Senator Kamala Harris: 2020 Vice Presidential nominee



update: December 3, 2019 - Harris ends campaign

update: November 1, 2019 - Harris campaign scaling back as primaries approach

Kamala Harris shutters offices throughout New Hampshire
The retrenchment comes amid a cash crunch that's triggered layoffs and a redeployment of staff to Iowa.
11/01/2019 03:14 PM EDT


As California Attorney General, Harris argued against parole for Sirhan Sirhan, who was convicted for shooting Presidential candidate Senator Robert Kennedy. There is abundant, credible forensic evidence a second gunman killed RFK. The autopsy showed that RFK had powder burns on him, proving that RFK was killed by a shot fired at point blank into his head. Dozens of people saw Sirhan firing but also that Sirhan never was close enough to be the actual assassin. It is likely Sirhan was under hypnosis, but that is more difficult to admit than the presence of a second shooter.

Paul Schrade, a friend of RFK who was shot but survived his injuries, testified at Sirhan's (unsuccessful) parole hearing urging his release. Robert Kennedy Jr. has now met with Sirhan at his prison and urges "truth and reconciliation" for the state sponsored assassinations of his dad and uncle.

In 2019, I concluded Kamala Harris seemed to be a contender for "CIA's candidate" to continue imperial policies and am not surprised she has been picked as Biden's Vice President.

-- Mark Robinowitz

Letter from RFK Jr. Supports New Investigation

Friday, 28 June 2019 21:02

Kamala Harris: A Study in Showboating 

Written by 

Reviewing her record as DA and Attorney General of California, Jim DiEugenio reveals who Kamala Harris really is—and isn’t.


Since she has held elected office for over 15 years, many of them in law enforcement, Harris has a record that people can review and discuss. And it is worth reviewing. There are many indications that, after the disappointment of Barack Obama, the uninspiring campaign of Hillary Clinton, and the extraordinarily regressive presidency of Donald Trump, the American electorate is more “liberal” now than at any time since the inauguration of John Kennedy. Perhaps even more so than in 1961. In my view, this has helped elect people like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley. It almost allowed Beto O’Rourke to defeat Ted Cruz in Texas.


As Attorney General, she appealed a judge’s ruling that the death penalty was unconstitutional. She actually made a statement saying that this decision “undermines important protections that our courts provide to defendants.” (NYT, 01/17/19). In 2014, Harris refused to take a position on Proposition 47, an initiative approved by the electorate that reduced low level felonies to misdemeanors—which is partly what DSA candidates are running on. She was against the recreational use of marijuana. But when public opinion shifted so hard against her in 2018, she changed course on the issue. (NYT, 01/17/19)

Harris opposed a bill in 2015 requiring her office to investigate police officer shootings. She did not support statewide standards regulating use of body-worn cameras by officers. But as Bazelon writes, the worst thing about Harris is her refusal to reopen cases where it has been demonstrated that the defendant suffered a miscarriage of justice. In the Kevin Cooper case, the defendant sought advanced DNA testing to demonstrate his innocence. Harris opposed the motion. It was only when the case became a cause célèbre that she relented. (NYT 01/17/19). She even defended a Kern county prosecutor who falsified a confession of a defendant that was later used to threaten a life sentence. (The Guardian, January 27, 2019, story by Shanita Hubbard)


Tuesday, 02 July 2019 21:26

Kamala Harris: Part 2 

Written by 

Jim DiEugenio asks when Kamala Harris ever officially proposed busing programs during her political career.

Our mainstream media never fails to amaze this author. The day after Kamala Harris attacked Joe Biden at the Miami debate over the issue of busing, she was asked if she supported busing and said that she did. (Talking Points Memo, June 30th, story by Josh Marshall)

In that story, nobody asked her what kind of program she would support or propose in her busing plan.

No one asked her if she ever came up with such a plan as Attorney General of California. After all, she had six years to do so. Where was it?

No one asked her if she proposed such a plan while she was District Attorney in San Francisco. She had over six years to do so in that position. Could she show when and where she did put forth such a plan?

I believe the reason there is no evidence of her proposing these plans is fairly simple to figure out. If she had gone to any court, as either DA or AG, and done so, it would have been highly improbable the plan would have passed. But if it had, and if it had been comprehensive, Harris would have not been long for the political world. Court-ordered busing is not the equivalent of Harris’ policy of arresting the parents of students with chronic truancy problems. Those parents did not have strong constituencies behind them. So making those arrests was the moral and political equivalent of President Bill Clinton taking the advice of advisor Dick Morris and passing on welfare to the states in the form of block grants. Without Bobby Kennedy or Martin Luther King around, no one of any real stature was going to scream bloody murder. In fact, as I noted in the first part of this essay, since both men were dead and buried, Clinton could even invoke RFK’s name while he signed the bill.

The fact that no one asked these questions—and the likes of Josh Marshall actually praised her for her honesty on the issue—illustrates what is wrong not just with the MSM, but also with the so-called liberal blogosphere. Because what the questioners were seemingly unaware of was the fact that court-ordered busing is pretty much dead. Two decisions by the Supreme Court, both under George W. Bush, killed it. These were the Belk decision in 2002, and the Seattle School District case of 2007. Anyone can look those up and see for themselves. I would have liked to have asked Harris if she ever made any comments on those two cases as they were handed down. If so, could she produce them? If busing meant so much to her, then why didn’t she? ....

The fact that there is no evidence of her ever proposing anything comprehensive, that she never objected to the Supreme Court decisions, that there is no evidence that she proposed any kind of busing plan when she was in a position to do so—these all indicate that she brought the issue up for one reason: political expediency. As I showed in part one, this is a hallmark of her career. And it was the same reason the Clintons proposed their welfare program in the election year of 1996. As I said, if you want more of Clintonism and Barack Obama, Harris is your candidate. I don’t agree with that. In fact, a political opportunist is just what we don’t need right now.

Kamala Harris Is An Oligarch’s Wet Dream

Jun 28, 2019

... Harris is everything the US empire’s unelected power establishment wants in a politician: charismatic, commanding, and completely unprincipled. In that sense she’s like Obama, only better.

Harris was one of the 2020 presidential hopefuls who came under fire at the beginning of the year when it was reported that she’d been reaching out to Wall Street executives to find out if they’d support her campaign. Executives named in the report include billionaire Blackstone CEO Jonathan Gray, 32 Advisors’ Robert Wolf, and Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly. It was reported two entire years ago that Harris was already courting top Hillary Clinton donors and organizers in the Hamptons. She hasn’t been in politics very long, but her campaign contributions as a senator have come from numerous plutocratic institutions.

Trump supporters like to claim that the president is fighting the establishment, citing the open revulsion that so many noxious establishment figures have for him. But the establishment doesn’t hate Trump because he opposes them; he doesn’t oppose existing power structures in any meaningful way at all. The reason the heads of those power structures despise Trump is solely because he sucks at narrative management and puts an ugly face on the ugly things that America’s permanent government is constantly doing. He’s bad at managing their assets.

Kamala Harris is the exact opposite of this. She’d be able to obliterate noncompliant nations and dead-end the left for eight years, and look good while doing it. She’s got the skills to become president, and she’ll have the establishment backing as well. Keep an eye on this one.

The U.S. is a Political Prison, Kamala Harris is a Prison Guard

by Danny Haiphong, January 30, 2019

Will Kamala Harris have the support of black women? Don't assume that
Shanita Hubbard
Like many people of color, Harris's previous record gives me pause – she has supported policies that have contributed to a broken criminal justice system

Sun 27 Jan 2019 08.21 EST Last modified on Sun 27 Jan 2019 15.27 EST

'Black women, people of color and progressives supporting Harris still need to ask tough questions about this record.'