sherrod Brown
Sherrod Brown (Getty Images)
August 23, 2023

During his second Senate run, Sherrod Brown attacked his Republican opponent for failing to disclose financial holdings. Now, the Ohio Democrat is acknowledging he failed for years to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets.

Brown last week admitted in a letter to the Senate Office of Public Records that he omitted from his financial disclosures his wife's retirement accounts, which are worth up to $750,000. Brown's incomplete financial disclosures go all the way back to 2007, when the former state lawmaker first joined the Senate. The upper chamber requires both members and candidates to disclose their spouse's assets, including retirement accounts.

Brown's failure to disclose the assets runs counter to the campaign rhetoric the Democrat used when seeking reelection to the Senate. Brown in 2012 hammered Republican challenger Josh Mandel for filing his financial disclosure six months late, arguing in a blog post that the blunder proved Ohioans could not trust Mandel. Former Brown communications director Justin Barasky went as far as to argue Mandel "broke the law and illegally refused to disclose his personal finances," a move he called "completely unacceptable."

"The lack of transparency Ohioans are seeing from our absentee treasurer is completely unacceptable," Barasky said in 2011. "Josh Mandel is in violation of the law."

This is far from the first time Brown has landed in hot water over financial issues. Brown has on at least seven occasions failed to pay property taxes on time, and the Democrat for years claimed primary residence tax credits on two Ohio properties, a move that saved him more than $1,000, according to NBC News. Brown, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, has touted efforts to "crackdown on wealthy tax cheats."

The missing assets from Brown's financial disclosures include a mutual fund valued between $250,001 and $500,000 and a pension plan valued between $100,001 and $250,000. Brown's wife, journalist Connie Schultz, accumulated the assets as a Plain Dealer reporter and Kent State University professor.

Brown campaign manager Rachel Petri said in a statement shared with the Washington Free Beacon that "Connie's retirement was not included" in Brown's disclosures and that "the previous reports have now been updated." Petri did not explain what caused the oversight.

Brown's financial disclosure fiasco comes as the Democrat faces a difficult reelection bid in Ohio, a state that backed former president Donald Trump by 8 percentage points in both 2016 and 2020. Recent polling puts Brown's reelection bid at a dead heat—the Democrat is tied with Ohio secretary of state Frank LaRose (R.) at 45 percent, according to a July USA Today poll.

Published under: Ethics Josh Mandel Senate Democrats Sherrod Brown Transparency


KAMALA HAS LONG BEEN ON THE SIDELIMES OF THE CLINTON,OBAMA, BIDEN CRIME LIVES WATCH AND WAITING FOR HER TURN TO SERVE AS THEIR ANNOINTED LAWYER AND LIAR!

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

Joe Biden, the corrupt, unaccomplished 47-year career politician, with a reputation of having been a proud segregationist, an unabashed plagiarist and liar, a resolute tale-teller, and a serial flip-flopper, is pretending to head up a radical social-democratic ticket for President of the United States that includes as his running mate the ambitious, disagreeable junior senator from California: Kamala Harris. 


CUT AND PASTE YOUTUBE LINKS

 

How Kamala Harris Made Her Millions NO, THEY DIDN'T COME FROM HER POLITICAL PIMP, GAMER LAWYER-POLITICIAN WILLIE BROWN!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIipQxGdjYs



Kamala Harris Is Rebooting Her Vice Presidency—No, Seriously This Time

(Getty Images)
August 22, 2023

Kamala Harris is once again rebooting her historically unpopular vice presidency, and as usual, the mainstream media are here for it.

Politico on Monday published a nearly 2,000-word profile of Harris as she supposedly puts "the rockiness" behind her and shows Americans the real Kamala.

Politico, "'I Can't Get Into People's Heads': Kamala Harris Tries to Reshape Her Public Image Ahead of 2024":

Backstage, as she prepares for a not-so-intimate "fireside chat" about gun safety in front of hundreds of people, Kamala Harris is unscripted and seemingly at ease, no notes or teleprompter in sight. …

Now, there's a hope the rockiness may finally be behind them. And there is a concerted effort underway to ensure that she not only has the support she needs from the White House but that the broader public can see the side of her that—they believe—has been overshadowed by the toxic elements of D.C. To that end, her aides are trying to remind the public of that person, in part by inviting reporters to witness her behind the scenes. …

Aides say Harris' current, more fitting portfolio as the administration's front person on abortion rights, gun violence, climate change and civil rights will be front and center during the campaign. They view her key constituencies as people of color, especially Black voters, young people and women.

Kamala 4.0: Harris has been "stepping up," taking "center stage," finding "her voice," and hitting "her stride" as a progressive Amazon for the past few months, according to headlines.

New York Times, "Kamala Harris Takes on a Forceful New Role in the 2024 Campaign"

Washington Post, "Kamala Harris seems to be stepping up her 2024 role"

CNN, "Kamala Harris takes center stage in Biden reelection campaign's rapid response to GOP"

Politico, "Why Kamala Harris Is A Better VP Than You Think"

CNN, "Kamala Harris found her voice on abortion rights in the year after Dobbs. Now she's making it central to her 2024 message"

Vanity Fair, "Kamala Harris's 2024 Role Crystallizes Around Abortion Rights"

Time, "Joe Biden Finally Gets It: Kamala Harris Is the Key to 2024"

Bloomberg, "Kamala Harris Is Finding Her Stride as Team Biden's Voice to Black Voters"

New York, "Abortion-Rights Fight Finally Gives Kamala Harris a Chance to Lead"

CNN, "The battle over abortion rights helps Kamala Harris find her voice as vice president"

Washington Post, "As Harris touts abortion rights, backers hope she finally hits her stride"

Kamala 3.0: It's not Harris's first vice presidential reboot. In between her cringeworthy public appearances and damning leaks from her team, the media have been anticipating her vice presidential comeback since at least early last year.

Washington Post, "Harris team looks to course changes to reset her political prospects"

Los Angeles Times, "Vice President Kamala Harris is making some changes, but don't call it a reboot"

Politico, "She was Zoom'd out:' Veep mulls escape from D.C. bubble"

Kamala 2.0: Really, Harris's entire vice presidency was a reboot after she failed to impress as a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.

CNN, "These girls see themselves in Kamala Harris"

Politico, "'Harris Has the Potential To Change the Face of U.S. Politics'"

New York Times, "'It's a Big Deal': TV Coverage Notes Magnitude of Kamala Harris Victory"

The glitch: Meanwhile, the public's view of Harris has remained unchanged.

Published under: 2020 Election Kamala Harris Media Bias Polls Vice President


19. 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?

 

 

45 Questions the Media Should Ask Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

REBECCA MANSOUR

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) will appear in their first joint media interview on Sunday after accepting their party’s nominations this week.

However, unlike President Trump, Biden and Harris have thus far declined to take questions from the media in an open joint press conference where no questions or topics are off-limits.

In the event that such a press availability arises, here are 45 questions the media should ask them. This list is by no means exhaustive.

QUESTIONS FOR JOE BIDEN:

1. Why did members of your family keep getting lucrative business opportunities overseas while you were vice president?

2. How did your brother, Frank, secure $45,000,000 in taxpayer loans from the Obama administration for his Caribbean projects?

3. How did a newly-minted firm employing your other brother, James, receive a $1.5 billion contract to build homes in Iraq despite having no experience in construction or international development?

4. Why did your son Hunter accompany you on your official trip to Beijing in December 2013? What did he do on that trip? Who did he meet with? What should the American public make of the fact that just 10 days after this trip, your son’s boutique private equity firm secured a $1 billion investment deal from the state-owned bank of China (later expanded to $1.5 billion) despite having no prior experience in China, and with this deal, the Chinese government granted your son’s firm a first-of-its-kind arrangement to operate in the the recently formed Shanghai Free-Trade Zone—a perk not granted to any of the large established financial institutions?

5. Should the American public be concerned that your son’s private equity firm partnered with a Chinese government-owned aerospace and defense conglomerate to facilitate the purchase of an American company that produced strategically sensitive dual-use military technology that the Chinese government wanted?

6. Does your “Build Back Better” proposal contain any provisions to ensure that American taxpayer-funded technology is not bought off by Chinese state-backed enterprises working with private equity firms like your son’s?

7. Back in 2000, you voted in favor of giving permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) to China. At the time, you said that this would not lead to “the collapse of the American manufacturing economy” because China is “about the size of the Netherlands” and could not possibly become “our major economic competitor.” Furthermore, you predicted that free trade with China would establish “a path toward ever greater political and economic freedom” for the people of China. Do you still stand by these statements today after 3.4 million American jobs have been lost to China and millions of China’s citizens have been imprisonedsurveilleddisappeared, and used as slave labor by an increasingly authoritarian regime enriched by 20 years of record trade imbalances from flagrant trade violations?

8. The People’s Republic of China has a bold plan called “Made in China 2025” to dominate the key technologies of the future in order to overtake the United States militarily and economically. Do you still contend that China is “not competition for us”?

9. Why did you promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to financial special interest groups when research was clear that the deal would make it easier for corporations to move U.S. jobs overseas?

10. Do you believe Xi Jinping kept his promise to Barack Obama to end cyber-espionage against the United States? If not, what are you prepared to do about it?

11. Do you accept that the coronavirus originated in China? Do you think China was honest with the world in its handling of the coronavirus? Are you satisfied with China’s explanations for how it spread? Do you believe their claims about the number of cases and fatalities in China?

12. Do you think China should be held responsible in any way for its handling of the coronavirus? If not, why not? What, if any, repercussions should there be for China in its handling of the coronavirus?

13. Did you suggest investigating Michael Flynn under the Logan Act, as Peter Strzok’s notes suggest?

14. You said in your DNC acceptance speech that America is ready to “do the hard work of rooting out our systemic racism.” What did you do in your 36 years as a U.S. senator and 8 years as vice president to root out systemic racism? Why didn’t it work?

15. You have called for “revolutionary institutional changes.” What does that mean in practice?

16. You have vowed to rescind the Trump tax cuts. Can you think of a single example of a country that recovered from a recession by raising taxes?

QUESTIONS FOR KAMALA HARRIS:

17. Why did you refuse to prosecute even one sexual abuse case involving the Catholic Church in San Francisco when you were attorney general, despite the pleas of victims’ groups?

18. 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?

19. 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?

20. 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?

21. You once attacked a judicial nominee on the basis of his membership in the Catholic fraternal 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?

22. Why did you single out journalist David Daleiden for prosecution for undercover journalism that others do without penalty?

23. 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?

24. 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 admitted this week 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?

25. 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 3.4 million jobs to China?

QUESTIONS FOR BIDEN OR HARRIS:

26. You both supported the George Floyd protests, which you claimed were peaceful. Have you spoken to any victims of the riots — people who lost loved ones or businesses?

27. 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?

28. Seattle Black Lives Matter protesters stormed a neighborhood last week, demanding that residents “get the f*** out” and “give black people back their homes” as reparations. Do you support that style of protest?

29. If elected, would you object if protesters decided to tear down the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square across from the White House? What about statues to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? Would you be willing to sign a written pledge to protect our national monuments and statues?

30. What is the maximum number of illegal immigrants you would allow into the country before securing the border to stop more from entering?

31. The Obama administration deported an estimated 3 million illegal aliens. Was that a bad thing?

32. 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?

33. Do you still support a ban on fracking? If so, what do you say to the estimated 7.5 million American jobs that will be lost due to such a ban, which includes an estimated 550,000 jobs lost in Pennsylvania, 500,000 jobs lost in Ohio, 363,000 jobs lost in North Carolina, 353,000 jobs lost in Colorado, and 233,000 jobs lost in Michigan?

34. Wall Street has praised the choice of Kamala Harris as VP. Why do you think financial special interests support her so much?

35. 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?

36. Do you support China’s actions in Hong Kong?

37. Do you support China’s actions in Xinjiang province where an estimated 3 million predominantly Uyghur Muslims are imprisoned in what the Pentagon has described as “concentration camps”? Are you concerned about the fact that Hunter Biden’s China-backed private equity firm invested heavily in the surveillance technology used to spy on the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province?

38. Do you disagree with how the Trump administration is handling Huawei? Do you think Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou should be extradited to the United States for trial?

39. Do you believe China’s Belt and Road Initiative is a form of colonialism or is it a good program that Third World nations should sign up for?

40. What are you prepared to do if China invades Taiwan or uses military force to assert its claims in the South China Sea?

41. Do you believe the U.S. should return to the Iran nuclear deal? Would you make further concessions to Iran to secure that? Do you believe the Iranian regime should be allowed to buy weapons again?

42. Are you pleased with the results of the Obama administration’s intervention in Libya?

43. Why did the Islamic State fold up so much more quickly under Trump than the Obama administration predicted?

44. Would you advise Arab nations to follow the UAE’s lead and make peace with Israel, or should they hold out for big concessions to the Palestinians?

45. Should the United States apologize for demanding NATO partners meet their financial commitments? If not, why didn’t the Obama administration ever do that?

Rebecca Mansour is a Senior Editor-at-Large for Breitbart News. Follow her on Twitter at @RAMansour.

 

 

Kamala Harris Failed to Investigate Client of Husbands Law Firm as California Attorney General

HARIS ALIC

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

By JESSER HOROWITZ

Posted on February 27, 2019 in Opinions

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.

 

No comments: