I'm sure somewhere in Asia there's a plum tree hiding a short, nude man with binoculars trained on the neighbors house
Is waiguren short?
You're not the blind eye type.
Thanks. My major contention here is that most of her issues aren't a matter of either political ideology or personal failings, and the areas where she receives the most flack are areas where she is distinctly, unarguably to the right of the median Democrat. As I mentioned to Greg, I am personally very hostile to persons who support a larger framework of right-wing policy but then criticize liberal figures who wade into that policy in certain areas: largely because, if Harris adopted a more lenient, understanding, and rehabilitative approach to the job, she would be lambasted by the right who want stiff prison sentences, criminals off the street, and no more coddling thugs.
-Stepdaughter says he raped her.
-Mom says daughter is a liar.
-Prosecuter held back evidence that proves his innocence, stated by judge.
-Reaches Court of Appeals
-Harris and team fight it.
-Judge moves case to mediation. Gage had not raised the proper legal issue being his own lawyer. Expectations are it will now be dismissed.
-Harris goes all in to challenge, ensuring innocent man remains in prison on a technicality.
Everyone and their grandma came out in protest about this at the time from activist to celebs, hell YOU probably protested it, but to Kamala no big deal as long as we move on and forget. Now for her it's a nope nothing to talk about issue. Explain to me how this is "just being a lawyer"? This isn't a purity test deal either, her history is jam-packed with examples like this. Last thing people with zero morality need is more power to show off their zero morality.
I'm actually not familiar with the case. I imagine it's something that I would need to spend a lot of time on.
If your description is correct (the operative part being that "evidence that proves his innocence"), it's a miscarriage of justice. If the evidence definitively proved he could not be guilty, Harris should have intervened to drop the State's charges. While the blame would lay more largely on the individual prosecutors overseeing the case, I do subscribe to the "buck stops here" mentality specifically for prosecutors. In the case that it's not so cut-and-dry, it is the State's Attorney's job to zealously represent the position of the state: the fiduciary responsibility isn't quite so strong as that of the defense attorney, but it's still there.
Now, assuming the worst from all of that, I don't advocate that we "just forget" about it. I
do, however, advocate that we place it in the context of the election, both with regard to the past moral and ethical failings of Trump/Pence (Pence's are underrated, as he's not only an anti-science religious zealot, but he's extremely corrupt) but also with regard to the expected policy results. Even with Harris's suspect judgment, what can we expect from the Biden/Harris administration versus what can we expect from the Trump/Pence administration. Do we really think that Harris will be anywhere near as opaque, dishonest, and corrupt? I, for one, don't think that's even a remote possibility given both what I know about them all and what I know about the structures for accountability in the two parties.