kamala Harris, as a da, locked people up and refused parole to keep them as slaves fighting fires.
mod says it’s misinfo (probably without fact checking) and removes the comment
update:
idk how I was doing mod abuse
kamala Harris, as a da, locked people up and refused parole to keep them as slaves fighting fires.
mod says it’s misinfo (probably without fact checking) and removes the comment
update:
idk how I was doing mod abuse
No, you are. A person who’s job it is to convince judges to put people in jail runs on their record of convincing the judges to do so is … unsurprising.
this is splitting hairs
No, this is false. Her job was/is fundamentally to help ensure justice is administered, it is not to convince a judge (or a jury) to put people in jail.
Plenty of AGs have run on not enforcing specific unjust laws.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system.
And yes Kamala was and continues to be a horrible human being. She never would have survived a primary for this reason.
We literally denied Nazis the defense of ‘I was just following orders’ for good reasons. Just because kamala’s actions were slightly less damning doesnt change the fact she made the personal choice to make those arguments in court.
No, you do. It is an adversarial system. Prosecuting attorneys… prosecute. Defense attorneys… defend. It is the jury that decides factual guilt or lack thereof, and the judges who sentence. ALL of these roles put the furtherance of justice as their #1 priority, or should at least.
If you want to argue she is responsible for some sort of prosecutorial misconduct, I will listen. To say she put people in prison without a guilty verdict and judge’s sentence gives her authority she doesn’t and shouldn’t have and to argue otherwise is a “fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system”.
Child, an AG has the power to decide which cases they decide to prosecute. They don’t need to prosecute any case they don’t want to. In fact you’ll often see AGs decline to prosecute cases. take a look at texas’ current asshole AG as a great example of this. Or the current DOJ over the next few years.
Kamala choose to prosecute those cases and choose to make the arguments that her department made. Trying to claim that just because part of the role of an AG is to make a case against defendents completely ignores the reality of how they choose which cases to prosecute in the first place.
Again you’re demonstrating your fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system works quite blatantly here.
When an AG declines to prosecute a case that defendant will not end up in jail. this is just a fact. I’m not arguing she has authority over the judges final determination, I’m saying she had the authority to pick and choose which cases and arguments the department she led made.
So yes, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system and you’re denying kamala had agency in the decisions her department made which is absolutely moronic.
You know you’ve lost the argument when you need to resort to insults. What’s it like losing to a ‘child’ at your age?
Edit: oh, and here’s something that might cause your head to explode so read with caution.
child, that article is exactly my point. once you grow up and your frontal cortex starts to mature maybe you’ll make the connection between kamala’s decision as an AG in deciding to charge people with victimless crimes and preventing parole because of labor shortages and that judge’s sentencing decisions.
They’re identical expressions of the same concept. we didnt tolerate ‘just doing my job’ at the nuremberg trials either.
Both the judge and kamala exercised their powers of discretion in incredibly improper ways.