Getting To Know You, Getting To Know All About You... Kamala Harris

2010 saw a red tidal wave sweep Democrats out of office across America. Democrats lost 63 House seats and watched John Boehner take over the speakership from Pelosi. Democrats lost 6 Senate seats-- Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Indiana, Wisconsin (Russ Feingold) and North Dakota. Republicans also picked up new governors' mansions in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Wyoming and New Mexico. But California was a different story. No Democrats lost their House seats. Barbara Boxer was reelected to the Senate (against Carly Fiorina) with a healthy 10 point margin-- 5,218,441 (52.2%) to 4,217,366 (42.2%). Jerry Brown was elected governor against Meg Whitman by more than a 13 point margin 5,428,458 (53.8%) to 4,127,371 (40.9%). In the Lt. Gov. race, Gavin Newson clobbered his GOP opponent, Abel Maldonado, 50.12% to 39.94%. In the state Assembly races, Democrats got 5,121,423 (54.27%) votes and Republicans just 4,121,280 (43.67%) and picked up 2 seats. There were no changes in the state Senate races that were up but statewide Democrats got 2,279,834 votes (55.57%) and Republicans 1,736,816 votes (42.33%). It was similar for most statewide offices:

• State Controller
• John Chiang (D)- 5,315,196 (55.1%)
• Tony Strickland (R)- 3,481,167 (36.1%)

• Secretary of State
• Debra Bowen (D)- 3,786,174 (53.1%)
• Damon Dunn (R)- 2,751,863 (38.6%)

• State Treasurer
• Bill Lockyer (D)- 5,423,219 (56.5%)
• Mimi Walters (R)- 3,473,543 (36.2%)

• State Insurance Commissioner
• Dave Jones (D)- 4,630,988 (50.6%)
• Michael Villines (R)- 3,453,694 (37.7%)

• State Supervisor of Public Instruction
• Tom Torlakson (D)- 4,222,946 (54.52%)
• Larry Aceves (R)- 3,476,243 (44.88%)

And then came the Attorney General election, pitting San Francisco County District Attorney Kamala Harris against Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley (R). Even with President Obama actively supporting her and appearing at her rallies, Harris barely won. With other statewide Democrats running up million-plus vote margins, Harris scraped through with 4,443,070 votes (46.1%) to 4,368,617 (45.3%). In fact, Cooley was so far ahead in early counting that by midnight the networks had declared him the winner. The next morning late returns from L.A. that had been expected to come in for Cooley, came in for Harris but it wasn't until November 24, 3 weeks later, that the votes were finalized and Harris declared the winner.

California voters didn't really know who she was in 2010. She was reelected in 2014 by a much healthier margin-- finally that million vote cushion-- but voters still didn't know much about her. Two years later, she ran for the U.S. Senate seat Boxer retired from. By that time the California GOP had passed away and been cremated. With no Republican on the ballot, it was a Democrat vs Democrat race and Republicans generally either stayed home or rallied around Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez. Harris-- representing both the status quo establishment and the liberal wing of the party-- beat Sanchez overwhelmingly-- 7,542,753 (61.6%) to 4,701,417 (38.4%). It was a rout, with Sanchez winning just 4 of California's 58 counties (Glenn, Fresno, Madera, and Imperial), but voters still weren't clear about who Harris was, just that she was better than a conservative, not-too-bright Blue Dog Democrat.

Now Kamala Harris is running for president. She has an indisputably progressive voting record-- marginally more progressive than Elizabeth Warren's, Cory Booker's, Jeff Merkley's, Sherrod Brown's and even Bernie's. Going strictly by the numbers, she has the best voting record in the Senate-- 99.63% in the crucial roll calls. She's only been in the senate for 2 years though, so she doesn't really have any record of accomplishment yet. I bet that there's a good chance that if she stays in the Senate a couple of terms, she will have accomplishments and will be recognized as a progressive champion. Now... she just seems like a careerist, like most of the senators. And then there's her record as California Attorney General. Lara Bazelon's NY Times piece Thursday night, Kamala Harris Was Not A 'Progressive Prosecutor', opens that up for discussion in a big way. One savvy correspondent noted after reading it that "Nothing is so telling as the abuse of power just because one can. The calculating ways of Harris, her willingness to destroy people for political purpose, for notches on her belt, are a fright. If she can rationalize the actions detailed in this essay, she can rationalize anything. Like Hillary, in order to prove she’s tough. I hope this begins the end of the presidential/VP aspirations of Harris." And there I was, imagining that she would be Bernie's VP choice! Instead... is this the end of RICO?



Friday morning saw Bazelon's piece becoming part of the conventional wisdom about Harris. Her campaign moved into crisis mode. CNN reported that "University of San Francisco associate law professor Lara Bazelon took central aim at Harris' contention that she was a 'progressive prosecutor,' who sought to right injustice and change the criminal justice system from within." Team Trump, no doubt, has taken note.

"Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as district attorney and then the state's attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent," wrote Bazelon, the former director of Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent. "Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors."

In an interview Thursday, Bazelon said that she was inspired to write the piece after Harris devoted a chapter in her new memoir, The Truths We Hold, to the idea that she was a progressive prosecutor.

"For some of us, that was just too much to bear. Because that's not her record," Bazelon said. "I think that the decisions she made had an eye toward running for higher office-- had an eye toward trying to walk this tightrope of not getting law enforcement and police and prosecutors upset with her."

Harris aides dismissed the piece as opinion and noted that a number of Bazelon's examples lacked proper context, or even an acknowledgment that line-level prosecutors made central decisions in a number of the most controversial cases.

"Kamala Harris has spent her career fighting for reforms in the criminal justice system and pushing the envelope to keep everyone safer by bringing fairness and accountability," said Lily Adams, Harris' spokeswoman, said in a statement.

"In 2004, when most prosecutors were using a tough on crime approach, Senator Harris was starting Back on Track in 2004 which diverted young people charged with first time drug offenses into apprenticeship and training programs instead of decades long prison sentences. When she was Attorney General, she brought accountability to the system with the first statewide training on implicit bias and procedural justice in the country, body cameras to the agents at DOJ, launched multiple pattern and practice investigations and demanded data on in-custody deaths and police shooting be made available to the public."

Citing the criticism of the fact that Harris did not take a position in 2014 on Proposition 47, a reform of California's three strikes law, Harris aides said her policy as attorney general was that she would not take a position on a ballot measure if she was responsible for writing the ballot language. She viewed it as a conflict of interest.

While Harris did favor reforming the three strikes law for low-level felonies to help reduce California's prison population, she also had concerns that if inmates were released there should be proper support services in place to help them. Aides noted that while Harris was district attorney and dealing with the three strikes law on a day-to-day basis, she did not seek any 25-year-to-life sentences on any low-level crime.

Bazelon also faulted Harris for refusing as attorney general to support statewide standards governing the use of body-worn cameras by police officers.

At that time, Harris, broadly, supported the use of body-worn cameras and required Department of Justice officers who she oversaw to wear them. But an aide said she believed that each police jurisdiction should have flexibility to set their own standards for how footage could be used, how long it should be kept and when it should be released to the public.

Bazelon's piece also criticized one of Harris' most controversial stances, which was her decision to defend the death penalty as California's attorney general even though she personally opposed it. Earlier in her career, Harris took considerable heat for refusing to seek the death penalty in 2004 for the killer of San Francisco police officer Isaac Espinoza.

In part because of the complexity of Harris' record, Bazelon touched off a vigorous debate about Harris' criminal justice stances, both on Twitter and in early voting states like Iowa and South Carolina, where Harris is scheduled to visit next week.

If Harris runs, it is a debate that will likely play out for many months among her 2020 rivals, particularly as Harris tries to consolidate the African-American vote in South Carolina and the early states of the Southeast where that demographic makes up a large portion of the electorate.

The Democratic California senator, who has worked closely with Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul on bail reform and co-sponsored legislation making lynching a federal crime, has clearly been expecting these attacks from the left, particularly as criminal justice reform became a focal point for Democratic activists.

In her new memoir and during her talks at book tour events, she frequently noted her family's surprise at her decision as a young woman to become part of a system that has disproportionately incarcerated black and brown men.

Harris writes in the book that she "knew that there was an important role on the inside, sitting at the table where the decisions were being made. When activists came marching and banging on the doors, I wanted to be on the other side to let them in."

At every event, she also noted her efforts to reduce recidivism, implicit bias within law enforcement and the program she launched giving first-time drug offenders an opportunity to get high school diplomas and jobs.

Some, noting the breadth and expanse of Harris' legal record over several decades, rose to her defense.

"It is an unfortunate byproduct of the campaign season to place Democrats into a box," said South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Trav Robertson. "I would believe that Senator Harris had significant input from her staff-- legal professionals in these circumstances. This opinion piece will have little impact on her chances in South Carolina."

"Most important, her performance during the (Supreme Court Nominee Brett) Kavanaugh hearing and the (attorney general nominee William) Barr hearing more than likely will have motivated those who consider themselves progressives in the Democratic Party," Robertson said.

Bazelon's opinion piece in the Times also sent ripples through some Iowa Democratic circles as they await an announcement of Harris' decision.

Andrew Turner, the former campaign manager for Iowa State Auditor Rob Sand-- who narrowly beat the GOP incumbent in the 2018 race-- said the piece was "widely talked about and passed around."

Turner acknowledged that most Iowans aren't making up their minds at this juncture, "but activists and staffers do, and I think some who had liked her a lot before don't feel the same way."

He called the opinion piece "troubling," especially to him, a young Democratic man of color.

"This op-ed for me, helped narrow down my choices," Turner said to CNN. "Senator Warren and Senator Booker both have tremendous records on these issues and don't need to explain why just as recently as 2014 they couldn't support a State Proposition (47) that would help curb some of the systemic racism in the criminal justice system and would improve the quality of life for so many young black and brown, men and women."

"I think there's lots of other black and mixed race Democrats out there thinking the same thing I am right now," Turner said.

Former Iowa Democratic Party chair Sue Dvorsky called the review of Harris' record "fair because she's expected to be top tier." Dvorsky noted that every one of the 2020 candidates is facing scrutiny of their records.

"It isn't too early. We're starting," Dvorsky said. "Every one of these candidates have three things they have to do: Lay out a positive vision of why them; explain how they are going to address the current occupant's style; and respond to their own record. The longer the record, the longer the response."

Dvorsky, a key influencer in Iowa politics who plans to remain neutral this cycle, was an early backer of Barack Obama in 2007 and also caucused for Hillary Clinton in 2016. This cycle, she said, "it will be vision, policy and record" that will determine Iowa Democratic support. "Everyone will have to answer to that."

Wow! And not even a mention of Mnuchin! You don't know about that? It's not about something she did; it's about something she didn't do and it troubles progressive insiders in a very big way and has been thought to be Harris' Achilles heel, maybe even something that would disqualify her from being named Bernie's running mate. OneWest was the crooked California bank founded by now-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, an oozing slime ball among slime balls. As David Dayen reported for The Intercept early in 2017, Mnuchin "repeatedly broke California’s foreclosure laws" during his tenure with the bank (2009-15). He based his report on a previously undisclosed 2013 memo from top prosecutors in the state attorney general’s office, Kamala Harris' office.

The memo makes it clear that Mnuchin's bank "rushed delinquent homeowners out of their homes by violating notice and waiting period statutes, illegally backdated key documents, and effectively gamed foreclosure auctions. In the memo, the leaders of the state attorney general’s Consumer Law Section said they had “uncovered evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct” in a yearlong investigation. In a detailed 22-page request, they identified over a thousand legal violations in the small subsection of OneWest loans they were able to examine, and they recommended that Attorney General Kamala Harris file a civil enforcement action against the Pasadena-based bank. They even wrote up a sample legal complaint, seeking injunctive relief and millions of dollars in penalties. But Harris’s office, without any explanation, declined to prosecute the case." It would be really interesting watching Harris being forced to debate this with Elizabeth Warren on a primary stage.

“After years peddling the kind of dangerous mortgage-backed securities that eventually blew up the economy, Mnuchin swooped in after the crash to take a second bite out of families by aggressively-- and sometimes illegally-- foreclosing on their homes,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in a statement last month. Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, warned: “Given Mr. Mnuchin’s history of profiting off the victims of predatory lending, I look forward to asking him how his Treasury Department would work for Americans who are still waiting for the economic recovery to show up in their communities.”

The consistent violations of California foreclosure processes outlined in the memo would indicate that Mnuchin’s bank didn’t merely act callously, but did so with blatant disregard for the law.

And you know what makes this much worse? In 2016, Mnuchin contributed a lot of political money. Here's who he gave it to:

• Republican National Committee- $309,600
• New Jersey Republican State Committee- $10,000
• Connecticut Republican Campaign Committee- $10,000
• Republican Party of Tennessee- $10,000
• Republican Party of Wyoming- $10,000
• Republican Party of Louisiana- $10,000
• Republican Party of West Virginia- $10,000
• Republican Party of Virginia- $10,000
• Republican Party of Mississippi- $10,000
• Republican Party of Arkansas- $10,000
• Republican Party of South Carolina- $10,000
• New York Republican Federal Campaign Committee- $10,000
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $5,400
• Scott Walker (R-WI)- $2,700
• Donald J. Trump (R-NY)- $5,400
• Kamala Harris (D-CA)- $2,000

In August of 2017, Jesse Mechanic wrote at HuffPo that Harris had "been deemed the Democratic Party establishment’s next big thing. They’re pushing her as the figure head of the resistance, the anti-Trump: a staunch, strong progressive who relies on her intelligence and empathy to combat the authoritarian belligerence of the current administration. While Harris is certainly poised and intelligent, her progressive credentials are fuzzy and her past is punctuated boldly by her decision to not prosecute OneWest Bank and the 'foreclosure king' who ran it, current Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin... [D]espite internal memos explicitly mentioning numerous prosecutable offenses by Mnuchin and co., then California Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to prosecute... The Democratic party is a fractured entity. The anti-establishment, anti-corporatist, anti-centrist, anti-plutocratic wing of the party is growing every day and they are unwavering and passionate about their ideals. Harris, who met with Clinton donors last month and is against party purity tests, has certainly failed to impress those pining for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren... For the most part, Harris aims to stay in the middle, but by all accounts, centrism is dead. While she may be able to distance herself from some earlier mistakes, the one looming specter from which she cannot escape is Steve Mnuchin. If she wants to be considered as a viable Democratic candidate, she needs to appeal to the Sanders/Warren wing of the party. And to do this, she must provide an adequate justification for this glaring omission, or, at the very least, admit she made a terrible error. Voters on both sides of the aisle have grown tired of the corporatist model. This issue will not go away, she had myriad reasons to prosecute a man who brazenly and illegally exploited the citizens of her state and failed to do so."

The Marist poll NPR released this week shows Harris with a 36% approval rating among Democratic (and Democratic-leaning independent) voters, not quite in the same ballpark as Biden, Bernie and Warren, but significantly better than Bloomberg (27%), Gillibrand (22%), Klobuchar (21%) or Castro (20%). A majority of voters either never hear Harris and the others she ranks better than, or didn't have enough information to form any kind of judgment.