The Emmy Award for Best Producer Goes to the DNC

Social media, especially Chinese surveillance platform TikTok, often resembles a cesspool. However, sometimes something comes along that makes paying attention worthwhile.

Literally what I want is Biden to go on television and say something real about the murder of Hersh Goldberg-Polin.

Democrats had no issue using his family as a political prop. This is gut check time. Do we actually stand for something or are we producing a television show?

— Brianna Wu (@BriannaWu) September 3, 2024

In this spectacular production put on by the Democratic National Committee

The parents of a 23-year-old American taken hostage by Hamas during the Oct. 7 attack on Israel gave a moving speech Wednesday at the Democratic National Convention, pleading for the release of the dozens of people who continue to be held captive in Gaza.

“This is a political convention. But needing our only son — and all of the cherished hostages — home is not a political issue. It is a humanitarian issue,” said Jon Polin, whose son Hersh Goldberg-Polin lost his part of his left arm and was kidnapped from Israel by militants who attacked the music festival he was attending.

Polin and his wife, Rachel Goldberg-Polin, were greeted with an extended ovation and chants of “bring him home” by the thousands of Democratic delegates in Chicago.

That reflected a typical perspective. In a similar vein

Entering to chants of “Bring Them Home,” Jonathan Polin and Rachel Goldberg-Polin, both natives of the Chicago area, brought tears to the eyes of many in attendance with the gut-wrenching story of their son and their broader thoughts on the more than 100 hostages who have been captive held in the Gaza Strip since the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel on Oct. 7.

Speaking with reporters on Wednesday night, Hersh’s parents said they didn’t know what to expect when they walked onto the stage, with Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza at times bitterly dividing Democrats and with a number of Palestinian supporters in seats at the arena.

The reception, with thunderous chants in support of the hostages, brought Goldberg-Polin to tears as she put her head in her hands before her speech got underway.

“It was completely overwhelming and unexpected. We had been preparing ourselves for a long time that we were going to get a very hard to negative response, and we were shocked,” said Goldberg-Polin. “I was really taken aback, and I wasn’t prepared for any of that. I wasn’t prepared for support and love and kindness. I was not prepared, and that’s why I became overwhelmed.”

 

The family needed to get its story out, and deserved to do so.  However, eleven days after the Polins spoke before the DNC,  Hersh-Goldbeg Polin was found by the Israeli Defense Forces in a tunnel, along with the body of five other hostages taken by Hamas on October 7, 2023. 

The response by the Administration to the murder of a dual American and Israeli citizen was, generously speaking, underwhelming when

Asked if Netanyahu should do more on the issue and whether he thinks the Israeli leader is currently doing enough,  Biden offered a firm "no" as he spoke to reporters outside the White House.

He did not elaborate on the remarks.

It was prudent for President Biden not to elaborate on his remarks, and it is not unreasonable that he would not give Netanyahu a thumbs up with the U.S. presidential election looming and the Administration thus determined to end the war in any way possible.

Viewed in context, however, the Administration's response to the murder of an American citizen is feeble and feckless. Had Goldberg-Polin been exclusively an American citizen, it is inconceivable that the federal government would increase pressure on an ally to submit to a ceasefire desperately needed by a terrorist group responsible for the atrocity and desperate for a permanent end to a war. 

It is no less than an act of appeasement. It is critical that Donald Trump lose the upcoming presidential election. But it is critical also that the war does not end in a manner which would facilitate the dismantling of the Jewish state and in a manner which boldly declares to terrorist groups and state actor that if an American citizen is mercilessly killed, we will accede to bend over backwards to see that they are mollified.

Mr. Goldberg and Mrs. Goldberg-Polin weren't prepared for the rapturous response they received at the Democratic convention. Nor is is likely they were prepared for the reaction of the Biden-Harris Administration to the discovery that their son was murdered. The "bring them home" chant directed not at the butchers of Hamas but at the Israeli government was a great feel-good moment, a television show with impeccable production qualities.

Share |

Values

Of some controversy in the presidential race is Kamala Harris' shift the past few years on some important policy issues. 

When CNN's Dana Bash chatted with Ms. Harris and her running mate on Thursday evening, she said "I want to get some clarity on where you stand on some key policy issues" and asked "do you still want to ban fracking?"

The vice-president stated that she does not and in response to a follow-up question, maintained "in 2020, I  made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024 and I have not changed that position, nor will I going forward..  I kept my word, and I will keep my word."

It is true that Harris stated in 2020- as a part of the presidential ticket- that she would not ban fracking. She had little choice because her superior, presidential nominee Joe Biden, had taken that position. However, in a CNN town hall in 2019, as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, Harris had remarked "There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.

  "

Fracking isn't the only issue on which Harris has flipped. In the Senate, she "co-sponsored a bill to ban combustion engine cars by 2040." However,  according to her campaign manager, she "does not support an electric vehicle mandate." Senator Harris also co-sponsored Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill. Yet, "a campaign official told Politico it is no longer part of Harris' agenda."

A day before George Floyd was murdered in Los Angeles, Senator Harris in an interview, CNN has reported, "lauded Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for his decision to slash $150 million from the police budget and move it into social services."  And in an interview shortly after the killing, she was asked about defunding the police and maintained "this whole movement is about rightly saying we need to take a look at these budgets and figure out whether it reflects the right priorities."

At an MSNBC gun control forum in 2019, the ex-prosecutor  asserted "we have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory gun buyback program" for assault weapons. Nonetheless, recently "a Harris official told The Hill she would not advocate for a mandatory buyback program."

The Democratic presidential nominee has been accused, legitimately but not justifiably, of switching positions about a wall along the southern border. Three or four months after being sworn into the US Senate in 2017, the freshman tweeted "Trump's border wall is just a stupid use of money. I will block any funding for it."  She posted on Facebook on Groundhog Day 2020 "as I said, Trump's border wall is a complete waste of taxpayer money and won't make us any safer."

Now, a centerpiece of her campaign is her determination to secure passage of the bipartisan border deal, propelled by Republican senator James Lankford and others, which contained $650 million for maintaining and building additional wall. Stymied when Donald Trump told House Speaker Johnson not to bring the bill to the floor, the legislation contained elements which appealed to Democrats, who were both concerned for immigrants and that they'd be relentlessly attacked by Republicans for ignoring an "invasion" at the border if they did nothing legislatively.

Her campaign also has run an ad displaying at least images of the southern wall, overlaid with the messages "as a border state prosecutor" and "she prosecuted border gangs." That's a little disingenuous, the sort of thing American Jews of a certain age would term "chutzpah." However, neither this, nor ardent support of legislation containing a relatively small amount of wall funding coupled with provisions acceptable to many Democrats constitutes support for the wall.

It is, however, emblematic of the internal contradiction of the Harris' campaign. She once vigorously opposed the wall, enthusiastically supported the (failed) black lives matter movement, and supported a gun buyback program which would have exposed law enforcement officers to angry gun owners who would be mandated to hand over their assault weapon(s).. (The key is mandatory.)

And yet, when asked by Bash about her change of outlook on fracking, the vice president replied

Well, let's be clear. My values have not changed. I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far.

 

Which is not "clear." Lacking fluency in Kamalese, I cannot translate into English "we can do what we have accomplished thus far. Though it seems unnecessary to do what has already been accomplished, the assertion may make sense in some weird way.

Nonetheless, no remark in the interview garnered as much interest as "my values have not changed."  

Prior to her experience as Vice President, Harris was district attorney of San Franciso, and later Attorney General and United States Senator representing the largest state in the union. She was a Democrat, one from California, and supporter of racial reparations. It is not a stretch to think that she holds those left-wing beliefs she expressed before she became beholden to presidential nominee Joe Biden in 2020.

If instead her views have changed as she wishes voters to believe, her values clearly have changed. If she still believes as she once did, her values have not changed, notwithstanding the much more moderate positions she now is taking. The irony is real, though subtle.

That suggests someone whose values are malleable, who holds to principles, values, and morals which can be compromised or cast aside when convenient. It is unlikely that Kamala Harris' values have substantially changed. It is more likely that those values were never, and are not now, very important to her. .

Share |

First Interview, Not Interview

Congratulations to Tim Walz. The Democrat's vice-presidential nominee sat through a friendly, cozy chat between presidential nominee Kamala Harris and alleged journalist Dana Bash of CNN without bursting out laughing.  He couldn't have been more professional while having to sit through a reunion between two women who could have been BFF's, were there still such a thing as a BFF.

Bash set the cordial tone immediately with "Madam Vice President, Governor Walz, thank you so much for sitting down with me and bringing the bus. Bus tour is well underway here in Georgia. You have less time to make your case to voters than any candidate in modern American history."

She has had plenty of time to make the case. Wisely, she chose to emphasize rallies in front of audiences of sycophants, which gives the impression of a thriving campaign, which increases poll numbers, which in turn increases campaign donations, which can be used for additional rallies.

On Thursday, Harris (with Walz) was given the better part of an hour to film a campaign video while delicately questioned by a supporter- uh, er, journalist-  clearly out of her depth.

Bash's second question was the question every serious presidential candidate knows he or she will receive, "so what would you do day one?"

Memo to the vacuous journalist: no President does anything on day one, aside from recovering from a justified hangover (except Donald Trump, who promises to be a dictator then, but who will take at least a few weeks to get that done). Worse, Bash then asks Walz, "what about you," who then politely refuses to tell the interviewer "nothing. I would be vice president, thus won't do anything substantive without authorization from the President."

Bash later did ask the Minnesotan a substantive question, "you said that you carried weapons in war but you have never deployed actually in a war zone. A campaign official said that you misspoke. Did you?"

Walz then spent approximately 160 words not answering the question, though he did remind us of how proud he is of his service and suggesting criticism is "an attack on my children for showing love for me,or it's an attack on my dog." (Attack on his dog? Is anyone in the two campaigns not weird?)

The vice presidency being a remarkably undemanding job, Walz should consider a part-time gig as a comedian, remarking "and my wife the English teacher told me my grammar's not always correct." One hopes this was a subtle joke, given that "grammar is not always correct" is the grammatically correct phraseology.

More significantly (but not much), the governor did not admit nor deny that he "mispoke" or, as normal people (which excludes Walz, Vance, and Trump) would put it, "lie." Another memo to the journalist: be willing to hold a candidate's feet to the fire or ignore the subject altogether. Walz has lied, as presidential nominee Trump does repeatedly. He also served the country for 24 years. Better to move on.

And so, unfortunately, she did because she proceeded to ask the Vice President "Because we haven't had a chance to- to talk, I'm just curious, staying on President Biden, when he called you and said he was pulling outta the race, what was that like? And did he offer to endorse you right away or did you ask for it?"

Joe Biden, the President of the USA, the guy who selected (nominated, technically) Kamala Harris for Vice President four years ago, did not endorse Harris immediately. He waited until his second statement when obviously- if he had any respect for her- he would have done so immediately. And Harris will- as she should- either note that the details of conversations she had with the President must remain confidential or simply lie. Nothing can be gained by this line of questioning, though it did give Harris the opportunity for one of her favorite things, noting that she is "proud."

Asked about the border and her having been "tasked with addressing the root causes of migration in southern counties," Harris vigorously defended the work of the Administration, condescendingly noting "and let me tell you something. The Border Patrol endorsed the bill."

Harris presumably was referring to the National Border Patrol Council, which under then-President Brandon Judd endorsed the legislation as preferable to the status quo. However, when speaking at an even for Arizona GOP senatorial candidate Kari Lake earlier this month, former President Judd explained (beginning at 2:29)

I then met with (Homeland Security Secretary) Mayorkas after she (Vice-President Harris) was appointed to address the root causes of migration and I met with them and I gave them point-by-point what they could do- not like alight switch, not like remain in Mexico. I stayed within their parameters. Their parameters were going to take a period of time but it could have been done and even with staying within their parameters.

Harris refused to implement any of the policies, programs or operations that were given to them that would have addressed this issue. That is extremely frustrating, especially now that she is going to try to redefine herself and now that she is going to try to rewrite history and say that she was never the border czar when in fact she was charged with- and again, address the root cause of migration. She failed to do that, she had the policies, she could have implemented the polies that fit within her parameters and she refused refused to do it.

That is consistent with Bash's follow-up question, in which Harris was asked "Just one other question about something that you said in 2019 when you first ran. There was a debate. You raised your hand when asked whether or not the border should be decriminalized. Do you still believe that?"  Harris craftily responded

I believe there should be consequnce. We have laws that have to be enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally. And there will be consequence. And let's be clear.....

Of course, "let's be clear." It worked for Barack Obama, thus may work for Harris. More significantly, "there will be consequence."

Whatever the "consequence"- which could be anything from a slap on the wrist to, well, a slap on the wrist- is, the Vice President didn't say. This represents no change from Harris'' 2019 assertion (by raised hand) that the border, in Bash's terminology, "should be decriminalized." She thought at the time it should not and, given that she has indicated policies she has reversed, suggests that she still believes crossing the border illegally should be a mere civil offense.

 

Harris' response to the question was wily and may have been strategically wise.  But Bash needed to understand that "consequence" could be anything from a fine which usually would not be paid to a real talking-to. It does not suggest that the Veep supports classifying illegal border crossings as a criminal offense. She should have researched the July, 2019 debate at which Harris raised her hand when asked, with the other candidates, to "raise your hand if it should be a civil offense rather than a crime to cross without documentation?"

If she had, she would have (presumably) discovered that Senator Harris at the same time on the same subject also bragged that the federal government's policy 

was to allow deportation of people who by ICE's own definition were non-criminals. So as attorney general, and the chief law officer of the state of California, I issued a directive to the sheriffs of my state that they did not have to comply with detainers, and instead should make decisions based on the best interests of the public safety of their community.

This was a legitimate response to a detainer- but a very bad one. It was the self-described (and accurate) "chief law officer of the state of California" telling ICE, and sometimes a judge, to go pound sand. Now, that same former chief law enforcement officer touts her prosecutorial experience as an argument to be elected President of the United States of America. It would have behooved her questioner to ask Harris whether, as head of the federal government, she would take the same position and possibly direct the nation's Attorney General to refuse to honor immigration detainers.

Of course, Bash failed to do so, as he failed in closely questioning the Vice President on any issue. She evidently believed it her role to touch upon virtually every issue she could in a relatively brief interview, notwithstanding the importance of the public hearing clear and definitive responses from the candidate. 

There was another motive in conducting the interview this way, however. At the conclusion of the show, Dana Bash noted that presidential nominee Trump and vice presidential nominee Vance have been invited for an interview on CNN. Judging by her unwillingness to probe sufficiently a candidate's view on any one subject, the Republicans  would be foolish not to pounce on the offer- as long as they're confident that Dana Bash would receive the assignment.

Share |

The Good and the Weak

In the interests of joy and of being unburdened by what has been, it's a day to be ambivalent about our Democratic nominee for President. A very pro-Israel tweeter is largely wrong:

Asking for 350 million friends. pic.twitter.com/BqlZPtxmXJ

— Hillel Fuld (@HilzFuld) August 29, 2024

The Vice-President did not kneecap President Biden. After the latter's disastrous debate against Donald Trump, it became clear to an increasing number of voters, then of pundits and prominent Democrats, that the incumbent would be a sure loser in November. (And in the unlikely event of victory, he probably could not serve another four years.)

These powerful Democrats included former President Obama, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, National Democratic Redistricting Committee chairman and former Attorney General Eric Holder, and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And no one crosses Nancy Pelosi and lives to tell about it.

At a critical time, in the moments following that epic June 27 debate, the Vice President had been queried about the President's performance of that evening and defended him defiantly and eloquently, remarking "He got into a groove where it counted. Our president showed that he will win the election." It was something that she had no choice but to do because she couldn't be seen undercutting the President. Nonetheless, she was as positive as possible without getting laughed out of the room.

Vice-President Harris was given two- two- primary tasks, one by President Biden and the other by the Constitution. In the first, she to take major strides in helping secure the southern border, a task nearly impossible without cooperation by the United States Congress, and very difficult with. She made little progress, as should have been expected.

The vice-president is constitutionally empowered to cast the deciding vote in the United States Senate in case of a tie.  She set a record by doing so 32 times and was very effective performing that task.

Nevertheless, the tweeter is essentially correct that Ms. Harris refuses to be interviewed for the new position. Tonight, CNN will broadcast a taped interview with the Democratic presidential nominee. Infamously, however, she agreed to appear only with her Emotional Support Governor and running mate Tim Walz. (In the interests of full disclosure, credit must be given to this person, something I've never wanted to do.)

Coincidentally, this puts Harris into a role in which she has excelled. As vice-president, she is de facto required to cast the deciding vote in the Senate as her male supervisor, President Biden, wishes. And now she has bowed to the justified demands of the press that she be interviewed, and will do so only in the presence of another man. I am woman, hear me roar!  Such progress! 

Yet, if the sentiment was good enough for the late Bill Withers, it should be- and apparently is- good enough for Tim Walz and Kamala Harris.

 

Share |

Magnificent Strategy

Because the first is valid, the second isnot.:

Was supremely moved by this speech, which was searing and compassionate. Also seems essential to include a Palestinian speaker to the convention. https://t.co/VoNi6kdQsq https://t.co/Bol88zLkZK

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) August 22, 2024

The National Committee and the presidential nominee could have chosen to allow a Palestinian speaker to address the convention.  As reported by Mother Jones, there were negotiations between the DNC and representatives of Uncommitted delegates to permit Georgia State Representative Ruwa Romman, a Palestinian-American and Democrat, to deliver a (two-minute) speech to the convention. The most radical and controversial portion (really) of the statement would have been

I’ve also witnessed something profound—a beautiful, multifaith, multiracial, and multigenerational coalition rising from despair within our Democratic Party. For 320 days, we’ve stood together, demanding to enforce our laws on friend and foe alike to reach a ceasefire, end the killing of Palestinians, free all the Israeli and Palestinian hostages, and to begin the difficult work of building a path to collective peace and safety. 

That’s why we are here—members of this Democratic Party committed to equal rights and dignity for all.  I’ve also witnessed something profound—a beautiful, multifaith, multiracial, and multigenerational coalition rising from despair within our Democratic Party. For 320 days, we’ve stood together, demanding to enforce our laws on friend and foe alike to reach a ceasefire, end the killing of Palestinians, free all the Israeli and Palestinian hostages, and to begin the difficult work of building a path to collective peace and safety. That’s why we are here—members of this Democratic Party committed to equal rights and dignity for all. What we do here echoes around the world.

Ms. Romman would have called for a ceasefire. which would have end the killing of Gazans.  The most radical of the entire statement was the call for release of all Israeli and Palestinian "hostages" which of course is based on a false premise because there is a significant difference between hostages, taken by Hamas, and alleged criminal offenders, in custody in Israel. 

Nonetheless, according to Romman herself, the DNC never even asked to review her proposed comments. So there probably was something else, such as ethnic attire identity as a Palestinian, which precluded approval of a speech because of its political impact.

It was not "essential to include a Palestinian speaker to the convention" when the organizers included with a speech by Jon Polin and Rachel Goldberg, parents to Harry Goldberg-Polin,  And they stated

We’ve met with President Biden and Vice President Harris numerous times at the White House. They’re both working tirelessly for a hostage and ceasefire deal that will bring our precious children, mothers, fathers, spouses, grandparents and grandchildren home and will stop the despair in Gaza.

While criticizing the role of Arlington National Cemetery in permitting a photo-op for Donald Trump on the fourth anniversary of the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, Charles Pierce nonetheless wrote "if the families found a kind of peace in his presence on Monday, I respect that and I hope it brings them solace."

In the same manner, I applaud the DNC for giving a forum to family members of a hostage held by Hamas. However, notwithstanding the symbolism, the crux of their statement did not differ significantly from that which Palestinian Romman would have given. The Polins called for "a hostage and ceasefire dealt hat will bring our precious children, mothers, fathers, spouses, grandparents and grandchildren home and will stop the despair in Gaza."

Minus the equivalence of prisoners with hostages, that is very similar to what probably would have been a powerful, though misguided, speech by Romman. They both call for a ceasefire, and they're not calling for a fairly brief one- as supported by Israel- but a permanent one, as demanded by the Hamas representatives. Moreover, the chant that rang out from the floor of the Democratic Convention was not "Release the hostages" as it should have been. It was "bring them home."

 

Hamas cannot "bring them home." Even the relatively neutral parties- Egypt, Qatar, and the USA- can "bring them home." Only Israel can bring them home, presumably only by a negotiated surrender- permanent ceasefire, release of many if not all Palestinian prisoners of whatever citizenship, and perhaps withdrawal from all of Gaza. Further, parents of hostages can have no effect on Hamas, only upon Israel, whether directly or indirectly through pressure on the Biden Administration.

The onus was hence placed on Israel: as Romman would have, the Polins did, and the convention attendees enthusiastically did. The Democratic National Committee might have approved a Palestinian speaker. Instead, it welcomed speakers who are Jewish, have been victimized by the kidnapping of a loved one, and who inspired the message to the Netanyahu government of "bring them home."

"Bring them home" demonstrated a concern for hostages, most of them Jewish. "Stop the despair in Gaza" reflected a concern for Palestinians, most of them Muslim. And it was all done without giving the GOP and its allies fertile ground for an attack ad.. And a ceasefire was advocated, which might not be good for a steadfast American ally or for eventual peace and security for the Middle East but serves well the interests of the convention's guest of honor. From the standpoint of the nominee of the Democratic Party, who is the Vice President serving in an Administration desperate for an agreement (perhaps any agreement), it was brilliance beyond almost anyone's imagination.

Share |

The Power of a Time Lag

Fact check: this guy is a propagandist.

❌Fact Check: False.

When Biden and Harris took office, Iran was months from a nuclear weapon. Now they’re a week away. Iran went from 5% enrichment in 2020 to 60% enrichment under Biden/Harris with no consequences.

Iran is now meddling is our elections in favor of Harris. pic.twitter.com/ET3eKaQnwd

— Morgan Ortagus (@MorganOrtagus) August 24, 2024

In 2018, President Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran. Tom Collina, a political strategist, national security expert, and co-author of "The Button: The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power from Truman to Trump," wrote in May

To fully understand the enormity of Trump’s decision to leave the Iran deal, consider this: When the U.S. and Iran were complying with the deal, it was estimated that it would take Iran about one year to produce enough fissile material (in this case, weapons grade uranium) for a nuclear bomb (known as the “breakout” time). The states negotiating with Iran (the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, and Germany) assessed that this would be enough time to respond to possible violations and prevent Iran from producing a bomb. Even if Iran were to acquire sufficient fissile material, it could still take another year for Iran to make a deliverable nuclear weapon. As of May, 2018, the deal was working and considered (by most) to be a great success.

Then President Trump unilaterally left the deal, calling it a “horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made.” And now we are in a much worse place. Iran says it has no intent to produce nuclear weapons and U.S. intelligence sees no current efforts by Tehran to weaponize, yet Tehran is believed to be not one year but just weeks from being able to produce enough fissile material for a bomb if it chooses to do so.

At the same time, the ability of international inspectors to detect violations in a timely manner has eroded. As one U.S. official said of Iran, “they are dancing right up to the edge." 

Most Republicans incorrectly claim that the high inflation, now subsided, of the past few years resulted from President Biden's spending. Rather, as Fed chairperson Jay Powell noted, "pandemic-related distortions to supply and demand, as well as severe shocks to energy and commodity markets, wee important drivers of high inflation, and their reversal has been a key part of the story of its decline."

The situation is analogous to the growing threat from Tehran. President Trump's decision to withdraw from the treaty with Iran did not immediately precipitate a crisis with Iran. However, Tehran, unbound from its constraints, resumed its uranium enrichment program.  So as Collina explained, now

we are in a much worse place. Iran says it has no intent to produce nuclear weapons and U.S. intelligence sees no current efforts by Tehran to weaponize, yet Tehran is believed to be not one year but just weeks from being able to produce enough fissile material for a bomb if it chooses to do so.

Iran is a very bad actor and has played a major role in making the Middle East a very dangerous place. We can thank Donald Trump for helping making it so.

Share |

It Doesn't Take a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows

If a President Harris is true to form, yes, she will, or at least will try.

They won’t even let any Palestinian American give a couple minute speech. But Kamala Harris is going to exert massive pressure on Israel to end the conflict? https://t.co/MIbHz901TN

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) August 22, 2024

The refusal to give a platform to a Palestinian-American to bash Israel does not at all suggest that a President Kamala Harris won't "get up every morning" to try to put an end to a war, even if it means sabotaging a loyal ally.  Summarizing a July, 2020 report in The American Prospect, The Crime Report a few days later explained

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), a leading candidate for vice president, openly defied U.S. Supreme Court orders to reduce overcrowding in California prisons while serving as the state’s attorney general, reports the American Prospect. Working with Gov. Jerry Brown, Harris and her legal team filed motions that were condemned by judges and legal experts as obstructionist, bad-faith, and nonsensical, at one point suggesting that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to order a reduction in California’s prison population. Judges seriously considered holding the state in contempt of court. Observers worried that Harris’s office had undermined the ability of federal judges to enforce their legal orders at the state level. The resistance to a Supreme Court ruling was aimed at preventing the release of some 5,000 nonviolent offenders, whom courts had cleared as presenting next to no risk of recidivism or threat to public safety.

Despite a straightforward directive from the Supreme Court to identify prisoners for release over a two-year period, the state spent most of that time seesawing between dubious legal filings and flagrant disregard. By early 2013, it became clear that the state had no intention to comply. Harris refused to comment to the Prospect, which reviewed in detail the events leading up the 2011 Supreme Court ruling that required a reduction in the California prisoner count. In the 5-4 decision, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court’s liberals, condemning the state for facilitating “needless suffering and death.” Under Attorney General Harris, the state delayed compliance, and by 2012, a report surfaced that proved the state actually intended to increase its prison population.

Not to worry, though.  That was the, but eight or so years later, the same Kamala Harris seems to have undergone a sea change in her perspective.

If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota. https://t.co/t8LXowKIbw

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 1, 2020

The Minnesota Freedom Fund was formed to bail out protesters arrested after the murder of George Floyd. However, with Kamala Harris' endorsement, the MFF raised approximately $35 million while most of the individuals arrested were released on their own recognizance. Hence, the organization had a lot of money to spend and few black lives matter protesters to spend it on.  Thus, most of the money went to bail out individuals arrested for common criminal infractions, the majority of whom did not commit violent offenses while awaiting return to court.

Unfortunately, "most of them" did not include Shawn Michael Tillman or George Howard.  Mr. Tillman in December 2021 was charged with gross misdemeanor indecent exposure. In May, the MFF posted $2,000 bail for him and he was released but

soon after, Tilllman was accused of killing Demitri Ellis-Strong. After a Ramsey County jury convicted Tillman, 36, of first-degree murder, a judge sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Court records from an unrelated case show that the fund also bailed out George Howard on a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge in early August of 2021. Later that month, Howard fatally shot a man in a road rage incident on I-94 in north Minneapolis. Howard, 50, who’s also known as Ricco Lamont Passmore, pleaded guilty in the case, and is serving a nearly 15-year sentence.

The typical person probably would not have expected that money given to bail out individuals protesting police behavior toward blacks would be diverted. However, Harris was not a typical person. She had been a state Attorney General- a prosecutor, as she reminded us three times during her acceptance speech:

She stated "this is one of the reasons I became a prosecutor" because "everyone has a right to safety, to dignity and to justice." Well, everyone except the likes of Demitri Ellis-Strong and Damian Martinez Ortiz.

She bragged "as a prosecutor, when I had a case, I charged it not in the name of the victim but in the name of the people, for a simple reason. In our system of justice, a harm against any one of us is a harm against all of us." That, and in most jurisdictions, that is routine for a prosecutor's office. Harris added ""every day, in the courtroom, I stood proudly before a judge...." Remarkable humility, there.

Harris boasted also "as a young courtroom prosecutor in Oakland, California, I stood up for women and children against predators who abused them." Prosecuting individuals charged with a felony was her job, though if she was at all typical, there were many more plea bargains than trials. This emphasis on her prosecutorial experience was unsurprising given

Throughout the convention, speakers echoed a similar message: “Donald Trump rants about law and order as if he wasn’t a convicted criminal running against a prosecutor,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Wednesday.

Angela Alsobrooks, a former prosecutor who is running for Maryland’s open Senate seat, said during her primetime speaking slot at the DNC on Tuesday that Harris is the right candidate to prosecute the case against Trump: “Getting justice for others isn’t a power trip for her—it’s a sacred calling,” she said. “And hear me—Kamala Harris knows how to keep criminals off the streets. And come November, with your help, she’ll keep one out of the Oval Office.”

And yet, in the summer of 2021, Kamala Harris' priority was not "to keep criminals off the streets" but instead to encourage followers to contribute to a fund to bail out protesters. That, it turned out, was unnecessary, something a prosecutor should have been able to ascertain before she tweeted.

So is Kamala Harris the public official who disregards court orders to keep nonviolent offenders locked up- or the "swing the jail doors open" ex-California senator? 

She could be either, which is why her erratic behavior toward the rights of criminal offenders is instructive in trying to discern a President Harris' approach to Mideast policy. The refusal of the presidential nominee in concert with the party's national committee to permit a Palestinian-American to give a speech at the convention is an indicator of nothing. 

Attorney General Kamala Harris, finger sensitive to wind direction, defied the Court to keep inmates, disproportionately black, in prison. In the summer of 2020, Senator Harris' finger again was sensitive as she demonstrated an ability to determine in which way the wind was blowing, toward condemning alleged racial bias.  In the case of the war in Gaza or policy toward Palestinians or Israelis, a President Harris may be neither left nor right but a mere barometer.

Share |