The Dems have hundreds of people scouring through everything Trump did and then sending them to lawyers to see what may stick. They go back to the 90's to find stuff then the media is on it for weeks, even months.
Towards the presidential run of 2024
- Thread starter sene5hos
- Start date
The Dems have hundreds of people scouring through everything Trump did and then sending them to lawyers to see what may stick. They go back to the 90's to find stuff then the media is on it for weeks, even months.
Now was this through donations of was the previous monies from Biden included?
The eye-popping haul includes money raised across Harris' campaign, the Democratic National Committee and joint fundraising committees, and underscores the vice president's enormous financial advantage over any potential challengers for the Democratic nomination.
There's 0% chance Kamala would have been the Democratic candidate if Biden dropped out a year ago. They chose Kamala not out of merit or because she's their favorite but because it's too late to appoint someone else. She couldn't get anyone to vote for her when she was running in 2020, she's just a bad candidate and she will lose.
She will have more than 4,000 excited /enthousiastes delegates who will vote for her..........and au contraire she is a strong and BRIGHT candidate vs a grumpy and crooked gran"d pa.......it will be a close/tough and nasty race....BUT she will win.
She was tough on criminals. Period. Had she been easy on black criminals you would have called her out for being soft on blacks. The far right is really grasping at straws (including plastic straws).
Last edited:
Zero percent, huh? There's not zero percent chance of anything. It's totally unproductive conjecture about what may have happened a year ago. However here's a historical fact: when she was running on the Biden-Harris ticket in 2020, 81 million Americans voted for Joe and Kamala.
Your reality changes as often as the weather lol. but not the theme.
Kamala is a horrible choice, a cackling cringe worthy speaker who has no crowd appeal.
Trump will crush her.
Trump will make his typical racist, sexist, ad hominen insults that will only appeal to his cult members and not to independent voters.
Read up
Throughout her law career, Harris often resisted criminal justice reforms. As San Francisco's district attorney between 2004 and 2011 and later as the state's attorney general, she either opposed or remained silent on reforms, raising concerns among progressives. Most notably, she fought “tooth and nail” to uphold wrongful convictions despite evidence of official misconduct, including evidence tampering and false testimony by prosecutors.
In 2010, Harris faced criticism for withholding information about a police lab technician accused of sabotaging work and stealing drugs. A memo revealed her office knew of the technician's misconduct but failed to inform defence lawyers, leading a judge to condemn Harris for systemic violations of constitutional rights. Harris contested the ruling, citing a conflict of interest due to the judge's husband's public stance on evidence disclosure. She lost the case, resulting in the dismissal of over 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician.
Harris also supported state legislation which sought to criminally prosecute parents of those children who skipped elementary school. The legislation was disproportionately affecting low-income Black people, who often lack means and resources to ensure their children attend school throughout the year.
Kamala Harris: Is she a hypocrite dressed as a ‘progressive liberal’?
Her murky record as a central figure in San Francisco's criminal justice system makes it difficult for many progressive Americans to take her seriously.
REUTERS
Harris's record in wrongful conviction cases is particularly troubling. / Photo: Reuters
Kamala Harris, a likely US presidential candidate, has long faced criticism for her controversial record as a prosecutor and attorney general before rising to prominence in American politics. Critics consider her a hypocrite, claiming she enjoys the "progressive liberal" label while having taken rigid positions that oppose liberal reforms.
Throughout her law career, Harris often resisted criminal justice reforms. As San Francisco's district attorney between 2004 and 2011 and later as the state's attorney general, she either opposed or remained silent on reforms, raising concerns among progressives. Most notably, she fought “tooth and nail” to uphold wrongful convictions despite evidence of official misconduct, including evidence tampering and false testimony by prosecutors.
In 2010, Harris faced criticism for withholding information about a police lab technician accused of sabotaging work and stealing drugs. A memo revealed her office knew of the technician's misconduct but failed to inform defence lawyers, leading a judge to condemn Harris for systemic violations of constitutional rights. Harris contested the ruling, citing a conflict of interest due to the judge's husband's public stance on evidence disclosure. She lost the case, resulting in the dismissal of over 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician.
Harris also supported state legislation which sought to criminally prosecute parents of those children who skipped elementary school. The legislation was disproportionately affecting low-income Black people, who often lack means and resources to ensure their children attend school throughout the year.
As attorney general, she made another move that shocked progressives – she appealed a federal judge's 2014 ruling declaring the death penalty unconstitutional, arguing it undermined court protections for defendants.
In 2014, Harris declined to take a position on Proposition 47, which reduced certain low-level felonies to misdemeanours, and laughed when asked about supporting marijuana legalisation for recreational use. She opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate police shootings and statewide standards for body-worn cameras, drawing criticism from reformers including the ACLU and San Francisco's public defender.
Harris's record in wrongful conviction cases is particularly troubling. In 2015, her office defended the conviction of George Gage, an electrician with no criminal record accused of sexually abusing his stepdaughter. Despite discovering that the prosecutor had withheld potentially exculpatory evidence, Harris's office argued that Gage had not properly raised the issue in lower courts. The appellate judges sent the case to mediation, but Harris refused to dismiss it, and Gage remains in prison serving a 70-year sentence.
Harris also fought to keep Daniel Larsen in prison despite evidence of his innocence and argued on technical grounds to uphold his conviction. In the case of Johnny Baca, she defended a conviction based on false testimony, relenting only after national attention embarrassed her office. She initially opposed advanced DNA testing for death row inmate Kevin Cooper, reversing her position following a New York Times exposé.
Critics argue Harris's actions as a prosecutor often prioritised legal technicalities over justice. Her career in the American justice system stands in contrast with her carefully crafted image of being a progressive liberal, willing to take up the causes that affect Black people and other minorities.
Around the same time, a decade ago, while Harris broadly supported the use of body-worn cameras by police officers, she believed each police jurisdiction should have the flexibility to set its own standards for footage usage, retention periods, and public release protocols.
so this is strange. I'm looking for this article on reuters, and its nowhere to be found. similar articles can only be found on trtworld which is a propaganda site... help a brother out with an actual source please?
And we know how trustworthy CNN polls are...ask your friend Hilary
Also, the web is full of doctored videos and false statements, republicans specialty.
You forgot that she got 2 000 000 more votes than Trump.
He won thanks to the ridicule election systems in USA !
This lengthy post is not your original work so kindly show your sources by attaching the original reporting. It should be noted that when anyone is in a prosecutors office for decades there's going to be controversial cases and criticism because lives are at stake. Show me one prosecutor's office where that's not true. It’s a tough job and controversy comes with the turf.
Similar threads
