For John, BLUF: Is she of Presidential Timber? Nothing to see here; just move along.
Ms Elizabeth Nolan Brown talks about Senator Harris in Reason, on 11 January 2018.
Here is the sub-headline:
Harris only cares about other women's rights when those rights don't conflict with her career ambitions.
And here is the lede:
Kamala Harris has long positioned herself as a feminist crusader. But both as attorney general of California and now as a member of the U.S. Senate, she has actively championed policies that deny women's agency, ratchet up female incarceration, and endanger those most vulnerable to sexual abuse. Along the way, she has shown an utter disregard for civil liberties and constitutional law—a tendency she will now get to take to the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.Read the whole short article. It is worth it.
OK, so Ms Brown believes that Senator Kamala Harris was a tad unethical as the California Attorney General.
What really worries me is her defending dishonest prosecutors, as show in this three paragraphs also at the original InstaPundit blog post:
What prosecuting attorney Robert Murray did was produce a translated transcript of the defendant’s interrogation to which he had added a fraudulent confession. The defense attorney got a copy of the audio tape of the interrogation, but it “ended abruptly.” Eventually, Murray admitted to falsifying the transcript, presumably in the hopes of either coercing a plea deal, or ensuring a victory at trial.This is Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds quoting his own OpEd in USA Today, back on 8 March 2015.
When the trial judge found out, charges against the defendant were dismissed. Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris, decided to appeal the case. The state’s key argument: That putting a fake confession in the transcript wasn’t “outrageous” because it didn’t involve physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a hose.
Well, no. It just involved an officer of the court knowingly producing a fraudulent document in order to secure an illicit advantage. If Harris really thinks that knowingly producing a fraudulent document to secure an illicit advantage isn’t “outrageous,” then perhaps she slept through her legal ethics courses.
Don't those in Government understand that they are destroying, slowly, the credibility of Justice in the United States, by destroying the credibility of Prosecutors, Prosecutors who have sworn an oath?
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff