Kamala Harris: "Fierce Prosecutor" vs the "Progressive Activist" & Lara Bazelon's Big Fail

[mcar]

Kamala Harris: “Fierce Prosecutor” vs the “Progressive Activist” & Lara Bazelon’s Big Fail

https://medium.com/@gayleleslie/kamala-harris-fierce-prosecutor-vs-the-progressive-activist-lara-bazelons-big-fail-1f679b70663a

...The impulse to write this piece appeared after the July 31st Democratic debate when Tulsi Gabbard lobbed a turd bomb of ill-informed, self-aggrandizing nuttiness at Kamala Harris. And much as I don’t care for Gabbard on so many levels, I was of the opinion that it was time for Harris to sit down with Rachel Maddow or Nicole Wallace in primetime and deconstruct her judicial record as first, San Francisco’s District Attorney (2004 to 2011), then as California’s Attorney General (2011 to 2016.) As so many leaning left — especially those identifying themselves as “leftists” — have, Gabbard cherry picked some of the most complicated aspects of Harris’s criminal justice resume, took the swallowist possible perspective then weaponized that into a sound bite that Harris could not conceivably respond to in sixty seconds....

So recently, as I hear all the truncated criticism of Harris piled on and conflated by opponents, I have been driven to look closer, and oh, what I’ve found. I want to start with one person in particular: Lara Bazelon of The New York Times. Her bio says she is a law professor and the former director of the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent in Los Angeles and she authored the January 17, 2019 article, “Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’” for the NYT. I pulled up so many pieces on various aspects of the candidate’s record in California; time and time again, Lara Bazelon is the first reference, the place from every other liberal “journalist” described as their baseline line for information. Obviously, I had to check out that article.
To say that I was dumbfounded is putting it politely: Bazelon’s article is so critically lacking in anything more than cursory research, so lacking in any nuanced, fact based analysis or even necessarily complex narratives, that I could have written this superficial hit piece in the seventh grade. A whole litany of California papers — The Los Angeles Times, The Sacramento Bee, SFGate, even Vox, Politico and fucking Wikipedia — provided a more thorough, circumspect view of Kamala Harris’s prosecutorial past. So while Bazelon was writing to a base already sharing her own narrow liberal lens on criminal justice, it is incomprehensible to me that she is any excuse for an arbiter of candidate Harris’s political character. So, Ms. Bazelon, let’s try this again....

Kamala Harris’s record on criminal justice in California is complicated. Bits are tossed out into the ether like chum to sharks by lazy minds, because they fear Kamala Harris. They fear her unequivocal nature. They fear the precision of her mind. And they fear her unapologetic bullshit detector as the totality of their presence in the world is the sum of their bullshit. To be fair, I would say that about Elizabeth Warren, Kristen Gillibrand and Amy Klobachar as well. But Harris is a particular case because confrontation and precision of mind and speech is what she does best.
______________

Long, but worth the read.

[betsuni]

1. "a turd bomb of ill-informed, self-aggrandizing nuttiness"

This is correct.

[mcar]

2. It is

[Princetonian]

18. Irony is dead.

[EveHammond13]

3. I will never ever have any complaint regarding how she did her job.

I'm not going to let them use that against her.

[mcar]

4. It's really a ridiculous argument

Unfortunately complicated enough that many in the media can't get their little heads around it.

[Princetonian]

19. Innocent men that AG Harris jailed like Daniel Larsen, Johnny Baca and Kevin Cooper would disagree.

Attorney General Kamala Harris argued against Daniel Larsen, who was proven innocent by the Innocence Project, because Harris claimed he filed his petition for release too late after a legal deadline.

'After 13 Years in Prison, Man Found Innocent of Crime Freed

<snip>

During his trial, Larsen’s now disbarred attorney did not call a single witness to the stand, including up to nine who could testify that they saw someone else — not Larsen — throw the knife, the Innocence Project said.

His conviction was overturned in 2009 when a federal judge ruled that his constitutional rights had been violated.

The court found that Larsen had shown he was "actually innocent," that the police officers at Larsen’s trial were not credible, and that his trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective for failing to call witnesses on his behalf.

But before he was released, California Attorney General Kamala Harris is challenging Larsen's release, saying he hadn't presented proof that he was innocent quickly enough, the Innocence Project said.'

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Daniel-Larsen-Murder-Conviction-Overturned-Innocence-Project-198996291.html

"California Innocence Project: Daniel Larsen"
https://californiainnocenceproject.org/read-their-stories/daniel-larsen/

Man behind bars 2 years after judge orders release

Daniel Larsen was in a California prison serving a life sentence when he received the news he had awaited more than a decade. A federal court in Los Angeles had thrown out his conviction for carrying a concealed knife... But two years after he was supposed to be released, Larsen remains behind bars while the California attorney general appeals the decision. The state’s main argument: He did not file his legal paperwork seeking release on time.

California Atty. Gen.Kamala D. Harris, whose office maintains that evidence still points to Larsen’s guilt, accuses him and his attorneys of filing a petition seeking his release more than six years after he was legally required to do so. Prosecutors question whether the judges had the authority to hear Larsen’s petition for release... Larsen’s supporters delivered copies of online petitions to the attorney general’s office in downtown Los Angeles demanding the man’s release... The attorney general’s office declined to comment.... U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder...ruled that Larsen could be released even though his legal claim missed the federal court’s deadlines....Then came the attorney general’s appeal. Prosecutors asked that Larsen remain behind bars during the appeal, saying he was a danger to society. Snyder concluded there was no evidence that Larsen posed a public threat. But she delayed her order...“He was about 14 days from walking out the door,” said one of his attorneys, Wendy Koen, who told Larsen about the appeal during a prison visit... The attorney general’s office, in its court filing, cited Congress’ action in arguing that Larsen missed his chance to seek federal relief... As Larsen remains behind bars, the appeal is slowly winding through the system. In June, the attorney general’s office requested a 45-day extension to file its brief. In July, the office asked for an additional 30 days.[f/b]

Combs, his fiancee, said Larsen had been eager to start his new life on the outside.

“Then the conversations turned from weeks to months and now it’s been a year,” she said.

The court disagreed with Attorney General Harris, allowing Larsen’s release in 2013, two years after a judge ordered his release.

In the New York Times early this year, "law professor and the former director of the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent in Los Angeles" Lara Bazelon lists several more such cases:

'Afterward, the judge discovered that the prosecutor had unlawfully held back potentially exculpatory evidence, including medical reports indicating that the stepdaughter had been repeatedly untruthful with law enforcement. Her mother even described her as “a pathological liar” who “lives her lies.”... The appellate judges acknowledged this impediment and sent the case to mediation, a clear signal for Ms. Harris to dismiss the case. When she refused to budge, the court upheld the conviction on that technicality. Mr. Gage is still in prison serving a 70-year sentence.

That case is not an outlier. Ms. Harris also fought to keep Daniel Larsen in prison on a 28-year-to-life sentence for possession of a concealed weapon even though his trial lawyer was incompetent and there was compelling evidence of his innocence. Relying on a technicality again, Ms. Harris argued that Mr. Larsen failed to raise his legal arguments in a timely fashion. (This time, she lost.)

She also defended Johnny Baca’s conviction for murder even though judges found a prosecutor presented false testimony at the trial. She relented only after a video of the oral argument received national attention and embarrassed her office.

And then there’s Kevin Cooper, the death row inmate whose trial was infected by racism and corruption. He sought advanced DNA testing to prove his innocence, but Ms. Harris opposed it. (After The New York Times’s exposé of the case went viral, she reversed her position.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

[mcar]

5. Harris on truancy

Link to tweet

?s=19

@KamalaHarris on truancy: "They wanted me to put more police on the streets. I learned 90% of the homicide victims were high school dropouts. An elementary school truant is 4-5x more likely to be a high school dropout. 82% of the prisoners were dropouts. So I took the issue on.

[elleng]

6. Thanks. A problem solver.

[mcar]

9. Like so many women are

[elleng]

10. Yes, it's what we do.

[Princetonian]

15. Jailed parents disagree. Factcheck.org: "Kamala Harris Spins Facts on Truancy Law" (May 14, 2019)

Truth over lies.

In an interview with Jake Tapper, 'Sen. Kamala Harris acknowledges that a 2010 state truancy law she sponsored resulted in some parents being jailed. But she misleadingly claims that jailing parents was an “unintended consequence” of the law... the law added Section 270.1 to the California Penal Code to allow prosecutors to fine and/or jail a parent “who has failed to reasonably supervise and encourage the pupil’s school attendance.”...Harris, a Democratic candidate for president, was San Francisco District Attorney from 2004 to 2011... as the San Francisco District Attorney, Harris sponsored a state Senate bill — SB 1317... modeled on her truancy initiative in San Francisco, and did result in some parents being jailed.

Los Angeles Times, April 17: Harris took that advocacy statewide, sponsoring a 2010 law to make it a misdemeanor for parents whose young children miss more than 10% of school days a year without a valid excuse. Parents could be punished with a maximum $2,000 fine, up to a year in county jail or both.'

When Jake Tapper asked about the state law, she did not tell the truth. 'The possibility of jailing parents was not an “unintended consequence,” and the bill did not just change the education code. It also created a new section to the California Penal Code, as we have already noted.

Harris knew this, of course... She also said the arrests were “not under my watch,” and that she had “no control” over the arrests — even though she sponsored the state law that allowed for the arrests, and her office provided guidance to local district attorneys on when prosecutions should and should not be made.'

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/05/kamala-harris-spins-facts-on-truancy-law/

When a Biden campaign advisor described Harris as "slippery" after the first debate, they weren't kidding: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/kamala-harris-biden-debate-busing-1414911

[betsuni]

12. +1

[brush]

7. Unfortunately many here latched onto Gabbard's turd bomb and ran with it to trash Harris.

They were angry that she called Biden on his unforced error of seeming to reminisce fondly of working with segregationists.

If she hadn't called him on it Booker would have. And Biden has not repeated that story since.

[Andy823]

8. Yes they did

Of course it seems like it's always the same posters who jump in to trash Harris, while defending Gabbard, and claiming they support Biden. I think they have a different agenda that helping Democrats.

[StarfishSaver]

13. That's pretty clear

[brush]

14. Very questionable, yes. Gabbard has always seemed IMO like the one item in those puzzles...

which ask: "Which one does not belong?"

Now with some time to view it in hindsight Harris was an apparent threat to somebody and a mole was placed to take her out.

The question is the somebody within the party or outside of the party.

[Princetonian]

16. The OP is false. Lara Baselon's critique on Harris has no less than 17 source attributions.

I believe NYT articles with proper attribution such as Lara Baselon's noteworthy piece on Kamala Harris earlier this year which has no less than 17 source attributions! Sadly, Baselon has been the target of seemingly deliberately misrepresentative attacks.

I noted that the OP offers no link to the article which it makes false claims about so here is the link to the truthful and informative NYT critique about Harris by Lara Baselon that has impeccable sources that are not tainted by partisan pablum: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

Sharing facts from impeccable sources is not attacking someone:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=249770

Similarly, defending someone against a baseless smear campaign designed to deflect from that fact sharing is not promoting someone. It is promoting the truth:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=246874

Rhetoric 101. "I don't believe you're a racist, but..." means you're about to imply he's a racist.

to thesquanderer

[ismnotwasm]

20. Why are linking to the original NYT article which was VERY flawed

And then a couple of DU links—of all things—that basically regurgitate the flawed NYT article?

[Princetonian]

22. So folks can see Baselon's NYT article had 17 source attributions that passed NYT editorial muster.

Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2019, 01:58 AM - Edit history (1)

You are being misleading about the breadth of content in my annotated DU links here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=250494

None "regugitate" anything but each state facts based on impeccable sources. Do you hope that people will take your word for it without clicking on the links to see for themselves if what you say is correct?

Truth over lies.

Rhetoric 101. "I don't believe you're a racist, but..." means you're about to imply he's a racist.

[mcar]

11. Someone prepared Gabbard with her false claims

Someone(s) wanted to shut Harris down.

[Princetonian]

17. Funny you should say that when "Kamala's attack on Biden was months in the making"...

Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2019, 06:29 AM - Edit history (2)

"Kamala's attack on Biden was months in the making: She and her advisers assiduously plotted the attack — and how to capitalize on it afterward":
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-joe-biden-debate-1390383

Rhetoric 101. "I don't believe you're a racist, but..." means you're about to imply he's a racist.

Perhaps Gabbard did exactly what Harris did months before the first debate?

Anderson Cooper asks former Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Iraq War veteran and National Guard member Representative Tulsi Gabbard this very question, mcar:

Pot meet kettle.

[ismnotwasm]

21. A former aide to Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer

Has an opinion.

[Princetonian]

23. High praise indeed. So?

Rhetoric 101. "I don't believe you're a racist, but..." means you're about to imply he's a racist.

[brush]

25. So what. Biden had told that story many times months before.

He hasn't told it since though. Wonder why?

[Starry Messenger]

24. +1000