Staff Reports
Back in 2003, Kamala Harris was campaigning for the role of San Francisco District Attorney, armed with grand promises and a stack of mailers that sang her praises. These campaign materials depicted Harris as a veteran prosecutor, boasting “thirteen years of courtroom experience” and highlighting her supposed mastery in the legal arena. According to those pieces of propaganda, she was the one to save the District Attorney’s office from its own failures, claiming to have tackled hundreds of serious felonies, including the unsavory likes of homicide and child sexual assault. Who wouldn’t want a superhero in a suit on their side?
Enter Bill Fazio, her opponent and a seasoned criminal defense attorney with just enough gumption to challenge Harris’s assertions during a KGO Radio debate. Fazio wasn’t having any of the fluff. He pointed out discrepancies that would make even the most seasoned spin doctor cringe. He called out her claims of having tried “hundreds of serious felonies” as misleading at best, questioning whether anyone could actually trust her leadership skills given the fabrications on full display.
NEW: Kamala Under Fire For ‘Greatly Exaggerating’ Key Aspect Of Her Past – https://t.co/3Ju9yNNw8z
— JB (@JBRawhide) October 24, 2024
Harris’s camp did not take the criticism lying down, issuing a defense that attempted to clear away the fog of her shady claims. A spokesperson insisted that Vice President Harris oversaw the prosecution of countless serious crimes, but one has to wonder—what does “oversaw” even mean? According to legal jargon, there’s a stark difference between actually trying a case—being the one sweating it out in front of a judge or jury—and merely prosecuting, which could encompass everything from filing charges to negotiating plea deals. It makes one ponder how many smoke and mirror tricks are at play.
The campaign documents were less than consistent. Some said Harris had “tried” hundreds of cases, while other sources more conveniently switched to “prosecuted.” It’s not just a harmless mix-up; these terms carry distinct meanings in the legal sphere. Most folks out there wouldn’t know the difference between actually arguing a case in court and just managing its journey through the legal system. For those who understand, it’s a classic example of political sleight of hand.
To add salt to the wound, a former colleague of Harris strolled to the microphone to affirm that the 2003 campaign was just trying to appeal to the masses. This magical interpretation of legal experience is nothing short of theatrical. One can’t help but question if the only courtroom she actually set foot in was as part of a well-crafted media show. An anonymous lawyer chimed in, confirming that saying one has “tried cases” signifies a jolt of reality where one must stand and make their case in front of a jury. The truth is, navigating through legal paperwork and then peacocking as a courtroom warrior are two wildly different narratives. Harris’s campaign materials may have aimed for epic; unfortunately for her, the truth remains stubbornly inconvenient.
