If her record is any indication, the pursuit of power and the need for victory compel Kamala Harris far more than principle and the good of the American people. Though Machiavellianism is rampant throughout much of politics, Harris seems to embody the trait. Here are five examples that demonstrate Harris’ divisive political record and the moral ambiguity that seems to define her.
1. She “turned a blind eye” to alleged victims of child abuse by clergy
Harris has often tried to position herself as some tireless advocate for victims of sexual abuse. In a statement to The Associated Press, she claimed to be “a staunch advocate on behalf of sexual assault victims, especially child sexual assault victims” who has “used her position as District Attorney to create the first unit focused on child sexual assault cases in the office’s history.”
Her reputation right out of law school and onward was defined by her role in combating sexual abuse:
“Fighting on behalf of victims of sexual abuse, particularly children, has been central to Harris’s political identity for the better part of three decades,” according to The Intercept. “Harris specialized in prosecuting sex crimes and child exploitation as a young prosecutor just out of law school. She later touted her record on child sexual abuse cases and prosecuting pedophiles in television advertisements, splashy profiles, and on the trail as she campaigned for public office.”
Unfortunately, her record on clergy abuse as the district attorney of San Francisco offers an entirely different story. Her political aspirations compelled her into silence even in the face of so much evidence of sexual abuse, The Interceptreported:
“But when it came to taking on the Catholic Church, survivors of clergy sexual abuse say that Harris turned a blind eye, refusing to take action against clergy members accused of sexually abusing children when it meant confronting one of the city’s most powerful political institutions. In her seven years as district attorney, Harris’s office did not proactively assist in civil cases against clergy sex abuse and ignored requests by activists and survivors to access the cache of investigative files that could have helped them secure justice, according to several victims of clergy sex abuse living in California who spoke to The Intercept.”
According to those accounts, Harris turned her back on the very people she built her political identity upon and swore to protect as district attorney. Her response to alleged clergy sexual abuse remain a sizable pockmark on her record.
2. Her role in the wrongful conviction of Jamal Trulove
Harris also refused to risk her record as district attorney of San Francisco in the wrongful conviction of Jamal Trulove. Trulove was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Seu Kuka in 2010, according to NPR:
“Police arrested Trulove for the 2007 murder of his friend Seu Kuka, who was shot in a public housing project in San Francisco. Trulove was convicted in 2010 and sentenced to 50 years to life in prison.”
The Appeal didn’t mince words when it implicated Harris for “prosecutorial misconduct” and “odious tactics” in Trulove’s conviction:
But Trulove’s unlawful prosecution stands out for its immediate political implications at both the local and national level…And now Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign ‘leans into’ her record as a prosecutor despite the criticism that she allowed police and prosecutorial misconduct to flourish when she later served as California attorney general.
But witness testimony, trial exhibits, judicial opinions, and the allegations in Trulove’s complaint show that witness manipulation did not stop with the police. These documents show that both police and prosecutors, including those at the highest levels of the DA’s office, deployed odious tactics…
…Harris cannot escape her past as San Francisco DA and California attorney general, which includes wrongful convictions like Trulove’s and inaction in other cases of law enforcement misconduct, including an informant scandal that consumed the Orange County DA’s office and its sheriff’s department.
Vice described a brief, chilling encounter between Trulove and Harris during his initial sentencing. Trulove recalls Harris giving him a celebratory “smirk” that calls to mind the character, Javert, from “Les Míserables” after he was wrongfully convicted and given 50 years to life:
“According to Trulove, Harris was present at the hearings announcing both the verdict and the sentencing in his case. She even briefly locked eyes with him at one of the proceedings, offering what seemed like a ‘smirk,’ he said. ‘She wanted to be present for a celebration of a conviction,’ Trulove said. ‘That’s what it felt like—a celebration.’”
Trulove was finally acquitted in 2015 after an arduous legal battle that pitted him against the inaction and malfeasance of Harris.
3. Her massive flip-flop on marijuana
Though once diametrically opposed to state and federal legalization of marijuana, Harris is now advocating for it, according to The Boston Globe:
“Though she coauthored an official voter guide argument opposing a California cannabis legalization measure as a prosecutor in 2010 and laughed in the face of a reporter who asked her about the issue in 2014, she went on to sponsor legislation to federally deschedule marijuana in 2019.”
As attorney general of California, Harris was adamantly against any kind of drug reform including for marijuana.
“As the state attorney general,” Rolling Stone reported, “Harris adopted what could probably be summarized as a pretty standard law enforcement stance on drugs: That they’re illegal, and the government is entitled to prosecute anyone charged with drug-related crimes, including low-level offenders. In 2010, she opposed Proposition 19, a state initiative to legalize and tax marijuana for adults over 21, calling it a ‘flawed public policy.’”
In fact, in an archived statement from 2011 she fully supported federal crackdowns on marijuana:
“We should all be troubled, however, by the proliferation of gangs and criminal enterprises that seek to exploit this law by illegally cultivating and trafficking marijuana…I urge the federal authorities in the state to adhere to the United States Department of Justice’s stated policy and focus their enforcement efforts on ‘significant traffickers of illegal drugs.’”
By 2017, her position on marijuana had done a complete reversal now that it was no longer politically expedient to hold to her previous views. The Charlotte Observer reported:
“Sen. Kamala Harris of California used the year’s first big 2020 presidential spotlight Tuesday to rail against Trump administration drug policies and call for easing laws governing marijuana. Her duplicity is all the more audacious when she attempted to scold Jeff Sessions over marijuana laws in 2017: ‘Let me tell you what California needs, Jeff Sessions. We need support in dealing with transnational criminal organizations and dealing with human trafficking – not in going after grandma’s medicinal marijuana,’ she said, referring to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.”
Rolling Stone added:
“In 2018, Harris came out in earnest as a proponent for federal legalization, adding her name to Sen. Cory Booker’s Marijuana Justice Act; that same year, she also partnered with Sen. Orrin Hatch to lobby Sessions to fix roadblocks that are currently in the way of marijuana research. In her book The Truths We Tell, which was released earlier this year, she advocated for federal legalization and expungement…”
What’s most astonishing about her sudden championing of marijuana legalization is that “at least 1,560 people were sent to state prisons for marijuana-related offenses between 2011 and 2016” in California while Harris was the state attorney general, as detailed by The Washington Free Beacon.
4. Her false promotion of Prop 47 — and its fallout
Much of the current bedlam and degeneracy, including the addiction epidemic and rampant homelessness affecting cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, is connected to Proposition 47.
As California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris wrote the misleading ballot summary and title for Prop 47, referring to it as, “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.” The Orange County Register provides come context:
“While many of us in California are well aware that the soft-on-crime policies that Harris helped pass while serving as the district attorney of San Francisco and California attorney general directly contributed to the complete breakdown of one of America’s most beautiful cities, people outside of California are just finding out. As California’s attorney general, Harris was responsible for coming up with the official title and summary, or the 100-word summary that helps inform voters about the impact of ballot measures that they will be voting on. Time and time again Harris was accused of misleading or tricking voters into approving soft-on-crime policies that they have historically been leery of backing. In 2014, California voters approved Prop. 47, which reduced drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. But the ballot summary crafted by Harris said not a word to voters that the initiative would also mean a drastic reduction in the number of DNA samples being collected for analysis.”
The measure continues to have a deleterious effect on California, contributing to an ever-increasing amount of moral and structural decay.
“California’s Proposition 47 downgraded a variety of ‘non-serious, nonviolent crimes’ that had previously been considered felonies to misdemeanors,” The National Review reported. “These include shoplifting, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and writing bad checks. As long as the total value of the stolen property is under $950, only a ghost of an offense has occurred. A thief may now steal something under that limit on a daily basis and it will never rise to felony status.
In the event that a perpetrator is pursued and apprehended, the consequence can be a small fine or a brief stay in jail. In reality, these repercussions are rare. In addition, DNA samples aren’t collected from misdemeanor offenders. Thus the DNA database has shrunk, making it more difficult for law-enforcement agencies to solve cold cases, including those involving rape and murder.”
5. Her monumental pivot on Biden
While Harris did not explicitly call Joe Biden a “racist” in the 2020 Democratic presidential debates, she strongly inferred that he supported racist policies based on his record and comments.
“The most dramatic moment of the evening,” Time reported, “was arguably when Harris confronted Biden about his opposition to a busing plan to integrate segregated schools, noting that the issue impacted her personally as a child.”
Harris spoke directly to Biden when she said, “But, I also believe — and it’s personal. And I was actually very — it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing. And you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bussed to school every day and that little girl was me. So, I will tell you that on this subject, it cannot be an intellectual debate among democrats.”
Harris also fully supported the many women who have accused Biden of inappropriate physical contact.
“Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that she believes women who say they felt uncomfortable after receiving unwanted touching from former Vice President Joe Biden,” The Hill reported.
“I believe them and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it,” Harris declared during a rally in Nevada.
Now that Harris is Biden’s vice-presidential running mate, those pointed criticisms toward him have all but fallen by the wayside.
The National Review puts it quite succinctly when summarizing Harris’ aspirations amid so much pivoting and political maneuvering:
“[H]er willingness to join Biden’s ticket after insinuating that he was a segregationist guilty of inappropriately touching women reveals that she cares far less about principle than about gaining power.”
Far from being some emboldened maverick many on the Left believe her to be, Kamala Harris seems to be yet another entrenched politician driven by personal gain, moral ambiguities, and an overarching desire to one day be president.
More members-only content: SHAPIRO: Democrats Push Charges of Racism for Purposes of Convenience