,
20 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
lol, ok, let's do this
Because it was a campaign issue, she promised she would, and presumably, the people of California who elected her wanted her to do so.
…for the period of time in which the matter was pending appeal.
I can't find the actual bill (and the later links don't provide it, either), but by the article's description, the only change to civil asset forfeiture that she proposed was to be allowed to do it sooner, if a prosecution was forthcoming.
Somewhere out there is a 26-page ruling that journalists don't feel necessary to link to. Per the article, it wasn't that Harris hid information, it's that she didn't press hard enough on police who were hiding information.
…because there weren't criminal charges to be brought? The link itself points out that they drafted a [civil] complaint. "Prosecutors should manufacture charges, lest they be perceived as soft on criminal justice reform!"
In a state of 40 million people, this law, passed in 2010, affects fewer than 10 people per year.
Because, she argued, Sacramento is ill-equipped to conduct those investigations and they're better done at the local and county level.
She opposed Prop 66 because, she said, it would make it harder to prosecute domestic abuse cases. She later supported other reforms to Three Strikes.
First, this is attributed to Kamala Harris's office. Second, prosecutors will argue technicalities when it behooves their case. Third, sometimes they get it wrong. But sometimes courts, do, too. Keep that in mind for the next one.
No, she didn't. Prosecutorial misconduct in plea negotiation got a case against a man accused of molesting a preteen dismissed, and rather than just throw up her hands and say, "Oh well," Harris appealed the dismissal.
Backpage might maybe have been increasing child trafficking, but I guess reasonable minds differ on how best to approach prostitution regulation.
Because it's the job of the AG to defend the state's laws.
lol, no. Her "client" was the State of California. Jerry Brown was its governor, in case you didn't know.
She didn't join an (unsuccessful) suit against the federal government, instead penning a critique of Obama Administration policies.
She REQUIRED that officers under CA DOJ use body cameras, but she OPPOSED a "one size fits all" approach to police reform.
man i can't wait for jacobin and the new york times to publish conspicuous and misleading critiques of every candidate in the democratic primary without exception not even missing a single person with kempt hair
Add'l thoughts: AGs are supposed to be nonpartisan. She inherited an appeal, and an AG typically continues it, regardless of their feelings on it. The office is more important than their politics. We excoriated Jeff Sessions for NOT doing this.
Further: the article also references a single internal CADOJ memo that her office also did not disclose. And, for further clarity: this all stems from a single bad actor. There wasn't an allegation of a systemic practice in Harris's office.
This flows from a forensic technician convicted for misdemeanor cocaine possession—she had been taking criminal evidence and consuming it.
