Absolutely NOT Harris and a big NO to Gilibrand too.
Both are mercenary and do whatever it takes to get ahead. For Harris every job was a stepping stone to a bigger job, and she appears pretty ruthless in the process. No thanks. Gilibrand is the worst offender. She defended Big Tobacco and single handedly led the charge in taking down Al Franken, without due process, exploiting the me too wave to burnish her credentials as an “advocate for women”.
The nominee should be Sherrod Brown. Any democrat who wins Ohio is president, period, Brown happens to be a terrific progressive, sincere, scandal free, trustworthy, and eminently qualified. Look at his record, he is the real deal.
While I like and respect Warren immensely, she cannot win.
137
Klobuchar/Landrieu? Landrieu/Klobuchar? Either combination looks good to me. Gotta get Mitch to throw his hat in.
17
Some of the commentary about this OpEd piece alludes to the Progressive Left turning on its own, or anticipates a barrage of endless vetting of candidates for the 2020 election, or speculates about circumstances that might otherwise explain some of Kamela Harris' conduct as the former California AG. Yet, all of the above may well be irrelevant.
Lara Bazelon is a widely published law school professor. Her credentials are very impressive, and she is justifiably regarded as an expert on the issue of wrongful convictions.
The author provides considerable factual content to support
her negative view of some of Ms Harris' conduct as the AG.
Senator Harris now rightfully deserves an opportunity to respond with information that otherwise contradicts or challenges the OpEd's negative judgment. That is really all that matters here.
Let's hear what she has to say.
95
Her claim to fame is a very close connection to Willie Brown politics--a "gold ticket" in California's Bay Area--back in the day.
34
Thank you Ms. Bazelon for your OPINION on these various cases. It is so easy to critique judgements AFTER the case has been ruled. I support the Innocence Project and K. Harris is not perfect. But go back 20 years to remember no nothings proclaiming Mumia Abu-Jamal was just an " innocent bystander.." riiiiight...
21
You mean to say she’s a politician and isn’t being truthful? Shocked I say
26
Practically speaking, Sen. Harris, as a Black woman, may not be a good choice for president. Conservative voters would oppose her.
I think Democrats might pick a White women, or a Black man as their candidate, but not a Black woman. It's expecting too much.
I prefer Sen. Elizabeth Warren or Sen.Amy Klobuchar, righ now.
A woman president would be a game-changer, to revitalize us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
Thank you, KH has my vote.
10
Finally, something about Kamala Harris to like!
13
Thank you Lara Bazelon for giving us a fuller picture of Ms. Hariss's judicial career. We in the Bay Area have known bits and pieces of her career but not in its "wholesome" ugliness.
Anyone can paint themselves as a "progressive," but in this case you shredded that self label.
Kamala Harris is unfit to be a Presidential candidate as a Democrat. Maybe she should change political parties, she would fit right in. Except for the fact they don't much like women and minorities...but otherwise she would find like minded politicians. Ted Cruz springs to mind.
37
A refreshing and irreverent take on Harris in the NYT that frequently writes puff pieces on "progressives" like her (and not to mention Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). As a California resident, as far as I'm concerned, Harris is overrated and an empty suit. She has not accomplished much in her brief time in the Senate to merit consideration as President of the United States. I hope that the Times continues to report on her and other progressive Democrats as vigorously as it does as a matter of course on conservative Republicans.
67
Lol people on here hate when Dems get the GOP treatment. And yes, Ms. Harris does lack any charisma at all.
19
Thank you Lara Bazelon; just goes to show, not every feminist deserves to be our President.
As a black woman, I have no sympatico with Harris; greed, groveling and cruelty has no gender nor ethnic superiority.
65
Ms. Harris has a target on her back. I'm sure Karl Rove enjoyed this article. I hope Bernie Sanders did not.
Bazelon is an "Innocence activist" and Senator Harris was the Attorney General of a state with 40 million people. Harris' considerable accomplishments and pragmatic progressive credentials are bona fide.
She is indeed the "female Obama."
17
I elect Kamela because she is tough on crime. president trump has shown he doesn't care about an FBI investigation that found traitors, liars, foreign agents, bribery and other crimes against the United States. prosecutor for president and see glaringly obvious how "incompetent" our commander in chief is. incompetence is not to be confused with malfeasance
8
This actually sounds like a set-up - an article that can be referenced should Harris need to move to the center. There's no question that Harris is/was part of the left-wing, progressive clique that runs and is ruining San Francisco. Worth a read: https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Edwin-Ramos-won-t-face-death-penalty-3218429.php. Harris is a huge supporter of sanctuary cities.
15
Senator Kamala Harris stabbed Al Franken in the back to get his seat on the Judiciary Committee. Vote NO on Kamala Harris.
34
By the time the Democrats are done eating their own, Trump will be re-elected President!
21
I have firsthand experience with Ms. Harris’ less than progressive prosecutorial temperament.
When she was San Francisco’s head prosecutor, she blithely pushed for the death penalty in the case of a severely mentally ill woman who killed her three children.
Ask the lawyers in SF’s public defender’s office, for whom I did jury research, about Ms. Harris’ uncaring and irrational posture.
Ms. Harris’ motives were self-serving and purely political - she wanted to appear as “tough on crime.”
Her brutish display of ambition and lack of empathy forever destroyed my respect for her as a lawyer, as a public figure and as a person.
BTW - The judge in the case had more wisdom and better judgement than Ms. Harris - the defendant was declared incompetent to stand trial and confined in a mental care facility.
75
So she's basically just another dirty cop, like so many prosecutors who are on the make politically.
33
Ms Bazelon mistakes herself on the issue of child sexual abuse. The argument that the sexual abuse victim is a "compulsive liar" is a canard often used by abusers to defend themselves.
15
History doesn’t have a “side.”
3
Kamala started her campaign for DA of San Francisco with an ironing board and a poster outside grocery stores in San Francisco. She beat a beloved incumbent. She made mistakes and learned from them. I hope she responds to these allegations quickly so we can move on to the woman she has become, and stop these pearl clutching opinion hit pieces before they knock down another brilliant woman (ahem Hillary's emails)
18
Thank you.
5
Njglea (below) is probably right, but I lost my early enthusiasm for Harris when she asked a stunt question of Brett Kavanaugh, implying that she had damning information about him when she had nothing. All politicians are probably a little like that. But Harris’ ambition and willingness to cut corners seems greater than most. I hope I am wrong, but this article suggests i’m not.
28
Whatever one's views are on the death penalty, keep in mind that KH NEVER asked for it, in ANY case, period:
"This piece makes it seem like her refusal to seek the death penalty for the murder of a police officer was a good thing."
3
Oh brother. San Francisco has become increasingly dangerous, with some streets resembling third-world refugee camps. Last year, car break-ins were tops in the nation. Say what you will about Ms. Harris' record, but the city needs an even tougher district attorney. Of the "600 cases handled by the corrupt technician" that were dismissed, how many do we believe were actually innocent?
5
At least one commenter is willing to forgive and forget:
"The sad fact is that females have been forced to act like the most brutal males if they wanted to get ahead. It sounds like Ms. Harris did what her job, and the system, required to 'survive'."
Other commenters, of course, don't give KH this "she had to survive" excuse.
1
Trump trolls will have a field day with Kamala Harris because she's not who her enthusiasts want her to be: a seasoned and accomplished person of conscience, high character and unquestioned integrity.
She may become that person after she puts more miles on the odometer but right now she's more a pawn of those who are ambitious for her (and themselves) as part of her new political circle. Her timing is lucky. There's an emerging group of tech oligarchs itching to have a politician to call their own. They think they have all the answers because they've had such easy success making big money. They'd like to have a politician of their own but established ones already have their support in place and there's a line around the block of others trying to buy their way in.
Kamala Harris is a work in progress though her jump start from a Deputy District Attorney to the US Senate is unfortunately a result of her dalliance with the ultra-corrupt Willie Brown, former Democratic Speaker of the California Assembly and corporate fixer for hire, who took her on as a protege and maneuvered her rise to the US Senate.
As a South Asian and Black she appeals to the large community of Indian tech leaders and entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley, an identity she's cultivated while remaining a lower profile in the Black community.
A good measure of her soft politics is her mediocre track record as California Attorney General and letting Wells Fargo go rogue on her watch.
She's not ready.
36
I know this comment won't be popular, but I live in the Bay Area and was often disgusted with Kamala Harris while she was in office here. Many locals perceive her as being a careerist. And then there is Edwin Ramos: btw, he was not the only undocumented immigrant committing murders in San Francisco around that time. There were a number of them -- four? Five?
San Francisco, under Harris, had an insane policy of releasing undocumented individuals, even in the face of credible evidence that they'd committed felonies. Because...sanctuary city. Even ultra-liberal SF residents were protesting over that.
I respect Harris's stances on a variety of policy issues. But honestly, if she gets the nomination for president, the bloodbath would make the Clinton fiasco look like a warmup, because the right will have actual facts to hold against her. But yes, if she got nominated, I'd vote for her.
Please don't accuse me of being the "progressive left eating its own." It's better that this stuff comes out nationally now than in October 2020.
28
She's also a vocal proponent of civil forfeiture.
17
Does this read as someone with an axe to grind or what? The author cherry picks examples from a long career and holds them out as evidence of a malfeasant liar. While I'm sure Ms. Harris has done some things in her career she's not proud of, I'm also certain that this is true of any big city prosecutor living or dead. Criminal Justice is a harsh environment to work in, often requiring unpalatable choices to be made. Sounds like a perfect background for a president.
11
Thank you for giving this issue the light of day, Ms. Bazelon. I've seen and listened to and read about Kamala Harris and before this article had suspected strongly that she is callous and blinded by personal ambition and opportunism, with no firm personal ethic or values. We don't need yet another centrist wolf-in-sheep's-clothing waffling and beholden "Democrat" in the White House. Like the Clintons and Obama were, she would likely simply be an enabling part of the bipartisan Reagan Restoration continuum.
And Harris still hasn't given any exculpatory (of herself) explanation for giving Steve Mnuchin and OneWest a free pass for foreclosure fraud and vulturism.
Add in a snarky and on-the-make personality, and she's not ready for prime time. Perhaps any time.
Kamala Harris for President? No. Doesn't pass the smell test.
22
Combine this with her over the top spending of campaign contributions for luxury accommodations on herself (not her staff), we have here another deeply flawed Democratic candaidate. Great.
8
James Jacobs wonders out loud why people call this a "hit piece."
ANSWER: Because it is.
Better get used to "hit pieces," though, because you'll see a lot of them over the next year. We've already seen several aimed at Bernie Sanders, just in case he thinks about running again. We'll see others, though one candidate will remain unscathed by them, at least here in the NYT. I can't mention names, but her initials are EW and she is a Senator from a small (but populous) state in New England. You won't be seeing any hit pieces on her -- at least none that won't leave you feeling even more sympathetic for her than you were beforehand.
4
I am a former prosecutor in Ms. Harris’s office. I regard Ms. Harris as a progressive DA. Not “progressive” in the sense of a defense attorney or public defender who becomes DA, which is how I regard the writer’s slant on the incidents she wrote about. Ms. Harris was progressive because she elevated certain crime victims who were and are traditionally not prominent in DA offices, such as the elderly, domestic violence women, people defrauded by banks. She was progressive because she tried to address the roots of some criminal behavior, such as tolerated delinquency and creating alternatives to incarceration such as mental health courts. But more than the slanted view of the writer I find disturbing that so many readers accept what was written as gospel. Ms. Harris may or may not be a good Presidential candidate but readers show some intelligence and know when someone is selling you a slanted bill of goods.
33
On behalf of Harris, she made it a point to visit Homeboy Industries in LA, which is this amazing gang prevention npo which has an extremely low rate of their members returning to jail...it's twice what the normal rate is. She sought to learn much from why they're so successful.
https://www.homeboyindustries.org/
12
A "progressive prosecutor" would have jumped at the chance to prosecute Steven Mnuchin, when he was CEO of OneWest Bank, for thousands of illegal foreclosures against California homeowners. But, despite the recommendation of nearly every attorney in her office, Kamala Harris refused to do so without offering any explanation as to why.
As far as your claim that the left is "eating its own": If Harris used a technicality to keep a possibly innocent man in prison just to curry favor with conservatives come election time - well, she needs to be chewed up and spit out; a true progressive cares about justice no matter how expendable others may consider the aggrieved party.
One last thing, Mr. Edmund: It's easy to be cavalier concerning a possible injustice when you're not the one looking at 70 years.
24
I have never understood the opposition of prosecutors to reopen cases that might have been wrongly decided. The criminal justice system is not perfect, and we should not tolerate allowing people to remain imprisoned unjustly as the price of our unwillingness to examine our mistakes.
The case of Kevin Cooper is especially outrageous; why would anybody (Harris, former Governor Brown) have had any objection to new DNA testing? It could either confirm his guilt, or free an innocent man. A win either way.
23
I'm surprised that Harris ever showed a law-and-order attitude. When she emails me, her emails focus exclusively on breaking the rules for illegal immigrants. If she is more conservative than liberal and left of liberal, then I would like her more. I had no idea she cared about law-and-order, since those expressions haven't been open.
4
Reading this article makes me skeptical of Senator Harris, but also skeptical of the author. Proposals that require the state AG to investigate all officer involved shootings and seek a state-wide standard for body cameras might not be the most appropriate way to handle these issues. The article gives us no information about Harris’ views on these topics other than not supporting these specific proposals. What is the best approach for reviewing officer involved shootings? How should we ensure proper standards for body cameras? As to the various cases cited, I get the sense that they are more complicated and nuanced than portrayed by the author. Best to defer any conclusion about the viability of a KH candidacy.
14
I haven't been impressed with Ms. Harris. Her responses in recent interviews lacked substance and the line of questioning where she pushed Kavanaugh to reveal if he new someone at a law firm was a big nothing. I saw no purpose to it other than to give her a grandstanding moment. We can do better.
11
I’m not sure why people are calling this a hit piece. It’s all documented facts and this is the time to get them out there before Harris’s political opponents do it.
There are two questions here: first, does being a Democrat stand for anything aside from being against Trump? Isn’t it fundamental to our brand that justice is served equally under the law? Are we really going to let the GOP lead on criminal justice reform? We should be embarrassed that it took Trump to successfully pass the first meaningful legislation in that area in a generation - even while he stacks the courts with judges that are more interested in filling prisons than upholding basic rights. This is not an issue we should compromise on - nor do we politically need to.
Which brings me to my second question: does anyone seriously think Harris can beat Trump? Remember that we still have to negotiate the Electoral College. I don’t see the heartland seeing her as anything but a coastal elite, and the fact that her record reflects someone who acts out of political calculation rather than personal conviction is going to work against her for the same reasons it worked against Hillary Clinton.
We have other options. Amy Klobuchar has a consistent record, she has an admirable work ethic and can reach across the aisle without violating her principles. The same can be said about Sherrod Brown, and they have both succeeded in Trump country. There is no reason we need to consider Kamala Harris.
23
In KH's defense:
This article makes it sound like KH was a death penalty advocate. Quite the opposite: She never (as in "not once") sought the death penalty in ANY case she prosecuted as the CA Attorney General, or, for that matter, when she was San Francisco's prosecutor.
Many faulted her for that, but nobody ever accused her of supporting the death penalty. Like it or not, KH did not like it, and I very seriously doubt her view on this have changed. Reading this article would make one think she believes the death penalty is the best thing since sliced bread -- not so.
13
I suppose it will:
"It will be interesting over the next 12-18 mos. to watch the left attempt to thin the herd of candidates."
The "dynamic" will probably be the same as it's always been: a Democratic candidate must be "progressive" to win the nomination, but centrist to win the general election.
The Republicans do exactly the same thing, though they obviously start from the other end of the spectrum.
Inevitably, both major-party candidates tack toward the center during the general election campaign, and purists in their parties complain. That's the way it's always been, and the way it will always be -- unless, of course, you're the incumbent, in which case voters already know about you and you don't need (or get) to "tack" at all.
The alternative to "tacking" is to cease to exist, as the UK Liberal Party did in 1989.
1
Thanks for this article, which, for me, helps sort out the 2020 Democratic field. Senator Harris cannot make amends; there is no do-over for her. It's apparent to me, at least, that her decisions were often made on the basis of politics years ago and that her decisions then are now out of fashion. That's her punishment: being denied the opportunity to serve this country as the D's candidate in view of her backward, and often harsh, decisions as a prosecutor.
8
@Maron A. Fenico Aren't your decisions being made on the basis of politics? You don't state any deeper principles beyond politics.
2
I’d like to point out this is an op ed piece and should not be considered a news article by the times. I find this to be a bit of a hit job and if someone is going to slander her character in the extreme it should be vetted and Ms. Harris should be allowed to comment.
10
@Laura Gardner
I agree that this is an op ed piece and not journalism, which would involve objectively reporting all relevant facts. However, authors of op ed pieces do not seek comment from the subjects of their articles. They never have. That's what journalists do. It's the responsibility of readers to read this piece critically and consider the background of the author.
5
I guess we can see which Democrat Presidential contenders we should take seriously by seeing how soon the NYT starts trying to kneecap them when their names get mentioned as possibilities.
7
Prosecutors don't give a damn about anything but their conviction rate. Surprise, surprise!
4
@Reilly Diefenbach You probably don't think anyone knows who Reilly Diefenbach was. But I remember well: He was the credit guy in Fargo who complained about William Macy's effort to finance cars fraudulently. As I recall, though, William Macy got away with it.
2
Kamala Harris, on the national stage, will never garner the kind of attention given recently to AOC because her wait-and-see political opportunism eclipses any sort of vision for a better America. That opportunism has taken her from a San Francisco District Attorney to the U.S. Senate, but it’s hard to imagine it taking her further than that. In fact, my advice to her would be to concentrate on holding that Senate seat for as long as possible — it may not be as easy as she thinks.
10
@Jim Atkinson It's hard to imagine KH can't hang on to her US Senate seat as long as she wants to. Whether she can go higher than that is quite another question, of course, but hanging on to her US Senate seat will be a slam dunk.
3
Are you SURE that's the question?
"Harris is better than Trump, sure, but ... The question is, is she actually a progressive?"
Does the Democratic Party want to win in 2020, or just feel good that it nominated a progressive? The two objectives are mutually exclusive (just ask George McGovern or Walter Mondale -- and if you're still not sure after talking with them, ask Michael Dukakis too).
7
Thank you, deeply. You have done, compliled and reported excellent research that I for one had only passing knowledge of. Parsing the truth of potential candidates is EXACTLY what is necessary for the electorate to make the kind of informed decisions that move us all forward regardless of party, gender or other affiliation. It is sad that this coming election cycle several candidates seem to be likewise skewing their narratives to what they believe will grow their potential 'base' rather than a set of personally long held ethics and beliefs. Great work !
10
It is important for progressives to keep their collective eye on the ball. What the establishment and corporatist democratic party functionaries, allies and media will do is in every way attempt to co-opt, dilute, misdirect, and double-bind progressives to drop that which makes them truly progressive. Harris is better than Trump, sure, but that is not even an issue. The question is, is she actually a progressive?
To answer that you have to ask, what is her relation and position on the political power of the financial elite? I don't care about any other quality more than this. If she supports the continued power of the financial elite to control the law of the land, she is Not progressive. As Beto ORourke has shown, adopting the grassroots strategy of progressives' small donor fundraising does not not make a candidate progressive. ORourke is a corporatist New Democrat. New Democrats what Clinton was and why Trump is president. They ARE the taint that makes the party repulsive to independents and lower class republicans who smell hypocrisy. So called centrist democratic voters are beginning to realize their so called moderate candidates are the real snake(s) in the grass.
Be completely clear here...No progressive policy will happen while New Democrats and their ilk have power in the party. They serve the financial elite by duping liberal minded people to believing they will really work toward progressive policy. The only policy they will pass will be for the rich.
6
This piece makes it seem like her refusal to seek the death penalty for the murder of a police officer was a good thing. This crime was a particularly brazen, blatant assassination of a police officer by a career criminal using an AK-47. Her reason for not seeking the death penalty was that she was opposed to it! As DA her job was to enforce the law, not gratify her prejudices. She is singularly unqualified to be president. She has no more experience in foreign affairs or legislating than Donald Trump, and look what that has got us.
7
Refresh me - was it Trump that just signed criminal justice & sentencing reform? Pretty sure it was not a Democrat president.
6
She was building her resume on the backs of the vulnerable. Tough AG playbook to launch a political career.
4
Perhaps unwittingly, the author of this opinion piece is strengthening Senator Harris’s standing in the 2020 presidential campaign. Presidential contenders will be effectively barred from arguing that Senator Harris is soft on crime. I suspect Senator Harris is pleased with the publication of this piece.
3
Wait, so a defense attorney has mean things to say about a prosecutor?
9
It will be interesting over the next 12-18 mos. to watch the left attempt to thin the herd of candidates.
1
I have nothing against KH, but is it accurate to say she has a "record?"
"Harris has a record as an effective administrator as well as a powerful prosecutor."
Kamala Harris was our city AG and then our state AG before she became US Senator. She was known principally for two things:
1. She was Willie Brown's girlfriend. (If you don't know who Willie Brown is, he's a former SF mayor and CA legislator, but he's better known for his outsize influence on local and state politics.)
2. She refused to ask for the death penalty in any case she prosecuted, because she was (and presumably still is) personally opposed to it.
4
One sided opinion price. Shouldn't Kamala Harris be given an opportunity to respond. You can cherry pick facts and positions of any politician without presenting their full track record.
5
By definition prosecutors are predisposed to only one goal, that's their job description. Safe to say that most maintain a Napoleonic posture as do their law enforcement counterparts.
Of all personalities and traits, these people are least prepared and capable of being objective and fair and to aspire to public office of any consequence underscores their need to feed the beast within.
Given a choice I would sooner choose a wimp like Bush over a power hungry goon.
She is too progressive. She refused to go after a cop killer. Even Diane Feinstein called her out for it. It will be a campaign ending ad.
4
From my reading of some of these comments it's obvious the truth hurts deeply. Yes, it is shocking when the veneer of a carefully tended image is removed and one sees what is actually under it. In the case of Kamal Harris, a horribly insensitive and inexplicably cruel person who could care less about whose lives she destroys, as long as she wins. She is the poster child for our corrupt and oppressive criminal justice system and is unworthy of our support.
9
The Kevin Cooper case alone is enough to rule her out of any consideration for any further elected office and, indeed, for keeping her in her present position come the next election.
5
Thank you, Ms. Bazelon, for writing this. Thank you, NYT, for publishing this.
I lived in San Francisco when Kamala Harris was district attorney.
She was an opportunistic disaster whose primary qualification for that offiice was her relationship with former SF mayor Willie Brown. Brown's connections got her elected. But that is a piece of her narrative she now ignores.
What I have seen, and read, and heard from friends still in CA leads me to feel that there continues to be little substance there, either in her ideas or her actions.
I appreciate that you are willing to attempt to present a fuller picture than what the spinmeisters want you to see.
9
Whatever one thinks about KH, Democratic Party voters had better get used to the idea that the Democratic candidate can win in 2020 only by tacking toward the center. A "progressive" Democratic will do about as well as George McGovern did in 1972, or perhaps as well as Walter Mondale did in 1984. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but that's how it will be.
"But, if ANY of this stuff is true ... then in this new strongly progressive environment, she doesn't have a ghost of a chance..."
2
@MyThreeCents Yeah, because tacking toward the center, and completely blowing off the progressive base and ignoring the populist, anti-establishment mood of the electorate, worked so well in 2016. Let’s do it again! (And if we lose again, it will only be because of The Russians.)
1
This kind of information is why we need a primary process where candidates are truly vetted in face to face discussions with voters. Most candidates are very practiced when it comes to teleprompters and C-SPAN. Take questions from real people and your true character will be exposed.
3
"The Democratic Party needs a diverse pool of candidates, not just Joe and Elizabeth (who are fine but probably cannot beat the incumbent)."
At least one commenter described this article (correctly) as a "hit piece." We've seen several on Bernie Sanders recently. We're likely to see several more, on other candidates -- with one notable exception: We won't see any serious hit pieces on Elizabeth Warren, at least not here in the NYT. I'd explain why, but the odds of this comment being published would drop to zero if I did.
3
While I believe wholeheartedly in the fallibility of all humans, your focus on the case of Mr. Gage troubles me because the family you describe entirely fits both my personal experience with and my understanding of the shape of families where there is persistent sexual abuse.
When I was ten, my friend killed herself. Her father confessed his abuse of her to our mutual friend Susie in the shock of finding her but later retracted it. His wife backed him up and nothing came of it as the police didn't want to add additional grief onto parents who'd lost a child.
Years later, I found myself uncomfortable with the body language between a high school friend and her step-father. Before I could figure out what to do, she called me in a panic because she'd been kicked out of her house. Her mom had come home and found her and her step-dad having sex. She said it had been going on since she was 12. He said she'd seduced him. Her mother believed him. Even though we were juniors, she had just turned 18, so the police said they could do nothing.
She had a sister who was 8 years younger, so her mother got a second chance to get it right, and my friend finally got the help she needed after she called social services because she was afraid of hurting her own child.
Being the victim of persistent abuse doesn't create straightforward credibility, not least because living with a secret that big for that long is inherently deceptive.
Please be careful of a sensitive and complex issue.
1
Seriously, who cares? Harris has a record as an effective administrator as well as a powerful prosecutor. The idea that anyone who has actually done anything serious and significant in their life must be barred from political office because they have a "record" is the kind of blatant stupidity that resulted in the election of Donald Trump.
As things stand now, we are looking for the person most likely and capable of defeating Trump, and that is Harris by a country mile (although really, while I don't believe Trump will actually be the GOP nominee, if he is, anybody with a pulse will be able to beat him).
Politicians have to deal with conflicting demands from different stakeholders. Public administrators have to deal with difficult circumstances with limited resources. All these allegations against Harris could be matched by an analysis of any high-level DA or AG. The point is that nobody else in the Democratic field has comparable experience in doing the job of governing.
And that's not to mention Harris's withering debating skills and magnificent presence, her astonishing personal history, the fact that she is a woman (it must be a woman in 2020 after Trump), she is representative of minority Americans generally, African Americans specifically, the children of immigrants and those things are more significant now than ever.
Harris will win the nomination because the Democratic nomination is a fair fight, and she is simply the best candidate, no matter what the trolls say.
4
Before reading this article it was hard to understand why Kamala Harris thought she should be President. She just recently became a US Senator. There is nothing in her past that suggests she has a world view, an understanding of the relations between nations and the forces that drive history. Now with this essay we see that she wasn't a good attorney or prosecutor but rather a callow opportunist.
9
This needs to be viewed in context. When Kamala Harris was a prosecutor, her job was to prosecute. She may have been overzealous and she appears to acknowledge this and how prosecutors can be an "instrument of injustice." I think having someone like Kamala Harris, who has first hand knowledge of the good and the bad that prosecutors do, would be good. And there could have been equally extensive article on all the good, progressive things she has done, which the author quickly glosses over in the third to the last paragraph.
1
This is certainly information to ponder, but it would be helpful to have a more comprehensive investigation of our senator's prior public service. We need this for all those who hope to become POTUS.
6
@Joseph Morgan Sir, respectfully, why weren't the voters of your state asking these questions before she became a senator?
1
I appreciate Sen. Kamala Harris's prosecutorial style on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it can be put to good use in grilling Trump's nominees. But prosecutors tend not to be especially progressive.
Sen. Harris might not be the best choice as a presidential candidate. Fortunately it's January 2019 and we don't need to anoint someone right away. This type of vetting and discussion is healthy.
7
What is the point of disparaging this woman before she has even officially declared a run for President? Please don’t pre-poison the well. The candidates (if Ms Harris even becomes one) will have plenty of time to be dissected. The Democratic Party needs a diverse pool of candidates, not just Joe and Elizabeth (who are fine but probably cannot beat the incumbent). It seems unfair to run her over with a bus before when she isn’t even on the road.
6
@Lillie The point of “disparaging this woman before she has even officially declared a run for President” is to create awareness of the fact that this woman shouldn’t be President. If you think that Ms. Harris is innocent of the charges made in this article, or if you think that the charges, even if true, are not serious enough to warrant concern, then say so. And explain why you believe as you do. But don’t act like any criticism of a potential candidate, before they become a candidate, is somehow out of bounds because “we need a diverse pool of candidates.” That’s ridiculous.
23
Woman and especially women of color have to prove themselves more so than anyone else on the job once they arrive at positions of power and influence. It appears that DA and AG Harris did what was expected of her in those roles in order to succeed. Now as a soon to be announced candidate for President she will do and say i.e., state her case as will everyone else for consideration for that position. She by-far exceeds the necessary requirements for POTUS when compared to the current POTUS. She's leaned left, right, center and still may claim a few instances in which she was progressive. Is she lying? No. Is she all she may be claiming she is-- likely no. Is she a true progressive? No way! Can and should she compete for the office? Why not? All Presidents end up on the wrong side and right side of issues once they enter office. Except Trump. He's just been wrong, more wrong and stupid wrong. The lesson is be careful what and how you refer to yourself unless you have the benefit of white privilege.
The first woman of color to announce for the President of the US was a true progressive then and would be considered such even by today's standards: Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm.
7
Yeah. White Privilege, that's always a good excuse for getting beat. Or being a MAN. Another good reason to hate someone. Funny how hating White People isn't considered racist, but just being White makes people assume you ARE racist. Incredible.
4
This is shocking. She is an adult who abused her power and powerfully affected the wrongfully convicted.
Ironic she was one pointing a finger a Judge Kavanaugh. Now, who is less fit for public office? Who would you like to be trying you in court: Harris as a lying cheating prosecutor or Judge Kavanaugh on the bench?
15
I wouldn't want either of them involved. It may be naive but I always thought prosecutors were supposed to work for justice, not just maintaining convictions on technicality. Refusing to admit you were wrong will not get my vote. As for Kavanaugh he proved at the justice committee hearings that he is not capable of setting aside his emotions when required. People who throw temper tantrums should not be either a president or a supreme court justice. And I would not want someone accused of being a sexual predator to be presiding over any case I was involved in. People who believe and present themselves as choir boys generally are not what they claim.
5
Finally, someone is blowing the whistle on Kamala Harris. She was completely unimpressive as DA of San Francisco, and borderline incompetent quite honestly. People should also look into her ties to Willie Brown, that paragon of integrity. It's pretty shameful how a few minutes of MSNBC fame can make someone's dim political future sparkle.
33
Unless the Democrats choose someone like Sherrod Brown as their standard bearer in 2020 they are not going to retake the White House. Most Americans, I feel, are tired of the theatrics and they just want a functional government.
I don't see Trump as president again because I think his election was an anomaly. He has attacked and maligned as many Republicans as Democrats.
4
This column describes these failings of Harris as not-progressive. I would describe them as non-conservative as well.
These failings are a mix of corruption, refusing to do one’s job, and dishonesty.
It’s too bad this article did not exist to inform the voters before she was elected to the Senate.
12
I have to object to the often seen criticism: of a policy/institution/law- that such and such is not right because it affects low income communities of color. Low income communities of color deserve the respect inherent in the expectation that they meet the same standards of self respect that non low income communities of color maintain. It is white, bourgeoise entitlement that allows ppl like the author to think they know better than Kamala Harris how to pursue the law.
2
I was at KH's fundraising even in SF for her DA re-election (she ran uncontested).
Large part of the room was filled with rich money and old white men who were gleefully talking about how HK will go far.
It was then I realized she was beholden to people with much deeper pockets than ordinary citizens like me.
So, this detailed article (great job on being balanced on the good and bad) is not at all surprising.
She was a social climber that probably listened to her influential backers who promised her a Supreme Court seat, a senate seat or even more.
I know what I saw. Bunch of rich people betting on their horse and now the horse is entering the big race. The losers are progressive ordinary people who are going to believe she is on their side.
34
It looks that the election season is on – smear articles will appear more and more often. This one could be one of them.
The author gives away her standpoint of glorifying “progressive” as some objectively highest value. I am immune to this perspective; instead I prefer to think that a value of an officer of the court is to stick to the law, rules, principles, and critical reasoning. ‘Progressive’, on the other hand, implies an activist stand aimed at bending the application of these four items to achieve some ideological goals.
I have no doubt that many cases of misapplication of justice did take place on our lands, but they happened because of the JUDGES’ not following the law, rules, principles, etc and not because of lack of progressiveness on the part of the prosecutors.
Among the cases cited by the author only the George Gage’s case bothers me, but mostly because of what appears as disproportionality between the uncertainty of the evidence (‘pathological liar’ main witness) and the drasticness of the sentence (70 years prison sentence!).
Last point, let us keep the proper perspective here: Kamala Harris’ ethical record is to square up against the record of a (practically proven) money launderer who moved into the Oval Office with his family for the purpose of enriching himself, who sabotages policies which are in the interest of the US and promotes those in the interest of dictators, Putin, Xi,..
In other words, Go Kamala Go for the presidency.
8
By comparing the record of Ms Harris to that of Mr. Trump, that’s a low that most Americans would be able to clear with little difficulty.
4
Kamala will NOT be president, she is wasting her time!
4
Beautifully written and somewhat brave article. You have to wonder who becomes a prosecutor in the first place: 1. Law students who didn't do all that well in law school, 2. that portion of them unbothered by a career of putting people in jail, and able to sleep happily after doing so.
10
Okay, it seems the Democratic field just got a little less crowded. No way she'll be the nominee if any of this is true.
16
Sounds like red meat Republicans would appreciate Kamala.
7
From my perspective of practicing law for over 25 years, i would observe that the behavior discussed in this article is more par for the course for politically ambitious prosecutors than not. There is a general belief that the more like Ms. Harris a prosecutor is the more they will succeed. Unfortunately these tactics are frequently rewarded by the voters with ever higher office.
Personally my response is, if possible, to never vote for a prosecutor for other office until they have been a defense lawyer for at least ten years.
29
Having served as a federal prosecutor for about 13 years, and as a criminal defense lawyer for about the same period of time, I agree with the notion that one shouldn’t be too enthusiastic about either position until they have crossed the aisle and have learned what it takes to do both. Only at that point is a lawyer able to appreciate what is taking place on the other side of the courtroom. As for Ms. Harris’ reliance upon her former career as a prosecutor while she advances her political aspirations, my advice to readers is that they analyze what they prioritize most. Do voters want a rigid, lock ‘em up representative, or do they want an open-minded one? Plenty of prosecutors are open-minded and fair, but to the extent a politician relies upon a prior career as a prosecutor, the record they have made speaks louder than any after the fact claim, as we see in this instance, to be progressive. In Ms. Harris’ case, as the op-ed makes painfully clear, she is not progressive. Ms. Harris, tragically, is an opportunist willing to make up facts as she goes along. It’s very, very sad because, in almost every other respect, she would make a great presidential candidate. Unfortunately, Ms. Harris now is well known to lack candor and to be untruthful about herself. She cannot be expected to represent anyone else honorably if she is so willing to misrepresent herself.
20
@Mark Larsen Nice comment.
Other than her career as a prosecutor and now a little as a senator, I don't know what qualifies Ms. Harris to be president. It seems to me that so many people are willing to look past her resume merely because either she is a woman and/or a person of color (and/or attractive as Obama pointed out). I don't think gender, race (or attractiveness) are qualifications for being president. During the primary in the last election I more than once said I'd vote for Angela Merkle. Now result of some of her decisions make me reconsider that position. And there is the minor problem with her not being a US citizen.
There are certain qualities we look for in a president. Not enough of the country thought HRC had enough of the needed qualities and frankly the same conclusion can be made about DJT. Qualities that shouldn't matter are gender and race. However, it sure seems from sitting here in flyover country that a lot of people get so excited at the possibility that they ignore facts.
I could careless the gender of the president just as I could careless the gender of my doctor, nurse etc. I want someone competent and suited for the particular job. At this time in history not enough people (in enough states) thought HRC was suited for the job and the only other real choice was DJT.
6
@Fred,
As a lawyer of (almost) 25 years as well, I agree completely.
2
I have had hundreds of cases, including two death penalty cases, in which Kamala Harris' s Department of Justice (California) did nothing different than any previous DOJ run by Republicans. Thank you to Prof. Bazelon for pointing out that there is nothing at all progressive about Kamala Harris. Being a woman of color is not a qualification for high office, in and of itself.
29
@ralph
"Being a woman of color is not a qualification for high office, in and of itself."
There's a substantial segment of the newest New Left (the MeToo, Woke left) that would vehemently disagree with your premise on purely racial grounds. I've seen the arguments here at the Times as well as at less savory venues. Trump is a white racist (the argument goes) therefore we need a black progressive in the White House. If she's a woman, all the better. Why? Because Trump. This election, I'm afraid, is not going to be fought on an intellectual battlefield.
8
Who knows?
"She's an empty suit and not ready for prime time."
Kamala Harris was the attorney general for CA and, before that, for San Francisco, before she became a Senator. Frankly, I have no idea whether she's up for the job of President or not. In SF, she's always been best known for being a former girlfriend of Willie Brown, a former SF mayor and CA legislator who's always had an outsize influence on politics here. That is neither good nor bad, but that's undeniably what Ms. Harris is best known for here.
10
The biggest issue here to me is whether or not a person can evolve. I think that anyone can, but the only way to be sure is to make sure they burn all bridges with that part of them. A full and complete repudiation and explanation as to why they've changed their mind would really go a long way towards making me feel like i'm not just being pandered to.
For example, if a former insurance lobbyist suddenly is talking up M4A, how do we know this is real? The only way to be sure is for them to condemn their former position, to confront why it was wrong and I think to make the case for everyone else holding that position to "come to Jesus" so to speak.
She could actually really do that, and it would go such a long way to neutralize that line of attack. I honestly hope she does, it would buy a ton of goodwill for me and I would do my best to spread the word for others who are skeptical to really take a second look. Otherwise it looks like more focus group by committee 90's vague bromides that use a lot of words to say nothing.
I like Amy Klobuchar.
I like her hair, that bang to the left.
Her smile and dimples.
Her accent.
I like Amy.
She has a cute name too.
5
Joe, you're not a stalker, are you?
@Joe Paper
That seems kinda sexist, Joe.
But that modified Dorothy Hamill coiffure...
Men of a certain age remember.
2
This article makes me appreciate Kamala Harris even more as a fiercely independent politician. I'm sure the facts of all these anecdotal cases can be debated, and I would love to hear her response, but I like hearing that she is tough and willing to be on the wrong side--not matter which side that is--in order to do her job well. I'm glad she is our Senator.
3
Kamala's campaign mantra is "look within yourself to find yourself" or whatever cliche mumbo jumbo-- They paid a high end political coach to come up with that shelf ready euphemism - makes no sense. She's an empty suit and not ready for prime time.
21
States Attorney General is such a blatant political stepping stone for higher office. It appears that the amount of convictions trumps judicial fairness. Sad.
6
As a lawyer, I have seen cases I was involved in summarized in a few sentences and barely recognized them. Without more facts, I can't possibly make judgments about Harris' conduct in the cases cited. I read this piece hoping to see those facts laid out and am left with the author's opinions and nothing more.
14
@Gail
As a lawyer, have you ever seen an opinion piece where all of the relevant facts are presented as if you were reading case law? Do you actually believe most people are going to wait for all of the relevant facts to be stated before opining, as a lawyer would do so?
4
Chomp! Chomp! Chomp! That's the sound of the Progressive Left eating its own. Will there be any skeletons left in the closet by the time the Democratic primaries officially begin next year? Kapow! Kapow! Kapow! That's the sound of the Progressive Left's circular firing squad assassinating itself...Y'all are incredible. Trump thanks you from the bottom of his rancid little heart.
322
@Albert Edmud
I wonder if this also applies to Claire McCaskill or any other centrists criticizing AOC? I never once heard the circular firing squad then. Seems like maybe the issue is something else, maybe those opposed to this reporting just like these policies and do not want to see them challenged.
49
@Albert Edmud - Interesting. Your description is the polar opposite of what occurred in 2016. Candidate after candidate maligned Trump as he returned fire. And it almost worked . . .
And now? Can you say "Fawning deference?" And to a man who lost the popular vote and has zero mandate?
Trump is thanking whom?
Ya'll ARE incredible.
Want to thank someone? Thanks the real Fake News.
13
The author certainly has a point of view, but it's made politely and thoughtfully. This is the type of discussion that should be happening. It's why we have primaries.
116
Several commenters mention "the Al Franken lynch mob."
I don't think Al Franken did anything wrong in the infamous photo of him on the airplane with the sleeping woman. If that were his only "sin," I'd side with him.
However ...
Franken DID (and he doesn't dispute this) squeeze the buttocks of the woman who posed with him (and her father) in the nearly-as-infamous Minnesota State Fair photo. That was inappropriate. All indications are that an acknowledgement and apology would have sufficed. I suspect Al Franken would still be a U.S. Senator if he'd just done that. But he never did -- then or later.
2
"Of course the full picture is more complicated"
I may be wrong, but this sure feels like a 'hit piece' to me...
8
Harris appears to be another Hamilton Burger.
3
There is nothing more repulsive than a prosecutor using technicalities to ensure that a probably innocent man remain convicted — and imprisoned for 70 years. Mr. Gage. Wow. Another notch in the prosecutor’s impressive record I’m sure.
Bye bye Kamala.
21
We will be running against the most imperfect candidate ever. We need to pick the most electable person. Kamala looks like that person right now.
2
Ms Harris appeal is her appearance. She is an empty suit. She is typical of any politician running for office She will say anything. You state what you believe in, there will always be people who don't like your views, but if you have character, you can defends your views.
15
This article reveals the long and very regressive political history of Sen. Kamala Harris. One cannot help asking how Ms. Harris could realistically characterize herself as a "progressive" while considering a presidential run in 2020.
5
If nominated by the Democrats, I WILL VOTE FOR HER, full stop.
There is such a thing as a 'moderate stand'.
10
The candidacy meat grinder is starting up and it will be good to limit the field early on. Liz is looking better and better and once the phony kerfuffle over the Native American stuff is put to bed she will prove, since some folks still swallow the GOP mendacity line, her chops as they relate to sticking up for middle Americans through attacking the ever-present Wall St./Banking industry/Congress connection and Citizens United fiasco. Any caring middle American should be able to relate to these issues: Just MHO
5
"Wow, this woman is SO toast!"
This reminds me of the 17-candidate Republican race in 2016. By the time it was over, only Trump was left standing, and he was skewered later (or so I thought) by the "Access Hollywood" tape.
If Kamala Harris' progressive bona fides can be undercut this easily, is any Democratic Party candidate safe? Or will they all be destroyed, leaving the field open to Trump?
10
Democrats must come to their senses and realize that even if it's their dream to have a woman as a candidate, no woman will defeat Donald Trump.
The same holds true for someone of color, whether male or female. Not gonna sell.
Dems just have to bite the bullet and choose a white male blue collarish candidate to rope in the vast majority of actual voters in America. (No, not Bernie Sanders.)
Black and female Dems just have to bite the bullet and vote for this white male candidate in 2020.
That white male Democratic president who takes the oath of office in January 2021 is well aware of the temperature of the nation and therefore, will put women and blacks in positions of power across his administration. Moreover, Dems will take over control of the Senate and the House so that the legislative agenda will come to fruition.
Otherwise this country is doomed.
6
Seriously I am glad if that is the case, we will have atleast some chance to defeat Trump in case M/s Harris manages to secure nomination or we are doomed with another 4 years of Trump Mayhem!
We definitely need someone who is acceptable to the centrists in GOP who may vote to show disgust at Trump's policies
Forget the pretenders. A Biden/Klobuchar ticket is the easy choice for 2020.
4
Thank you, Ms. Bazelon, for this interesting article.
The sad fact is that females have been forced to act like the most brutal males if they wanted to get ahead. It sounds like Ms. Harris did what her job, and the system, required to "survive".
I seriously doubt Ms. Harris has changed enough to bring real social change but I still want to hear what she has to say. It's important to have information like this before any "debates" or cabinet placements.
Thanks, again, for speaking up. I believe that WE THE PEOPLE will have a formidable, honest, democracy-loving, socially conscious , morally/ethically straight person to elect as OUR President of the United States of America.
119
But will she be washed in the blood of the Lamb?
By which I mean to say, how are these demands for purity better than the demands for purity of the Right?
Criticize away; but give me chapter and verse. Don’t just try to skate with telling me, “Well, she took this position as an administrator, and therefore is Evil.”
14
Who said anything about evil, Robert?
Not me.
12
@Robert
Who is demanding purity? Not the author; she makes that very clear.
20
Thanks for pointing out what many in California have known for years about Harris. A friend of mine is a housing-rights activist and tried in vain to get Harris on side in going after Wells Fargo and other miscreants of the housing crisis once she became AG in 2011. He has nothing pleasant to say about his interactions with her.
When it comes to bad bankers, Harris has more in common with Steve Mnuchin that anyone resembling a progressive.
18
Without delving into Harris's positions on Marijuana & the like I find this column deeply disturbing because the most important obligation of a district or state attorney is to represent the People and that means to do JUSTICE
If someone has a substantial claim of innocence then using technicalities to convict or maintain a conviction is not doing justice
Withholding exculpatory evidence is not doing justice
But that is not unique to Kamala Harris, it has been reported to have been done by many prosecutors in many locations
But I prefer to have as a president someone who fully understands their obligation to do justice and acts accordingly - that does not appear to be Kamala Harris
14
One of the biggest paradoxes in American politics is the career prosecutor who then runs for higher public office as a Democrat. Barring the very few (in very recent history) who can honestly claim to be progressive prosecutors by opposing the racial and socioeconomic unfairnesses in the system, prosecutors are probably the most ethically suspect pool from which to draw a Democratic candidate. Democrats (and, really, the electorate at large) have to learn to stop lionizing DAs as suitable political candidates. They wield far too much power and are far too insulated from responsibility for overreach in the exercise of that power to ever be convincing supporters of the Democratic principles of, among other things, equal protection of the laws. Among friends, I have only half-jokingly promulgated the notion that, instead of career district attorneys in permanent positions, prosecutorial duties should be delegated out like jury duty: attorneys should get a summons to serve the DA’s office for a limited period, and we would solemnly put our heads down and get to the hard work of criminal prosecution, but with no larger personal agenda, and certainly no insulation from professional misconduct. Until that day comes, we should hold with a high degree of skepticism those who do choose to make a political career out of their prosecutorial duties. It should be a far less self-serving position than it has become.
15
As a retired federal judge I found your suggestion excellent. It would certainly reduce prosecutorial misconduct, which is rampant.
8
@Judith Barzilay,
Sincerest thanks, Your Honor. Maybe someday the idea will gain traction. In the meantime, I'll be content to see primary voters deal a blow to the naked political aspirations of a prosecutor who rose to prominence in that very fashion.
3
@flechasalvaje,
yes, YES, 1000x YES!
1
As a Californian, I 100% agree with this. Never understood how she beat Loretta Sanchez for her Senate seat. I do not understand at all what the rationale is for Harris to run for President. Either Barbara Lee or Maxine Waters would have a lot more wisdom to contribute in a debate with Trump. As Gertrude Stein once said about Oakland, "there is not there there."
14
She also refused to prosecute banks for fraudulent foreclosures, and thousands of Californians lost their homes. There is plenty of information about this online.
23
This is disturbing to find out. I had no idea.
I was unpressed with her ability to stay on track and refusal to accept prevarications as reply in the recent confirmation hearings.
Leopard's don't change their spots. Political expedience triumphing over what is right is the republican trait that got us into this mess.
She is too green to run for president anyway.
9
Vote for a Democrat just because she's a Democrat? That sounds like the justification Republicans use to justify Trump. How about supporting candidates that will improve the Polity, not merely occupy its offices? If I want a right-winger in office, I'll vote for one from the Republican ranks, not for Ms. Harris, who is one disguised in sheep's clothing. I'd rather have Tucker Carlson in office than a right-wing phony, like Harris.
4
It is well passed the time we have a woman president, but I confess that none of the top contenders so far: Harris, Gillibrand or Warren, do anything for me.
My dream: Tammy Duckworth throws her hat in the ring.
2
@Bill
I give Warren points for being consistent.
3
Plenty of people have run for office as tough-nosed prosecutors ready to be strong on issues of law and order. Plenty have run as "progressive prosecutors." Both have won elections. What isn't a winning position is to claim in a book that came out recently that you were the latter, when in fact you were the former. Just tell the truth and let the votes fall where they may, okay?
3
The head of the AG's office with hundreds of lawyers can't keep up with every case.
1
@Paco These are high-profile cases which she surely "kept up with" and likely directed policy. Also, as district attorney, she managed what all the prosecutors did.
1
@Paco You mean the buck stops with somebody else? Anyone else? That sounds Trumpian to me.
Far too many times, I have settled for the neoliberal because that's who the Ds nominated, even though there was little difference between the D and his or her R opponent. The neoliberals now seem to scampering to the left, trying to make it look like they were always at the head of the parade. But someone who has long taken the progressive view of issues like labor protection, tax equity, environmental justice, and public education. And just maybe appoint a Secy of Treasury who is not on loan from Goldman Sachs.
The puff pieces are popping up. Gillibrand, Harris, Biden, and the rest who nail it on social issues, but just don't get income inequality. This time, if the Ds throw a reworked HIllary at me, I'll vote for the Green Party candidate, even if means 4 more yrs of the clown that we have now.
3
Hmm. Times takedown piece on a potential Democratic candidate. When have we seen that before?
Suffice it to say that Harris was elected DA in the most progressive city in the country, and elected Attorney General in the most progressive state in the country. Maybe the collective wisdom of the voters and the press in California should be weighed against the voice of one politically-motivated columnist?
5
@Pete
San Francisco is not *actually* very progressive. Many of the people here are, and the political machine panders to that and maintains a facade. But in reality, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the politically connected are doing just fine.
3
Thank you Ms. Bazelon for laying this out. I've never understood the progressive fascination with Ms. Harris, since it seemed to me that as an attorney general handling civil matters she could best be described as Kamala Do-Nothing, a huge disappointment to one who'd voted for her assuming her progressive bonafides were genuine. Her attorney general successor, Xavier Becerra, has done so much more in his few months in office than she in all her years. Now you point out that she essentially obstructed justice in criminal court as well.
12
I'm on a personal listening tour until primary season and am not going to disqualify any viable candidates. Senator Harris certainly has my attention. Were I to develop my own purity test I'm sure none would pass. Where a candidate's votes, or positions, or acts fall short of my ideal wishes I'll reserve a modicum of forgiveness and understanding and look and listen to see if positions have changed and done so with sincerity.
4
Fair enough, Kamala Harris wasn't a progressive prosecutor by today's standards, but that shouldn't disqualify her. Ms. Bazelon points out some things Senator Harris did that I don't like and didn't know about, but as an attorney (full disclosure: I was also once a prosecutor) I find the article misleading for too many reasons to list in the short amount of space I'm given here. Having said that, I am glad she wrote it. We need to discuss these things.
I'm a fan of Senator Harris and would like to see her run. When I first mentioned it last summer, one person said "I would never vote for a former prosecutor," and another said "America isn't ready for a woman of color." Democrats needs to get over the myth that there is a perfect candidate out there. Also, I would love to kill the word "electable," because none of us has a magic ball.
4
Wow, this woman is SO toast! I had no idea that she had this kind of history. I already didn't like Gillibrand for her inexcusable self-serving treatment of Franken. But, if ANY of this stuff is true (and a BIG 'Thank You' to the author for bringing these things to light!) then in this new strongly progressive environment, she doesn't have a ghost of a chance... Let's whittle down this massive field ASAP and get rid of the posers!
Well done!
470
@Lathe of Heaven
Stop and think! It is the other way round: the less 'progressive' you are the better chance you have of winning the presidential elections simply because the mainstream, by definition, is not progressive.
To repeat, 'progressiveness' will bury you in the eyes of the general public.
20
@Grain of Sand
Your definition of "progressive" is factually incorrect. I don't know the mainstream personally, but logically it could easily be progressive, just as logically it could easily be regressive.
11
@Grain of Sand What are you saying? Vote for this horrible person? Go ahead, but count me out.
33
I like Harris a lot, for many reasons, but this piece points out that I need to know more about her, and the other candidates. That is what the primary season is for, to give voters a clearer view of of those who want their vote. It is too early to have a rock hard choice unless you know the candidate personally. Let the candidates debate, present their own cases to the public, then decide.
3
Thanks for this. I've been a fan of Harris' as she considers her bid, but this gives me pause.
1
As long as prosecutors can use their careers to get a "leg up" into political jobs, the justice system will remain fatally flawed. Prosecutors making decisions with even a hint of "how is this going to look", rather than based on only the facts presented in a case, are already compromised.
Does nobody see this behavior as a conflict of interest?
Is it that so many of our convicted/ incarcerated are People of Color, and those financially challenged? So we allow prosecutorial grandstanding to happen because the lives of those accused, matter less than the political futures of prosecutors?
Those who stand accused don't only deserve the best defense. They also deserve the best prosecutor, one whose motives are unsullied by political advancement of any kind.
I, for one, when reading up on who is standing for elections to the court system, or into politics, will never vote for anyone that has "Prosecutor" as their current or former job title.
Inevitably, they have gotten to where they are on the carcasses of under represented people that have been thrown away. In my own small way, I am stopping this, by not allowing my vote to go to prosecutors.
1
So its starting sooner than I thought. The Dems are actually blessed with many solid candidates, and slowly it seems that they all want to run. Hmm. Why can't they all go spend some time together on a desert island with no internet connection and stay there until they figure out how to narrow down the crowd really fast, down to 1-2 candidates before they all destroy each other. Lets start with the fundamental concept that anything is better than Trump, and the singular goal should be for the Democrats to win.
5
I appreciate this as an opinion. It causes me to look more closely at this candidate and to investigate more completely. However unless I read the full scope of a case I tend not to judge. The law is complex. There can often be factors in a case that frequently are not investigated in pieces like this because they don't support the conclusion the writer is wishing us to draw. I have always been impressed with this candidates intelligence and arguments. This will cause me to look more closely, but not to conclude. We all need to do our election homework carefully and completely.
5
I find this article sad. As a news junkie I have followed her career in San Francisco. She has been a progressive district attorney and State Attorney General. This characterization of her will not stand scrutiny with time. I think most people commenting forget that the job of a district attorney and state attorney general are to enforce the law, not make it.
8
Um...okay. I suspect that this piece, far from damaging her campaign, will help Ms. Harris, particularly if she becomes the party's nominee. Most people, I suspect, prefer a somewhat conservative approach to law enforcement.
One problem with being a prosecutor is that the law often forces you into positions you may not agree with. We elect/appoint prosecutors to enforce the law, not to change it.
12
Why can’t the Democrats find a reputable former or present state governor and/or former actor to run? Seems to have worked for the Republicans during my voting lifetime.
3
@Agent 99 find one. name one...
Thank you for writing this. Many of us in California who for years watched her blatantly defend obvious injustice are dumbfounded by the revisionist history that seems to have become party line. She is not who she claims to be.
13
As a former federal prosecutor, I rarely trust after the fact criticisms of convictions because in most cases, the cases have been through the trial phase, and the evidence has been tested in court. Frankly, coming out of the left coast, I have more confidence in Harris than I had before. The case of the stepfather abuse is a tough case and one which often turns on the testimony of one versus the complainant. These are tough cases but the jury made the decision as it saw the case. I am not impressed by after the fact evidence of the propensity of one of the witnesses to lie. That is what the trial process is designed to deal with. I have heard of so many so called convictions of innocent people who get a second trial and are convicted again. Recantation testimony is not nearly as reliable as people might think. For example, I've seen cases where a key witness changes his testimony long after the trial. This could be the result of a thought process where the witness feels that the defendant has served enough time. that is not a real recantation, only an inadmissible decision by a witness.
3
@Bryan I have found that just about all former prosecutors have a similar opinion to yours, that the system works! How about the approximately100 people who have been exonerated from death row, usually due to DNA evidence. In 39 of those cases a "jailhouse snitch" was a big part of the case. So if a jailhouse snitch claims that the exonerated person confessed the crime to them, which is exactly the way that works, and that person really did not do it, then the snitch lied. It is very unlikely that the people in law enforcement who arranged for that snitches testimony did NOT know that it was fabricated. As for myself, I made a federal prosecutor angry at me in 1994 when I refused to lie under oath as a witness, and he has tried to get even with me many times by getting the FBI and local police to try to frame me, always unsuccessfully.
2
The untold part of this story is that too much power has been ceded to the executive. Congress has done nearly everything possible to tie the hands of the judiciary, and this has reduced or eliminated a necessary check on prosecutorial excess.
And it was not unintentional. For example, when Joe Biden lead the charge on the draconian sentencing guidelines, he knew exactly what he was doing.
All the folks crying in fear about Trump throwing his weight around ought to take a moment to remember that they failed to stand up when this all started.
2
As a non-resident of California, this report is shocking. But then, rather the truth be out and exposed now instead of a repeat of 2016.
The progressive base needs someone with their passion and the left/center left needs someone with a reasonable conscious to win 2020, with the will to translate ideas into policy.
This report and further findings, if there are more, do not bode well of Ms. Harris.
The Democrats need someone that will win. For the sake of your country and the rest of the world. Let there not be a repeat 2016 with silly follies. The cost was dear, look at the White House for proof.
379
@Grace Wells While I agree that not repeating 2016 is imperative, we also cannot let the perfect get in way of the good. We also cannot accept opinion articles as reporting. Senator Harris has said repeatedly that the job of an attorney general is to uphold the laws of the land - interpretation is left to the courts. As public officials, attorneys general also do not get to choose the cases they defend. She has stated that she is firmly opposed to the death penalty, but her personal opinion was not on trial. The lawmakers of the state write the rules, ideally based on public opinion, and as long as a state has a death penalty on the books (or any other heinous punishment), the attorney general's job is to defend those laws. And as our current President has demonstrated all too well, winning isn't everything. I suggest you take a look at Kamala Harris's energy and willingness to fight and fight back. This is why I'm an early supporter if she decides to run for office.
31
@Grace Wells
I’m always amazed at how credulous NYT commenters are. The author of this piece is obviously biased and experience has taught me to distrust the accuracy of the “innocence” folks - especially Nicholas Kristof.
11
@Grace Wells
It's important to remember that until the facts of a case being represented are laid out completely it remains an opinion and not a report. That's why this column exists. If it was truly a report that was carefully supported it would appear elsewhere.
10
I find it very telling that every single NYT pick for comments seems to be from a man. I’ve also already noticed, with Warren (likability, HRC-lite), Harris (too zealous of a prosecutor) and now Gillibrand (Franken) the plethora of leftist op-Eds criticizing these potential nominees with nary a whisper about any of the baggage accompanying the men who are toying with running. It boils down to “I would support a woman but just not her (or any of the others running it seems).” I’m not saying that any of our nominees should be immune from criticism, far from it, but I’m reading comments about Harris on this article that include references to negative “scuttlebutt” about her. I’d urge everyone to consider for every article written about our expansive field of female contenders whether the same criticism would be leveled at a man—likability, zealously doing one’s job, changing political views to accommodate social movements, and standing up for your core beliefs. Frankly, I was sad to see Franken go, but we would have been a party of rank hypocrites if we stayed silent given the just outcry from the Me Too movement. All of these women would be better Presidents than the one we currently have(as would a damp dishrag),but more so, all of them are qualified in their own way. Stop making the perfect the enemy of the good. I would be happy to see a Warren/Harris, Harris/Gillibrand, Gillibrand/Harris ticket; however, I think I would get a special pleasure in seeing Harris debate Trump.
6
We have a guy in the White House that has been an active criminal (and perhaps worse) for over 40 years. Sorry. This stuff is chicken feed. A concern that the GOP is going to beat someone up over their public service is just not that important in this era, when their own candidate obliterates any comparable standard. Just one inquiry matters- How is she going to beat Trump?
The rest is meaningless.
5
"She's not liberal enough!" was the argument used to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House. Remember Hillary's links to Goldman Sachs?
1
I miss Al Franken.
9
This piece is more about signalling the author's ideology than any fair-minded look at Harris' record.
For readers looking for a more honest journalistic analysis that includes more voices, i recommend this from the SacBee https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article74792387.html
AG Harris overwhelmingly won reelection as California AG because voters stronglt approved of her overall record, even after having been served the kind of cherry-picked facts that are in this article.
6
I have no enthusiasm for Senator Harris either as a senator or a presidential candidate. But it's unfair to tag her with most of these criticisms. The California attorney general's office is a large bureaucracy. The attorney general must spend much time on the agency's budget and other large-scale bureaucratic matters. There's no way any attorney general is going to be personally involved with the cases the writer complains of. Her name goes at the top of the legal briefs on appeal, but underneath one finds the names of several other officials, ranked by hierarchy, culminating in whatever low-ranking staff member actually wrote the brief and whose determination is the one that ordinarily counts.
The writer's criticisms about Proposition 47 and marijuana strike me as better-founded. I have little doubt that Senator Harris is extremely politically ambitious and likes to triangulate, à la Bill Clinton, throwing a bone to San Francisco's leftist ideologues with relatively lenient prosecutions of illegal-alien murderers, and then taking a pass on the other two issues so as not to alienate people in Fresno. She's qualified to be president only in the narrow sense than she's more qualified than President Trump is. On an absolute scale, she has no real qualifications.
3
If she's a centrist that's fantastic both for the party and the country. I might even vote for her, and at least half of the democratic candidates being talked about disgust me.
I agree that prosecutors ought to be more willing to let a case go when justice would so require, but the challenge of doing so ought to at least be understood when considering her candidacy; once a lawyer (like all people) invests themselves in a given position, in this case the position taken by the government and her staff, it is very difficult to be objective and to know what the right thing to do us. Maybe she should have done some things differently, and I don't take lightly the tragic outcomes that result from overzealous prosecution, but she's probably no less ethical than the average prosecutor or candidate running for office, so I would be hesitant to read too much into this.
She's also probably the only female candidate who has a shot of beating Trump, and she may in fact have the best chance of any candidate. I've not rendered a firm conclusion on Biden's or Beto's chances, but I tend to think Harris has probably got both of them beat when it comes down to it (she's a lot prettier for one thing). By contrast, if the dems send someone like Warren up against Trump she will lose. Americans may not generally love Trump, but I think his message of American strength will resonate much more than Warren/Gilibrang/Booker and their story of victimhood and displays of self-righteous indignation.
2
Hmmm... Regarding Ms. Bazelon's demand that Harris apologize to George Gage because a prosecutor working for her defended his conviction despite exculpatory facts, she writes that "The appellate judges acknowledged this impediment and sent the case to mediation, a clear signal for Ms. Harris to dismiss the case. When she refused to budge, the court upheld the conviction on that technicality. Mr. Gage is still in prison serving a 70-year sentence."
I'm sorry. Maybe the entire Ninth Circuit should apologize, too. Or maybe we're missing some of the facts about the case: the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being the most humane and liberal court of appeals in the nation. But they dismissed a legitimate claim against a 70 year sentence on a "technicality"?
Kamala Harris is not perfect. But neither is any other potential Democratic candidate for higher office. Two years ago, I heard lots of arguments about Hillary Clinton's flaws, (and am still hearing about them). In the last couple of weeks, there have been reports about wrongdoing by Bernie Sanders and/or his campaign.
Four years ago, the search for perfection led to a divided Democratic Party and the election of Donald Trump. In two years, we vote for president again. Every viable Democratic candidate will be flawed, but they are saints compared to Trump. And more to the point, they will clearly do better as president than he can.
Keep up the nitpicking and watch Donald Trump get re-elected.
10
If you will accept many sins as long as they are "electable" then you'll get all the sins but you won't get electable. American voters would smell out the fraud.
If the most important thing is to defeat Trump, then put up someone who is head and shoulders better than Trump, not someone who needs to make excuses but claim she's electable.
For many reasons, it would be a good idea for Dems to run a woman this time. However, that means the best possible woman they can find, not just anyone with insider connections.
3
Prosecutors have a duty to do justice, not just win, and Harris failed to do so in cases involving prosecutorial misconduct. She also, as the author notes, failed to exercise leadership on criminal justice reform or even to improve her own criminal division.
Crime and the death penalty used to be a third rail in California politics and many Democrats supported the legal revolution here that gave us mass incarceration (and a death row with nearly 750 people on it). But as others began to wake up to the harm and injustice that mass incarceration wrought, Harris was MIA.
Many of us were hugely disappointed in this promising politician precisely because she could have made a real difference as AG.
4
Serious major fault lines with this candidate, not just minor peccadilloes. Her stance on the Franken debacle makes it very difficult for many to unify on this candidacy and rally around her. That is indication enough that she is not the prime candidate for the crucial battle ahead. I wholeheartedly agree (as someone else mentioned), Al Franken was a much better Senator. The more I find out about Harris the less I'm inclined to support her, thus far.
4
The Republicans are going into the 2020 campaign with both guns blazing. What the Democrats did to Brett Kavanaugh the Republicans will do to Kamala Harris. It's going to be brutal, time consuming and a distraction from the Democratic narrative.
5
Sadly, all this article “proves” in the sordid world of presidential politics is that Ms. Harris can be counted upon to act like a “bull moose in heat” to quote Hunter S. Thompson in her quest for nomination and election And in our two party political system the willingness to do anything in order to achieve the goal is considered more important than conviction(unintentional pun) or honesty. Savvy political pundits will tell you that Ms. Harris did what she had to do to get ahead—-which makes her a “winner.” I doubt that her supporters will bat an eye at anything contained within this article. Indeed, this piece is more an indictment of the current political system than it is of any single player. Bravo for reminding us that Americans get the political leaders we deserve—-and our fixation on electing “winners” played a big part in getting us Trump.
2
Her reversal on Kevin Cooper was after she'd left the office (state attorney general) where she could have done something about it. Former Governor Jerry Brown also disgraced himself with his cowardice in the matter, leaving it up to his successor Gavin Newsom (who has moved toward taking another look at the case). Harris, despite her prosecutorial background, also pulled her punches when questioning Judge Kavanaugh.
4
Kamala Harris is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before I retired and a public defender, I saw time and time again that her office was never interesting in the truth but in convictions. Her office and using her office as an example, many local District Attorneys purposely used lying witnesses, especially lay enforcement ones, hid or destroyed evidence favorable to the accused and other unethical and sometimes downright illegal methods to secure a conviction. Woman or not, Democrat or not, Kamala Harris is unfit to serve in any political or governmental position.
15
The article says, "When a federal judge in Orange County ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional in 2014, Ms. Harris appealed." Yet in 2004, DA Kamala Harris' refusal to seek the death penalty for the killer of 29 year-old Issac Espinoza, a SFPD officer, sparked widespread criticism. Harris has said she is personally opposed to the death penalty but will enforce the law. I suppose other politicians have taken the same position on abortion but I want our next leader to demonstrate consistency on policy decisions, and values.
The founder of Emerge America—an organization that trains Democratic women how to run for office, and win—helped groom Harris for office. Harris became an A-lister among San Francisco political movers and shakers. Pres. Obama called her, "the best looking attorney general." Harris is a woman, of color, intelligent, and strategically softens an ambitious reputation with her signature strand of pearls. Like any successful politician, she knows how to play the game and that's important.
On the outside, Harris has polish and appeal that will captivate some voters but Prof. Bazelon raises some good questions about Harris' record and I feel like she's one of those news anchors who is smooth and professional yet I don't know who she really is as a human being. Charisma wins votes (think Bill Clinton). Inspiration propels change (think Barack Obama). After 45's deceptive tenure, I need to see the authentic Kamala Harris before I promise my vote.
3
@Pamela Question: What does her being "best looking attorney general" or a woman of color have to do with her qualifications to be president?
4
@Fred Nothing ... just painting a picture of her persona.
1
She is a calculating ambitious politician above all else. In addition to the issues raised here she has also used wildly inaccurate statistics in her campaign against sexual trafficking.
Nothing wrong with being a politician or against trafficking but the idea that she's different or bringing something new to the game isn't accurate.
Just another politician looking to move up reading polls and tea leaves.
3
You can tell a Clintonite by the way they lash out at a well-articulated argument backed by objective research, like Ms. Bazelon presented here. Senator Harris is a poor choice to lead this country. All I see is a ladder-climber, not caring what she has to do to get there. Didn't the Dems run someone like that in 2016?
11
Ambition - That's all I see.
C-Span -- watch one hearing -- all you need.
10
Hmmmm, she fought to uphold wrongful convictions and avoided criminal justice reform. Good thing we have a President like Trump who passed Criminal Justice Reform. I guess she can run on her ability to berate old men in Senate hearings! The left loves that! Of course she will have to navigate her track record of zero legislation and being the mistress of Willie Brown.
4
She also refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin's bank for foreclosure violations against the urging of career prosecutors.
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/kamala-harris-fails-to-explain-why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/
5
It should also be noted that, in 2014, attorneys representing Kamala Harris as California's AG argued against complying with a court ordered early release program for low risk criminals -- due to inhumane conditions in over crowded prisons -- because it would reduce the availability of nearly free labor used to fight wildfires. When the predictable backlash to this double insult to civil rights rights became front page news, Harris claimed she knew nothing about the scandal carried out in her name until she read about it in the newspaper. Is that the type of leadership and oversight we want in the White House?
[Background story available at https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adamserwer/some-lawyers-just-want-to-see-the-world-burn#.onqVLLmMAJ ]
7
A phony like Gillibrand. She be gone after the third primary.
10
"Progressive prosecutor" is an oxymoron.
2
It doesn't serve as a good argument for Ms. Harris's intelligence when she believes hat her past deeds won't be dredged up and publicized. Is it stupidity or hubris? Either disqualifies her as a candidate. She needs to focus on trying to right the wrongs she's been a party to before trying to"help" the rest of America.
5
Yikes! Ms. Harris should run as a republican.
3
Kamala Harris needs to stop wasting our time and money and do her state job...
5
I'm all for new faces running for President. (Sorry Bernie, but I see you as an ideologue. ) However, we need someone who can be strong on foreign policy and speak to a broad audience on domestic affairs -- not rely on tribalism and appealing to factions or the latest popular topic.
I don't see anything in her background that qualifies Ms Harris to be a candidate. Mr. Castro couldn't even handle being HUD secretary. Ms. Warren is fantastic on economic policy; I'm not sure if that is enough.
I wish Americans would pay more attention to foreign affairs. I think we're yearning for someone to give a broad, overarching announcement speech that addresses America's place in the world and speaks to the nation as a whole.
3
These demonstrate very serious ethical shortcomings on Harris's part. And they aren't allegations - they are facts.
It's one thing to doggedly argue a case in accordance with your job and your client's wishes. That's the job of a lawyer. It's another thing entirely to withhold information or engage in other forms of misconduct. That speaks to character and moral code.
4
I couldn't care less whether a prosecutor is "progressive." I do care whether she is fair-minded and upholds her ethical duty to impartially serve the interests of justice.
Ms. Harris is all too typical of prosecutors from both parties, whose overriding goal is simply to win (the case and the next election), and who never admit wrongdoing or accept responsibility for their mistakes until absolutely forced to do so.
4
These are unpleasant details, but I'm still a little surprised at the commenters who claim to have conclusively dismissed Harris after reading just this article.
First, Professor Bazelon's sister, Emily Bazelon, wrote a profile of Harris for the Times magazine back in 2016, before Harris joined the Senate. It covered some of the same ground, so this piece shouldn't surprise anyone.
Second, America needs to have an adult conversation about the presidency. Both sides of the political divide see the post as truly imperial--and I'm not talking about the nigh-imperial executive powers we let the office to accrue.
I refer to the way we see the president as both an embodiment of all of our supposed virtues and a shaper of those virtues. Look at how Trumpists have projected all their hopes onto that tawdry, criminal vessel. We Dem voters did it with Obama and "progressives" do it with Bernie.
We've stopped seeing presidents themselves as regular human beings. More harmfully, we've stopped seeing the position for what it is: the national chief executive at best, or perhaps an exalted bureaucrat.
We should be no more sentimental about a president than we would be toward a hired hand. If the chores aren't being done to our satisfaction, we should fire the person.
Harris' actions as DA may disqualify her from office insofar as they show that ambition and aggressiveness compromised her judgment as a professional. But I can't stomach the purity tests and claims of betrayal.
3
Let's move on to the next democratic nominees. She and Sen Gillibrand have flawed backgrounds that make them un-electable by progressives.
4
Woefully short in meaningful experience, with questionable performance as a prosecutor doesn't begin to get close to any elected office … the majority of candidates of either party haven't a chance, here
3
So let the intra-party warfare commence. While the GOP happily re-nominates Trump, we Democrats will be at each other's throats in search for metaphysically perfect candidate, thet magisterial and telegenic cross between Pericles. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
At least this time, it appears that all of the Democratic candidates will actually be Democrats, so hopefully no tedious debates about rigged primaries, etc., which gave Trump and our old friends on the St. Petersburg troll farms so much ammunition in 2016.
And I can already see the pundits dusting off all their 2016 Hillary tropes about how this story will "cast a shadow/cloud over Harris's candidacy" and "raise questions about her trustworthiness". So let the primary season begin.
4
@John M
Hopefully, we will eliminate the corrupt candidates before or during the primary season, instead of nominating one like we did last time, with predictable (except by the pundits) results.
1
There's more. Her zeal for prosecution seemed to falter when the mortgage crisis exploded. As CA AG, Harris REFUSED to prosecute now-Treasury Sec. Steve Mnuchin for his robo-signing foreclosure crimes that cost 1000s their homes, despite strongest staff recommendation. Wanna guess who's the ONLY Dem Mnuchin donated to? She must break cleanly from all these issues or she'll tank. Any prevarication, triangulation or deflection is a failed strategy.
18
As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I'm appalled at this rolling vetting process to determine how our party's candidates conform to Orthodox Radicalism, when a child could tell you a centrist Democrat would run best vs. Trump, the star of our national nightmare.
6
@Mark Heisler
Hillary Clinton was a neo-liberal, a Republican in Democratic clothing. She lost.
The Republicans, i.e., the Tea Party, have moved the center of the political spectrum so far to the right that a "centrist" Democrat is now to the right side of center.
A child would not know that but you as a supposedly educated adult should know that.
We need another FDR, not a progressive but a liberal, to be the Democratic candidate.
A centrist Democrat means another establishment candidate taking dark money from the rich, PACs, Wall Street, etc. speaking progressive Democratic words but governing as a liberal Republican.
Failing to nominate a liberal Democratic candidate means that the many of the problems facing those of us in the 99% (like income inequality and stagnant wage growth) will not be addressed.
What the Democrats need to do to win is concentrate on economic arguments as identity politics (sex, race ethnicity, gender, etc) is a losing strategy.
The only ones talking economics are those on the far left (Sanders, Warren, et. al.). Therefore the only way for the Democrats to win is with a liberal candidate.
Besides you are living in a fantasy world if you think Republicans would prefer to vote for a Republican-lite candidate over the official Republican candidate.
1
Nowhere and in no state is the attorney general anything more than a high level public prosecutor. And no attorney general will behave as if she (or he) is a public defender. No excuses for how Harris behaved, but not a surprise either. More important than Harris' record as California's AG, is how does she compare with other Democrats announcing their intention to be the Party's standard bearer in the 2020 election? Time will tell.
3
At this point I'm an early supporter of Kamala Harris. Early being the key word; I'll wait and hear everyone out. I appreciate this article as part of that discussion.
I believe Kamala Harris has the right background and experience. And the smarts. I would expect someone like that to have a complicated past, to at some point in the past having been on the wrong side of history. Like all of us of sufficient age and experience. I will hear her out and expect her to explain her past.
I would prefer that to someone with no experience at all and so has no record of ever being wrong. I would prefer that to someone whose views change with the wind, or to someone who seems to be running to be a pop icon, or to someone who is part of the past of the democratic party.
3
This idea that a candidate has to be perfect - or even close to perfect - is toxic.
They're running to be the President of the United States. They have to represent hundreds of millions of people, have political positions on hundreds of issues. Even just taking a few hot button ones, to expect that your candidate agrees with you (and always has) on the top items is entirely unrealistic.
To call it 'lesser of two evils' when choosing between someone who agrees with you 50% of the time, and someone who agrees with you 10% of the time is totally inaccurate.
2
'Progressive' is the buzzword right now and candidates and potential candidates will package themselves accordingly.
I suppose the house races should give us some hope that enough people will see past the cynical rebranding that we're in for ad nauseam until 2020.
That enough people will have a visceral reaction of disgust that there's still an expectation that they can be counted on to not look past PR and talking points and look for facts.That there's hope that enough of us will look for where candidates money is coming from and voting records.
None of us owe Ms Harris or any potential candidate or candidate anything. If you're going to call yourself a progressive, you better be prepared to or have the voting record to prove it.
5
I view opinions like these as a good ‘starting point’ for a conversation about the 2020 candidates.
Other writers and journalists can then dig deep and see whether there is a pattern to the candidate, or whether this is just one opinion writer’s assessment.
This is way more helpful than the 2nd grade level discussions around: is she likable? Is she like Hillary? Xyz happened to a candidate once, could it happen to this candidate?
I mean, c’mon.
I would like a fuller examination of candidates. The right wing media coalesces on a narrative about the Democrats and everyone in that ecosystem reinforces that message.
The sheeple in the mainstream media then unwittingly reinforce that narrative by repeatedly questioning about it, even if to disprove it. Was there any reason to cover Hillary for a few weeks in 2016 as if she didn’t have the health or stamina to be president? When Trump only sits and watches news and plays golf...?
So, don’t let anyone force their narrative on a candidate with simple labels: whether far left, progressive, or corporate. Reality is much more complicated.
And, by reality, I would want a coverage of a candidate’s positions - not his visit to the dentist.
8
If I had a dime for every teenage victim called a liar by her own mother who took up for the boyfriend that abused my victim--as opposed to truly deeply listening to that victim to discover the truth--I would be retired, rich and not a 10-year veteran of a Sensitive Crimes Unit. Kids who are abused don't trust anyone--of course they lie. That doesn't mean their stories of abuse are false nor does it mean that their abuser is innocent. A jury heard from, saw and scrutinized that young girl on a public witness stand. Lara Bazelon would have more crediblity if she acknowledged that fact. Instead, she sits in an ivory tower as a professor of law with a tiny bit of experience as a federal defender--likely someone who has never tried or tested a sexual assault case, much less prosecuted one or stood in a courtroom advocating for a victim discarded by her family who never valued her in the first place, which was likely clear to her abuser on his first date with that victim's mom. I can't handle this.
7
@jenh11
Yes, there must have been another case the author could have used, rather than the Gage case. Attacking the credibility of a teenage abuse victim is in extremely poor taste. This is why more victims do not report.
5
Thank you for reporting this. We need to get Republicans OUT of the Democratic Party.
4
@Tracy Rupp
Yes, there have been many public discussions about the disappearance of "moderate" Republicans. They didn't disappear -- they became "Democrats" and cynically took over the party -- the false opposition that prevents and genuine reform.
1
Oh no! She's a (gasp) moderate???
I don't see anything bad here. Dismissing all cases because of some misbehavior of one crime tech is something that should be opposed - a great many criminals got released on society due to that. And not everyone has to agree instantly about marijuana, and prosecuting the parents of truant kids is a good thing for the kids, who will be badly handicapped in life without education. So if this disproportionately affects minority kids, it's a GOOD thing to do what it takes to make the parents focus on their education.
She's strong, knowledgable, able to stand and make a point, to debate, to present a case, she's a great candidate.
12
I wish Al Franken would run.
3
I would love to see a progressive democrat elected in 2020, but it's not going to be Ms Harris (despite the fact I have voted for her multiple times). She perpetuated the 'white is right,' Blue Lives Matter - Jeff Sessions' take on law enforcement for decades. And for that reason alone, this dude cannot abide.
4
The only questions we, on the Left should ask when presented with an option for a Pres Nominee is; Can this person beat Trump? At this point Sen Harris does not appear to tick that box. Next!
1
Worst of all, Harris refused to prosecute Mnuchin for financial crimes so now we have him in the US Treasury undoing Russian sanctions. She is no progressive.
8
If Senator Harris runs, maybe she should campaign as a "law and order" candidate. Maybe Harris would gain more votes than she would lose?
Trump got 60 million votes. 60 million voters were either stupid, in denial, ignorant or were combination thereof. Because of Trump, anything can pitched almost any way to get votes. It has become more difficult to predict what voters will believe, but, alas, too many voters have become easier to deceive.
Prosecutors are notoriously opportunistic. This article makes clear issues Harris has and I cannot bring my self to support her.
4
After 2016 fiasco it is important that the voters in the primaries carefully consider
the qualifications of the candidates.
We now know the consequens of voting
on slogans like"make America great
again". Hope we have learned the
lesson.
1
Please save us the sanctimony. We have an adversarial justice system. Prosecutors are not suppose to rollover for suspects and convicted criminals.
And there is no epidemic of mass incarceration. The victims of crimes by minority defendants are overwhelmingly other minorities. That includes drug dealers poisoning minority communities.
And if you object to the death penalty, then don’t murder other people. The appeals process for capital cases is so long, it’s effectively become a life sentence. Victim’s families also deserve justice.
This pro-criminal advocacy in this opinion piece is not progressive, it’s revolting.
3
Read up on Kevin Cooper.
Put's a twist on the Bob Dylan classic. "You're gonna have to serve somebody." Then it was the devil, now I suppose it's the Lord. But I'm not sure.
The history of prosecutorial abuse in California and the nation is well known. Other than high profile cases highlighted by the Innocence Project, most examples enter the public press when an ambitious prosecutor runs for higher elective office.
Kamala Harris’ sinned twice as San Francisco’s and California’s public prosecutor.
First, she used defendant’s’ cases to promote her own career by sopporting the then popular “tough on crime” position expected of all police and public prosecutors. Her second sin is hypocrisy. She now structures her senatorial image as ultra-progressive as she jockeys for a position in the race for the 2020 Democratic party presidential nomination.
She is the first but not the last politician who placed rank ambition above her oath of office. She is at this point a political weathervane that indicates and follows the direction of whatever political breeze is blowing at the moment.
4
I do not support or not support Ms. Harris because I know very little about her. This article helps.
The one thing that strikes me is the number of men who are commenting who seem to think no woman is good enough to be OUR President.
I wonder if they think their mothers were good enough to have pushed them from their bodies under great pain and duress.
It is past time for men to look beyond the anti-female propaganda that has fueled HIStory for centuries.
Fortunately, many are. Thanks to them.
5
Amazing - something about Harris that I like.
I really believe in the rule of law, which many Democrats do not.
2
What a mindless, open statement, James Stewart. How can you even suggest that "democrats" don't believe in the rule of law?
I do. Of course, I'm a Socially Progressive Independent and plan to vote only for democrats in the foreseeable future.
@njglea
"What a mindless, open statement...." Sort of like stating in every comment "We The People...."
3
The case of George Gage, described in this column, seems particularly telling, not just with regard to Sen. Harris, but also with regard to the metoo movement.
Mr. Gage is the electrician who was accused by his stepdaughter of sexual abuse, years after the alleged abuse took place. He was convicted on the basis of this testimony, and remains in jail. This article strongly suggests he is, in fact, innocent. The author is a law professor, and former director of the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent; she is in a position to make an informed judgement.
The moral seems to be: not all credible accusations by women, especially those made years after the fact, are truly credible.
Perhaps most are, but not all. For another example, read the recent articles on the Groveland case in Florida, in wish several black men, very probably falsely accused and cconvicted, lost their lives.
I’ve included links to articles on the Groveland case, and another tragic wrong conviction (also of black defendents) below.
I hope that those who tout “credible” accusations as if they were gospel, including many opinion writers for this newspaper, remember that while most such accusations may be true, not all are.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/27/us/groveland-four-apology-florida.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/nyregion/innocence-project-manhattan-rape.html
6
"Do as I say, not as I do."
Senator Harris is photogenic, smart, and seemingly self-aggrandizing. She may also be misleading.
She is perfect for the modern media, and a run at the Oval Office.
2
Perhaps it is good to get all the mud slinging and skeletons out there early. In politics, the optics are everything. If Kamala Harris were to make it to the nomination, the TV ad run continuously by Republicans would be that she was DA in San Francisco when Kathryn Steinle was accidentally shot by José Inez García Zárate from Mexico - an illegal immigrant. But, let us not cast judgement from one op-ed. So many competent, intelligent people will likely run and the debates and discussions will bring some intelligence back to the public discourse.
2
@justpaul writes: "If Kamala Harris were to make it to the nomination, the TV ad run continuously by Republicans would be that she was DA in San Francisco when Kathryn Steinle was accidentally shot by José Inez García Zárate from Mexico - an illegal immigrant."
Except that Harris wasn't. That shooting occurred in 2015, and Harris was DA until January 2011.
3
@MJ thanks for the correction. But the larger issue of sanctuary cities will be brought up nonetheless.
For those who are quick to condemn Ms. Harris: This is an opinion piece. What is the writer's agenda? What is the motivation behind the piece? What are the complete facts about the cited cases and what has been left out of the narrative? While it should possibly motivate folks to find out more about this potential candidate, wholesale dismissal based on one person's opinion is the type of knee-jerk response that is ruining our political system.
8
Good to bring this to light. A reminder that we can't judge politicians for their speech but for their history of action. Words go with the wind. Actions speak for themselves. I would never support Mrs. Harris' candidacy.
5
Um, what’s wrong with holding parents accountable for not sending their kids to school?
2
Oh wow, a former trial attorney in the Office of the Federal Public Defender in Los Angeles doesn’t like the former California AG and SF DA. What a shocker. (Not.) Ms Harris did her job as a prosecutor and part of that job, like it or not, is defending convictions.
Is Ms Bazelon going to point out all the times that trial lawyers/public defenders use legal technicalities to get their defendants off? Use of a legal technicality in our criminal justice system Happens. All. The. Time. If Ms Bazelon is critical of a prosecutor using it to the state’s advantage, then is she equally critical when the defense uses the same?
This opinion piece is just that - opinion. Pointing out a few bad cases doesn’t make Ms Harris’s whole career bad. And the far-too-short paragraph at the end of this piece pointing out Ms Harris’s accomplishments doesn’t count as a truly critical look at the whole.
Also, as a white woman, I can’t help but notice Ms Bazelon is white and Ms Harris is black. Will Ms Bazelon be equally critical of white candidates?
9
@RT, Unfortunately true, is that if Harris were Caucasion, she's not even be considered.
3
This is an unexpectedly soft pitch from a normally perceptive partisan which illustrates the adage that the best analysts make the worst generals.
This entire argument sinks on its two premises, 1) that Americans recognize their own interests and 2) that American voters judge a book by its content rather than by its cover.
Republicans are capable of monolithic unity, willing to vote for an imperfect vehicle to win, because they know victory provides access to levers of power which makes everything else possible, namely turning back the clock and returning us to the Dark Ages.
Democrats are anything but: they pick a favorite and follow him/her on an often Quixotic mission, blind to the larger reality, then pout, pick up their marbles and go home when the mission fails. Their political commitment begins and ends with Don/Donna Quixote. They are oblivious to the fact that, to do good things, you first have to get access to the levers of power. Worse, they fail to learn from mistakes and defeat, and do the same thing the next time, over and over again.
That is why the minority party in the US by registration has dominated both the federal and state governments, not because their policies have merit, but because they are focused, disciplined, relentless and ruthless.
Our side is disorganized, self-indulgent, flighty and pathetic.
Her undeniable accomplishments aside, Warren has made herself an object of ridicule. No one did this to her. Wishing otherwise won't make it so.
2
And look what she (and many other female Senators) did to Al Franken. No, Kamala will not get my vote. She’s proof that just because you’re a woman doesn’t mean anything other than you’re a woman.
10
Professor Bazelon's piece with all its unsettling revelations does not disqualify Senator Harris from seeking the nomination for President, but the Republican party might be a better fit if they ever decide a candidate who is a woman with "tough on crime" creds, diverse ethnicity, and the ability to attract big donors is in their future. Stranger things have happened.
3
I am confident there is another side to the story in each of the anecdotes presented here. I can't condemn Ms. Harris on any of this.
But what did play out publicly right in front of our eyes, and as such rendered us all as witnesses, was the way Senator Harris condemned Senator Al Franken for his alleged conduct re. women in the midst of the #MeToo tempest. Franken asked only for a full hearing, and Senator Harris was one of the powerful female leaders who excoriated him with her own conclusions and demanded that he resign without the slightest aspect of due process.
That she took this harsh and unfair position motivated by what appeared to be selfish political opportunism only added to the significance of her malfeasance. I think most people will be able to forgive Senator Franken's lapses, but I don't think we can be as lenient with Senator Harris's.
6
How different is her record from the records of male attorneys general? when such stuff is reported against women, it has a special force.
3
@Inveterate. The issue isn't male vs. female. It's that Sen. Harris has just published a book in which she appears to extoll herself as being progressive and a champion of individuals' rights. Prof. Bazelon's piece claims that is not necessarily the case.
That makes the issue one of authenticity vs. hypocrisy.
4
So, the hit-jobs have started, right?
Remember, Democrats, let's shoot ourselves in the feet.
5
To many progressives, this is not new. I have never supported her for these reasons and hope others are informed before her ambition to higher office gains more traction. sYou cannot trust a liar and a crook nomatter what ideas they pretend to espouse. If anything, I hope Americans learn this from our unfortunate experience with the current administration.
3
I am in the middle of the depressing slog of Harris' book.
It is a veritable chronicle of inauthenticity. It reveals a bland, cautious, cynical candidate.
Nothing would thrill me more than a Black female president, but this is not Kamala's moment.
13
Ms. Harris is of East Indian descent, Cousy.
@njglea
Her mother is of East Indian descent. Her father is from Jamaica.
4
@njglea
She identifies herself as Black, so I will honor that. Her father was Jamaican.
2
"Progressive" is not a party affliation, "Democrat" is. I hope at least a few candidates keep this in mind.
2
Agree with this opinion piece. Sen Harris as an opportunist as well as hypocrite. There are better democratic candidates.
11
No prosecutor who takes their job seriously will pass muster with a left-wing academic, such as this author. Anyone can nitpick a long career for violations of leftist purity. As for Ms. Harris initially supporting the death penalty and holding negligent parents legally accountable -- that makes a moderate such as myself more likely to vote for her, not less.
4
So she's as adept as Billy Flynn but riddle me this? What far outweighs all combined in a marquis role for the team most decent people believe is the unequivocal standard in comparison to the Trump circus? I'll give you a hint, the tumultuous Class 5 toxic river that spanned coast to coast engineered by those in plain site that drowned America from their GOT penthouse. At least she knew which way to bend the knee and she wasn't alone in that move.
This is a very important piece. Defense attorneys in California have long known that Harris' positioning herself as a progressive is a hypocritical cynical move. Its time the democratic party knew it too. I'm sick of all the judges who started out as prosecutors, all the representatives and senators who were the same. Ask yourself, what kind of people enjoy locking people up?
10
I know that I’m on “the wrong side of history,” insufficiently trendy, but I’m not enthusiastic about “dismantling mass incarceration” until we’re able to disable mass crime.
3
It is worth mentioning that in a January 2018 hearing, Harris questioned Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen for favoring Norwegian immigrants over others and claiming to be unaware that Norway is a predominantly white country.
1
Okay if I run the baying attacks on ms. Bazelon, for being a privileged daughter with a REALLY privileged job who spoke against some basic tenets of The MeToo movement?
By which I mean to say, folks, that this is precisely how we lose. Precisely how the Good Guys lose.
3
Serve a term or two then Harris can consider higher aspirations. So far all Democratic candidates DOA.
2
Convincingly argued. Harris is officially eliminated from my primary vote, as a result of this puece. My top picks at this time are Warren, Gillibrand, Beto, or Biden.
2
@The Buddy
Gillibrand was the major force behind Al Franken's demise. The rush to judgement on Senator Franken's alleged crimes still bothers me to this day. It was so unfair.
1
Same old thing - we have good candidates, but we shred and destroy them ourselves. Harris is a good strong prosecutor and candidate. And no one has perfect positions everywhere.
And on Gage - there's far too little data there - many children who are sexually molested have negative behaviors as compensation, including lying - and far too often the mothers are willing to knock down their own children to get the husband and his paycheck back. I don't know if that's true here, but merely the few facts stated do not prove out that she was wrong in the Gage case.
5
Kamala Harris attended Westmount High School at the time of Quebec's quiet revolution beginning in the sixties. Westmount is an internal Montreal suburb that abuts Montreal's downtown and despite always voting Liberal is as conservative as anywhere in this world. It has always been a place of tremendous privilege, home of the elite and has always provided first class education.
We all bear the scars of the peer pressure from our high school days and no doubt California's ethos has had a profound effect on Kamala's evolution.
Senator Harris' mother was a cancer researcher at Montreal's Jewish General Hospital. Despite the paucity of Jews throughout Quebec the Jewish General is the preferred hospital throughout Quebec for those afflicted with cancer.
The only thing this op-ed brings to mind is the complexity of genetics and environment in determining who we are and how we think. The only thing you have to determine is Kamala Harris is her suitability for America's Commander and Chief. She is brilliant and has been more than competent in her roles and she has evolved.
I can't help but think of a previous generation that grew up in Westmount and attended Westmount High and moved to California, Leonard Cohen. Cohen's album The Future painted two American futures one dystopic and one utopic.
I am not waiting for the Messiah and so far every Democratic candidate has pluses and minuses. They are all however competent which is a very positive.
3
The Kamala Harris record as California’s attorney general, detailed here by Lara Bazelon, documents how easily she betrays expectations of the constituencies she courts, to satisfy, as did Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, the financially conservative interests that defeat any politics for really promoting the interests of poor defendants in an unjust legal nightmare.
Whenever she goes “gaga” over Republican donors and Democratic ones alike, perhaps Barack Obama can explain his lavish praise of her, because it made no sense then or now. Kamala Harris has raised her political profile when she uses her “identity politics” as her political persona, and when she discounts it while acting against media expectations of her because of it. But as someone who claims a person’s ancestry has no bearing on their ability or work performance, when the person is seeking employment, or elected office, she shows, nonetheless, that she will use it and any other false advertisement to achieve her ambitions in service only to herself.
6
Say no more. Looks to me like Kamala isn't woke enough to be the Dems' presidential candidate. Give us Michelle, instead.
1
She was and is a rookie. She had no experience and was
curtly reprimanded in the press.
4
Pleasantly surprised to see the Times publish this. I'm still learning about Harris but the more I do learn, the more I don't like. This is tough to read.
11
Thank you, Lara Bazelon, for shedding light on Kamala Harris deplorable prosecutorial record.
Substitute "Giuliani" for "Harris" and we'd all be shaking our heads in disgust.
From "abolish ICE" (playing right into GOP hands) to using a technicality to keep an innocent man in prison, Harris clearly is not fit to carry the uber-critical Democrat banner in 2020.
10
Ms. Harris claims to have been a trial prosecutor handling the toughest cases: child sexual abuse and homicides.
Given how she has described herself and her rise, there should be many many of these cases, and given the draconian sentences handed out to child molesters (appropriately so) in CA, there should be a good number of appellate cases.
Perhaps the Times will locate these records, and see how Ms. Harris actually handled cases she prosecuted to verdict. There should be defendant names, case numbers, transcripts, appellate decisions case files....
It will be an interesting read.
If the Times can find one.
Echoing what Matt from PA said earlier, cases cannot accurately be summarized in 3 sentences. This is one, perhaps valuable, viewpoint. But this is the kind of Opinion piece that desperately needs space for a full rebuttal. Screams for it. You do readers and citizens a disservice if you present only one, clearly biased and weighted, side of the story.
3
Well I can check her off my list.
6
Also look into Harris refusal, when AG of California, to investigate Steve Mnuchin during the housing crisis. It was later disclosed the Mnuchin contributed to her senate campaign.
Harris is not a friend of people of color. She is another so-called liberal in the mold of HRC.
Identity politics is useless; look at the record. As the article states her record on civil rights and progressive politics is tainted. It's what politicians do not which demographic they belong to.
Thank you Lara Bazelon.
8
Sounds like the author is making a case for Kamela for the support from the right.
2
I absolutely hate trump and want him removed in the worst way. That being said, Harris is not the candidate to do the job. She comes across as arrogant. Which is most likely because she's more of a showboat than someone who is rooted in common sense and reality. We can do better. It is essential to defeat trump.
9
Well, here we go: if we can winnow the field even before the primaries by some well-timed hit pieces in the NYT, and maybe winnow it all the way down to Bernie and Warren, then either one is fine - either will lose to Trump. Or maybe they’ll form a team – even better!
But here is where it could be a win-win: if either Sanders or Warren (or both) win, America will get a taste of progressivism for four years (and the attendant internecine Democrat fights might even destroy the Democratic Party) - a taste that will insure once and for all this socialist nonsense will never be foisted on the American people again.
The right can't lose. I root for Bernie and Elizabeth.
Perhaps next you can deal with Joe, Kristin, and above all, Beto.
12:05 pm Thursday
1
Despite the off-putting arrogance of an academic convinced that she should be the arbiter of which side of history is the right one, I suspect the publication of op eds like this is shrewdly calculated to help Senator Harris rebut the view that she is too much of a crazy leftist to be president.
2
Per
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris
she is a mixed bag, politically. One the one hand she makes a great Democrat in her fight against big business, but on the other hand she makes a great Republican in her stands against freeing unjustly convicted criminals and criminal reform, and her idea that parents should be arrested and charged if their children are habitually truant from school.
In short, as far as both sides are concerned she upholds the form of a law while ignoring its substance and the legislative intent.
1
Ah, the Democratic circular firing squad. Harris v. Trump in election? Harris every time.
3
Thank you Professor Bazelon!
3
I’m not a big fan of prosecutors and D.A.’s not by any stretch. Their job description is basically “get convictions”.
But I don’t think Senator Harris is looking to repeat her previous positions.
I will say this. In 2020, we will require a Democrat who knows how to make a criminal case. And Senator Harris doesn’t scare easy. Plus she’s a woman of color. I would say she’s actually Donald Trump’s worst nightmare.
And one more thing: where are the attacks on Sherrod Brown, Cory Booker etc for any untoward stuff in their past? Why does the NYT seem to do this mainly to women?
3
@RodA
They haven't announced yet, RodA.
1
Funny, she was still elected as Senator of California. This writer is suspect. Why come out now, who is she supporting?
2
@David Gifford
I don't agree with everything the author wrote. However, the author did not just "come out now." Her opinion is being published now because Harris is a candidate for President. If she did not seek office outside of California, then there would have been no reason for the NYT to publish this.
5
As a recently retired state prosecutor who interacted with now Senator Harris a decade ago, this highly biased article paints a false picture.
Harris, as Bazelon grudgingly admits later in the op-Ed, acknowledges that Harris (in the view of many including Sen. Feinstein) refused to seek capital punishment for a gang member who murdered an Hispanic SFPD Officer.
But while I fundamentally disagree with Harris on many criminal justice issues, on which she has always espoused the idea that we must find ways to punish and incarcerate less, a view adopted with even more fervor for author Bazelon and the last hit piece by Jose Duffy Rice, one cannot claim Harris is like me (and tens of thousands of men and women who labor anonymously as state prosecutors), who believe that the primary goal of criminal justice is to “prosecute the guilty, protect the innocent” and seek a modicum of truth in sentencing.
Bazelon are others are no doubt thrilled by billionaire-funded “DAs” like those in Chicago and Philadelphia, who are trying to outdo the defense bar in dismissing legitimate criminal cases.
4
Briefly put, it appears that Ms. Harris grossly failed to put sheets down to keep the bad chemicals away, failed to show up at the RT dinner with Mike Flynn and Putin, failed to blithely dismiss the price tag for single-payer, and above all failed to fail to stick up for the lawyers working for her.
The hypocrisy here is astonishing. We have a president who has admittedly grabbed women by the genitals without permission, forced himself on others, and has acted like a misogynist, racist clown, and yet before Harris has made it official, her record as a prosecutor is being drug out and challenged. If we decide she's not the right person to lead the country, then so be it, but can we please stop pretending we really care about anyone's past performance or behavior because the bar is already set pretty low. IS it because she is a woman that this article, gets play so soon in the political maelstrom? Perhaps the reading public isn't privy to all the facts surrounding these prior cases. Let's face it, who isn't "Cherry picking" facts to support their thesis these days. I find myself barely able to believe most of what I read anymore based on the past performance of the media at large that constantly plays into the Trump goal of always in the headlines.
4
Hit piece against Kamala. Not buying it.
4
Living in SF, all too familiar with Kamala's "progressive" record. If she did a term or two in the senate, and developed a national track record, I may reconsider her candidacy. As is, she merely continues to be an ambitious upstart who's personal needs outweigh any candor about her electability to national office.
14
Wow Ms. Bazelon, you go from the sublime to the ridiculous. She is damned if she did and damed if she didn't. Harris is human and never said she was perfect..There are many ways to look, in hindsight, at her decisions she made over her years as AG. You say on one hand she was extreme on the right and then say on the other hand she was extreme on the left. Do you think she may know more about theses cases than you do? Did she know things you could not know? Your hit piece shows the breath of extremity, but can be refuted!
4
She can join Kirsten.
No, thank you, Ms. Harris.
10
With so many contenders vying for the Democratic nomination, it will be challenging to research them all and make an informed decision in the primary. I appreciate this article and the comments as data points to consider.
4
Does the Democratic party not realize that any candidate from a coastal state will win the majority of Democrats' votes? Another candidate like Clinton (with or without baggage like Harris) will have a steep slope to climb to win over voters in flyover and swing states like mine. Find us a candidate who will represent us all and keep candidates like her, Warren and Gillibrand in the Senate where they can represent their constituents best.
4
I'm very excited about Kamala Harris. She's intelligent, she's tough, she's articulate, and she's got the "chutzpa" necessary to win. And I think she has learned a lot from her experiences as Attorney General. And I don't believe that any candidate has to have a perfect past to win … look at who is in the White House now!
2
And they're off! Let the left-wing internecine squabbles begin! It's gonna be a long, long, primary cycle folks....
1
Here we go again. Reading comments below about how she just isn’t likable.
1
Years and years and years of supervising attorneys in prosecutors offices, and this hit piece is the worst Lara Bazelon can come up with? Kamala Harris seems quite competent. What I want to hear are her plans for getting America on track to a progressive future.
2
Brace for the cognitive dissonance
2
Uh... did she do anything right?
1
Gosh, another smug, egotistical politician whose hype doesn't match reality. Imagine...
11
Thank You Ms.Bazelon.
6
So where is this coming from?
It smells like the old democratic leadership is raising its ugly heads again.
This has been their common tactic in most elections, find any dirt on the people they don’t like, leak it to any press that will publish it to secure that the old conservative group stays in solid control. securing their pro bussiness leadership.
Even the New York Times has fallen for this many times.
Don’t trust anything that comes from anti progress democrats.
I’ll say it Again: Brown AND Warren, for 2020. The heart AND the brain. The guts and the glory.
Get it ?????
4
Maybe Warren and Brown, Phyliss Dalmatian. We will see.
4
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Warren is okay where she is.
I like her, but.....
3
This is somehow surprising?
I congratulate the NYT for incvestigating and printing this information about Ms. Harris.
10
I am disgusted with this poseur who pretends to be progressive, but acts like a fascist. She will never -- ever -- get my vote.
8
Obama 2.0
All superficial sheen and rhetorical polish, no substance or principles
4
"Of course, the full picture is more complicated."
Hmmm, that's not how you presented your "case" against Ms. Harris. Seems to me you did everything in your self-promotional wordsmith prowess to lay out a case that is very clearly designed to illicit an apology, avoiding at all cost Ms. Harris' actual complicated, and very successful, work history.
Good luck with that.
4
This is news, not an op-ed. Put it on page 1.
3
This is an OPINION piece, not reporting. Obviously some reporting is now called for.
3
Thank you for this article. The single most important way the Democrats need to distinguish themselves from the Republicans is that they will confront the truth - not run away from it. Our future depends on it.
3
"Wrong side of history" is beyond comical. Holding people accountable is not being on the wrong side of history. The defects cited in this piece would only concern members of the far left wing. Harris has zero chance, but the type of candidate preferred by the author would likely lose 40 plus states.
4
@Derek Muller
Assuming for moment that Ms Bazelon is correct in her examples, how could you NOT support full justice in the cases involved?
Conservative used to mean adherence to justice, not unjust punishments.
The hard-right lock-em-up attitude you present is exactly where this country went hard-wrong.
4
This is not a good look. I'd like to hear Ms. Harris address these examples in detail -- for the moment, I wouldn't vote for her. I'm open to people changing, but this seems like a troubling pattern and disinclination to use her power for positive change to the criminal justice system.
4
The issue here is whether, if true, it matters that Harris did the things she is alleged to have done.
Zealous advocacy on the part of lawyers is no excuse for injustice, any more than Trump's zealous advocacy for the wall is an excuse to cause a shutdown of the government of the United States. A lawyer's job is, inter alia, to honestly and competently carry out her job.
It matters that Harris once wore a prosecutor's hat, but now wears a politician's. However, the question is not about the role she played, but the character she exhibited; and whether her zealousness crossed the line, and whether this allegedly evil brand zealousness is part of her political repertoire. If it is, then it's bad news (see Trump, Donald J.), and will not serve the country well.
The case laid out in this opinion paints the picture of ruthless ambition. It tends to support the notion that one needs to be ever more ruthless in the present age. If Harris had reason to know that at least some of these defendants were probably innocent, and then proceeded to defend the convictions, then it implicates several meanings. First, that she relies on dishonesty to win. Second, that her interests are more important to her than the rule of law (see Trump, Donald J.). Third, that she represents yet another brick of evidence showing that pathological cruelty is necessary to achieve political power in the present age.
But there is another side to this. And we might have it if Harris responds. Let's watch.
2
"Ms. Harris also championed state legislation under which parents whose children were found to be habitually truant in elementary school could be prosecuted, despite concerns that it would disproportionately affect low-income people of color."
This is one of the most progressive policies that a state could enact. Allowing your kids to be habitually truant in elementary school is condemning them to a life of poverty. Education is the key to social and economic success. Indeed, I would go so far as to argue that allowing your children to be habitually truant at this age is akin to child abuse.
6
@Rob-Chemist
And how are the parents who have to live on bus schedules for their two or three jobs going to be there to make certain the kids get to school? Do you see the punitive nature of this law?
5
@nom de guerre. Then dont have kids. They need to go to school. How can you not see that? Only shot they have to get out of cycle of poverty. They need to figure it out. End of discussion. And by the way, what exactly are these kids doing all day if not at school....going with parents to their two or three jobs? No...
2
@nom de guerre. The parents need to figure it out so that their children get an education. Children are a parents most valuable asset, as well as being societies most valuable asset. If you are not willing to sacrifice for your children, then quite frankly you should not be having children.
Is it punitive - perhaps. But hopefully it will also be highly educational for the parents so that they get their priorities straight.
1
God forbid she do her job. Some might find it shocking that one's work as an attorney does not necessarily reflect one's personal views.
Progressives must stop being so stupid. Keep eating your own and you'll settle on some new Jill Stein. I can't take four more years of this bedlam.
13
Better this op-ed come out now rather than later during the heat of the campaign. And I would expect the NYTimes will give Kamala Harris an equal opportunity to reply to this op-ed by Ms. Bazelon.
16
Jeez, Kamala, maybe you should be happy that you got your U.S. Senate seat before this completely disqualifying information came out. You are certainly only Trump-qualified to be president. Drop out now, before you become a truly widespread embarrassment to the people of California. Thank you.
6
I wonder about the motives behind this early, wholesale condemnation by the professor. As a SF local, I’ve followed Harris’s career and rapid rise with interest and the same healthy skepticism I apply to almost every striving politician.
And she’s begun to win me over. In this town, where a bleeding heart liberal from the Midwest could be called moderate the most vocal minority that sets the tone here at election season, Harris, like Governor Brown, appears to have her head screwed on straight.
Thanks to the media, I’ve been paying attention to potential candidates for the past few months. Harris comes across as thoughtful, reasonable, progressive, down to earth and experienced in the “having been around the block” sense. Presumably that much time in the criminal courts can lend some perspective.
Gillibrand, by comparison, comes across as a rather expedient politician from a privileged background.
14
I don't know in what dream world she would be considered a serious presidential contender, but it sure ain't this one. Her only qualifications seem to be ticking the proper liberal identity politics boxes. Can we please stop wasting time and energy on people who are clearly not presidential material? This is how we got Trump.
11
@Mike
Kamala Harris strikes me as an extremely intelligent, well-spoken, and thoughtful individual. All the things that Trump is not.
Assuming many of the points in this piece have an alternative explanation, I could/would vote for her long before I would the financially naive Warren or the opportunistic Hildebrand.
2
@dmckj
ALL politicians are opportunistic, the only difference between them is if they actually mean what they say and do, NOT, what a gullible electorate wants to hear.
1
The Dems will repeat a major mistake if they don't pick for 2020 the best one meeting the current needs of the nation without regard to secondary considerations like gender etc.
10
She also refusef to prosecute Steve Mnuchen, known as the foreclosure king, for his shady business dealings, when he was in change of One west bank. she later took a financial contribution from him for her senate campaign. Certainly there are etter choices, besides the obvious, who don't have so much baggage: Sherrodd Brown Stacy Abrams, Amy Klobacher, Jon tester to name a few.
6
KLOBUCHAR hasn’t any baggage?
Oh, for crying out loud.
IF a candidate has spent much of their career in office while accepting corporate and super pac campaign finance contributions, regardless of what this individual claims, they are NOT progressive and the reason is very simple why.
"They can't be"!
5
If all of this is true, then Harris has some explaining to do. And certainly better now than later, when the decisions are made as to who will represent the Democratic Party in just a few more months.
I caught her on Colbert's show and I was actually quite impressed.
But, then, is she "easily assimilated?"
2
@Bob Burns, Harris is very smart and that comes across, also arrogant. Always picked up a phoniness with her.
4
Deeply flawed and compromised. Refused to enforce an injunction against Herbalife, allowing the scam to continue.
9
It seems that much of Professor Bazelon's complaints are based on the fact that Harris was not progressive enough based upon Professor Bazelon's interpretation of the case. While I don't know these cases intimately, nor have time to research them, I realize that what often stands in the way for prosecutors is the law itself. A prosecutor might want a case to end differently, but the law takes precedence.
7
As a resident of California, my recollections are of a AG who fought hard against Wall Street abuses, especially during the financial crisis. She went to the mat to punish the greed exemplified by the crisis.
The examples you quote tell me she fought to uphold the law even though the law may have been wrong. I think she was supporting the administrations she was working for.
12
@Jean
Perhaps you can provide specific examples of her fighting "hard against Wall Street abuses."
6
Kamala is smart enough to know that some balance is required to get us from Point A to Point B. None of us love compromise but look where all-or-nothing politics has gotten us now -- dead in the water. She is liberal, she is aggressive, she is smart enough to temper some of her more liberal instincts. A Bernie or Ocasio is fun to watch but either would lead us over a cliff.
6
Thank you for this expose' of the allegedly progressive Kamala Harris.
Anyone living in California knew her as a proudly hard-nosed "tough on crime" prosecutor, not the progressive she suddenly purports to be today. Either she was simply following the political winds during her career as prosecutor, or is following the political winds today as a senator looking to become president. Either way, this does not look like a person with any sincere personal convictions.
13
America isn’t progressive. We will best GOP by centrist ideology, compromise, and intelligent candidates. Sen Harris fits the bill.
6
I have no idea why all the hype and fanfare with Harris. She's marginal at best. As California AG she made huge mistakes and was a "no-show" her last year while she campaigned for Sen. Boxers seat. Inarticulate and clumsy with her words and a ferocious temper- she is not the bright star - just a another mass produced, cookie cutter politician looking to climb the DC power ladder.
23
@Aaron
'Inarticulate and clumsy'? Hardly that.
She impresses me every time I hear her speak, and I am one cynical East Coast Ivy League snob.
3
A bewildering revelation.
How was she ever get elected in California, of all places?
3
Just a few observations on this article, ladies and gentlemen....first, I don't think many people over the age of about 25 were always on board with the idea of legalizing marijuana. Personally, I've always found marijuana to have more beneficial than negative effects and yet that doesn't mean that I've always felt that society was mature enough for legalization so if someone's views evolved on this, I'm not going to consider it as changing with the wind. Secondly, if parents aren't the ones to see their children get to school then who, precisely, IS? Sorry but I don't want government getting into MY home taking responsibility for my FAMILY LIFE and it's a parent's DUTY to see that their children attend school, otherwise they are failing in their obligations to them and to society itself. Now I'm not endorsing Harris as a candidate for president or anything else and I've only seen her, sporadically, during Senate meetings and such, but what I've seen comes across as sensible and fair. To the author of this article I would simply say that we cannot always deflect responsibility upon others when we fail in our obligations to ourselves.
6
Since all the cases cited in Bazelon's article have been in the public domain for years, it is baffling to me how Senator Harris receives the support she has gotten from the Democratic faithful. Yes, she aquits herself well in confirmation hearings and, yes, we need strong women running for president but Senator Harris may not be whom we seek. At very least, she needs to explain her past decisions much more adequately.
13
Thank you Prof. Bazelon for revealing what I am sure for many outside California, and possibly even those in California, had no idea about the downright inexplicable behavior of Ms. Harris. I did know she elected not to prosecute Donald Trump's Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, following the housing crisis even when her own investigators found wide spread fraud by Mr. Mnuchin and his One West Bank and recommended charges be pursued. That was already a big red flag. And her unequivocal support for ICE when asked if ICE should exist. But it is actually Ms. Harris's behavior as a prosecutor that I've read here in this article that is even more deeply troubling. Thank you for shinning a bright light on the questionable behavior of Ms. Harris. There will be absolutely no way I will be voting for Ms. Harris or any ticket she is on.
13
Thanks for this, Lara. My goal over the next year is to evaluate 2020 candidates based on their careers so far and the vision they offer for the country going forward. I want to be open to the possibility of people changing their views, and admitting they have been wrong, but knowledge like this speaks to character and judgement. It's sometimes hard to know whether policy positions are heartfelt or expedient – Kirstin Gillibrand's transformation comes to mind – but at the end of the day I want to support a candidate who I believe to be good at heart and committed to doing what they believe is the right thing. Obama made me feel that way. I think it's too early to decide on any candidate at this point, but columns like this help make the choice easier than the typical horse race coverage.
NYT please commit to more articles focused exclusively on candidate's records instead of pontificating on their viability.
14
Check out Sherrod Brown - clean, good at heart- right on the issues (questionable about supporting tariffs), and a history of supporting the working man
3
Even more striking, showing her disdainful attitude toward public policy and public safety, as California's state Attorney General, Kamala Harris dragged her feet and never criminally indicted the Chairman of the California Public Utilities Commission who secretly met in Warsaw Poland with utility officials to design a financial agreement favorable to the utility that negligently mis-ran and destroyed the functionality of the San Onofre nuclear power plant which is located within 50 miles of San Diego with 3 million residents.
14
@paradocs2
That was a really long sentence.
2
The dirty presidential campaign season has begun. The knives are out. Sen Kamala Harris has an interesting story and her ise has been facilitated by the California voters who probably did not care about her history when she served as California attorney general. If she is running nationally for president then all Americans not just Californians will have to accept her history. At least from the point of view of a person from outside of California she is not the the Laxmi, goddess of wealth of the democratic party like Nancy Pelosi congresswoman from California who commands a lot more power than the president of the United states without being elected directly by the people of the USA. So depending on how many dozen democratic contenders are in the presidential race, someone who appeals to the national voters will be the democratic nominee. In my humble independent opinion, Tusi Gabbard will be the most formidable candidate but Kamala Harris will be a strong candidate irrespective of how much she is knifed. The democratic party has a history of knifing their own just like they did Bernie Sanders.
In the 2020 election cycles, I will not believe the polls and I will not pay attention to opinion columnists and biased reporters who try to malign candidates.
8
Harris is an ambitious self-centered politician with major defects in her character and integrity.
Bazelon is strongly partisan with her own major defects.
She is strongly committed to protecting the rights of the accused and the innocent unless that individual is Judge Kavanaugh or another individual with political beliefs that differ from hers.
Neither of these so-called "progressives" deserve our admiration.
6
Clearly Ms. Bazelon is a lawyer - intent on skewing the facts to sell her case. I was genuinely interested in understanding these claims, but Ms. Bazelon should take notes from a journalist - telling both sides to a story, not just selecting facts that bolster your case, is what makes a compelling argument.
14
@Shelby
it's an opinion piece
4
I read about some of these unlawful convictions months ago and had decided then that she would not have my support. DItto, Gillibrand for throwing AL Frankemn under the bus.
9
@Angelique Craney
I'd like to hear Harris' side of this piece. As for Gillibrand, anyone who supports mob justice over due process isn't fit for public office.
3
Oh, don't I know it. I understand her appeal in a broader sense but in CA, she's no progressive hero.
I have yet to admire any prosecutor, to be fair, but her record is hugely disappointing.
4
Anyone who is a district attorney in a big city for 7 years and then attorney general of the most pollinosis state in the country will make some mistakes and have judges rule against them.
5
Hear, hear! Kamala Harris is NOT a progressive. She is a political opportunist who was happy to mass-incarcerate minorities when it served her purpose. She should not be nominated as a presidential candidate.
14
You make it seem that her humanity is less important than her political orthodoxy. It isn't.
5
I like Liz for the DNC and I think some of these criticisms are spot on, especially lagging on marijuana, and "sprinting to the left" for political gain. I buy those.
But, as an attorney, it bothers me when cases are summed up in 3 sentences and then anyone involved gets condemned or lionized. Cases are complex. Maybe this author did their research, I can't tell. Sometimes you can have a lousy prosecutorial effort and it's still worth defending the conviction on appeal because there's strong evidence the person is guilty. The real decision from the prosecutor's perspective is "okay, my predecessor messed up. Do I still think this guy is definitely guilty? Am I willing to let the victims suffer because of my predecessor's mistake?"
Also, even though prosecutors have discretion to argue something at all, once you've chosen to "go for" it, you essentially become an attack dog. It becomes your due diligence to make every argument you can, as well as you can, for your side. That can lead to things like "winning on technicalities." If you can win on a technicality before it reaches the substance of your argument, you're not doing your job if you don't.
The Gage case sounds bad at first but take into account;
Time limits on post-conviction appeals are careful to allow for constitutional protections, including broad "prosecutorial misconduct" and "ineffective assistance of counsel" claims; and, we don't know details like what the substantive arguments would have been.
301
@Matt
Yes, individual cases are complex, but looking at Harris' overall career, we find a lock 'em up, throw away the key prosecutor. She was no more a "progressive" than Giuliani was. In fact, on drug offenses, there are more progressive Republican prosecutors in blood red states looking for creative ways to deal with addiction than Harris.
66
@Livonian I agree with part of this but how many of these red state AG's were "creative" before the opioid crisis, where the majority of those impacted now are white. The war on drugs was a complete failure primarily due to the fact of how and who was targeted. And it was treated as criminal versus a public health issue. I'm not discounting the criticism of Harris, but are we allowing politicians to evolve on an issue. I think that's a legitimate question for all. Can we say she evolved or she's just changed for political gain? Does it matter. Obama's position changed on marriage equality changed due to society evolving.
On the flip side here in Illinois - Cook County - we elected a new States Attorney after discovering the prior one participated in the Le Quan McDonald coverup. Now 3 years later, the new SA is backpeddling on commitments she made to tackle voter disenfranchisement in her own community. Why? Establishment/donor pressure perhaps.
17
This is the most vile, if candid, admission by a lawyer (and a sometime defense lawyer, no less) of how lawyers destroy the lives of defendants who are supposed to be deemed innocent until found guilty.
60
Empty suit. Were it not for her ethnicity and gender, she'd be a nobody. Put her track record on a white male and she'd be nobody. Of course, that won't stop her from becoming a VP nominee, for exactly the same reasons.
Hopefully the Dems can do better.
11
"I'm a Dem & a Feminist. And I Support DeVos's Title IX Reforms." Lara Bazalon.
That comment might be enough to dismiss anything she might say, but she is entitled to her opinion.
Before rushing to judge Harris take the time to read the cases the author is referring to. It is not as simple as she implies, far from it. Sometimes an opinion is little more than a political hit piece.
14
@Tom Daley Yes, because who needs due process when there's scalps to be had!
3
@Tom Daley - I thought that piece was excellent and an example of Bazelon's refusal to be lockstep.
4
Gillibrand is married to a Venture Capitalist. A real estate money man. Her dad - a lobbyist. By the way, its a proven method to gain confidence, dress the same as the person that holds a popular view point---Rachel interview.
Beto is a billionaire, also real estate money man.
Can't the Dems show us someone that would we think could win?
4
@s.whether
Corey Booker!!!
1
It doesn't make you a centrist to uphold wrongful convictions, it just makes you wrong.
15
The more the progressives complain about her, the more I'm liking Kamala Harris. Rejection by the left wing of the Democratic party will probably turn out to be the most important credential needed to get my vote.
9
I find this article a very one sided view. There is no opportunity for comment from Senator Harris. The author paints her a a harsh somewhat conservative prosecutor who has suddenly done an about face. That doesn’t seem like an accurate portrayal. Senator Harris has likely like many politicians had an evolving view on issues but she should have been given a chance to comment.
I don’t feel the same today as I did 10 years ago on the topic of legalizing marijuana. Times change and so do our views.
9
@Dawn
When has any opinion piece granted the subject of the piece an opportunity to comment? This is not supposed to be objective journalism with reporting of all relevant facts.
4
My only exposure to Harris was at the Kavanaugh hearings. She's now a Senator, but questioned like a prosecutor thinking that was a cool thing to do. It was insulting! Her "just answer yes or no" stance is childish and does not reflect what I want in a President. And her smart-alec comments in interviews confirm that. Now, Cory Booker is trying the same stance. The Dems will not win the WH unless they select a candidate who can converse. By that I mean he/she must be able to have conversations with the American people on their level about their concerns. Harris has not demonstrated she is capable of that. So far...the only one who has that gift is Joe Biden.
4
It is absolutely critical that journalists dig deep on all the Democratic hopefuls. If they don't, the GOP will. Some of the posters who criticize Bazelon's takedown here can't possibly feel that the public is better off not knowing these details. As far as I can tell, Bazelon has presented facts, not opinions.
We must know every negative detail about every candidate...well in advance of his/her nomination. Imagine if Harris became the nominee and then these details emerged. That would be a horrible situation.
Among other criteria, the nominee must be as clean and scandal-free as possible.
532
@Mitch4949
This goes well beyond scandal. An affair is scandal. This is abuse of power. Safe enough in the Great Blowhard Club but dangerous with power.
29
@Mitch4949
Hillary Clinton was clean and scandal free - that didn't matter. They just invented scandals.
If we try to let them choose who we can and cannot nominate, they'll do the same game as they did last election - attack the best candidate relentlessly to attempt to slime them, and ignore the lesser candidates or those they know would be easily beaten.
21
@SusanStoHelit
Not exactly. Many a scandal during the Clinton Administration -- as well as the legislative privileging of Wall Street, and some dubious financial dealings before they were in the WH.
HRC should never have run. She behaved in some ways like good old Lurleen Wallace.
18
In addition, during the litigation *after* the US Supreme Court ordered California to get its prison population to 137% of capacity, the AG's office argued that low-level, nonviolent offenders could not be offered extra good time credit for early release because the state was paying them $2 a day to fight fires or between 8 and 37 cents an hour to clean the prisons and cook the food. She feigned ignorance of the AG office's position when it came to light in the media -- so she either was lying to reporters or she was asleep at the wheel not supervising her staff. Neither option is a good one. https://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-ff-federal-judges-order-state-to-release-more-prisoners-20141114-story.html
10
These are some troubling events that are described.
I still think that a prosecutor is a good choice to run for president against a lifelong criminal.
173
@Bull Moose 2020
Let's start with Mr. Gage...
1
@Bull Moose 2020 Think what you want of the current president, but there is no history (let alone a lengthy one) of using his elected office to advance himself while putting innocent people in jail.
6
@Fred: This president has clearly used his elected office to enrich himself and his family, and he basked in those chants of "Lock her up!"
17
I appreciate the perspective and documented insight that Lara Bazelon presents here. Shining lights on candidates gets beyond their manufactured exteriors. However, I do NOT agree that Harris' support for state legislation whereby parents whose children are habitually truant in elementary school shouldn't be held accountable. They should. Abandoning one's child's intellectual development is child abuse.
4
Here we go again. Let the Democratic circular firing squad begin. Last election cycle, it was Hillary's emails and "trustworthiness". Now it's Elizabeth Warren's DNA tests and a litmus-test fight over Kamala Harris's alleged credentials as a "true" progressive.
All this petty intramural bickering while Trump has shut the government down and is stealing notes from his Russian translator. Democrats hold each other to impossibly high standards while the GOP nominates and elects any number of shady characters, from the president on down.
Who needs a general election when Democrats can simply eliminate themselves in their primaries? It's no wonder we are where we are today.
6
@John M
So you suggest absolutely no criticism of any Democratic candidate because that will result in Trump winning again? When has any candidate for public office not been criticized? Are they, or you, that soft?
8
Yesterday's Times had an editorial about the abuses by NY State's prosecutors of the rights of criminal defendants and the antediluvian laws and practices which allow those prosecutors to get away with their despicable behavior.
Justice is blind, we're told.
Right.
Only when it comes to those who are powerless, especially in comparison to the awesome power of the state to prosecute and punish. We should all be ashamed as it is voters who enable this type of injustice.
Let's make an example by sending Kamala Harris back to ... oh, right it would be back the Senate chamber. Sadly, since attention is rarely focused on those Senators not running for President, my guess is she'll be in like company.
4
She sounds like another Martha Coakley, more worried about her reputation than actually seeking justice for those wrongfully accused and imprisoned as well as victims of crime. Sad. I will not be supporting her for any presidential run.
6
The ever-growing list of Democratic candidates will be winnowed down pretty quickly as information such as this comes to light. I had heard similar allegations from California residents and this account reflects a pronounced lack of character in Harris' makeup.
Gillibrand's defense of Philip Morris Tobacco Company in the 90's will soon come to light as well. Defending the indefensible knowing that there were experiments that proved the toxic effects of cigarette smoking was not her finest hour (or decade).
For those who say a lawyer must defend a client, I would say that you have a choice of what kind of lawyer you want to be. How about other than a corporate lawyer, for starters?
Bring on the investigative reporting! I want to choose a candidate with a proven record of excellent character as well as competence and real life accomplishments. No grandstanders need apply.
That would exclude Beto, whose record is more conservative than his rhetoric would indicate.
Warren, Sanders, Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar are still looking good.
Elizabeth W
10
@TM, Agree about Warren, Klobuchar, and Brown. Bernie has helped set the agenda, but was divisive and unelectable, had his turn(plus too old).
2
It's helpful to see such information early on about a potential presidential candidate. If the facts about H Clinton had been so readily revealed by the Times before she got such a chokehold on the party, perhaps we could have avoided the Trump mess.
This column also stands in stark contrast to the recent David Brooks column, in which he bemoaned our proclivity to "call out" people based on their past actions. I wondered if he was attempting to set things up for a pending candidate who has many things to apologize for.
4
@Fern Brooks' column was completely unrelated. This piece isn't calling for Harris to be removed from congress, imprisoned, and banished from society. It's asking her to acknowledge mistakes and to do what she can to perform corrective action. It's also insinuating that we can do better for president of the US. A very high bar that deserves scrutiny beyond that of a congress member.
My opinion: She's a great congresswomen, we currently have better options for President.
5
The author has a clear bias against prosecution. We have a justice system which includes defense attorneys and judges. The defense has ample opportunity to make their case. Apparently, they didn't.
3
@glenn Our justice system was explicitly designed to have a bias against prosecution! Note Blackstone's ratio:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer."
The message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence has remained consistent throughout our history.
4
Is this what “but her emails” sounds like echoing two years later? Nice hit job.
Notice who else opposes the rule of law? The sitting president. Makes these issues look insignificant in comparison.
4
A lot of people have fallen in love with Sen. Harris without know much about her. This helps.
8
I may have to reevaluate. Ms. Harris may be a Democrat I could support.
1
That’s quite an assessment of Kamala Harris’ career. She certainly doesn’t sound like someone I would vote for: Next.
4
Fair points but my issue with Senator Harris is that I simply cannot support anyone with a background in law or justice who abandoned both to join the Al Franken lynch mob - condemning a man on hearsay evidence before any due process (process he asked for) before a single step in that process could take place.
Heck, even if she had no background in the justice system that capitulation to anything so hasty or thoughtless would be disqualifying.
Sorry, Ms. Harris. Franken was a better Senator than you.
730
@Jonathan Baron
Franken was a minor injustice compared to the major injustices of abuse of prosecutorial power that she actively defended.
The Franken affair was a group of middle schoolers demanding that a guy leave the party and Al tucked tail and ran. No guns, handcuffs, or cages involved as in her job in California.
52
@Jonathan Baron I agree with your sentiment, but, also consider that Chuck Schumer led the way, and vetted Kirsten Gillibrand's assault on Franken. Ms. Harris and others were in favor of giving Senator Franken an investigation to look into charges that in the end were allegations that have vaporized now that he's been removed. It was Sen. Gillibrand who led the assault against Franken. Bazelon is a laudable defender for the rights of the innocent, but by that definition is almost always going to go after former prosecutors.
50
@Jonathan Baron
Harris supported an investigation - due process for Franken. That's what should have been done. She was right there.
Gillibrand is the one who pushed mob justice - just force him out, no due process. Franken should have stayed.
88
"she made the bizarre argument that the decision “undermines important protections that our courts provide to defendants.”
Criminologists argue the unique role deterrence may play within the prison system to protect corrections officers and staff from dangerous prisoners with "nothing to lose." The same safety concerns should apply to other prisoners/defendants/informants. Erhlich and Richard Nixon may be wrong but
the argument is by no means "bizarre."
1
To flourish, progressivism needs to convert and embrace those who begin their political lives elsewhere, provided that such converts acknowledge and describe their evolution rather than pretending they've been here all along. I believe people can change, but those who claim to have done so warrant extra scrutiny.
For what it's worth, here is my voting strategy: In the primary, I support whomever is most closely aligned with my left-wing views; how else can I hope to move the political center in my chosen direction? In the general election, I vote for whomever has a "D" next to his/her name; how else can I keep the "R"s from wrenching the political center to the far right? It didn't work in 2016, but I'm planning to continue to vote this way in 2020.
9
@George Moody Yes, I think what this is about. She is infinitely more qualified than Trump, or maybe any republican. Given her history, is she a better choice than any other person in the primary? I personally think not.
4
I was an admirer of Tulsi Gabbard who recently announced her candidacy. But, after revelations of her support of "conversion therapy" for gay people i now have withdrawn my support. Sen. Harris has her baggage as well as does Sen. Warren. Personally, I would prefer to see Tammy Duckworth run but, as she has expressed no interest let suggest a woman who actually could beat Trump: Amy Klobuchar.
11
Let's just keep attacking every single Democrat who is expressing interest in running for president.
Too old, not progressive, too progressive, wrong demographic, not charismatic, etc.
168
@LS vetting is one of the purposes of a primary. primaries are not a contact-free coronation ceremony and treating them as such (as you should learn from 2016) is how you end up with flawed presidential candidates.
176
@LS
I would prefer a vetting of candidates within the Democratic party, rather than disclosure of such information by Republicans in a general election campaign
329
@LS Examining a candidates record isn't an "attack", and I'd rather sort through their records now than let Trump and the Republicans be the first ones to talk about it.
248
I have never met the woman. So anything I say is observational and retold hearsay.
She appears to be a person who is more interested in climbing the political ladder than one who is interested in getting a job done. In that she is a lot like Jack Kennedy.
I know that the scuttlebutt here in San Francisco by people who used to work for her or with her in the courts is not a generally favorable one at a personal or professional level.
Like I said, it is just scuttlebutt, but in this very small town it does not take long to cement a positive or negative reputation.
She would be a pretty useless president. Like Kennedy or Obama she would not have a long time in Congress. That lack of time would manifest itself with little that she could call on from people in congress in a pinch.
People like LBJ with years of deal making in congress get more done. She should, unfortunately at our expense, spend her full six years learning how to legislate.
We all want a Pilot who has experience flying the airplane and a surgeon who has had years of specific training to cut us open.
The hubris of these people who think that just getting elected to any old office makes them qualified to be president is amazing. Of course look at the output and performance of the current holder of the office with his decades of experience in Washington.
294
@JD Just as an aside Kennedy had almost 15 years in Congress, 1947-53 in the House, and 53-61 in the Senate. He wasn't a distinguished legislator, but he did have experience.
45
@JD I'd take Obama back in a New York minute, even at his most inexperienced status. Lack of "legislative" experience does not indicate poor leadership or executive skills. I don't think Harris is the right person, but not because she has little experience, she's too left politically for my tastes. That said, I will enthusiastically support her candidacy if she is the nominee.
12
@JD JaneF basically answered this post for me. JFK, in addition to his 15 years in Congress, spent much time abroad, in the the late 1940s introduced legislation to spend $1 billion on low income housing and $300 million on elementary and secondary schools, in the 1950s introduced a bill to raise the minimum wage from $1 to $1.25, one to eliminate loyalty oaths from an education bill, helped grill labor racketeers while on the McClellan Committee, chaired the African Affairs subcommittee and did a lot of work on labor reform. His background certainly assisted in his foreign policy wins as President, such as nuclear test ban treaty and his diplomacy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He had much more experience than Pres. Obama, and certainly eons ahead of Sen. Harris.
32
Do defense counsels ever have a positive view of prosecutors?
I'd value a balanced view of Harris's record from other sources before reaching a considered judgement of her qualifications.
As for change over one's life, both Roosevelt's turned a 180, as have many former Republicans who are current contributors to CNN and MSNBC.
9
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate... Democrat or Republican. I'm excited about Kamala Harris. She's really smart, she's tough, she's articulate, and she's got the "charisma" necessary to win.
104
@Tom
I doubt that George Gage would agree with you.
There is perfect, and there is inadequate. Harris is the latter.
47
@Tom, Anyone who doesn't know
how to work with the congress
collaboratively and no useful
executive experience combined with
the knowledge of foreign affairs
will flop. No matter how articulate
or tough one is, if congress doesn't
support the proposal will fail. similarly someone with little or no knoweldge of foreign affairs may
create adversity and put
life of the troops in danger needlessly. We need good president
to solve our myriad problems.
16
@Tom
The same could be said about the most infamous of histories criminal national leaders.
8
So you're saying she's a careerist who fought to win for winning's sake — as a point of pride and to expand personal reputation and power as she climbed up the status quo?
If she's not a crusader for social justice but instead this is true than I'd say her chances of gaining allies within the DNC have just tripled and her presidential aspirations with them. America loves telegenic crusaders for the cult of competition. It's our real state religion. "Winners" everywhere will soon get behind her.
Still she's not hiding it deeply is she? Not like Gillibrand - a woman handed her father's power and then a Senate seat by a Patterson, a close family friend. Now there's a package that hides the contents. Face it, this year like every year we'll be choosing the lesser evil no heroes on the horizon. So far Warren seems the most not evil. Kamala is going to have to push beyond the "More unites us than divides us" bromide she dished on TV the other night to pass the weight of a sincere consumer rights advocate like Warren who really does want the little man not to be swindled by big banks.
208
@Arthur
In other words, she is just another member of the kakistocracy.
9
@Arthur
I agree: Warren for President!
23
@Arthur
Agree with you. A careerist who fought to win for winning's sake - we had that on the Democratic side in 2016.
We don't need it again.
There are some candidates who possess decency and sincerity - Sens. Warren and Sherrod Brown and Sanders all come to mind.
34
We don't necessarily need a "progressive" to win in 2020. I am afraid, progressives will impose so many litmus tests on the candidates that we will have a Democrat easily beatable by Trump.
FYI, I don't support any particular candidate at this time. Getting rid of Trump is critically important for future of our country, not Democrat party platform. Winning is a necessity, ideology is a preference. You can't help minorities and average Americans unless you have power to do so.
7
If you look up the definition of "progressive prosecutor" you might be greeted by the term "misnomer," or perhaps "oxymoron." Prosecutors, like politicians, crave power. They are career driven. The more scalps they claim -- ethically or not -- the higher they climb. They almost never admit error and almost never suffer the consequences of their sometimes criminal malfeasance (withholding exculpatory evidence is a common charge). Nonviolent offenders have been locked away for decades as a result of prosecutors' zeal and ambition. This person wants to be our president.
12
This article points out the danger and foolhardiness of blindly supporting a candidate just because they are female or gay or from an ethnic minority. Membership in any of those groups should not matter. What's important is where they stand on the issues.
15
@Rhonda
There are some who have supported Harris for the reason you mentioned. Then, after reading this piece, they've completely changed their minds. I think forming an opinion of Harris based entirely on this article is just as concerning as the reason you stated.
6
it's not a question of being "progressive." Prosecutors are required to prevent miscarriages of justice and required to share evidence in a timely manner with the defense. Period.
22
The knives are coming out to damage Democratic Presidential contenders even before they have a chance to campaign. Elizabeth Warren has already taken hits, as have Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. And now Harris. Most of this comes from the Left. Memo to "progressives": knock it off, and keep your eye on prize, which is driving Trump and the Republican Party from office.
14
@John Burke Point taken. But there's a difference between knives coming out and commentary about genuine issues. I did not know this about Kamala Harris, and it is disturbing. Enough for me to throw my support elsewhere. The recent comments about Bernie Sanders' standing with Republicans on Russian issues or on gun control? These are genuine issues that deserve consideration. The attacks on Warren, so far, appear to be in the "knives coming out category." None of the attacks are on issues but rather on personality.
All of this is to say that we, as Democrats, need to remain alert to the differences and, as the primaries approach, to say nothing of the election campaign, to Russian (and other) interference and the attempts to divide and conquer.
10
Excellent observation! I hope the majority of us can make this same distinction!
3
@John Burke
It's important to weed out the bad apples before they go center stage.
Harris is an opportunist and a liar. People are still suffering because of her past actions.
3
"Kamala Harris Was Not a Progressive Prosecutor", then, down the page, "Of course, the full picture is more complicated."
Hmm. Maybe the second line should have been the first in Ms. Bazelon's op-ed, so readers wouldn't be forced to endure her list of mistakes "all too often" cherry-picked from thousands of successes, and paragraphs of righteous finger-wagging first.
Apparently, the author defines a progressive prosecutor as someone who fails to recognize parents in California face much of the blame for the cultural indifference to truancy in public schools, whatever their ethnicity, and that under-funded teachers already have too much on their plates. That rampant corruption in state politics is something in need of attention (Harris took on the chairman of California's Public Utility Commission, a Jerry Brown appointment, who was later charged with colluding with the Edison to defraud ratepayers).
Harris was an agressive progressive, a law-and-order prosecutor (or in timely parlance, a "due process" one). She sought justice with determination, for both the accused and victims of escalating violent crime. And she'll make a great, progressive president too - for all the right reasons.
16
@BobMeinetz
"Mistakes" that leave possibly innocent people in prison on a technicality are not forgivable.
12
True the picture is more complicated but her zeal in protecting false convictions is truly shameful.
6
Kamala Harris is not alone with 180 degree turns in their policies, Kirsten Gillibrand went from blue dog Dem to a progressive. Others may also be in this boat. It is then a matter of trust and a search for consistency. Certainly there are reasonably qualified people who are trustworthy and have shown well thought out policies over many years.
4
Yes, I was leaning toward supporting Harris, but now am reconsidering and may support Julian Castro. He outlined a clear, progressive platform in his campaign announcement.
3
@Donald Green Yes, you nailed it. Look at the voting records. And PS it is in vogue to speak of Medicare for all right now, because 70 percent of the people want it, but oh so easy not to actually mean it or deliver it once you get elected. And why did Kirsten go to Wall Street and ask them if she should run. If they gave her the green light then we know they hope to do business their way later down the road, which is not good for the working class. Maybe Miss Blue dog and Miss Harris have suddenly become honest actors but as you Donald Green say. I would rather go with those candidates who have a consistent and trustworthy track record..
4
Aren't you a bit niave to think that an Attorney General of a state would be progressive. They never are in that role. That doesn't mean she isn't an accomplished lawyer with socially progressive beliefs of her own. She was paid to defend and prosecute the laws of the state, not to make new ones.
7
@Uofcenglish
She began the article by criticizing Harris for recently describing herself has a "progressive prosecutor," not simply for failing to be progressive. She's disputing Harris' statement. English at U of C?
4
Those who followed Harris in California know that she would be another Obama: progressive rhetoric, center to center-right governance.
Sure, she would be better than Trump, but we need much more than that. We need someone who understands the need for consistent meaningful action on climate.
Contrary to Times' and liberal opinion generally, Obama had a very mixed record on climate. The main legacy of Obama's "all of the above" energy policy is that we are now drilling so much oil, the US is now an oil exporting nation.
That's insanity.
13
600 cases were overturned. Holy moly. I can imagine why she tried to keep the techs concerning behavior quiet. There are two sides to every story. As to the other cases, she’s a prosecutor. Acting like a prosecutor.
5
I'm surprised by how many people are willing to dismiss Sen. Harris' candidacy based upon one article of cherry-picked cases. Perhaps there is a deeper problem with Sen. Harris that will be made clear over the course of the coming brutal campaign. But, just like any legislator can be pilloried for a few selected votes, lawyers can be made to look any way you want depending on a few selective examples of defendants they have either prosecuted or defended.
I'm not willing to screen in or out any announced candidate at this early stage. Let's see how they perform in the crucible of the campaign.
12
@Joe
Pointing out the bad actions of a candidate is not "cherry picking," any more than is convicting someone of a crime even though the rest of their life may have been crime free.
My sympathies are with her victims, who are still suffering.
1
@Joe
Dear Joe,
What has convinced me is the opinion of those commenting from California, most if not all say this article is an accurate portrayal of Senator Harris.
1
"It is true that politicians must make concessions to get the support of key interest groups."
It is also true that opportunists will do what is necessary to achieve their ends. Of course, Ms. Harris is not alone in choosing this route to political power.
Ms Harris has been running for president for quite some time now. She is following a model that has been shown to be successful. It is one that has been working quite well for her, and her strategy is unlikely to change.
3
Most of the women who are running for President are labeling themselves as "progressive," like Kamala Harris did, and , worse, are from the Coasts where their candidacies may seem reasonable to many people. But as someone who has lived in Wyoming and Colorado ( which is changing because so many people from elsewhere moved here) , and also lived in North Carolina, I can say with some assurance that there's no chance that a " progressive" woman could win the Southern states or the conservative Western states, like the Dakotas, Utah, Montana, and many of the Midwestern States , like Iowa, Nebraska and Oklahoma. Maybe New Mexico, but certainly not Texas! Out here many think "progressive" is a synonym for "Communist." And with Kamala, Kirsten, and Warren on the ticket, we'd get Trump again. When he says he hopes the Dems will help him by nominating one of them, he's right!
7
@Vicki lindner The "progressive" label is flung around so freely it's practically meaningless, as with Hillary Clinton and now Kamala Harris. More importantly, the road to Democratic victory doesn't run through Texas, Oklahoma, or most of the South. Those states are going to reject every Democrat, especially the ones who aren't white males, and it's not up to them to choose the nominee.
4
@Vicki lindner
As 2016 showed, those states were not necessary.
The key states were Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, all of which are strong with progressive voters.
4
Texas is changing. Don't be surprised if we start going blue statewide soon.
3
In this progressive political climate, George Gage could very well end up being Kamala Harris’s Willie Horton in the Democratic presidential primary process. If Senator Harris wants to maximize her tremendous political upside and become the first female President of the United States as many political experts have predicted, she had better work hard to reverse her error where Mr. Gage is concerned. She must issue a public apology and vigorously campaign for his release by all legally available routes. Period.
5
Crafted image meets reality. But if you look at the extreme it is our current president. No aspect of his crafted image meets reality.
I'd be inclined to give her a break but I think we need to look more closely at these politicians especially after the huge mistake we call Trump.
6
As a Californian who would like nothing more than to see a woman of color as President I have to say that Senator Harris has always struck me as a person who's star is guided purely by her ambition. Her upward trajectory has been marked by many instances of either playing it safe or wanting to appear hard on crime and in the process not serving the will of the voters or for that matter the rule of law. As a protege of former SF Mayor Willie Brown this should surprise no one, but she has also become masterful at playing the faux progressive card, which this opinion piece makes clear she is anything but. I've already started to tell people that if she is nominated by the DNC to run against Trump I'll guarantee you four more years of GOP anarchy in this country.
29
@Bookpuppy
It is interesting that you make a Woman's ambition out to be something problematic, if not downright "sinster". Did you view Obama's "climb" this way? How about Bill Clinton's? It is safe to say that all Presidents and presidential candidates have a hefty dose of ambition - indeed, it seems like a prerequisite for the job. Rest assured, men have been very deliberate in planning and plotting their course to reach the White House (and rarely for solely altruistic motives).
Let's not make the same mistakes of 2016 - demonizing women candidates for having lofty goals and the audacity to take necessary steps to realize them.
Perhaps, Senator Harris simply believes she has a vision, a plan, and the leadership abilities to move the USA forward. Nothing wrong with that.
1
I find that many people do not tend to think or be concerned about the possibility of innocent people being convicted. Reasons include 1) it could never happen to me 2) it is collateral damage from an otherwise good system 3) they probably were guilty of something at some point in their life 4) prosecutors are heroes who have a high level of integrity (as do others in law enforcement) and we must support them.
To me, the thought of spending a lifetime in prison for something I did not do is about as bad as it gets, and so it concerns me a lot to hear about unjust convictions by prosecutors who break the law with impunity. It has happened right in my community on a number of occasions.
23
No supporter of Harris' presidential ambition can honestly believe she was a progressive prosecutor or has any record of achievements. Her support is solely based on identity, which would allow Trump to crush her.
20
@Michael Trump wouldn't last a minute with her.
1
As a progressive Californian, I have witnessed this state’s strange embrace of Liberal Identity coupled with Aggressive Punishment. It is not only evident in the judicial system (e.g. the Three-Strikes Law, the Death Penalty, horrible overcrowding of our prisons), but in daily life. I watch fellow liberals walk past the homeless with barely an acknowledgement of their humanity; I listen to them argue against shelters in their neighborhoods, and watch them sip $5 lattes while complaining about how the person sleeping under a tarp in the rain “increases crime and brings down the property values.” I hate to say it, but Kamala Harris fits in perfectly: people want to present an image of enlightened liberality, but they also have a deep fear of “dangerous” people, and rather than actually engage with and stand up for those on the fringes, or those unjustly accused, they prefer to push them out of sight, whether that means imprisonment, or through laws that criminalize homelessness. It is easier to be Liberal when we don’t have to also feel guilty and complicit in the suffering of those around us, so criminalizing those who make us uncomfortable is very Liberal California. (And before I get lambasted by fellow Californians, I do NOT mean this about all — or even most — California residents, so please do not take it as a personal attack. It is merely an observation...and of course my preemptive apology is also very Liberal California.)
35
@Peeka Boo
It's called compartmentalized ethics. It's a thing in psychology, it's been studied by professionals. More than just conscious hypocrisy, humans are capable of being driven subconsciously by double standards which facilitate their gain and comfort. Ultimately at the root is the flight form the fear rationally experienced when facing reality. Homelessness and predatory sentencing were made permanent features on the american scene b a longstanding bi-partisan effort, and not just in California. We're supposed to be afraid, it's a form of crowd control. It's stooping low and a substitute for a carrot, American justice is mostly a stick, and our politicians have laced the streets with cautionary tales to keep us in line.
6
The allegations in this column are concerning. As I see it, two of the most critical issues in our society are our corrupt and abusive criminal justice system and the corrosive money flooding the political system. Prosecutors often plan to seek higher level office and, unfortunately may conduct their prosecutorial activities with that objective in mind.
What is not generally mentioned in reporting about wrongful convictions, along with the targeting of African-Americans for more severe charges than similarly situated Caucasians, is the effect on voting rights. All states except Maine and Vermont place restrictions on voting for convicted felons. Those who are wrongly convicted are wrongly denied the right to vote. Those who are not charged with an offense in the first place are not convicted.
4
As a lifelong liberal who sees the Democratic party moving away from me, I'm *happy* that Progressives are finding fault with her decisions. From my initial research into this candidate, I find her refreshing and super-smart.
3
It won't be Harris. Her actions during the Kavanaugh hearing really turned off a lot of voters. Plenty of people with Husbands, Sons and Brothers who care about the concept of Innocent until Proven Guilty. Now Beto is revealing himself as a Rick Perry level intellect and his star is waning. Will it have to be Michelle to have any chance of beating Trump? Starting to look that way.
7
@GregP
How does the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" relate to Harris' "actions" during the Kavanaugh confirmations hearing? What specifically did she state that is contrary to that "concept?" He and is accuser were given the opportunities to speak. In fact, he requested the opportunity to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
8
she's the best D candidate so far in my opinion. if someone else throws their hat in the ring who is more presidential than her, more charismatic, with broader appeal to the people, then I'll vote for that other person. as far as her prosecutorial record, it's not ideal but the D party is not a one-issue party. if she is progressive on Medicare/Medicaid, infrastructure programs, and other important initiatives, I can live with her views on criminal justice reform.
9
@Tamarine Hautmarche, Harris is an opportunist and hypocrite. Watch carefully when she speaks.
4
A couple of commenters have noted that this is but an opinion piece.
Yes, but the facts put forward are very persuasive in supporting the opinion.
Are the facts in dispute in some way?
I don't see anything that points to that.
22
@Technic Ally
Do you really believe that all of the relevant facts have been presented by the author, who has spent her career on the opposing side of Harris in the criminal justice system? If you're looking for objectivity here, it's apparent that it's not present.
9
@Technic Ally
Dear Technic Ally,
What convinces me that there is much truth here are the commenters from California that have said this characterization is accurate.
4
The conversation regarding presidential credentials is a worthy one, and vetting a group of Democrats each of whom is far better than what we have still requires hearing unpleasant facts.
Nevertheless, the article should be seen for what it is: the perspective of one defense-oriented advocate who has a vested interest in undermining the prosecutorial legacy of Ms. Harris.
The facts may be as set forth here. However, the testimony of a family member who accuses an incest victim of lying does little to convince. Also, I wish the article would do more than start with a general accusation ["not a progressive"] and end with a demand for an apology to one convicted felon. It seems like this one case is the emotional anchor of this op-ed and the basis for rejecting the positive work in DC done by Rep. Harris. I doubt that any former prosecutor, progressive or otherwise, is immune from this kind of criticism from defense. As to finding the "pure" progressive, I don't see anyone without issues.
Meantime, many would pull the lever for anyone other than the current regime of madness. Here's hoping we survive to see the opportunity for that change.
11
As a senator, let's see how fiercely she fights for her corporate backers.
5
Forget about her record for a second. Just think about the optics and elect-ability of nominating a lawyer with less than 3 years of senatorial experience from the state of California, and particularly one with a background from San Francisco. That alone will turn off many in swing states that Hillary lost, such as WI, MI, OH, and PA.
Democrats are asking for disaster if they nominate her. Consider elect-ability this time around in 2020; don't neglect elect-ability like you did in 2016.
44
@Joe Arena
In those states, if the votes for Stein had gone to Clinton she would have won the election.
There's no reason to believe that those voters would not vote for a progressive Democrat.
However, that person is not Harris.
2
@Joe Arena You do know that in a real democracy Hilary won right ?
2
@Scott D You do know that in the US, the electoral college determines who wins the presidency, right?
5
After this piece, I'm no longer a supporter of Harris. What an eye-opener. Thank you. Go Warren!
38
@Ben I doubt you were a supporter if you allow one opinion piece in the NYT to change your mind. Think for yourself.
6
@Ben
You're seriously no longer supporting Harris simply due to this piece? I'm a strong supporter of Warren, as well, but you're that easily swayed by an piece in the Opinion Section?
7
Knowledge of this and a number of other inconsistencies prior to this opinion piece is one reason Kamala Harris is not very high up on my list of potential Democratic Presidential primary contenders.
Neither is Kirsten Gillbibrand, who has a similarly checkered herstory; both strike my as being both more opportunistic and weather vaned in their positions as opposed to more consistent progressives.
I'm not thrilled with Elizabeth Warren for other reasons, though I like many of her positions. (I don't believe she's handled the Native American ancestry well, and that makes her vulnerable; moreover, I think she actually has more power to do something about our economic inequality in the Senate.)
Many who read these comments know I've pushed for Amy Klobuchar, but she's not declared yet.
Nevertheless, if any of these people gained the nomination, I would vote for them over any Republican. Can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even the acceptable, because the other side is just so unacceptable.
26
@Glenn Ribotsky
I agree with all your points and especially after reading this article about Harris. I admire Amy Klobuchar for her consistent even-keeled manner and yet her insistence in going for some suitable response as in the manner she addressed Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing. She seems like the very definition of a progressive yet sensible and seasoned, educated senator, trained as an attorney, and most respectful toward all. And yes to underline your last point, will vote for any/all Democrats over any Republican.
31
By all means, us on the left, let's make sure that once again, we assist Trump in becoming President by tearing down a smart, competent, strong, imperfect woman candidate. Keep it up!
16
@MO Girl No, this is the process by which the candidates are tested. If Harris' candidacy can't withstand a review of her political opinions and professional behavior, how will she be an effective candidate in the general election.
If you want to defend her, defend her record. I don't see it as much different than any other ambitious prosecutor/politician trying to run-up the score to build their resume for higher office.
16
@MO Girl
Nikki Haley is also "a smart, competent, strong, imperfect woman candidate." Do you support her, too? Each candidate's record matters. If you can't handle reading criticism of politicians, then you probably should not read or watch the news.
5
There are better candidates both male and female.
4
This is probably disqualifying.
I'm increasingly leaning toward Warren as the best candidate (although would accept almost anyone in place of Trump).
8
@Andrew. Too old. Nobody over 70 (like me)
How anyone in 2019 could think that a prosecutor in the U.S. could be progressive is simply mind-boggling. Prosecutors are heavily invested in the status quo - they have to be, their entire job depends on it. Despite repeated and obvious information that someone is innocent after being convicted, prosecutors like Harris have defended their prosecutions - because they are at the head of a big old system that cannot accept that it might be wrong. That is the very antithesis of what it means to be progressive, in my opinion. "Progressive prosecutor" is an oxymoron if ever there was one.
24
@Joe Apparently caring about the public's safety and freedom from predators is not a "progressive" position.
1
@Joe This is a silly argument. What happened to doing what is right? What happened to ethics? If she wrongly sent men to jail, Mrs.Harris is not qualified to be POTUS. Plain and simple.
1
Then perhaps prosecutors are poor choices for President.
2
How quick we are to judge, to polarize our own beliefs, and to demand perfection in others.
I'm not saying the article is right or wrong. I don't know whether Prof. Bazelon has slanted things or whether she's spot on. I'm just noticing how swiftly we label each other and believe the worst of each other.
14
@MC
So if you're not stating whether "the article is right or wrong," then how are your statements regarding demanding "perfection in others" and "believe the worst in others" relevant? Are you stating the author is doing these things? She's not demanding perfection. She's been on the opposing side of the criminal justice system from Harris.
1
@BK
Thank you for helping me clarify.
I was referring to the comments on the article more than to the article itself. I should have been clearer about that, but I'm imperfect. :)
@MC
Ah, okay. I'm in agreement with you on that.
I felt ill reading this.
While I have been put off by some 2020 hopefuls for their constantly changing stances to suit their audience of the day, I had always felt reassured by the plain-spoken, intelligent junior Senator from California.
Not anymore. Not by a long shot.
Unfortunately, this is exactly why federal and state prosecutors are such potent weapons of (in-)justice. They get elected with a tough-on-crime mantra. They get reelected by producing results, in the form of convictions. And what's a few life sentences for innocent people if it keeps your prestigious DA title?
I am looking forward to the day where prosecutors can use their position as a stepping stone by clearly articulating how they reformed justice and found the truth, not by the body count of people they threw behind bars.
Like too many prosecutors before her, Harris fell in lockstep with this vile pattern, blatantly ignoring justice in the pursuit of amplifying her own profile. The instance of Mr. Gage is especially appalling. And I vividly remember Nicolas Kristoff's extraordinary expose on the Kevin Cooper case, requiring Harris to finally backpedal her infuriating position.
Thank you to the writer for this brave article. Let's have more like them before the primaries begin. I want to hear from the candidate's allies and critics alike and understand the full picture sometime before a band of Russian hackers emails it to Fox News.
73
As a former prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney, I find this article be unbalanced and somewhat misleading. Although I am not familiar with the specifics of each case or issue, listed, it is well worth remembering that a prosecutor is just one piece of an adversarial system of justice. The prosecutor's role is not simply to sit in her office and rule on individual cases outside the view of the public or the courts. Sometimes a truly honorable public servant does the things her role demands regardless of her own feelings, or especially her own politics. And that includes things like defending laws you might not agree with, or defending convictions that might even offend you. It is frequently better for judges to make those decisions, convinced by a zealous advocate who presents the argument in open court. The fact that she has defended duly passed laws, or convictions handed down by juries does not equate to acting unjustly, even if it upsets "progressives" whose politics calls out for a different result.
103
@Josh
Why would any prosecutor "defend convictions that might even offend you" when those convictions are tainted by withheld evidence, sabotaged lab tests, and police misconduct? Is there no place for truth seeking in the courtroom? Does "adversarial," in your view, mean winning at all costs?
63
@Josh
We are all captains of our own consciences.
When laws intended to protect people end up harming them instead, anyone in a position of power has a moral obligation to do the right thing.
"Just following orders" doesn't hack it.
23
@Josh In theory, at least, the job of prosecutors is to pursue justice - not convictions. That being said, prosecutors are ego driven and winning is how they keep score. How often have prosecutors - including Ms. Harris - defended overturned convictions based on DNA and other irrefutable evidence? It's also good politics for those who can live with incarcerating the innocent.
If you're looking for a former prosecutor who gave a nod to justice, think about Amy Klobuchar.
14
This should disqualify her, no question. What she did and supported was malicious, dishonarable and corrupt beyond belief. It destroyed lives. There should now also be a big question mark over her position as senator. But this is not confined to CA. It happens every day in courts throughout the country. There is a larger question here: how is it that prosecutors who conceal evidence, who lie repeatedly, who concoct evidence and who commit perjury are not subject to the law? Why are prosecutors not serving lengthy sentences for destroying lives. Perhaps that's what needs to be reformed as a matter of urgency.
33
@AN Great post. And the fact that the Supreme Court has exempted prosecutors from civil litigation is an affront to justice.
5
Kamala Harris shares a couple of traits with Booker and Gildebrand. Besides being opportunists, the three have been actively courting and schmoozing big money donors on Wall Street. This alone should be disqualifying for any Democratic candidate. For too long Wall Street has been buying the Democratic Party establishment, and as a result the massive transfer of wealth and income from the middle class to the 1% has continued unabated under Democrats as well as Republicans. And we all saw how well schmoozing Wall Streety worked out for Hillary.
119
@Jack Robinson You have hit the nail in one word: opportunists. follow the careers of these three--harris, booker and gillebrand--and you see the same pattern of fingers to the wind and totally elite connections. elizabeth warren looks better and better. she does not shift with the wind and she has actually done something critically important for ordinary americans--creation of the consumer financial protection board, now being dismantled by the trump administration. and that was before she was elected to the senate.
44
@Jack Robinson
Being an opportunist does not mean one is thereby also unscrupulous. Every time person's goes for job interview they are seeking an opportunity. Every time an employee takes action ordered by a superior that is disagreeable doesn't mean they are complicit in doing something that is unethical or amoral. I agree with you, that those seeking 'public' office or serving must not compromise integrity or appear too. Yes, some Democrats have been guilty of such breaches. But the Republicans are far more corrupt and dangerous than Dems as a group, because their behaviors are 'gang' sanctioned and orchestrated without shame!
9
Its going total some time for me to decide who a Viable presidential candidate will be to save us from our destructive force in office now. There will be so many pretty and handsome faces but the devils in the details......... I hope is doesnt fracture the loyal opposition just when unity is needed for survival.
e pluribus unum ......
4
I am more than convinced that the infighting will hand over 2020 on a plate to Trump. With a "progressive" Gov candidate licking his wounds and a corrupt Billionaire winning the Senate seat, Florida is already in his bag, all he needs is hold on to PA, MI or WI. No other state is budging anyways - just look at the Senate results of 2018.
5
@Sirius
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan all have more progressive voters than Trumpers.
If the Stein voters in those states had gone for Clinton she would be president.
1
@Sirius. Such a long time until 2020. Doubtful that Trump will even be in office by then. And all he needs to do is hold on to three historically blue states that he barely won and where he is seriously under water. Ain’t gonna happen. Your comment feels more like a troll than an argument.
The season is early but I don't think I want Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee. She's smart as a whip and possesses many fine qualifications. However, this opinion gives factual credence to what I had only suspected. Harris doesn't have quite the right temperament for the post-Trump era. Her ambitions often cloud her better judgement. That's probably not a demon we want to tempt right now.
Actually, I'm wondering whether any prosecutor makes for good presidential material. There aren't many examples to choose from. As far as I can tell, Andrew Jackson is the only prosecutor ever elected president. The only other example is John Kerry. However, first, he lost. More importantly though, Kerry's time as a prosecutor was transitional in his career. He never worked his way up a ladder like Harris.
I personally tend to prefer more academic and philosophical leaders. I'm inclined to mistrust professionals who are trained and paid to only every argue from one position. I think prosecutors often fall squarely into this category.
48
@Andy The only former prosecutor in national politics that I have any respect for is Sonia Sotomayor---and only because she uses that direct experience to fight for the rights of defendants.
3
@Andy. Let’s remember Thomas E. Dewey, almost-president, who didn’t beat Harry Truman running as a tough-on-crime prosecutor from New York.
1
@Andy. Academic and philosophical “leaders” don’t know how to lead and know nothing about the economy.
Thank you for this piece. I think some people in the comments who are complaining about the fact that exposing evil behavior by a democrat is wrong because we need to beat republicans should take a step back and think about what kind of future we want. There are going to be dozens of democrats running for president and the last thing we need is a repeat of the 2016 republican primary...
80
I agree with Ms. Harris on at least one issue: Parents of habitually truant children should indeed be prosecuted, even if they are disproportionately people of color. We must remember that the victims of their negligence, their children, are also people of color.
22
@Netwit You are assuming that prosecuting people for children's school absences actually solves a problem. This is a dangerously false assumption. Such prosecutions do not solve the problem; in fact, they make it worse. The family is now in the criminal justice system and last I looked it has nothing to do with helping people obtain education. As long as Americans continue to believe that criminal justice is a viable approach for social problems, we will consign a huge number of people to miserable lives. Period.
24
@Joe I guess protecting innocent citizens from violent predators doesn't matter to you...
Based on what I've learned in this article about Kamala Harris and recently about Kristen Gillibrand's background and history, I do not believe either of them will be good candidates for President for the Democratic Party.
210
@RIG
I agree with you completely - 100%.
What surprises me is how this kind of explosive and damming information has not been made public sooner. I've heard some even mention her as a presidential nominee "front runner?"
29
@RIG I sincerely hope that you will base your opinions on more than one biased opinion article printed in a single newspaper. Doing otherwise is no better than accepting Fox News as the Gospel truth. Kamala Harris is a fighter who is unafraid to take on any adversary - this is why I'm a supporter. Is she progressive enough? Steadfast enough? Does she take the right stand? I suggest you read more before making up your mind. After all, she hasn't even formally announced her candidacy, please don't write her off before hearing what she has to say.
8
@Frank Leibold Totally agree. Let's be honest, one reason they are being touted is because of gender and, in Ms. Harris's case, color and gender. This is no way to run a railroad.
6
An informative, necessary, and timely essay. Sen. Harris has a good voting record in the U.S. Senate, but, in the wake of Bernie Sanders's 2016 campaign, many liberal politicians now want to pretend that they are "progressive" when they are not. Sen. Harris has many virtues, and stands a good chance of winning the Democratic nomination if she runs. But she should not commit the mistake of pretending to be something she is not, or trying to be all things to all constituencies within the Democratic coalition.
41
Thank you, Professor Bazelon, for the truth about Senator Kamala Harris. Let's hope for the future of America she is not elected president of the United States. The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College way back when to prevent the popular election of people like Harris to the highest office in the land. Enlightened men, enlightened men, indeed! Thank you.
12
@Southern Boy
Yes, SB. Your description of the founders' intent for the electoral college is absolutely correct. So it's unfortunate that it just doesn't really work that way. Just look at what happened in the last election. Many states have even passed legislation requiring a distribution of the EC votes based on popular-vote results, completely undermining the original intent.
I don't know if that's what happened in the states that put trump over the top, but that's inconsequential at this point. So he may have "won" the office, but most people across the country as a whole voted against him.
4
@BC,
The Electoral College worked as it was intended to work in 2016. It prevented Hillary Rodham Clinton from being elected president of the United States of American, an office for which she was morally and ethically unfit. Donald Trump may not be the most ethical and moral guy but he is a whole lot more better than HRC. Thank you.
1
@Southern Boy
The Electoral College was created as an independent body, not as a robot to rubber stamp each state's popular vote.
Today's EC is the worst impediment to democrcay in the electoral system.
3
Here we go. It's just a given that, one after another, every Democrat thinking about running against Trump will be put through the ringer, tried and found guilty of being less than perfect, and the media will have once again proved to be Donald Trump's best friend by dividing Democrats against each other.
39
The idea that we should band together and not put candidates through the ringer, in order to win against Republicans is EXACTLY the thinking that, on the other side of the aisle, put and kept Trump in power. If partisanship becomes our first mandate, and principle falls by the wayside, then what’s the point?
147
@JDM These candidates should be put through the ringer.
Professional politician should be regarded with a very cynical eye - the hours are long, the pay stinks, and their characters are by necessity already so far less than perfect, so what exactly is the candidate's motivation?
While preselecting and vetting the ambitious candidates we just might end up with one or more passable yahoos and thereby bringing the potentially strongest field.
18
@JDM By your logic, we should just pick the most popular, I presume? What exactly are you suggesting? That we accept anyone? Why not accept Trump then? Good lord, this has to be the most illogical argument I've seen in the comments section in some time. It's better we do this now rather than wait until the primaries. Harris has a very troubling history as a prosecutor. She won't get my vote.
11
Thank you for carefully detailing what many of us in the legal community already knew about Kamala Harris. Prosecutors routinely cross lines, however Harris is in a different class. Of Harris's wrongful conviction cases, George Gage was truly insidious, a direct violation of Brady v. Maryland which held that a prosecutor withholding of evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment."
Unfortunately, Harris, like Kristen Gillibrand, is a pretender.
Neither are progressives. Less than 10 years ago Gillibrand, the protégé of Republican Al D'Amato, was an intensely anti-immigrant, pro-gun congresswoman from upstate New York with an A rating from the NRA who tried to cut all aid to sanctuary cities. (Does any of this sound familiar?)
Before going into politics, Gillebrand was legal counsel for the Philip Morris Company, hired to cover-up crimes committed at its lab in Cologne, Germany, where researchers secretly conducted experiments proving smoking caused cancer. When the Justice Department tried to get its hands on that research in 1996 proving that tobacco industry executives had lied under oath, Kirsten Rutnik used every dirty trick in the book to make the discovery impossible. Ms. Rutnik, (now Gillibrand), repeatedly traveled to Germany, interviewed the lab’s scientists who had buried their research, and developed a strategy allowing them and executives to lie about killing millions yet never be charged with perjury.
486
@Robert B
And though not quite of the same ilk as the unethical if not illegal acts listed above, let's not forget how Gillibrand quickly and gleefully threw Senator Franken under the bus. Personally, I'll never forgive her for that.
87
@Robert B
1) How is Gillibrand and her previous work in any way relevant to this article?
2) What do you know, as someone in Brooklyn, about Harris' work in California? The "legal community" in New York has no more knowledge about Harris's work on the other side of the country than most other people in New York.
8
@Robert B. Thank you for detailing the insidious work Gilibrand did while a tobacco lawyer. Though a lifelong democrat, I have never voted for her because of her tobacco past.
When a bright, well-educated, well-connected woman who could choose any type of law to practice decides to work for Big Tobacco, that's all you need to know about her character (or lack thereof).
68
@BJH: Well, as a moderate Democrat (no "progressive " purism here, whatever happened to "liberal"?), I like Harris even less now. The key word here is "pivoting", yes, now she is pivoting b/c of her burning ambition to .... run for president? I have been mystified by her conclusion that she is "likeable enough" to run for president. And I voted for her as Senator! There is no chance in heck of her beating trump (or even getting nominated) so I would like to see her back at her day job as Senator. Aren't my taxes paying her salary? And I hope Mr. Gage's case is revisited. This sounds like a case for the Innocence Project. And note that Governor Brown, before leaving office, ordered new DNA testing in the Kevin Cooper case.
46
Kamala Harris should not be president, let alone a Senator. In my view, she practices the politics of expedience. Listen to her being interviewed. It all occurs as shallow, calculated and short of any sort of authentic stand.
61
@curt hill "Listen to her being interviewed. It all occurs as shallow, calculated and short of any sort of authentic stand."
how about some specifics? I've seen her speak many times and never have seen any of that.
4
At this point, I feel that perfection is no longer a goal. I just want to find someone who can beat this disaster.
31
@Deborah Re
The issue is finding people who have consistent values and will not make decisions based on political gains. By the record this is not the person I could support as a liberal democrat.
30
@Gary Cohen
In principle I agree with you, but in practice I intend to use my vote to help insure that Trump is handed what will hopefully be a humiliating defeat of epic proportion.
11
@Gary CohenThe issue, in my opinion, is at least changing the direction of the disastrous course it's on. I have no idea if Ms. Harris is "The One", but my point is just get someone who is at least decent and who CAN WIN!!
3
As co-founder of Families of the Wrongfully Convicted, i witness the effects of prosecutor misconduct and indifference, at best, that leads to the scourge of wrongful convictions. Not only are the guilty left free in our communities, but the decades behind bars for the innocent and the dramatic impact on their families is unbearable.The wrongfully convicted are among the most vulnerable of our citizens. They have no constituency but the law and, in their cases, prosecutors, judges, inept defense attorneys who have failed them. Add Kamala Harris to this list.
85
Is there anyone from California out there that can give us the up-side? She has had a long career as a prosecutor and Attorney General. She comes across as genuine to me. She's obviously been involved with thousands of criminal cases and the US jails are full of innocent people. Most incarcerated of any nation on earth. So politically speaking, I think it's ok for her to have become more progressive over time, notwithstanding her views (i.e, marijuana) in the past.
34
Ever since her days as the San Francisco DA Ms. Harris has always come across as self serving and opportunistic. Whatever position she held her ambition for higher office and more power was obvious. Her constituency and her power base have always been the elite.
As a prosecutor some of that may be due to her being a woman in a bare knuckled boy's club but I've always seen it as a fundamental part of her character. I was truly surprised that she won the Senate seat.
17
This reporting is true. In California she appeared “progressive”. But her work was regressive and often damaging to the most vulnerable. Her laugh is as false as her progressive title. And I did not and would not vote for her.
14
Yes. the author of this op-ed.
7
I grow tired of stories focusing solely on the criminal side of the problem of "prosecutorial misconduct." The fact is that these problems are also present on the civil side of the docket in cases that pit the individual against government. Judges, particularly at the trial court level -- often former government lawyers themselves -- display an undue tolerance toward the misconduct of government lawyers who abuse the legal process by tampering with evidence and discovery, launch ad hominem attacks on their opponents, or engage in other courtroom misconduct.
The most egregious such case I know of was US v. 320 Acres in Florida, where government lawyers prevailed on a federal trial judge to enter judgment against scores of unrepresented small property owners whose land was being taken for the expansion of the Everglades, without notice or trial. True, that judgment was eventually reversed by an appellate court, but as far as I know no heads rolled -- no one was disciplined, or even chewed out in the appellate court's opinion.
In other words, this problem is not confined to prosecutors -- it is present as well in civil cases in which the government is a party. It happens because trial judges tolerate it. They shouldn't.
11
Harris is not someone I was inclined to support prior to reading this article. She's a career prosecutor and that's a very different role from any other elected position. She appears to be the typical prosecutor who has used her offices to advance her career, rather than the pursuit of justice. That being said, I disagree with a couple of issues presented here.
First, in regards to Mr. Gage, the author states that the fact that he did not have a prior criminal record is evidence that he did not sexually abuse his daughter. That's an absurd argument. Most abusers do not have criminal records. What other crime would the author expect Mr. Gage to have committed as evidence he abused his daughter? In addition, the crimes of sexual assault and abuse are extremely difficult to prosecute, so there was likely strong evidence here that the author has failed to present.
Regarding Harris' overall record, it was only within the past few years that criminal justice reform has become trendy for politicians to embrace. Prosecutors have always had to take a "tough on crime" approach in running their offices, which the public wanted. The author has spent her career representing and speaking on behalf of defendants. Who does she expect to represent and speak on behalf of crime victims? Are these specific cases she mentioned isolated incidents or representative of how Harris treated most defendants? That's unclear.
92
@BK I think you are posing the right questions and a measured response to the article. Also, where is Harris now on all these issues - that's what matters. people evolve. Look at the evolution of soem people considered very "progressive" on gay marriage: they had to move from none, to civil unions, to finally marriage equality. That works for me, no matter how dilatory their evolution.
I worry that the article reflects, instead of a concern for criminal justice, another progressive "litmus test" that's divisive. Let's see where Harris stands on these issues as her candidacy emerges and then we'll judge her fitness for the job.
41
@Mark During a campaign, Harris will stand on any side that polls well enough against the curated audience they choose. When elected, well, I wouldn't hold much faith in those promises.
12
@BK Sorry but a politician who only supports just causes once they are "trendy" is exactly not who I want to support.
22
To zealously fight to maintain a conviction, even on technical grounds, when there is reason to believe that the convicted person is innocent, is exactly the kind of immoral, self-protective decision that should be avoided at all costs in choosing a political leader. "We all make mistakes" does not work when the mistake is correctable and it is a continuing assault against an innocent person; Harris' behavior as a prosecutor was and is unforgivable.
196
@jrd she was doing her job whether you like it or not. And one case is not a litmus test. She tried hundreds I'm sure.
5
@Uofcenglish: destroying an innocent man's life because of a legal technicality speaks volumes to me about Ms. Harris's self-interest about her career over Mr. Gage's stolen LIFE.
17
@Uofcenglish A prosecutor's job is to do justice, not to protect other prosecutors from the consequences of their own mistakes.
16
Wow. This was unexpected and it seems she is just another politician looking to catch the right wave to ride into office. At this point I prefer Warren but I look forward to hearing from the new names entering the race.
32
Not looking good, Kamala Harris.
America needs someone who can show she's unapologetically fighting for average Americans.
Here's a compelling example:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was originally proposed in 2007 by then Harvard Law School professor and current US senator Elizabeth Warren.
In July 2010, the CFPB was created when a Democratic Congress and Democratic President passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in response to the Bush-Cheney Depression financial crisis.
From its creation until 2017, the CFPB "has curtailed abusive debt collection practices, reformed mortgage lending, publicized and investigated hundreds of thousands of complaints from aggrieved customers of financial institutions, and extracted nearly $12 billion for 29 million consumers in refunds and canceled debts."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau
This is what progressive looks like.
This is what government of the people, by the people, for the people looks like.
Elizabeth Warren is a sensible, progressive choice in 2020....especially given the fact that the current Greed Over People administration has been actively dismembering the CFPB.
Elizabeth Warren 2020.
619
@Socrates
Also someone on the eve of the 2018 midterm, Ms. Warren got involved with Trump over the very important issue over weather she was Native American. Is this the type of person the Democrats need as their candidate?
26
@Socrates
I've worked at the CFPB and I'm a big supporter of Warren. That said, your comment does not really address any of the issues in the article. It's off topic.
70
@Socrates
I agree with you 100%.
Let's also remember that Democrats told her not to run for senate in Massachusetts. She did and won, against an extremely popular Republican.
While in the Senate she has taken on Wall Street. She is the one Senator who has introduced ideas for actual reform.
For example, her takedown of the CEO of Wells Fargo and the penalties issued against Wells Fargo are a direct result of her advocacy:
https://www.asktrim.com/blog/how-elizabeth-warren-took-down-the-ceo-of-wells-fargo-and-why-it-matters/
Every politician is going to have at least one skeleton in their closet, one issue that people are going to have a problem with. With Obama it was Reverend Wright.
In this case it will be her heritage and Trump denigrating her about it.
But, the right and Wall Street are afraid of her because she actually understands Wall Street and can get right at the heart of what needs to be reformed and how to protect the 99%.
Warren is a true fighter for the 99% and true progressive.
144
Do not overlook her most egregious and most well known decision, her refusal to prosecute Mnuchin for HIS financial crimes, dismissing the work and opinions of her own staff.
350
Please, can someone tell us what happened here? This sounds to me like a case that could be decisively damning or exculpatory (not that the other cases mentioned in the article aren't) yet it somehow escaped my notice.
13
I never liked Kamala anyway and she comes off so inauthentic to me that this just confirms that. I'm actually one of those Dems that the left describes as milquetoast and so her lack of being too progressive is not what bothers me but what strikes me as her lack of authenticity.
What's interesting is that as a centrist, I support criminal justice reform but am more moderate than her when it comes to illegal immigration. Everything is a show for the camera and I just don't like/trust her. I feel like Cory Booker is a showman too but at least, he comes off as far more likable. BTW, I voted for Hillary and so it's not a woman thing as I am one.
67
@Me Why would you vote based on how you "feel" about a person? A record of decades should be more important.
5
@Kay Tee
@Kay Tee, it's not just feels but you're naive to think that with such a crowded field, it's not going to come down to some likability. Likability doesn't just happen from straight facts.
4
@Me Shorter Me: "I'm afraid of the smart, confident black woman."
4
Well supported and much appreciated piece. Democrats need to NOT follow Republicans' example and actually care about and vet the candidates put forth to represent the party and the country. This is a pretty appalling record (even with the positives called out) that is an indictment on multiple levels, not just miscarriage of justice. Regressive sentencing ultimately costs us an enormous amount in terms of both real money (incarceration) and opportunity cost (the lost productivity of wrongly imprisoned citizens). The record implies a lack of respect for the law (see current president for problems therein) and an inflexibility in terms of working with other agencies and reaching compromise. Not the sort of record we need if we hope to eject the current incompetent and chief, especially while fighting the uphill battle of getting a black woman elected in a country still with big gender and race problems.
46
Mr. George Gage, is living a judicial nightmare. It’s almost a cliche today, of the over zealous, ambitious prosecutor trampling all over a citizens rights to gin up their conviction rate. The crime, if true, is certainly serious, but we are talking about a man's life here. I’m reminded of Woody Alan, and the accusers dilemma, where once the lie is started, it’s almost impossible to recant since the accuser would instantly go from a sympathetic victim to the humiliation of a false accuser. (And, perhaps be prosecuted herself.) A lot of people would stick with the lie. It’s the duty of a prosecutor to smell out the motivations, and yes, take the hit of letting it go. Kamala Harris, is clearly too blindly ambitious to do anything of the sort. Thank you, for this great reporting.
61
@Prant Why do you assume Woody Allen's accuser is lying? Check out her brother Ronan Farrow's articles on this.
5
@Prant This is NOT reporting. It is an OPINION piece by the former director of a law school project.
5
@Sue Sponte
Thanks for your response. Good question, and of course, I don’t know. I do know he took a lie detecter test and passed, and she refused. Now, if he had failed, he most certainly would have been ruined, at least in the publics eye. So, he took a huge risk to show his innocence, and she could have done the same, (to show her honesty), and she didn’t. It get’s to the point of my comment, where there is far more to lose recanting a false accusation than to come clean and bear the humiliation of having to admit to a heinous awful lie. As for Mr. Farrow’s “articles” I have read them and he’s a good writer. And, clearly he has profited by airing his families dirty laundry, even winning a literary prize. If Kamala Harris was prosecuting Woody he would be in the slammer.
5
Harris reminds me of many prosecutors - she is a mediocre talent but highly ambitious. The result is aggressive and self-serving behavior that places a higher value on the appearance of success (politics) than justice. This should surprise no one. Prosecutors are necessary and important but they are not executive material because they rarely demonstrate the sort of balanced, big-picture thinking that executive power requires. Harris is two decades late to the party she wants to lead.
466
@Io
Yes, yes, yes.
11
@Io
It’s fairly rare that former prosecutors make successful politicians, despite the law and order background and name recognition. (Thomas Dewey, is a good example). Ms. Harris is a poster child for prosecutorial abuse which is not attractive as a woman or political candidate. Then throw in gender and her African American background and we have the two biggest negatives in American national electoral history. Yes, Obama, "Hope and Change,” won, but he followed (still) the worst President in history, and his legacy was total and complete Republican control of federal elective government including the Supreme Court. (For generations.) I voted for him twice, but honestly, looking back, given the fix we are in now, he wasn’t worth it. Really. She has big baggage, and her blatant ambition, and entitlement is part of it. Haven’t we seen this all before?
Great article Ms. Bazelon, one of the best for NYT. Go, Elizabeth Warren, far more integrity.
17
@Prant
"Then throw in gender and her African American background...
Her mother was Tamil Indian and her father is Jamaican.
10
This is what journalism is for. Thanks for this brave piece, Ms. Bazelon.
559
@Sarah A,
But this is not journalism. It is an opinion piece arguing a particular point of view by a guest columnist and law professor, not a journalist. I don't know the details surrounding these cases, but let's not make the mistake of assuming that what was presented here is necessarily the whole story. To put it in legal terms, we have not yet heard from the defense.
32
@Sarah A
This is an opinion piece not investigative journalism.
20
It's in the opinion section - Bazelon isn't maintaining that this is impartial. I applaud her willingness to contradict the hagiography surrounding Harris in such a public forum.
35
Its important to bring these histories to light but also important to put them in context, which is hard to do. Lets not forget that this is an opinion piece. Take a minute to watch Harris fight on the judiciary committee, even by watching videos deemed by conservatives as evidence of her failings. Deeper reporting is needed on these things if we're to make an informed decision.
Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe progressive voters are so rabid for some sort of purity candidate that any policy or expression deemed counter to that will sink any candidate. The problem is that no such candidate exists. If all it takes to bring down a progressive candidate is finding out they are complex humans, then we aren't going to get very far.
149
@Scribbles The candidates exist but are intentionally held back by party leadership. Progressive candidates generally don't receive any form of party support at the state and national levels unless party leadership is desperate or blindsided. Candidates like AOC have to get really lucky to sneak through and snag an elected position. The power brokers in the Democratic Party are subject to similar influences as moderate Republicans hence they policy positions are often aligned with corporate interests (unwilling to raise the minimum wage, gerrymandering when in power, huge tax and utility breaks for large companies, huge deals for real estate developers, worship of the wealthy, scare tactics based on identity politics).
44
@Scribbles
Good point that this is an opinion piece. I slipped into the trap of thinking it was objective reporting. I'd like to see a follow up with a detailed analysis.
24
@Scribbles
The objection to Kamala Harris isn't that she's complex or ideologically impure. It's that she's not what she claims to be.
We do have experience of Democrats who run as liberals, but govern center-right and favor their donors over their base. One of them lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump.
Absent from this column was her refusal to pursue white collar crimes, including the decision not to prosecute Steve Mnunchin for brazen control frauds.
Best to know what you're getting, don't you think?
127
A "progressive" prosecutor (i.e., open-minded, lenient, compassionate) is unlikely to advance in the political arena. Ambition rules the day; aspiration to higher office is only awarded to those prosecutors who convict ruthlessly and successfully while conveniently disregarding ethics and fairness.
Does the name "Giuliani" ring a bell?
32
Correct me if I am wrong, but it a District Attorney withholds evidence or information from the defense attorneys during a trial isn't that a cause for that attorney to get disbarred? Or am I just watching too many "Law & Order" reruns?
34
@susan yes it could be, but in all fairness she didn't personally do that, rather it was her subordinates who prosecuted these cases outside of her direct purview.
10
@susan. The answer to your question is 'yes'.
5
Bernie and Warren are the only actual progressive candidates (if Bernie runs). Everyone else is shifting leftward because of Bernie's success in 2016 at speaking for progressive economics and trying to help the middle class.
That said, thank you NYT for reporting on Harris's background. I honestly wish her well in the general election but believe she must answer to her antiquated policies as AG. All of these centrist dems deserve a chance to explain why they now stand behind progressive policies. I hope the DNC is less corrupt this time and embraces numerous healthy debates to let us voters decide which candidates are genuine about addressing income inequality, criminal justice reform, medicare for all, etc.
150
@Michael Why Sanders and Warren get passes for their many strays from progressive values, I do not understand. Except that Sanders is a cult of personality. From his female-bashing, developer loving, gun loving early days to his helping Republicans kill reform bills because (he claimed when talking to the left, but not to moderate voters in Vermont) he claimed they were not leftist enough, to his caving in to the Pentagon on the F-35 program, Bernie needs a thorough re-examination as much as Harris or anyone else. And Warren killed the medical device tax, hardly a progressive moment.
13
@Michael Bernie Sanders is all talk but has no history of accomplishments. I carefully read everything on his 2016 campaign website. His self reported attributed that he claimed made his a better choice than Clinton was, and I kid you not 1) That he had won all his elections by a very slim margin, and that he was listed and a "Co-author" of one important Congressional bill. After several decades as an elected official, one would expect a long list of accomplishments. As we say Out West: "Bernie is all hat and no cattle. "
18
As a moderate Democrat, I like Harris even more now. She did her job as a prosecutor and AG. Just as she has pivoted and done her job as a legislator. Progressive prosecutor, wrong side of history - nonsense terms - whatever.
33
@Bjh It's called "character" and it is something that she has lacked in the past. And past performance is the best judge of future performance.
15
@Bjh It's nonsense so long as it isn't your mother, father, brother, or daughter she prosecuted. If her misconduct put someone you care about in jail you would be singing a different tune. But, yeah, it's a big nothing burger when you personally have no skin in the game.
10
Prosecutorial Misconduct is a strong pet peeve with me because it undermines public confidence in the fundamental fairness and justice of our system, but I’m going to resist my instinct to summarily dismiss any thought of supporting Kamala Harris’ presidential run at this early stage, pending further information. Still, the disclosures in this column are deeply troubling to me. I have to say that, right now, her presidential aspirations are hanging by slim thread.
27
The Dems need some better candidates. It appears that Gillibrand lied when she pledged to serve her full term as a Senator and not run for President. Beto O'Rourke appears to be an inexperienced flake. Elizabeth Warren, while serious and experienced, has a problem with relating to voters that is worse than Hillary.
12
@bikegeezer Did you watch Warren's visit to Iowa? She related to those attending her events much better than I would have thought, and I completely revised my opinion of her. She is not Hillary.
7
@bikegeezer I beg to differ with your characterization of Warren as having “a problem relating to voters”. In my view she's among the most intelligent, ethical, experienced, compassionate courageous thoughtful and principled of the democratic candidates. In other words, the most anti-Trump, anti-GOP, anti-plutocratic, so count on all of the above to attack her viciously in the coming two years. Don’t buy it.
7
@bikegeezer Am guessing that you do not consider yourself a Democrat? If you did/do then you would probalby have phrased your opening sentence differently, "We Democrats")
1
She failed to go after P G & E and let the statute of limitations expire. Major failure involving Governor Brown, the PUC and others.
15
I like a person who is being called progressive. But I have never seen any presidential candidate with such a poor record called herself progressive. It seems Ms. Harris is just moving up from district prosecutor, state attorney general, and to US Senator without attracting much attention over the years until now. Thanks to the author for pointing this out and NY Times to publish this to the general public.
94
And Sen. Gillibrand was not a progressive Senator. Not only that, she was a blatant conservative anti-immigrant Senator. Things change. Keep that in mind. I do want a real progressive, so I'm supporting one...Elizabeth Warren
503
@Doug
I'm also supporting Warren. However, maybe you can inform of as to how she and Gillibrand are relevant to the facts in the article.
9
@Doug. Worse that that Gellibrand was a big-time tobacco lawyer. Talk about working for the devil.
15
@Doug
Gillibrand is worse than that. She was a prominent tobacco industry lawyer who defended Phillip Morris.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/nyregion/27gillibrand.html
When she first ran for Congress she di not just make concession sions to the NRA and her gun toting constituents, she bragged about sleeping with not one, but two guns under her bed. She had an A rating from the NRA
https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/sen-kirsten-gillibrand-says-she-keeps-2-rifles-under-bed-1.887707
Gillibrand did a 180 only when she ran for Senator because she needed support from all those downstate liberals. To me anyone who worked for years defending Big Tobacco is not to be trusted. That is as bad as being a mob lawyer. actually worse. Cigarettes have killed far more people than mobsters have.
She is an opportunist whose main concern is her own career not average Americans.
17