From deep in the article:

And the article also points out how some of her positions have evolved to more progressive positions.

https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2019/jan/29/kamala-harris-criminal-justice-reformer-or-defende/

my focus is on a candidates’ votes on legislation ( On that front Harris is very encouraging) which isn't to say that one's judicial enforcement record is not important. I also think it's important to trace origins of policy and compare policies especially with other attorney generals. In general, i compare a candidates’ record with their peers, and the popularity of certain policies at the time. If I have to examine a Governor's record, I'm going to examine the context of legislation signed. I've come to accept that anyone engaged fully in governance will not exercise "perfect" judgement at all times in hindsight.

She campaigned to expand her jail/fines for parents of truant kids statewide as a plank in her bid for AG. That troubles me.

And some of her decisions as a prosecutor are pretty indefensible, from my perspective. I get the realities of being a prosecutor, and the reality that doing your job will have a disproportionate impact on minorities and people without means. But that is different from being made aware of evidentiary issues that impact hundreds of cases and actively concealing that information from the people who were imprisoned on the basis of that evidence - or appealing a court decision abolishing the death penalties. Those are policies and postures that are inconsistent with some of my core beliefs.

I looked up the actual truancy policy. compared to other truancy policies, her approach was toothless.

It was a process which involved several steps: parents would first get a letter, and then there would be a mediation phase where reasons for truancy would be explored and social services contacted. Schwarzenegger passed the law originally.


I don't believe courts should handle this thing but truancy needs to be monitored . Harris used and modified) tools at her disposal ( to get these children in contact with social services).

But 20 were charged and required to participate in the court system - it is unclear whether they were fined or not. But being arrested and charged are punitive acts that cannot be erased from the parents' record.

Harris campaigned on bring her San Francisco program to the entire state as AG (and did - the law signed by Schwarzenegger was the one she campaigned on). Under that program parents did go to jail (at least two, including at least one for 180 days).

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/new-calif-truancy-law-goes-effect

It is noteworthy that her campaign to bring the SF program to the state failed, in that the law she actually wanted adopted would have permittted jailing parents for up to a year (not 180 days)

In addition, information on parents fined is not available - and fines of up to $2000 are also unconscionable when applied to the population against whom it is most likely to be applied.

This - which Harris brags about - is the posture that troubles me extremely:



If she just needs some help, then get her the damn help - don't charge her with a crime, and publically shame her in the guise of helping someone who is obviously doing all she can to take care of her family. So you dismissed the charges against her - that arrest record and charges don't vanish. They will be around in public record databases forever - and will haunt her in the event she does get her life together (and may even make it more difficult to for her to get her life together).

It is the posture of threatening (and in some cases imposing) jail time rather than investing the time to figure out how the root causes of the truancy and helping these parents and children in ways that do not further harm them that I find troubling. You suggested she took the tools she had as prosecutor and modified them to get the job done - listen to the video tapes of her as a prosecutor. They tell a different story - She believed this was a positive tool - and used it in ways her predecessors (and co-workers found shocking and had rejected). Further, she actively campaigned to implement a harsher version of this law at the state level - which is actual policy making (not just using the tools at her disposal).

batting better than par, but these are still really regressive positions she's held in these areas. Do you ...yawn....disagree? Why don't you tell me what your favorites on that list were then?

regarding the prosecution of parents of truant children - and hits another hot button item: the use of prosecutorial tools for injustice (limiting death penalty appeals, perpetuating wrongful convictions, withholding critical information from defendants).

I would like to see an explanation, and evidence of recognition of the error of her ways before I could wholeheartedly support her for president. As these disclosures about her prosecutorial record expand, it feels even more like Bill Clinton halting campaigning to return home to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector to prove he was tough on crime. I ultimately voted for him - but with considerable less enthusiasm than before he used Rector's life as a campaign tool.

The elimination of monetary bail. Unless you can convince me otherwise.

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

not prosecutorial actions. The question was as to progressive prosecutors - not progressive legislators. They can be (and in this case appear to be) different.

My concern is that when given an unfair law, she sometimes used it in an unfair way. E.g., knowing that a particular lab made errors - and withholding information about it because it would have called into question 100s of likely legitimate convictions - even though withholding the information kept innocent people who were convicted based on those lab results imprisoned. A progressive prosecutor would use that as a tool of justice to ensure that wrongly convicted individuals had access to the evidence they needed to obtain their freedom (or good name) back.

innocent people by withholding exculpatory evidence.

That's a crime.

but when the errors made by the lab were discovered (impacting potentially 600+ cases), she did not disclose them

From the NYT article:

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

(There are other reports - this will give you enough to find it if you want to review multiple sources to get a more robust view. And yes, I agree violated the constituional rights of the defendants. The law requires that prosecutors disclose all potentially exculpatory evidence in their possession.)

It's interesting that the opinion piece conflates the office of the attorney general with the person who was the attorney general. Details like that matter.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-rips-Harris-office-for-hiding-problems-3263797.php

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SFPD-Crime-Lab-Case-From-A-Z-91434379.html

The question is, would she be a good candidate in spite of these things?

And that is something voters will decide.

No candidate is perfect, but knowing more about every candidate helps when making a decision.

Agreed?

but they also tell one substantially different from the op-ed's narrative.

(The links are right there within the text of the opinion piece.)

What's especially troubling is the opinion writer's conflation of Senator Harris's name with the name of the office of the attorney general. It's either very sloppy or deliberately misleading.

It's also puzzling why an attorney (like the opinion writer) doesn't understand why it was crucial to appeal the judge's death penalty ruling when it was based on the premise that "the appeals process takes too long". Why on earth would any lawyer interested in preserving civil liberties want that precedent to take root in state criminal law?

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-rips-Harris-office-for-hiding-problems-3263797.php
http://www.sfexaminer.com/conflict-of-interest-denied-in-crime-lab-scandal-case/
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-death-penalty-appeal-20140821-story.html
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Kamala-Harris-takes-measured-approach-to-probing-7955937.php
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-issues-statement-appeal-court-ruling-california

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Kamala-Harris-takes-measured-approach-to-probing-7955937.php

This is a legitimate issue, and one that is quite relevant in Chicago, where Anita Alvarez, the former Cook County State's Attorney, was defeated in part because she did not investigate an instance of police misconduct.


And my feeling is that these issues must be examined if we are to get a better understanding of potential candidates.

and all candidates should voluntarily disclose as much other information as the voters need in order to make an informed decision.

What we need to avoid are these dangerous trends: partisans skewing the record of the opponents of their preferred candidate by repeating rumor and distortions, cherry-picking facts, and spinning out of context narratives that bear little relation to reality.

Does the candidate decide what information the voters need? No. Voters make that decision.

As to the facts presented here, voters will decide how much weight to place on them.

or lightly dismissed by partisan players will be discussed publicly, honestly, in depth, and at length.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

However, she IS a progressive Senator, and she'd make a hell of a President.

Moreover, I think it is very difficult to make the move from prosecution to defense. I may be wrong--and would be happy to be wrong--but I don't see her as the people's champion I am hoping for.

concerned.

Snip:

Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.


I would like to know more details about this.

There's a reason that this piece is on the op-ed page. Personally, I don't trust op-ed writers who need to resort to distortion and equivocation to make their case.

I don't like what I'm seeing, and it's making me consider - reconsidering - Harris.

They also keep pushing out her past relationship with Willie Brown, the uber-politician and fixer on the local and state scene. My reaction: "So what?"

At this point, I'm still supportive of Kamala Harris. There will always be axe-grinders on a mission, attacking from whatever point of the political spectrum they claim.

All these accusations will be juicy debate questions. Let's see how she handles them. And let's allow this some time to play out before we jump on the No On Harris bandwagon. I still think the republicans hate and fear her. That's a plus, in my book.

I can point towards other local anti-Harris resources, if anyone's interested. I've chosen not to put them up here thus far.

and a subset of Democrats. Democratic candidates will pile on.

There's a huge and extremely clear difference between people who discuss honestly what they do and don't like about a candidate and those rushing to spread calumny for undisclosed reasons, probably often "undisclosed" even to themselves since they often seem to believe they are highly principled.

Being associated with followers who engage in trumpster-style dishonesty and dirty tricks, "going low" as Michelle says, is actually a huge red flag about a candidate. Honorable and principled candidates don't draw large proportions of ill behaved people. I've learned to watch to see who does.

There are enough "hit pieces" about Democrats available from right-wing media, conspiracy websites, and Russian disinformation sources. Why anyone would offer to share more here on DU is troubling indeed.

Thx.

The Mnuchin issue, civil asset forfeiture and not supporting increased rates of payment for inmates.

Nonstarter.

Things like healthcare and jobs. Boutique issues might be of interest to those who have the luxury of prioritizing those things, but not everyone does. That’s why these issues probably won’t matter.

Bobby Kennedy.

When Harris was a prosecutor, she did the job of prosecuting.

What matters now is how she's worked as a Senator. And she HAS been a VERY progressive Senator.

buck your conscience and better judgement for the sake of the opinion of your piers, the approval of your bosses, and your conviction rate? or does it mean that your past words and actions infact did reflect your judgement? Which one is the more acceptable answer?

What is a progressive prosecutor? They inherently have to argue the case against the Defendant. And defend the state/law enforcement actions. Not interested.

I'd rather hear positives about the desired candidate, not sniping at the others.

this in the current climate.

There are so many candidates anyway, we can find someone without thee negatives.

unelectable candidate.

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2019, 10:59 AM - Edit history (1)

enough to recognize opinion pieces, and that that this is an opinion piece is always the first thing to note, along with where the author's coming from. Partisan authors routinely use opinion sections for pieces they could not get published inside, where writing is required to meet journalistic standards.

I haven't examined the claims made for accuracy or slant, but we should all recognize that a DA's office is not exactly the best place to showcase one's liberalism and beliefs in progressive government, even though it's exactly the sort of place we want more liberals to work. In any case, examining Kamala Harris's beliefs in how government should work reveals she's a good liberal and undeniably strong progressive as a senator.

For the 2017 session, Govtrackus.com rated Kamala Harris the 7th MOST liberal/progressive member of the senate. Another group placed her 3rd strongest liberal. Progressive Punch rated Harris most progressive, perhaps surprising, but of course she benefits from both not having a long history in the senate and being from a very progressive state. These are of course best seen as general indicators.

BUT, check these strong ratings against the notion this opinion piece is pushing. It's suspect from the beginning in using a couple anecdotes for her days as a DA to claim she's not progressive against all other evidence. Notably, comparing expectations of progressivism between California and Alabama legislators and between DAs and directors of homeless shelters would lead simple-minded analyses to very wrong conclusions but would useful for mainlining one idea.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2017/senate/ideology
https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

any article due to its pretense or even its author's intention, misses all of the implicit assumptions and biases in not just the language used, but in the facts being delivered in the first place. This article is using facts to make a case that is opinion. Cases can be made in an article without ever strictly sharing the author's opinion. I don't think that's better.

with emphasis put on different facts and even including other ones. She's an intelligent writer, JCanete, but she has an unquestionable bias that in this case stretched to blatant dishonesty. That's proven by her disproven contention that Kamala Harris wasn't "progressive," whatever she means by that. I'm really not sure because it doesn't seem an very appropriate word in this context. Harris had nothing to do with the creation of this government policy but had to perform within the requirements of that law. I suspect this author used that word, Frank Luntz-style, in place of more appropriate "liberal" perhaps, to push some people's buttons.

That, btw, is why I included expert evaluations of Harris's record and positions for BOTH progressivism and liberalism. You'd be hard put to find a liberal in today's America who doesn't also believe in the need for progressive government, but they're not the same thing.

nor which laws to show up to the hearings for and how to advocate for or against them.

The DA should not as default, defend its office's best interests over justice. I'm not sure there's anything within the realm of that office's responsibilities that would place any legal onus upon its deputies to hold a position, in court, that is legally specious.

As to what is progressive and what is perhaps the opposite of progressive: _regressive_....those actions that defend or attempt to maintain improper incarceration are regressive. Holding onto punitive principles is, scientifically, based on all the research, backwards, if the goal is actual progressive change. Thus, it holds us back, thus it is regressive.

But generally speaking, progressive and liberal are often used interchangably. How would you distinguish them, so that I can understand where you're coming from here? What is a liberal vs a progressive?

Now, as to what's doable and how to survive as DA given the culture of law enforcement in this nation...well that's an entirely different question. I'm certainly inclined to take that into account regarding Harris's record, along with some very great progressive positions that she's taken like Medicare for All, and her LIFT initiative.

someone said something indefensible and then refuting that? I always forget.

With that start, btw, you should understand that I didn't bother to read on.

has plenty of wiggle room regarding what it is and is not obligated, by the office that person holds, to do.

She is no longer a prosecutor.

I'm with Kamala Harris in this one.

You can dig up all the crap you want on Kamala, California Blue Democrats support her all the way.

One of the few advantages of our inordinately long presidential campaign is that few, if any, stones are left un-turned, and everyone's record is scrutinized under a spotlight. We are still very early in the process.

Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.

2nd sentence, 2nd paragraph

I've posted on true crime sites for 20 years. Easily my number one infuriating aspect is creative prosecutors and how much they are allowed to get away with, since the system protects them. I have ranted against this time and again, and for at least a decade before I ever heard of Kamala Harris.

Leah Askey is one prominent example of a creative prosecutor. She made up a preposterous story against a man named Russ Faria. That story wouldn't reach .000001% likelihood on the probability scale. But because jurists are so gullible and the prosecuting attorney holds such benefit of a doubt, she got a conviction. Then despite overwhelming evidence of shady unethical tactics by Askey and her department, the system protected Askey. The woman who was the obvious murderer had been used by Askey to get the conviction. That woman later ended up killing an innocent man to deflect scrutiny from herself.

Sorry for the detour but this is an ultimate pet peeve of mine. I had told myself to stay away from the Kamala Harris threads because I've already made my opinion known, for the most part. I could go along with her nomination but mostly I hope someone else emerges above her. I know enough swing voters and how they think. Nominating a female prosecutor from California is similar to the attempts we have made nominating out of Massachusetts. It can succeed but you need a massive situational tilt to push it across. I would prefer to nominate someone who can survive in less than ideal conditions.

In watching the true crime programs on Investigation Discovery and other networks, one frequent scenario is an obvious wrongful conviction and how the higher ups handle it. It varies dramatically. Some classy attorneys general apply common sense and quickly reverse the verdict and free the individual while taking every step to clear the legal record. Other attorneys general stubbornly stand behind the original verdict and don't succumb unless the case becomes high profile and media/public pressure is too great.

I'll have to look into this more closely but if Kamala Harris is indeed the second type then I cannot support her for the nomination.

If Hillary Clinton can be accused of deliberately handing over uranium to Russia, imagine how an attorney general record can be twisted. Looking into a candidate's background means a heck of a lot more than just checking old yearbooks.

I don't care. We democrats should not be concerned about smear jobs.

Kamala Harris will make a GREAT president and her detractors should just pound sand.

I will not waver in my support because right wing media, ultra left Machiavellis, Russian trolls et al want to clear the path for an unelectable candidate.