Kamala Harris has been the talk of the political town since the first round of Democratic debates on June 26 and 27. She started with relatively low polling numbers, but now she stands in fourth place at 14.3 percent. Harris trails behind Joe Biden (27.3 percent), Elizabeth Warren (16.3 percent), and Bernie Sanders (14.8 percent).
While the speculation on the final Democratic nominee is indecisive, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight believes Harris will soon be a close contender with Biden. The most recent poll has Harris trailing Sanders by only 0.5 percent.
Despite what some may call success during the first round of Democratic debates, she has now succumbed to the inevitable backlash of growing popularity. While few in the Democratic field have called Harris out for her cynical political career and questionable law career, Harris has spent her time digging into Biden’s voting records from the 1980s.
Yet we’re seeing little information dredged up about Harris’ previous decisions. Why? Because most reporters share her political beliefs. Three instances are critical to examine when trying to decide if Harris is as “tough, principled, and fearless” as she claims to be. The first is the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, the second her office’s prosecution of pro-life activist David Daleiden, and the third over-incarceration in California when she was attorney general.
The Brett Kavanaugh Hearings
In Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino’s new book, “Justice on Trial,” the authors mention Harris’s cynical role in the Kavanaugh hearings. During the first round of hearings, Harris had a grand moment by asking Kavanaugh if he had talked to anyone about the Robert Mueller probe. Kavanaugh responded, yes, he had spoken to fellow judges on the subject.
She proceeded to ask if Kavanaugh had ever talked about Mueller. He responded, yes, they had worked in the same administration. She finally asked Kavanaugh if he had ever discussed the Mueller investigation with anyone at the Kasowitz Benson Torres law firm. He responded, “I don’t know everyone who works there, so I would like to see a list of all the people who work there and then I can give you a yes or no answer.”
Watch the video. It’s so blatantly obvious that Harris’s question was aimed at locking him into a perjury trap. All Kavanaugh wanted to do was give an honest answer, and Harris continuously asked a question he could not.
After Harris grilled Kavanaugh, the media went wild. Harris has got him now, they thought. But it turned out her line of questioning accomplished nothing besides an attempt to make Kavanaugh look bad for vague reasons.
“There have been no discussions regarding Robert Mueller’s investigation between Judge Kavanaugh and anyone at our firm,” a spokesperson for Marc Kasowitz said.
During these hearings, Harris was not interested in performing her current duty of properly confirming a Supreme Court justice. Instead, Harris was creating sound bites for her upcoming presidential bid.
The David Daleiden Prosecution
Daleiden is a pro-life activist who helped found the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). In 2015, CMP published a video that exposed Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sales of fetal tissue and organs.
When Harris was the attorney general of California, her office prosecuted Daleiden and Sandra Merrit, another pro-life activist. The attorney general charged the pair with 15 felony charges. Then before their case was heard in 2017, Harris had moved to the U.S. Senate.
Although Harris was no longer the attorney general of California when the Daleiden and Merrit case was heard, of the 15 felony charges she filed, 14 were dismissed by the Superior Court Judge Christopher Hite.
Harris’s office also launched a raid on Daleiden’s apartment, in which agents seized his laptop, hard drives, and phone while he was speaking to his attorneys. As if prosecuting two individuals with opposing political beliefs isn’t a poor enough decision to make as attorney general of California, Harris soon helped to create legislation to prevent Planned Parenthood from criminal prosecution.
While she ultimately acted as a tool for Planned Parenthood, she seemed to have no problem impeding Californians; freedom of speech so long as it protected Planned Parenthood. While it is not uncommon for an attorney general to play a role in crafting legislation, Harris was actively engaging with Planned Parenthood to pass AB 1671.
AB 1671 was aimed at amending the penal code to make secretly recording and disseminating communications with health-care providers a crime. She pushed a law to make what Daleiden and Merritt did as investigative journalists illegal. Numerous email conversations uncovered that Harris’s actions as a prosecutor were blinded by her evident political biases.
Overincarceration As Attorney General
In 2014, the Supreme Court ordered California to launch a new parole program. According to the court, California’s prison conditions were so bad they were considered unconstitutional as “cruel and unusual punishment.”
However, Harris fought to keep these prisoners in place. Her office said prisoners couldn’t be released as it would deplete the pool for prison labor. Harris denies knowing that this was the position her office was taking, but not being able to control the department she manages also speaks to her character and leadership skills.
In 2014, Harris was against releasing American citizens back into society on a parole plan. Now, in 2019, Harris wants to release non-American citizens who illegally crossed the U.S. border. When California’s prison conditions were so terrible they were considered unconstitutional, Harris didn’t budge on leaving Americans incarcerated. But on releasing illegal immigrants into the interior of the United States despite their lack of legal legitimacy in being there, Harris advocates for those policies.
Harris is not a principled politician. She does not take a position and attempt to apply that outlook fairly to every decision she makes. Instead, Harris makes the decision that will bolster her political image and gain support in the far-left Democratic base.
What is disturbing about all three of these cases is the relentless extent to which Harris will go to get her way. She used her power to destroy individuals for the sole purpose of political power and messaging, not to mention that her record as attorney general has been anything but clean.
In all three scenarios, Harris showed her allegiance to political ideology is more important than her allegiance to upholding justice or principles. If Harris were ever elected president, her record indicates she would put partisan ideology above upholding the Constitution.
P.S. If you dislike Kamala Harris as much as I do, make sure to get our LIMITED EDITION: “Kamala Is A Cop” T-shirt! You can purchase yours here.