All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[numberthirty]

You can be for LGBT rights on one hand, and have been involved in something that hurts the group on the other hand.

One doesn't rule out the other being possible.

That the first might be true doens't mean you shouldn't be accountable for the second.

[Kevinroc]

You can be for LGBT rights on one hand, and have been involved in something that hurts the group on the other hand.

One doesn't rule out the other being possible.

That the first might be true doens't mean you shouldn't be accountable for the second.

I'm not denying that.

[Kevinroc]

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/statu...60571144994818

Harris will appear on Wednesday's episode of Rachel Maddow for an interview. Should be very interesting.

[Tendrin]

This idea that she's against Trans rights feels like a mischaracterization.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/01/2...der-president/

Yeah, I'm not saying there isn't room for nuance there. Harris did a shitty thing regarding Trans rights for prisoners and that's an issue that's pretty important to a lot of trans activists. It will dog her, but I don't think it will be deterministic. Harris knows exactly who the base of the Democratic party is and she's gonna be a tough candidate to beat.

[numberthirty]

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/statu...60571144994818

Harris will appear on Wednesday's episode of Rachel Maddow for an interview. Should be very interesting.

Seems like she also has a "Town Hall" sort of an hour on CNN on Monday? Not absolutely sure on the day.

[Kevinroc]

Yeah, I'm not saying there isn't room for nuance there. Harris did a shitty thing regarding Trans rights for prisoners and that's an issue that's pretty important to a lot of trans activists. It will dog her, but I don't think it will be deterministic. Harris knows exactly who the base of the Democratic party is and she's gonna be a tough candidate to beat.

Definitely agree that she has some problematic actions in her past. (But then, so does every other candidate running for President.)

She's also one of the top tier candidates in this election cycle. And you can see that detractors have been preparing for this announcement for some time.

(And, full disclosure, I voted for her for Senate back in 2016.)

[numberthirty]

Definitely agree that she has some problematic actions in her past. (But then, so does every other candidate running for President.)

She's also one of the top tier candidates in this election cycle. And you can see that detractors have been preparing for this announcement for some time.

(And, full disclosure, I voted for her for Senate back in 2016.)

Trying to lump her actions into simply "Problematic" is where the issue is.

Of course each candidate has the basic sorts of issues that anyone running for President will.

How many of them have had to have a judge actually address them trying to create a situation where the accused don't have everything they would need to mount the defense the law says they should be able to?

It's on a different level, and it is only one of the instances of that type when it comes to Harris.

[Kevinroc]

Trying to lump her actions into simply "Problematic" is where the issue is.

Of course each candidate has the basic sorts of issues that anyone running for President will.

How many of them have had to have a judge actually address them trying to create a situation where the accused don't have everything they would need to mount the defense the law says they should be able to?

It's on a different level, and it is only one of the instances of that type when it comes to Harris.

Why is it on a different level?

[numberthirty]

Why is it on a different level?

Because being on the Prosecutor/AG side of the equation doesn't mean that you get to decide what laws do and do not apply.

What was going on there was a pretty fundamental abuse of the rights of the accused. One that no Judge should have had to address by forcing the state to comply with the rights of the accused.

Don't even get me started on that she has taken steps to keep a likely innocent man in jail after a Federal court decided he should be released.

[Kevinroc]

Because being on the Prosecutor/AG side of the equation doesn't mean that you get to decide what laws do and do not apply.

What was going on there was a pretty fundamental abuse of the rights of the accused.

Don't even get me started on that she has taken steps to keep a likely innocent man in jail after a Federal court decided he should be released.

If you hate that she was "Tough on Crime," why are you a big supporter of Bernie "I voted for the 1994 Crime Law" Sanders?

(And before you say anything, please note that Sanders used to boast that he was "tough on crime." https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-n...223600102.html)

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The Democratic Race For 2020 Opens With A Battle for Black Voters

Candidates and likely candidates fan out in South Carolina, New York City and D.C. to seek the African-American support that can seal a nomination.

**********

Twitter Users Drag Sarah Huckabee Sanders For Tone-Deaf MLK Day Tweet

The White House press secretary said Martin Luther King Jr. “gave his life to right the wrong of racial inequality.” He was assassinated. Between this and Trump's drive-thru visit at the King Memorial, the administration fucked up royally yesterday. Big surprise, right?

**********

Rudy Giuliani’s Afraid Lying For Trump ‘Will Be On My Gravestone’

Trump’s attorney also claims he didn’t believe he’d said anything untruthful and had “a sense of ethics that is as high as anybody you can imagine.” I'd suggest Rantin' Rudy stop lying for Trump, but I guess he can't help himself at this point. Oh, well, not my problem.

**********

Trump Says MAGA Teen From Viral Video Was ‘Treated Unfairly’ As Furor Continues

“Not good, but making big comeback!” Trump proclaimed. Golly gee whillickers! Why am I NOT surprised Caramel Caligula came to that punk's defense?

**********

Lady Gaga’s Moral Collision With Mike Pence Illustrates How Different Christians Can Be

Lady Gaga’s Christianity compels her to passionately defend LGBTQ Americans — while Mike Pence uses his faith to justify discrimination. I'm not religious, but I'd rather cast my lot with Gaga than Red Grant.

[numberthirty]

If you hate that she was "Tough on Crime," why are you a big supporter of Bernie "I voted for the 1994 Crime Law" Sanders?

(And before you say anything, please note that Sanders used to boast that he was "tough on crime." https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-n...223600102.html)

To me?

I would never take Harris to task for being serious about her approach to enforcement.

Once you step across the line between "Serious" - "Tough On Crime" to having to be stopped from abusing the rights of the accused by a Judge? You are no longer "Tough On Crime". You are trying to decide what rights the accused should and should not have.

That is completely unacceptable.

As for Sanders(who is really a non-issue when it comes to discussing the thing I just mentioned)...

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/111164...-incarceration

Bernie Sanders voted for the 1994 tough-on-crime law. But it's complicated.

Is there a similar "But, It's Complicated..." in the instance that a Judge had to address Harris' abuse of the rights of the accused?

[Tendrin]

Sanders doesn't get to escape responsibility for his vote just becauseit's convenient to you. That's not a standard you'd apply to just about anyone else. Nuance, it seems, only applies when it's Bernie.

Here's a contemporary article on t he matters with Harris' office.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...ms-3263797.php

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris' office violated defendants' rights by hiding damaging information about a police drug lab technician and was indifferent to demands that it account for its failings, a judge declared Thursday.

Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo stopped short of granting a request by more than 40 drug defendants that their cases be dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct, saying that decision must be left up to the judges hearing their cases.

The buck stops with her, of course, but it's not about JUST her. This is something she will need to address and I expect she will.

[Kevinroc]

To me?

I would never take Harris to task for being serious about her approach to enforcement.

Once you step across the line between "Serious" - "Tough On Crime" to having to be stopped from abusing the rights of the accused by a Judge? You are no longer "Tough On Crime". You are trying to decide what rights the accused should and should not have.

As for Sanders(who is really a non-issue when it comes to discussing the thing I just mentioned)...

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/111164...-incarceration



Is there a similar "But, It's Complicated..." in the instance that a Judge had to address Harris' abuse of the rights of the accused?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-n...223600102.html

But he did vote for it, and as recently as 2006 touted this fact in a section of his website labeled “Bernie Sanders’ strong record of supporting tough on crime legislation.”

That "But it's complicated" doesn't wash off that vote when he was found boasting about his support for "tough on crime legislation" on his website.

[numberthirty]

Sanders doesn't get to escape responsibility for his vote just becauseit's convenient to you. That's not a standard you'd apply to just about anyone else. Nuance, it seems, only applies when it's Bernie.

Here's a contemporary article on t he matters with Harris' office.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...ms-3263797.php

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris' office violated defendants' rights by hiding damaging information about a police drug lab technician and was indifferent to demands that it account for its failings, a judge declared Thursday.

Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo stopped short of granting a request by more than 40 drug defendants that their cases be dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct, saying that decision must be left up to the judges hearing their cases.

The buck stops with her, of course, but it's not about JUST her. This is something she will need to address and I expect she will.

Or, where there is actual nuance.

The article you mentioned pretty clearly says "Vioated...". Never mind that they frame it as "Misconduct" by the prosecutor. In addition to that, the issue had to be taken past just addressing that violation. Harris lost in an attempt to argue that a judge who had been a defense attorney and spoken publicly about the importance of disclosing evidence had a conflict of interest.

There isn't much in the way of nuance there.

Edit: From the article...

She noted that "the law requires prosecutors to turn over information that they may not even have. In order to do that, we need the right policies and a real partnership with the police to make sure we have all the information we need. That's why we're instituting reforms to make sure this doesn't happen again."

Massullo was insistent that prosecutors get busy on disclosing witnesses' pasts. "Your office needs to comply," she told Woo in court. "You are responsible for figuring out how to do it."

Public Defender Jeff Adachi, whose office represents many of the defendants involved in Thursday's ruling, said Massullo's findings would provide ample ammunition when individual cases come before judges.

The ruling "really hits the ball out of the park," Adachi said, "by setting forth multiple failures by the district attorney to disclose evidence."

There is not much in the way of nuance there.