The press is already desperately trying to make it clear that all legitimate criticisms of Kamala Harris are illegitimate even though she has n’t been the Democratic nominee for even a week. The attempt to remake Joe Biden’s political job into something that resembles a nice and qualified is even more audacious if you believe the media attempted and failed to conceal her senility.
” She was never the boundary king”.
” She was not considered the most democratic senator”.
” She was not a La use”.
” She does n’t owe her political career to her powerful boyfriend”.
Oh, but she was, she was, she was, and she does.  ,
This focus on the deception surrounding Harris ‘ connection with California’s political functionary Wille Brown for no other purpose than The New York Times has given a fantastic illustration of how the lies are coming in warm.
The Times ‘ On Politics newsletter on Wednesday, which includes” the facts behind several conspiracy theories and false claims about Harris that have been widely spread in recent days,” was intended as political talking points for wealthy wine moms, aka the Democrats ‘ base.
Nearly the entire point is an uproarious recitation of accidental nonsense, starting with the fact that the Times quotes disgraced “disinformation specialist” Nina Jankowicz to make the event that Harris is the target of significant amounts of website attacks. There has n’t been much media coverage of the rhetorical environment that might have led to an actual assassination attempt ( Harris ‘ rival in the presidential race was shot in the head less than two weeks ago ), which makes matters worse. Because of the fundamental inquiries like” Why did The New York Times win a Pulitzer for reports based on the false notion that Donald Trump allegedly stole an vote by colluding with Russia in an honest conversation about cruel speech?”
But I digress. Afterwards, the real lowlight of the Times content is its conversation of Kamala Harris ‘ relationship with California’s strong social boss, Willie Brown. One of my favorite things that “fact checkers” would is label a claim as false and therefore frantically refute the claim with a myriad inconvenient facts to prove it is true. A textbook case of Harris and Willie Brown’s whole work is provided:
The derogatory accusations come in part from her short, but brief relationship with Willie Brown, who was 60 when Harris was 29 and rising in the Bay Area legitimate field. He gave Harris a tour of his social connections and gave her two well-paying opportunities on the state board.
When she was campaigning to get San Francisco’s district attorney in 2003, her competitors consistently commented on her website to Brown — references that she told , The New York Times , in 2019 were “frustrating” and “designed to destroy, honestly, the talk about why we needed a fresh D. A”.
During the 2003 culture, which she won, she told , SF Weekly , that there was nothing illegal about benefiting from her relations to Brown, although she described the marriage as an “albatross hanging around my neck”. She claimed that she “brought a level of life knowledge and common sense” to the table positions, adding that” I did the work whether you disagree with the structure or not.”
She claimed that she had” no question that I am independent of him” and that she “does not owe him anything.”
Just so we’re clear, The New York Times is confirming Harris did in fact have a relationship with Willie Brown, who was 31 years older ( and, for what it’s worth, still married at the time ). Harris herself acknowledges that the relationship considerably improved her career. Democrats in particular agreed that she did not deserve her posts. And Harris, a prosecutor who first failed the bar exam, may only claim that she “brought a level of life knowledge and common sense” to the positions Brown appointed her to. However, it’s a discriminatory implication to say Kamala finds these facts to be rather ugly!
And The New York Times is right in admitting this. In reality, the details are far worse than the Times is letting on. In his book, Profiles in Corruption, which has been out for four and a half years, Peter Schweizer, an investigative journalist who has previously worked with The New York Times, provides a lot of information about the crooked nature of the Harris/Brown marriage. And he’s making devastating use of the information.
Brown, who was regularly investigated by the FBI for fraud, was far more involved in Harris ‘ job rise than appointing her to two board jobs. He played a significant role in helping Harris win the position of San Francisco district attorney in California and was a kingmaker. Brown did n’t do this in vain out of love. Harris was employed by Terence Hallinan, a previous district attorney, before quitting when she was passed over for the No. 2 position in the DA’s office.
Other city officials criticized Hallinan for his actions, but others argued that the controversy was manufactured. A source close to Brown told the San Francisco Chronicle,” This whole thing is about Kamala Harris.” ” Cross one of Willie’s friends and there will be hell to pay”. Eventually, Harris ran for DA with Brown’s powerful backing — a former Brown aide managed her campaign, and Brown played a key role in her fundraising, which was incredibly successful. After starting the race polling a distant third, she won the election.
After taking office, Harris dropped or down corruption charges brought against several Willie Brown friends that Hallinan had been pursuing. A number of Brown’s friends were let off the hook, but the most notable example was a sweetheart plea deal for a notorious city contractor who had been defrauded of money by using inferior recycled concrete on expensive projects like the Bay Bridge and parking garages. This threatened the structural integrity of those projects and threatened lives. However, Harris dropped all of the allegations of fraud and accepted a guilty verdict on a single count involving an environmental offense.
” Harris ‘ office had no explanation for why it dropped the concrete case”, reported the Chronicle. A better explanation would be that the contractor involved was giving campaign contributions and had previously been arrested for giving illegal amounts of$ 2,000 to, yes, Willie Brown.
Anyway, there’s a lot more alarming reporting in Schweizer’s book that’s worth revisiting, and it’s not a stretch to say Kamala Harris has engaged in outright corruption throughout her career. When Kamala Harris is criticized for her claims that her relationship with Willie Brown was n’t “improper,” they are erasing the functional distinction between lying and profound ignorance. And when she’s credulously quoted saying,” I do not owe him a thing”, it’s journalistic malpractice to believe her.
It is n’t sexist to claim that Kamala Harris had an affair with a man more than twice her age, benefited from his fundraising abilities and connections to launch her political career, and did his corrupt bidding once in office. It’s well-grounded in fact.
However, the New York Times is not particularly interested in facts. Due to Kamala Harris ‘ late entry into the race, they do n’t have much time to use what little of their institutional influence is left to try to dishonestly influence a presidential election.
