Sen. Kamala Harris announces she is running for POTUS! (suspect, children, war)

[Ringo1]

Originally Posted by kmarc

None of this really matters. It's just a side show. Ultimately, Harris won't be a candidate. Take note that Willie Brown gave quite the interview almost immediately on the heels of her announcement. He was very candid about his relationship with her. He was sending a message, and since she's a bright woman, I'm sure she got it.

She'll be allowed to do a few pirouettes on the stage to the tune of "I Feel Pretty", take a bow and exit, Stage Left.

Her relatoinship with Brown was no secret. They openly dated in the 90's after he had been separated from his wife since 1982.

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Let's start with the fact that she is an extreme, radical Leftist nut case.

LOL!

I just saw another poster describe her as right wing.

And YOU are still a birther so that tells us all we need to know about you.

[swilliamsny]

In the thread about Harris that was closed down, someone (not the OP) accused me of lying about her fighting to uphold wrongful convictions, and said I made it up. I've been known to make mistakes, and am more than happy to admit when I do, but don't EVER accuse me of lying.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/o...l-justice.html


"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.
Consider her record as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of “intentionally sabotaging” her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights."


From Politifact: "Harris’ AG’s office sought to block a defendant from leaving prison after two federal judges threw out his conviction of carrying a concealed knife."


From Vox, here's her excuse: "“The bottom line is the buck stops with me and I take full responsibility for what my office did,” she said. “There are cases ... where there were folks that made a decision in my office and they had not consulted me and I wish they had.”"

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by swilliamsny

In the thread about Harris that was closed down, someone (not the OP) accused me of lying about her fighting to uphold wrongful convictions, and said I made it up. I've been known to make mistakes, and am more than happy to admit when I do, but don't EVER accuse me of lying.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/o...l-justice.html


"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.
Consider her record as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of “intentionally sabotaging” her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights."


From Politifact: "Harris’ AG’s office sought to block a defendant from leaving prison after two federal judges threw out his conviction of carrying a concealed knife."


From Vox, here's her excuse: "“The bottom line is the buck stops with me and I take full responsibility for what my office did,” she said. “There are cases ... where there were folks that made a decision in my office and they had not consulted me and I wish they had.”"

You actually are lying. Here is what the SFGate actually says

"The problem with Debbie Madden does not appear to be isolated," Woo said. "I have had previous discussions with (then-crime lab director) Jim Mudge about Debbie. Anecdotally, I was told that Debbie is unhappy with the lab and strategically picks days and times to be sick which have the greatest impact on lab work.

So her intentional sabotage was not on lab tests, meaning there were no wrongful convictions. it was her calling out of work strategically because the lab was understaffed and she refused to do all the work alone on the least staffed days.

this link from the same site, is more detailed.


https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article...ty-3267300.php

so by trying to make it sound like Kamala Harris was falsely convicting people based on faked evidence, you lied.

[swilliamsny]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You actually are lying. Here is what the SFGate actually says



So her intentional sabotage was not on lab tests, meaning there were no wrongful convictions. it was her calling out of work strategically because the lab was understaffed and she refused to do all the work alone on the least staffed days.

this link from the same site, is more detailed.


https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article...ty-3267300.php

so by trying to make it sound like Kamala Harris was falsely convicting people based on faked evidence, you lied.

I quoted articles published by the media - left-leaning media at that. So... do you mean they lied? I didn't make up a single sentence. I purposely stayed away from Fox and others. In addition, why is Harris apologizing if this isn't an issue? And nowhere in any of what I posted did it say she was falsely convicting people. Lastly, regardless of why the technician wasn't doing the work properly, it was the responsibility of the AG's office to provide all info to the defendants. That's why Bundys got off - you can't withhold information.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by swilliamsny

I quoted articles published by the media - left-leaning media at that. So... do you mean they lied? I didn't make up a single sentence. I purposely stayed away from Fox and others.

You can phrase it however you want, but you chose to copy it and put it here. You have to take responsibility for your action and so should who ever wrote the NYT article if it in fact phrases it the way you did.

Your second article(which is from the same source as my article ) is a summery.

In addition, why is Harris apologizing if this isn't an issue? And nowhere in any of what I posted did it say she was falsely convicting people. Lastly, regardless of why the technician wasn't doing the work properly, it was the responsibility of the AG's office to provide all info to the defendants. That's why Bundys got off - you can't withhold information.

Never argued it wasnt an issue. The argument is over what the issue was

the NYT article makes it sound like the tech faked results, when the reality is the tech chose to call off from work when the lab was understaffed.

we cant have real conversation if people are going to purposefully mislead others. It just makes people choose sides and become better liars.

You dont like Harris, cool, vote for someone else, but you should have real reasons for doing so, not made up or fabricated ones.

[swilliamsny]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You can phrase it however you want, but you chose to copy it and put it here. You have to take responsibility for your action and so should who ever wrote the NYT article if it in fact phrases it the way you did.

Your second article(which is from the same source as my article ) is a summery.



Never argued it wasnt an issue. The argument is over what the issue was

the NYT article makes it sound like the tech faked results, when the reality is the tech chose to call off from work when the lab was understaffed.

we cant have real conversation if people are going to purposefully mislead others. It just makes people choose sides and become better liars.

You dont like Harris, cool, vote for someone else, but you should have real reasons for doing so, not made up or fabricated ones.

It's not lying, nor is it even misleading if you can comprehend what you read. The prosecutors office has a duty to provide ALL information to the defendant and their lawyers. The AG/prosecutor doesn't get to pick and choose or otherwise determine what is important and relevant to the case. It was her duty to tell the defendants that the cases may (or may not) have been compromised by the tech's actions. She didn't.


To compound the mistake of not providing this information, her office then did exactly what you're doing. They argued that it wasn't important, so the defendant should remain in jail. That's not how our laws and processes work. You're being dishonest by trying to imply that 'wrongful conviction' is somehow the same as 'falsely convicted'. A wrongful conviction happens when the processes that we have in place aren't followed. The defendant may be guilty as hell, but you can't keep them in jail if the process was corrupted. Like I said, this is why the Bundys ended up being released. The prosecutor in that case didn't provide all necessary evidence for the defendant. It's the WRONG move, she knows it, and anyone who is being honest knows it. It is NOT a LIE, and you should stop name calling. Makes you look bad.

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

And yet, no court has ever agreed with you.

Wrong. I don't think it has been specifically challenged in court, but many Constitutional attorneys do agree with me, which is precisely why I believe what I do.

[TigerLily24]

Originally Posted by swilliamsny

It's not lying, nor is it even misleading if you can comprehend what you read. The prosecutors office has a duty to provide ALL information to the defendant and their lawyers. The AG/prosecutor doesn't get to pick and choose or otherwise determine what is important and relevant to the case. It was her duty to tell the defendants that the cases may (or may not) have been compromised by the tech's actions. She didn't.


To compound the mistake of not providing this information, her office then did exactly what you're doing. They argued that it wasn't important, so the defendant should remain in jail. That's not how our laws and processes work. You're being dishonest by trying to imply that 'wrongful conviction' is somehow the same as 'falsely convicted'. A wrongful conviction happens when the processes that we have in place aren't followed. The defendant may be guilty as hell, but you can't keep them in jail if the process was corrupted. Like I said, this is why the Bundys ended up being released. The prosecutor in that case didn't provide all necessary evidence for the defendant. It's the WRONG move, she knows it, and anyone who is being honest knows it. It is NOT a LIE, and you should stop name calling. Makes you look bad.

I think that this will be a huge issue for her on the campaign trail.

It’s certainly a weakness that others will be able to exploit.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by swilliamsny

It's not lying, nor is it even misleading if you can comprehend what you read.

Except, your 2 links dont include that information remember. I had to go to the original SF Gate article to fine out what "intentionally sabotage" meant .

So the articles you provided dont tell the whole story, and honestly, I doubt you knew it either. Because if you did know that, and still posted it, that makes it worse on your end.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Wrong. I don't think it has been specifically challenged in court, but many Constitutional attorneys do agree with me, which is precisely why I believe what I do.

It has been dismissed from multiple courts because far more people disagree with you.