Hammett exposes Kamala's criminal past. Why Kamala allowed child trafficking to flourish in Chinatown. Doug Emhoff beating women. The 3-4 ways Kamala has pronounced her name. And more.
Will watch later, but do they talk about the 2008 SCOTUS brief she wrote asserting the 2nd amendment doesn't grant individual gun ownership rights of any kind?
Maybe I would watch if the source was remotely objective. Harmeet Dhillon is a member of the Federalist Society and the fact that the origin of the story is Tucker Carlson's X/Twitter account says it all. I would also add that Dhillon is an RNC Republican committeewoman. Harmeet Dhillon was an at-large delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention from California. All 172 delegates from California were bound by state party rules to support Donald Trump at the convention.[2] In 2012, Dhillon was a Republican candidate for District 11 of the California State Senate.
In 2008, Kamala Harris signed on to a District Attorneys' friend-of-the-court brief in D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court's leading Second Amendment case. Of course, she may have changed her views on the Second Amendment since then (perhaps in light of precedents such as Heller); and she may have different personal views than the ones she expressed as a D.A. (though note that she signed on to the brief as a signatory, and not just as a lawyer for the signatories). But this brief likely tells us something about her views on the Second Amendment. [1.] To begin with, the brief urged the Court to reverse the decision below, and thus to reinstate D.C.'s handgun ban. Thus, Harris's view in that case was that the Second Amendment doesn't preclude total bans on handgun possession. [2.] The brief also came at a time when the great majority of federal courts (including the Ninth Circuit, which covered Harris's jurisdiction, San Francisco) viewed the Second Amendment as not securing any meaningful individual right of members of the public to personally keep and bear arms. Rather, those courts viewed the Second Amendment as endorsing (to quote the then-existing Ninth Circuit precedent, which the brief itself later cited), the "collective rights" model, [which] asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Kamala Harris on the Second Amendment
When you sign on to a brief to the SCOTUS as a signatory, it means you agree with what's contained in the brief. To do otherwise would be essentially perjury. IOW, a district attorney isn't looking to give the SCOTUS any false impressions. I'm guessing an aide actually did the typing. When she tells voters she herself owns a glock and will not take their guns away, but was a signatory on a SCOTUS brief that argued specifically that glocks be prohibited for individual ownership in a city of over a million people, clearly that speaks for itself. But I am not surprised you are attempting to console yourself about what her true beliefs are in hopes that will somehow magically change the outcome of the election. She is who her record says she is. Sorry to break it to ya.
Even conceding that she may be a very good attorney that still doesn't make her credible considering that she is very partisan and credibility isn't exactly an adjective that's applicable to the former president and his partisan supporters.
This can’t be true. A lawyer wouldn’t do this, would he/she/it? Kamala Harris accused of plagiarism in co-authored 2009 book WASHINGTON — Vice President Kamala Harris is facing allegations of plagiarism after numerous passages from the Democratic presidential nominee’s 2009 book “Smart on Crime” were discovered to closely resemble — or perfectly match — wording from other sources. Harris, then San Francisco’s district attorney, wrote the book promoting a reform-minded approach to prosecuting crimes alongside ghostwriter Joan O’C. Hamilton — who told The Post when contacted Monday that she was surprised to learn about the alleged copying. Conservative activist Christopher Rufo published the allegations Monday and credited an investigation by Austrian “plagiarism hunter” Stefan Weber — with Rufo posting screenshots on X of five examples in which the wording in the book closely resembles other sources.
When I'm wrong I have no problem eating all the crow anyone wants to feed me. Was Black Insurrectionist a legit poster. Given all the reputable big big accounts following him I thought he probably was. I now think they might have started following him after the story broke. If a story trends #1 on X (Twitter) "political trends" for hours and I think it should be perfectly acceptable to bring it up here AND VET IT. What's the big deal? It's not this small political forum is going to make the story bigger than it already is. Too Hot is not the Nightly News Remember the Kavanaugh hearings? Didn't Democrats say that the seriousness of the charges against Kavanaugh demanded that they be investigate How many people here that call Trump a rapist really believe it? Did you really believe Trump had prostitutes peeing on him? Regarding Walz, if Dems thought the seriousness of the charges against Kavanaugh warranted an investigation wouldn't the lsame ogic same apply to investigating the Walz story? What better way to ascertain the truth of a story than by vetting it? Vaxcardinal made a strong point about some documents bposted by Black Insurrectionist being forged. I did my own investigation and found that a highly reputable X member "MAZE" had questioned the authenticity of the documents on Black Insurrectionist's X account and he was BLOCKED. Red flags don't get any bigger than that. The widely circulated X post that said lawyer Phil Holloway (joined Twitter in 2013) stated the kid that had been allegedly abused was going to make a public statement was debunked by Holloway himself. So: 1. I see no problem with getting to the truth of a big story in real time 2. Did I enjoy watching a few heads explode? Yes. Would those same heads have exploded if the same allegations had been made against Trump? Yes for some, no for others