Democratic Primaries

pnwmom

(110,307 posts)

86. They also could have seen articles, since there were many. Reporters are free.

Sun Jun 30, 2019, 11:54 PM

Jun 2019

Fact, she was only DA there for 6 years, and by that time (judging by the other dioceses that have released records), there were few if any new cases.

AND if she DID investigate, and there weren't enough facts for her to prosecute (many of these cases lack the elements to prove beyond a reasonable doubt), then she is obligated to keep any investigation material confidential.

But victims and their attorneys have no such obligation.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This whole thing about Kamala Harris and the Catholic Church is an obvious hit job. [View all] pnwmom Jun 2019 OP

The only thing I know about the law is from TV shows, but it's obviously a hit job. betsuni Jun 2019 #1

A hit job dating back to 2010? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #2

The current flurry of stories about it is. n/t pnwmom Jun 2019 #4

That seems ... "hurtful"... RHMerriman Jun 2019 #7

No, it's a crock. It was then and it is now. pnwmom Jun 2019 #9

California Public Records Act RHMerriman Jun 2019 #12

That same act includes an exemption for law enforcement investigative records. pnwmom Jun 2019 #18

They are not however required to use said exemption and often don't. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #37

Show me cases where they haven't. There's a reason for this exemption. pnwmom Jun 2019 #50

Pretty sure you are backing up the argument against Harris. SouthernProgressive Jun 2019 #48

If it's optional, please give me one example, using the whole Internet. nt pnwmom Jun 2019 #51

Example of what? SouthernProgressive Jun 2019 #52

An example of when a prosecutor made public or gave to a private attorney pnwmom Jun 2019 #55

It doesn't fit the narrative some are trying to spin. lapucelle Jun 2019 #54

Did you notice the list of exceptions to that exception? sl8 Jun 2019 #72

Yeah, I saw it. I read it again and I still don't see anything that would change pnwmom Jun 2019 #74

You can defend Harris's decision and argue with the opinions reported in the news stories, but emmaverybo Jun 2019 #16

I'm saying that the issue is a crock. They're attacking Harris for following normal procedure. pnwmom Jun 2019 #19

Oh, o.k. Thanks for clarifying. Some believe prosecutors all over the US are politically cowed emmaverybo Jun 2019 #25

Then show me a case NOT involving the Catholic church where a prosecutor decides not to prosecute pnwmom Jun 2019 #26

Hm. I don't know really. I am sure we will hear more. The Birthers are attacking her so you emmaverybo Jun 2019 #27

What about the charges that she withheld vital information from defendents? I had not idea. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #28

That opinion piece is problematic, to say the least. lapucelle Jun 2019 #58

Do you have a link to the AP story? N/T lapucelle Jun 2019 #57

She did not decide not to prosecute...the Supreme court ruled and prosecution was not possible... Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #32

Akin to the current flurry of stories about public policy choices in the 1970s? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #64

Harris was seen as the one to watch in 2010 SleeplessinSoCal Jun 2019 #15

Sec. Clinton and Vice President Biden were seen as the ones to watch. RHMerriman Jun 2019 #62

so you ARE ok with talking about the past qazplm135 Jun 2019 #53

Be great if she was talking about Trump's past, wouldn't it? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #61

lol qazplm135 Jun 2019 #63

Fragile - like the little girl who grew up a legacy of two Phds? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #65

boy she really left a mark on you didn't she? qazplm135 Jun 2019 #68

Doing Trump's work for him? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #70

yawn qazplm135 Jun 2019 #71

And your personal example of such, friend? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #73

not getting the vapors qazplm135 Jun 2019 #75

Having a candidate that doesn't knife her fellow Democrats puts me ahead of you... RHMerriman Jun 2019 #77

lol qazplm135 Jul 2019 #96

No problem, comrade ... knife the enemy ... not your allies. RHMerriman Jul 2019 #97

Maybe you should Andy823 Jun 2019 #66

I'm not running for president... RHMerriman Jun 2019 #67

It's an attack by Trump, Biden or maybe both. gldstwmn Jun 2019 #3

It's Not a hit job from Biden.. this is from Biden Cha Jun 2019 #8

I think it's Trumpers. n/t pnwmom Jun 2019 #20

I think so too mcar Jun 2019 #40

And accusing Biden of protecting racists was for the common good? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #13

Looks like it was "hurtful" to someone's campaign. n/t MarcA Jun 2019 #56

Just think if she used the same tactics on Trump... RHMerriman Jun 2019 #60

Why would Biden attack Harris in 2010? And Trump was not the president then. If the more emmaverybo Jun 2019 #14

I think that attorney was attacking Harris because he thought it might work. pnwmom Jun 2019 #21

What attorney? Thought what might work? Yeah, maybe Trump had a hand in the AP story, but emmaverybo Jun 2019 #23

The attorney who was trying to get Harris to hand over public investigative records pnwmom Jun 2019 #24

It is clear that the diocese would provide no records and she know this. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #36

With her history as a prosecutor,she is not a threat but a liability in my opinion. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #29

Well many here think her attacks on Biden were scummy and we were told...why you should expect this. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #33

Maybe we can see the problem with negative campaigning now? treestar Jun 2019 #44

It's a hit job, although I doubt from the right tishaLA Jun 2019 #5

So from the left. Cha Jun 2019 #11

No offense, pwnmom ... I think you should read this ... mr_lebowski Jun 2019 #6

Hallinan is bitter that he was defeated by her, so he has an axe to grind. pnwmom Jun 2019 #10

Her time as AG will be questioned. This and other stories have been on the Internet for months Thekaspervote Jun 2019 #17

This is the one that shocked and surprised me. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #31

This might be an unpopular stance but here's mine...I DON'T CARE. nt UniteFightBack Jun 2019 #22

This is not a hit job but perhaps overdue vetting brought on by the Biden attacks. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #30

I can hardly believe the hypocrisy treestar Jun 2019 #43

It's politics, like the busing crap. IluvPitties Jun 2019 #34

Isn't this the argument Trump makes with his executive privilege and all? Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #35

Both the California act and the FOIA have an exemption for prosecution investigation materials pnwmom Jun 2019 #49

Well... Chitown Kev Jun 2019 #38

Kick mcar Jun 2019 #39

Smells like Berners to me, the first major RECENT dredging up was on June 9th by The Intercept Celerity Jun 2019 #41

It's her turn in the barrel already? treestar Jun 2019 #42

She shouldn't apologize. She should educate. Our system of justice is built on fair trials. pnwmom Jun 2019 #47

Victims of priests treestar Jun 2019 #69

No, the story originated with attorneys representing abuse victims. highplainsdem Jun 2019 #45

But the new flurry is coming from Trumpers, I think -- that and people pnwmom Jun 2019 #46

This message was self-deleted by its author crazytown Jul 2019 #91

Yeah, it does appear that The Intercept was the first to dredge this old story up. pnwmom Jul 2019 #92

Deleted reply was meant to be an email crazytown Jul 2019 #93

No problem! pnwmom Jul 2019 #95

I'm more concerned about her arguing to uphold all those convictions in California madville Jun 2019 #59

It's been pretty clear the last few days that she has scared the shit out of somebody EffieBlack Jun 2019 #76

I want to live in a country where politics don't determine whether or not we help abuse victims. 58Sunliner Jun 2019 #78

No, it's not politics that kept her from releasing the documents. It was the opposite of politics. pnwmom Jun 2019 #79

Post removed Post removed Jun 2019 #84

Regardless, under Kamala Harris, not one case against a pedophile priest was ever prosecuted. Did emmaverybo Jun 2019 #80

The statute of limitations was what prevented them. There was a decision by the Supreme Court pnwmom Jun 2019 #81

Well, since Harris won't release files, some of which might contain complaints she could have emmaverybo Jun 2019 #82

You would know for the same reason we've heard of lots of cases -- because the victims pnwmom Jun 2019 #83

Well do you honestly think they could all afford lawyers? Her office would have provided legal emmaverybo Jun 2019 #85

They also could have seen articles, since there were many. Reporters are free. pnwmom Jun 2019 #86

Who knows? She did not prosecute. NT emmaverybo Jul 2019 #87

So you're just theorizing that there could have been cases in the 6 years she was there. pnwmom Jul 2019 #88

I remarked on it as did the article I alluded to. I don't know if any were. Her record will be emmaverybo Jul 2019 #89

Yeah, right, let's pick on her. New cases across the country dried up to a trickle after 2003, pnwmom Jul 2019 #90

Signing off now from further discussion. NT emmaverybo Jul 2019 #94