By Labor Day, the contradictions between the historic Harris and the candidate will become impossible to reconcile.
Vice President Harris wants you to think her experience as San Francisco’s district attorney and California’s attorney general proves she is tough on crime. The historic record, though, proves that Ms. Harris was routinely pro-criminal and anti-law enforcement.
In a controversial decision just four months after she took office, Ms. Harris refused to ask for the death penalty for a violent criminal who had fired 14 shots into an undercover police officer, Larry Espinoza.
“I want to be very clear,” Ms. Harris had previously said, “in the city and county of San Francisco, anyone who murders a police officer engaged in his or her duties will be met with the most severe consequences.”
When the brutal murderer was charged, though, she refused to ask for the “most severe consequences.” The law enforcement community was enraged, and their relationship never recovered.
This is mainly because Ms. Harris was far more concerned with politics than with law enforcement. As journalist Charlie Spiering points out in his new book, “Amateur Hour,” Mrs. Harris gamed the system to look good at the expense of public safety.
When Mrs. Harris became district attorney, she inherited 73 homicide cases from her predecessor. She wanted to minimize losing trials, so she simply picked 15 cases which were easiest to convict. Many of the rest got sweetheart deals. The defendants won, and Ms. Harris got to keep a good conviction rate.
Her pro-illegal immigrant commitment came out in 2008, when she promoted an advertising campaign for San Francisco’s sanctuary city status. That policy told illegal immigrants they would not be treated as criminals for their immigration status.
Ms. Harris’s support for demonstrators who broke the law was striking after the Minneapolis riots in 2020. She tweeted the link to the Minnesota Freedom fund urging people to “help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.” Fox 9 KMSP reported that the fund bailed out Darnika Floyd, who was charged with stabbing a friend to death, and Christopher Boswell, who was charged with sexual assault and kidnapping.
As part of the ongoing effort to deny her own past, in 2022, Ms. Harris pretended the tweet didn’t exist and called the assertion that she had supported the Minnesota Freedom Fund “misinformation.”
Harris has clearly been anti-police. She said suggesting that more police officers would create more safety was “outdated and is actually wrong and backward to think that more police officers will create more safety.” As further evidence, Ms. Harris favored the Los Angeles mayor cutting $150 million from the police budget.
The new Harris campaign effort to use her years as a prosecutor to validate her law enforcement credentials might have worked two decades ago — but not anymore.
After the long experience in city after city of George Soros-funded left-wing district attorneys who refuse to prosecute criminals, the public is going to be a lot more skeptical about a San Francisco radical claiming to be tough on crime.
The fact is: Ms. Harris has a three-and-a-half-year record of doing nothing as millions of illegal immigrants — including tens of thousands of criminals — have been pouring into America.
Ms. Harris has also done nothing to stop the murderous surge of fentanyl and other drugs, which now kill more Americans annually than were killed in the eight years of the Vietnam War.
Her big city allies include the Soros-funded district attorneys who have been releasing criminals without bail and refusing to try theft and other crimes.
The delegates who are going to name Ms. Harris the Democratic presidential nominee are going to be overwhelmingly anti-police and soft on criminals. They are also going to be for open borders and massive illegal immigration.
This is only the first of a series of topics on which the Harris campaign will attempt to erase the past and pivot to a new poll-driven centrism just to get through the campaign.
This election in many ways will be the real Ms. Harris vs. the candidate Ms. Harris. The real Ms. Harris will continually prove that the candidate is simply fake.
By Labor Day, the contradictions between the historic Ms. Harris and the candidate will become impossible to reconcile. The Democratic nominee’s rejection of her own past will become a major hit on her authenticity. By September, a major theme may well be: “Which Ms. Harris?”
https://www.nysun.com/article/will-the-real-kamala-harris-a-soft-on-crime-prosecutor-please-stand-up
