In 2003, Kamala Harris was running for San Francisco district attorney. Her campaign sent mailers promoting her candidacy as a prosecutor with 13 years of courtroom experience. They claimed she had a “long track record.”
“Kamala has tried hundreds of serious and violent felonies, including homicide, rape, and child sexual assault cases,” the mailer stated, reported ABC News.
During the debate on KGO radio, Harris’s then-opponent, veteran criminal defense attorney Bill Fazio, said she misled voters about her record as a prosecutor and deputy district attorney in California’s Alameda County.
He asked her, “How many cases have you tried? Can you tell us how many serious felonies you have tried? Can you tell us one?”
“I’ve tried about 50 cases, Mr. Fazio, and it’s about leadership,” Harris responded.
Fazio then pointed out campaign literature where Harris claimed to have tried hundreds of cases.
“Ms. Harris, why does your information, which is still published, say that you tried hundreds of serious felonies? I think that’s misleading; I think that’s disingenuous. I think that shows that you are incapable of leadership and you’re not to be trusted,” Fazio said. “You continue to put out information that says you have tried hundreds of serious felonies.”
Harris, in response, did not dispute Fazio’s claims and instead pivoted, stating that “leadership, working with different communities as a career prosecutor, I’ve done that, which is why I, not you, have every law enforcement organization’s endorsement.”
She lied, misled, claimed a background she did not have, and misguided San Franciscans by pivoting to complementing herself.
Her career continued as a blown out of proportion success. Harris was Peter Principled into the White House with a seemingly sparse set of skills.
Here’s a hint from the article as to why she might have won:
Fazio’s accusation in the 2003 debate did not hurt Harris, and she went on to best him in the election before winning a runoff against Hallinan with 56% of the vote to become the first person of color elected district attorney of San Francisco.
In Conclusion
The article at ABC News, which is in the bag for Harris, then quotes people who didn’t think it was much of a problem and those who criticized her for it. The author ends with her opponent, Bill Fazio, who said he would vote for her and that she did the right thing by pivoting as far as the debate goes.
What else would he say living in San Francisco?
So, there you have it. You can exaggerate and lie about your qualifications, and it’s allegedly the right thing to do regarding the debate. This liar went on to prosecute more cases. Did she lie or exaggerate to win these cases and put pot smokers in prison for years?
It seems that we’ve come to accept lies as Americans. So, we shouldn’t wonder why truth has such a small role in our lives, especially concerning politicians.
And yes, she’s still lying:
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
wpDiscuz
