'You owe them an apology': Tulsi Gabbard ripped into Kamala Harris at the Democratic debate over her controversial record on criminal justice

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii took Sen. Kamala Harris to task over the California senator's controversial record on criminal justice in the second round of Democratic presidential debates in Detroit, saying Harris owed an apology to the people her policies had impacted.

Harris is branding herself as a "progressive prosecutor" poised to take on Trump. But she has faced scrutiny over her record as California's attorney general and San Francisco's district attorney, which included cracking down on truancy, defending the death penalty and several cases of wrongful conviction, and allegedly ignoring survivors of clergy sexual abuse. (In a recent interview with CBS, Harris dismissed criticism of her time as a prosecutor as "overblown.")

"I'm concerned about this record of senator Harris. She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana," Gabbard said at the debate.

Gabbard continued: "She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California, and she fought to keep cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way."




https://www.businessinsider.com/tulsi-gabbard-slams-kamala-harris-criminal-justice-democratic-debate-2019-7?r=US&IR=T

Tulsi Gabbard wrote:"I'm concerned about this record of senator Harris. She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana," Gabbard said at the debate.

Ms. Gabbard points to Kamala Harris, and the record of Ms. Harris.  What she leaves out is the in-between.  What, is she saying, was the alleged wrongdoing?  You can’t just criticize on good results.

Ms. Gabbard is excoriating Kamala Harris for being a damn fine prosecutor.  That’s pretty ass-backwards. You do a good job, you should get applause, not criticism.

As far as the laws Ms Harris had to work under, well when she was AG of California Republicans were in charge of Congress.  Congress makes the laws of the land and the Republican federal courts determine what is constitutional.  All we've got left is...Kamala Harris was damn good at every job she undertook.

The lapse in Gabbard's criticism is matched by the lapse in her facts: Kamala Harris is famous in California for opposing the death penalty, and absolutely refusing to prosecute for capital punishment.

(CNN)In Wednesday night's Democratic presidential debate in Detroit, Tulsi Gabbard decided to drop her opposition research book right on Kamala Harris.

Amid a broader conversation about criminal justice reform between the California senator and former Vice President Joe Biden, the moderators turned to the Hawaii congresswoman. And she unloaded:

"Senator Harris says she's proud of her record as a prosecutor and that she'll be a prosecutor president.

"But I'm deeply concerned about this record. There are too many examples to cite but she put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.

"She blocked evidence -- she blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California."

It was, without question, a moment for Gabbard, who has been running well off the main pack in the race to date. She was forceful, direct and unapologetic. And she clearly knocked Harris on her heels.

Worse than that -- for Harris -- is the fact that it became crystal clear in the aftermath of the debate that Gabbard had gotten under her skin. In a post-debate interview, CNN's Anderson Cooper asked Harris about the moment with Gabbard.

"This is going to sound immodest, but obviously I'm a top-tier candidate and so I did expect that I'd be on the stage and take some hits tonight," Harris said. "When people are at 0 or 1% or whatever she might be at, so I did expect to take some hits tonight."
Woof.

First of all, if you are running for president and you hear the words, "This is going to sound immodest" come out of your mouth, it may be best to recalibrate what you are going to say.

Second, what Harris is actually saying is, basically, this: The dork took a shot at the most popular kid in school. Big whoop.

That is not a good look. For any candidate. Ever. (And, yes, politics is a LOT like high school.)


https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/01/politics/tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-debate/index.html

For CNN to admit she got destroyed, says it all

There is no doubt in my mind. That any hopes that Kamala Harris had of being President. Just had a former soldier, outflank her and administer a fatal blow.

Fair play to Tulsi Gabbard and she knows how to tactically play her opponents. Kamala is finished after that and believe she will never be relected as Senator again after that. She got completely destroyed and shown up badly here.

I may disagree with some foreign policy views with Tulsi Gabbard . But if ever there was someone to win the presidency for the Democrats. It is this woman. She is not afraid to hold her punches and she would gain many undecided votors and even right wing patriot voters. She would be able to help swing many states. She can bridge the gap between right and left.

If the Democrats have any sense they will back this woman. She is a winner.

CNN wrote:That is not a good look. For any candidate.

Meh...that's CNN naval watching. Look how the article switches topics, from Harris' professional successes, to small-town sniping about her power in the polls.

Gabbard is attractive, but she's about to fall away. Frankly, a woman cannot win in the top job; it's a role that calls for a leading man, not a leading lady.

Forget women who have won PM’s in parliamentary systems. The vote there is among politicians. In the US the executive is determined by public elections...and the people vote their perceptions. The people see it as a man's job.

It's a fact; not something I applaud. Watch...the field is loaded with great female candidates. But Democrats will not again leave a fight with Trump to a woman. Hillary lost not only the election for the Democrats, but the confidence in a female candidate altogether.

As I say, that's simply a fact, not something I support. All the women will fall away. Gabbard is simply making a last ditch effort before dropping out.

Why is Quill respounding to CNN?

They are not a member of this forum?  

CNN sponsored the debate and originated the story.

Original Quill wrote:CNN originated the story.

I gave two sources and still you defend your californian candidate and fail to see she wont be trump but Tulsi Gabbard would

You yanks have no concept of strategy on how to win when it comes to politics

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:CNN originated the story.

I gave two sources and still you defend your californian candidate and fail to see she wont be trump but  Tulsi Gabbard would

You yanks have no concept of strategy on how to win when it comes to politics

Your "sources" aren't sources, but thinly veiled advertisements.  It invites fair comment.

Whatever limitations on Yankee strategists, you're dealing with a Yankee public. Who knows 'em better?  Certainly not a phlebotomist from Kent!

I just call 'em as I see 'em: Democrats will not dare to put up a woman again after the 2016 fiasco.

And Quil sttill fails to grasp. She can bridge divides Quill. She was a soldier, who even patriot Americans would vote for. Hence she is able o bridge a divide. Hence she is a best candidate to go against trump. Unless of course you think women are inferior? Going off the above statements about Hilary and 2016. She never lost because she was a woman. She lost because she failed to connect with every woman and Americans. Hence why  Tulsi Gabbard would undermine trump and win support from him. How is he going to dish a vet? Without ending up with egg on his face?

This is why you Democrats have no concept of strategy. Trump mocks a vet and see what happens Quill. She would have trump in continual check. oif playing chess and we also know she could play. The trump dodge card, when avoided army service.

You do not look for who you perceive to be the best canadidate. You look for the best person to undermine your opponent, in order to win.

Have a good evnining

phildidge wrote:And Quil lstill fails to grasp. She can bridge divides Quill. She was a soldier, who even patriot Americans would vote for. Hence she is able o bridge a divide. Hence she is a best candidate to go against trump. Unless of course you think women are inferior? Going off the above statements about Hilary and 2016. She never lost because she was a woman. She lost because she failed to connect with every woman and Americans. Hence why  Tulsi Gabbard would undermine trump and win support from him. How is he going to dish a vet? Without ending up with egg on his face?

Who the fook gives a damn.  She's got the wrong junk between her legs.

Politics is about perception, and right now the perception for Democratic voters is: woman lose elections.  In 2016 you saw how vulnerable women are: don't act angry; don't raise your voice; don't criticize; smile and act sweet.  Violate those rules and you risk looking like every guy's ex-wife.  How do you campaign with those constraints?

She can't bridge the divide of perception.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:And Quil lstill fails to grasp. She can bridge divides Quill. She was a soldier, who even patriot Americans would vote for. Hence she is able o bridge a divide. Hence she is a best candidate to go against trump. Unless of course you think women are inferior? Going off the above statements about Hilary and 2016. She never lost because she was a woman. She lost because she failed to connect with every woman and Americans. Hence why  Tulsi Gabbard would undermine trump and win support from him. How is he going to dish a vet? Without ending up with egg on his face?

Who the fook gives a damn.  She's got the wrong junk between her legs.

.

So you do not give a fuck? wow.
So now a good candidate needs the right junk between their legs. So what is that junk Quill?
I think you are willing to throw women under the bus . To wrongly believe this is the best strategy to beat trump.
I think you forgot to realise that you became extinct 65 million years ago

phil wrote:So you do not give a fuck? wow.
So now a good candidate needs the right junk between their legs. So what is that junk Quill?
I think you are willing to throw women under the bus . To wrongly believe this is the best strategy to beat trump.
I think you forgot to realise that you became extinct 65 million years ago

As I said before:

Original Quill wrote:It has nothing to do with me.  It's a fact; not something I applaud. Watch...the field is loaded with great female candidates. But Democrats will not again leave a fight with Trump to a woman. Hillary lost not only the election for the Democrats, but the confidence in a female candidate altogether.

As I say, that's simply a fact, not something I support.

Still waiting for you to tell me what you meant in regards junk between the legs?

I heard Telsi Gabbard interviewed last night on MSNBC.  She's something of a bully, isn't she?  Or, maybe that's her military background.

It won't go over with the Democratic crowd.

I don't see why anyone is arguing between two woman, anyway.  Once burned, twice shy...Democrats won’t send up another female candidate.  A woman won't work as a president, just like a woman won’t work as Rhett Butler.


Maybe another script, but not president...particularly now in the south, where everything is masculine things like guns, cowboy boots and pickup trucks.

I totally support a woman--my own favorite candidate is a woman--but it's the wrong type casting for America.