Tag: kamala harris

Kamala Harris to Headline Fundraiser Hosted by Hollywood Producer Who Derided Women as ‘Twats’ — and Called Harris ‘Tiresome’

Kamala Harris is headlining a Thursday afternoon fundraiser cohosted by a Hollywood producer who has disparaged Republican women as “twats” and argued that Harris herself was “tiresome” and needed to “grow a pair.”

Doug Prochilo, who gave at least $100,000 to cohost the Biden campaign’s virtual fundraiser, routinely calls female Republicans “twats.” He described former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders as an “amoral, demented twat,” current press secretary Kayleigh McEnany as “an insane twat,” and Rep. Liz Cheney (R., Wy.) as a “lying, ignorant twat.” In 2018, he referred to Maine Sen. Susan Collins and two of her Republican colleagues as “uptight old twats.”

Keep reading

SAN FRANCISCO IS PAYING FOR JAMAL TRULOVE’S WRONGFUL CONVICTION. WILL KAMALA HARRIS?

After a jury convicted Jamal Trulove, then 25, of first degree murder in February 2010, then-San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris praised the “brave witness who stepped forward from the crowd.” Harris was then running for attorney general of California and in her campaign bragged about her high conviction rates as the San Francisco DA. Harris echoed what her deputy prosecutor Linda Allen said repeatedly to the jury: Priscilla Lualemaga, the only eyewitness to testify at trial about the July 2007 homicide of Seu Kuka, did so at great risk of retaliation. “She’ll never get her life back,” Allen said, adding that Lualemaga testified knowing that “maybe [she’ll] get killed over being a witness because she saw someone else kill someone.” 

Lualemaga’s identification of Trulove as the shooter who killed Kuka on a sidewalk in San Francisco’s Sunnydale housing project was the critical evidence against him. For prosecutors to win, the jury had to believe Lualemaga’s claim that just before 11 p.m. on July 23, 2007 she saw the shooting from a second-floor window when the street below was shrouded in darkness. 

The jury also had to believe Lualemaga saw the shooter despite a poor vantage point of the crime scene; her failure to pick Trulove from a photo wall she had viewed with police for hours; her evolving memory of the shooting over time; and the benefits the prosecution provided to Lualemaga and her family that would eventually total over $60,000 in living expenses. Yet the prosecution argued that Lualemaga’s testimony was credible because it came at profound personal risk. 

But there was no evidence corroborating the prosecutor’s suggestion that, as a court of appeal later described it, there were “assassins lurking on defendant’s behalf.” 

There was also no physical or forensic evidence that inculpated Trulove, and no other witnesses said he was the shooter. Trulove insisted from the beginning that he was innocent.

The case’s glaring flaws didn’t matter: in October 2010, Trulove, then a young father, aspiring actor, and hip-hop performer who had appeared on the VH1 reality television show “I Love New York 2,” was sentenced to 50 years to life.

Four years later, in 2014, a California Court of Appeal overturned his conviction based on the prosecutor’s repeated attempts to exaggerate Lualemaga’s credibility. The state’s claim that Lualemaga risked retaliation for testifying in the Trulove case was, the court said, a “yarn … made out of whole cloth.” The prosecution “did not present a scintilla of evidence at trial that defendant’s friends and family would try to kill Lualemaga if she testified against him,” the court said, and that misconduct, combined with Trulove’s trial counsel’s failure to object, gave him the right to a new trial. 

In 2015, the same prosecutor at the San Francisco DA’s office retried Trulove, but he was acquitted and walked free for the first time since his 2008 arrest. In April 2018, a federal civil jury awarded Trulove $10 million, finding that San Francisco police officers fabricated evidence against him and withheld exculpatory evidence. In March, the city’s Board of Supervisors approved a $13.1 million payment to settle the suit.

Keep reading

“Feet to the Fire” and Other Lies

When the Democratic Party ends its charade of a primary process and spits out the person most closely aligned with neo-liberal policies, the gas lighting begins.

“The farce always intensifies with a black person on the ticket.”

Democrats love to pretend. They pretend their party advocates on their behalf, even though the leadership makes clear they’ll do no such thing. They have no intention of doing what their voters want; the people subconsciously know and engage in wishful thinking, and every four years we witness a pathetic collusion.

“We will hold their feet to the fire,” is one of the saddest or perhaps funniest of all quadrennial proclamations. When the Democratic Party ends its charade of a primary process and spits out the person most closely aligned with neo-liberal policies, the gas lighting begins. The victims go along with their abusers and announce they will accept what they said they didn’t want. They continue the kabuki theater with self-delusion and an odd promise to hold the intentionally corrupt candidates accountable.

Joe Biden profits from this bizarre dynamic just as much as his predecessor presidential candidates. He is the lowest light of all, a mediocre careerist with a penchant for inappropriate and racist remarks, a record as democratic segregationist in chief, and proud mass incarcerator. His home state of Delaware is well known as the capital of capital and excels at doing the business of the banksters. Biden was always one of the most conservative senate democrats and that is why he was chosen as Barack Obama’s running mate.

Keep reading

Twitter ‘accidentally’ suspends satirical site Babylon Bee after it mocked Kamala Harris and USPS conspiracies

Twitter suspended the account of parody news site The Babylon Bee after it mocked Democrat VP candidate Kamala Harris and ‘mail vote suppression’ conspiracies. It was shortly restored amid protests about censorship.

The Bee went dark around 6 pm on Monday. Archives showed that their last tweet was a story about President Donald Trump “riding around in an SUV” smashing mailboxes “to make it impossible for people to mail in their ballots.” 

The tweet before that one was about Harris proposing a “housing plan” where “everybody gets free 10’x10’ room and three meals a day” – a clear reference to prison, as Harris had been a prosecutor before getting elected to the Senate.

One conservative commentator pointed out that Twitter spokesman Nick Pacilio was previously the press secretary for Harris’s abortive presidential campaign.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris’ Limited Vision of Religious Liberty

When presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris was running for president, she appeared at CNN’s Equality Town Hall, an October event focused on the LGBTQ community. How, one questioner asked, will Harris communicate her “liberal, Californian perspective when reaching out to voters in small, conservative areas?”

Harris said she’d tell the story of a day in 2004 where she arrived at San Francisco’s City Hall to find families of same-sex couples lined up around the block to witness their loved ones’ weddings. “It was a day where people who loved each other had the ability for their love to be recognized by law,” said Harris, who herself officiated gay weddings years before they were legalized statewide in California. “And if anyone has known love, and honors the importance of love and the commitment one person is willing to make to another person in the name of love,” she continued, “they should always recognize and encourage that nobody would be treated differently under the law.”

It’s an evocative story about why gay marriage should be allowed, but it doesn’t address the chief concern you’ll hear from religious conservatives these days: Whether they’ll be compelled to participate in and pay for things, particularly in the workplace, which their creeds and consciences forbid. Unfortunately, this wasn’t a momentary lapse: Harris shows little interest in reaching common ground with voters worried about religious liberty. She even seems unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that their fears could be based in something more substantive than a failure to have “known love.”

Keep reading