Month: July 2019

So much so that their leading columnist — David Leonhardt — wrote an actual article purportedly that was published the day AFTER Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Elizabeth Warren!

I’m not kidding folks. “Trump Derangement” of which the world has heard incessantly manifested from the entire journalist staff at the New York Times for 2.5 years is now planning — and apparently even dreaming about — what THEY can write to gleefully report details of the Trump defeat. There’s no better way to prove just how much they hate this president than to publish the Leonhardt “fake” story for you right now!

Get ready…you’re going to love this!

“How Trump Lost the 2020 Election”

NYTimes David Leonhardt

In the end, it was a lot simpler than it often seemed.

Donald J. Trump, who spent much of the past four years as a historically unpopular president, lost his bid for re-election Tuesday. His approval rating hasn’t approached 50 percent since he took office, and neither did his share of the vote this year.

In an era of deep national anxiety — with stagnant wages, rickety health insurance and aggressive challenges from China and Russia — voters punished an incumbent president who failed on his central promise: “I alone can fix it.”

Since he rode down the Trump Tower escalator to announce his candidacy five years ago, Trump has frequently looked like a man for whom the normal rules of politics did not apply. He won a shocking upset in 2016, which lent him an aura of invincibility. Pundits started to doubt much of what they had previously believed.

But as Trump seethed — and tweeted — in defeat late Tuesday and President-elect Elizabeth Warren celebrated, the arc of the Trump story is starting to make more sense than it has for much of his chaotic presidency: The normal rules of politics do apply to Donald Trump, after all.

Four years ago, he became the fifth man to win the presidency while losing the popular vote. Now he becomes the fourth of those five — along with John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes and Benjamin Harrison — to serve only a single term and to be unpopular during most of it. The exception is George W. Bush, who benefited from being a wartime president.

In hindsight, the extraordinary nature of the circumstances that propelled Trump in 2016 has become obvious: the unpopularity of his opponent, Hillary Clinton; the help from Russia; the late involvement of James Comey, the then-F.B.I. director who now hosts an ABC talk show; and Trump’s razor-thin victories in several states. Without that good fortune this year, Trump still won roughly 90 percent of self-identified Republicans and Republican-leaning voters. Yet it was not nearly enough.

“Trump said he was going to fix things, and he didn’t,” said Kevin O’Reilly, 54, of Manchester, N.H., who voted for Barack Obama in 2012, Trump in 2016 and Warren this year. “I don’t think he really cares about the middle class. He cares about himself.”

Exit polls showed disillusionment across the swing states that Trump won four years ago and lost this year, including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. In a sign of the country’s changing political map, he held on to Ohio and Iowa, two relatively old and white states — but became the first Republican since 1992 to lose Georgia.

Huge margins among women were central to the victory of Warren, who will become the country’s first female president. “I’m just tired of him,” said Jennifer Diaz, a 47-year-old from Cobb County, Ga., outside Atlanta.

Heading into the campaign, Trump’s advisers believed they had two major advantages: the economic growth of the past four years and the undeniable liberalism of Warren and her running mate, former Attorney General Eric Holder. Neither panned out as the Trump campaign had hoped.
For one thing, solid G.D.P. growth — similar to the rate during Obama’s second term — has not translated into middle-class income gains. Average income growth, post-inflation, has hovered near zero since early 2018.

(In August, Trump became the first president since Richard Nixon to force out the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, accusing the agency of releasing “fake news” on wages. Outside economists said the charge was false.)

Warren’s liberalism, meanwhile, did make some voters anxious, exit polls showed. But most swing voters do not follow the minutiae of policy debates, and many simply decided that she understood their problems better than Trump. She and Holder consciously borrowed from the populist strategy of Obama’s 2012 campaign against Mitt Romney. Rather than emphasize Trump’s personal behavior, as the 2016 Clinton campaign did, they cast him as a greedy billionaire who corruptly used the presidency to enrich himself further. They also largely ignored Trump’s repeated criticisms of the ongoing N.F.L. national anthem protests.

The Democrats paired their message with broadly popular economic proposals: tax increases on the rich, expanded Medicare and childcare, free community college and — highlighting an unfulfilled Trump promise — an infrastructure program. Budget watchdogs said the Warren agenda would increase the deficit. Many voters, evidently, did not care.

A final vote tally will not be available for weeks, but The New York Times’s “election needle” currently projects Trump to win 46.1 percent of the popular vote. If that holds, it would be nearly identical to his share in 2016. This year, however, third-party candidates won fewer votes, and Warren is on pace to clear 50 percent.

From the start of Trump’s meteoric political career to the end, he never enjoyed the support of most Americans.

Summary

Can you believe that a journalist at one of the nation’s largest and most reputable newspapers would be so ditsy as to create a story — a column — celebrating a Donald Trump loss in 2020 at the hands of Elizabeth Warren! This speaks a lot to just how much hate and anguish there is from the Left for this Donald Trump presidency.

I have mentioned numerous times how distasteful the columns written by David Leonhardt of the New York Time are. Now you can see for yourself how lost this guy is. He hates the President so much that he meticulously created and shared every detail of Warren’s “dream” victory in the upcoming general election!

But, after all, very few these days consider the New York Times a premier newspaper. It and its buddy-paper in D.C., The Washington Post, have long been in the tank for Democrats and abandoned real journalism years ago. I thought the Britts had mastered the rights to and therefore had a monopoly on tabloid journalism. But I guess Leonhardt and the Times negotiated a license to denigrate real news just as the Britts have done for years.

One thing is for sure: I doubt President Trump will lose that election. But even if he does, it certainly will not be to the Native American wannabe Elizabeth Warren. That would certainly not be a dream — it’d be a nightmare!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

In Part I of this story we eliminated most of the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates and revealed who we think will represent Democrats in the 2020 race for President: Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). I probably don’t need to say this, but I will: we don’t “know” she will be the pick. But based on our investigations of her personally, her political and private records, and her actions in her campaigning so far and the public’s reception of her and her ideals, she seems to be the cookie-cutter perfect choice for Democrats.

None of what we do here will be politically partisan. All know that TruthNewsNetwork is NOT representative of the Republican Party. I am NOT a registered Republican. Both TruthNewsNetwork collectively and I personally am conservative. Our representations in our writings and podcasts show that political perspective: sometimes I actually agree with some thoughts of those less conservative than I and relate those here. And, certainly, I don’t represent the political positions for anyone other than me. I just know many share the same thoughts and positions. Most importantly, they must, like me, have discovered over the last decade or so that few in the sector someone termed “Mainstream” present similar thoughts, ideas, and political positions as those with which I identify. That applies to many TruthNewsNetwork partners.

Today and in subsequent offerings here, we will give you truths about Senator Harris’ stances on particular issues that HAVE impacted Americans in dramatic ways in her political past and certainly WILL impact Americans going forward should she win the 2020 Democrat Party primary and the general election. Please note: there are MANY alarming things about the Senator. She’s been before the public in numerous settings in numerous ways for years now. She has a record. Fortunately, her record is much more readily available than some other candidates for us to examination. Examine her record we have — exhaustively — for months.

Let’s get right to the second ten (numbers 11 – 20) of the top issues surrounding the past of Senator Harris when serving in various capacities in her home state: California. Then join me for the summary to follow and thoughts about the race going forward.

Senator Kamala Harris: Her Past

11. Some have asked tough questions about whether Harris, as San Francisco district attorney, did everything she could to root out abuse in the local Catholic churches. Prosecutors had obtained personnel files from the Archdiocese of San Francisco dealing with sexual abuse going back decades. But her office did not prosecute any priests, and she argued that those records were not subject to public-records laws:

In 2005, while she was San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris rebuffed a public-records request by SF Weekly to release personnel files from the Archdiocese of San Francisco. (Her predecessor had planned to make them public after prosecuting criminal priests, but the California Supreme Court stopped those cases when it declared unconstitutional a 2002 law that lifted the criminal statute of limitations.) Similar archives in Boston had exposed the scope of the scandal there. “We’re not interested in selling out our victims to look good in the paper,” Harris told SF Weekly in a statement — this, even though many of those victims pleaded with her to release the documents.

12. In 2004, San Francisco Police officer Isaac Espinoza was shot and killed by David Hill, a young gang member with an AK-47. Hill also shot another officer in the leg. Days after Hill’s arrest, then-district attorney Harris announced that her office would not seek the death penalty. This prompted Senator Dianne Feinstein to declare while speaking at Espinoza’s funeral, “This is not only the definition of tragedy, it’s the special circumstance called for by the death-penalty law.” The comment drew a standing ovation from the crowd of mostly police. Hill was ultimately sentenced to life without parole. Feinstein later told reporters that if she’d known Harris was against the death penalty, she probably wouldn’t have endorsed her for D.A. in the first place.

In 2009, Harris again received criticism for refusing to pursue the death penalty against Edwin Ramos, an illegal immigrant, and member of MS-13 who gunned down a father and two sons. As a teenager, Ramos twice served probation for violent crimes but was not deported. Ramos was sentenced to 183-years-to-life without parole.

13. Harris’s most financially significant decision as state attorney general came in 2012 when she negotiated a $25 billion settlement deal with the nation’s five largest mortgage companies (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, CitiFinancial, GMAC/Ally Financial, and Wells Fargo) after the companies were accused of improper foreclosure practices.

By 2013, the state reported that California homeowners had received $18.4 billion in mortgage relief from the deal. When all was said and done, roughly 33,000 homeowners received an average reduction of $137,280 on their first mortgage. That sounds like a lot until one looks at the scale of the problem: More than 600,000 Californians received a foreclosure notice in 2009, and in 2012, when the agreement was struck, more than 30 percent of California homeowners with mortgages owed more than their houses were worth.

14. One bank that was not part of Harris’s settlement was California-based OneWest. A 2013 internal memo from the California attorney general’s office, first published by The Intercept, alleged that OneWest and its CEO, Steven Mnuchin, violated state foreclosure laws and recommended filing charges against him. Prosecutors claimed they had “uncovered evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct” and “identified over a thousand legal violations.” But Harris, the state attorney general, did not pursue charges. She later told The Hill, “We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made. We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.” In 2016, Mnuchin — who would soon be President Trump’s nominee to be secretary of the treasury — donated $2,000 to Harris’s Senate campaign. She voted against his confirmation anyway.

15. For nearly ninety years, California state law prohibited images of handguns from being used in signs for gun stores. In 2014, after Harris’s office cited several gun shops, they sued, arguing that the law violated the First Amendment. Harris’s office argued that the law was needed to prevent handgun-related crime and suicide. Last year a federal judge ruled “the government has provided no evidence directly linking [the law] to reduced handgun suicide or crime,” concluded that the law was a “highly paternalistic approach to limiting speech,” and declared it “unconstitutional on its face.”

16. Starting in 1993, Harris began dating Willie Brown, then the speaker of the California Assembly and later a candidate for mayor of San Francisco — a relationship that brought her in contact with many of the city’s political and financial movers and shakers. Early in 1994, Brown named her as his appointee to the state’s Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, a job that paid $97,088 a year. Six months later, he named her to the California Medical Assistance Commission, a post which paid $72,000 a year.

In 1994, press accounts described Harris as Brown’s girlfriend. He was still married, and in his early 60s; she had just turned 30. The relationship had a surprising and tumultuous end, as James Richardson describes in Willie Brown: A Biography:

Columnist Herb Caen all but predicted two days after the election that Brown would wed Kamala Harris, his constant companion throughout the campaign. “Keep an eye on these two,” Caen wrote. No mention was made of what Brown would do about Blanche, to whom he was still married. But the day after Christmas, Brown stunned his friends by announcing that he was breaking up with Kamala. Brown invited Blanche to appear with him on stage for his swearing-in and to hold the Bible. A television reporter from KPIX caught up to Blanche, who had kept a low profile throughout the campaign, and asked her what it was like to live with the future mayor.

“Difficult,” was her one-word answer.

17. Late last year, Los Angeles city officials asked why “armed, plain-clothes LAPD officers were dispatched to California cities outside of Los Angeles at least a dozen times to provide security for U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris at public events.” LAPD officers traveled with Harris to San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, and San Diego. Los Angeles taxpayers covered about $28,000 of the cost for airline tickets, hotel stays, car rentals, and meals in an arrangement that retired law enforcement officers called “unprecedented.”

18. In 2009 and 2010, Harris contributed to the liberal blog Daily Kos, where she characterized the opposition to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as “bigotry and narrow-mindedness,” warned that Texas oil companies were “invading” California by funding efforts to repeal an initiative requiring reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, and opposed Arizona’s since-struck-down immigration law, declaring that we “can’t afford to divert scarce local law-enforcement resources to enforcing federal immigration laws.” 

19. Harris has proposed a sweeping tax reform that would create a refundable tax credit for all workers, peaking at $3,000 for single adults and $6,000 for married couples — meaning that taxpayers could collect cash even if they don’t actually owe any taxes. The worth of the credit would decline the higher a taxpayer’s income, eventually reaching zero for childless single adults making more than $50,000 a year, single adults with children making more than $80,000 a year, and married couples with children making more than $100,000 a year. The plan would repeal all of the 2017 tax cuts for earners making more than $100,000, would cost roughly $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion over ten years, would constitute a serious marriage penalty, according to experts.

20. In April, Harris made an appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, where the hostess asked, “If you had to be stuck in an elevator with either President Trump, Mike Pence, or Jeff Sessions, who would it be?” Harris replied, “Does one of us have to come out alive?”

Summary

Partisanship and identity politics may be sufficient to propel a candidate to a win in a party primary today. But will it be sufficient to score a victory in a general election? Obviously, the heavyweights at the Democrat National Committee think they can be successful with that philosophy. So far, EVERY candidate on both Democrat debate stages has espoused the most radical views on all-things American of any previous group of Democrat presidential candidates.

We have all heard “Democrats must campaign further left to win their primaries. Once named the Democrat Party nominee, they move to the center for the general election.” Doesn’t that seem quite hypocritical? What message do they send to Democrat primary voters? “I’m going to give free everything to everybody: healthcare, college tuition, reparations to descendants of American slaves, and a guaranteed income,” only to tell voters in the general election “I was just kidding. Everyone knows if elected, I’ll govern from the center to center-left?”

God forbid that in America, truth and actual policy issues as supported or rejected by candidates would mean less than talking points and political mantra from candidates for office. Democrats simply don’t get it: Americans are NOT stupid. We all watch, read, and listen to what candidates say and promise during primary AND general election seasons!

Or do these Democrat candidates think Americans — especially those in their own party — ARE stupid? That’s one WE cannot answer.

What do you think? Weigh-in by dropping me an email to Dan@TruthNewsNet.org. I’d like to hear your opinion.

A closing VERY important note: tomorrow we are sharing a critical analysis of what is REALLY going on regarding illegal immigration. I say “critical” because we now have a responsibility to make sure everyone in our circles of influence understands exactly what is happening regarding illegal immigration and exactly what and how Democrats are doing (or NOT doing) about it. You may have seen or heard the caustic remarks, derisive statements, and the outright lies that the 4 freshmen far-left Democrat Congresswomen had to say in their press conference regarding their stances on immigration while simultaneously denigrating President Trump. Much more about that tomorrow.

This is a shout-out to the nearly 1000 Russian students who are reading and listening to this story right now and today’s podcast as required by the Department Head of International Political Science at Moscow University. Tomorrow you can hear and read a genuine and specific analysis of the TRUTH of U.S. immigration. For everyone else, make sure to come back and read or listen (or both). You will want to share the story AND the podcast with those you know who may still be sitting on that “party fence” between Republican and Democrat parties. This is NOT a party election: it is an AMERICAN election.

You can download both the story and podcast for free and share as you like.

I’ll see you tomorrow!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

It’s REALLY early to make such a prediction. Their party convention is still a year away. But it’s NOT too early to begin the elimination process of those 2-dozen declared Democrats who long ago began the feeding frenzy that is American politics. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) was the first to drop out of the race. But there is plenty of room on the “ex-candidate” roll. But after it’s all said and done, the convention floor has been swept clean of all the confetti and helium-depleted balloons, after half-a-thousand delegates have formally nominated their candidate to run on the 2020 Democrat ticket for President, who will be the last man (or woman) standing?

The Process

Isn’t it crazy to watch the polls as they are released almost daily for the 2020 race? Let’s be honest: NO ONE has any real idea at this point who will win the Democrat Party nomination. Certainly, no one has any idea who’ll win the election. After all, it’s not an absolute certainty that President Trump will even be in the race though he has declared. But in this political climate, nothing surprises anyone!

Beto

Conventional wisdom early on was that Beto O’Rourke would probably land the Democrat bid for the White House. That was based on the extremely close race he ran against Senator Ted Cruz for the U.S. Senate in 2016. It was shocking that he almost upset the incumbent which catapulted him into the 2020 race. And those Texas race results garnered him millions of dollars early on for a presidential bid.

But times change.

Uncle Joe

Everyone waited breathlessly to see what Joe Biden was going to do. He waited until late to put his toe in the water. Not surprisingly when he did enter, he zoomed to the top. Though he has lost some ground in large part due to his own campaign trail gaffs and previous clouds left from numerous incidents in his ages-long Washington political career, he’s still slightly in the lead in the polls. But many don’t expect that lead to last.

Bernie and Liz

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both have that liberal star power and the history of being front and center on the Democrat national stage. That history and their name recognition has kept them close. But the pair seem to move further and further to the left. It seems that their doing so is eating away at whatever chances they may have had to represent Dems next November.

Mayor Pete

“Mayor Pete” hit with a splash — mostly because he is a new fresh face with no national political baggage. His being gay with a husband certainly gave him instant support from the LGBTQ community. But his early success has also slowly eroded. He started with a big pot of cash. But as his popularity dwindles, so does his staying ability. I imagine the people of South Bend will be dealing with Mayor Pete on the local level against after the 2020 election.

Spartacus

Cory Booker had a good shot in the race for two reasons: he’s an African American Senator, and he’s been in the national political spotlight for some time. But several things have tripped him up: the first was his Spartacus moment when he falsely volunteered to be expelled from the Senate for his release of some confidential Senate documents during the Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings when before his Spartacus speech those documents had already been released. Secondly, the New Jersey Senator exhibits a propensity for grandstanding on racial issues and seems to jump on every identity politics tidbit as they show-up seeming to be looking for an edge — any edge — to give him credibility with a dwindling group of American supporters.

Who’s Left?

At this point based on debates, speeches, legislation (for those in Congress) and specific political positions, I simply put the remaining candidates in an “other” basket. I think none of those left have a real chance to upset President Trump. The Democrat National Committee knows it is senseless to spend the money that a 2020 race will cost, (reportedly $1 Billion or even more) to try to elect a candidate that simply has little or no chance to send Donald Trump packing. I think after these above, there’s just a bunch of “also-rans,” except one.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)

The cat’s out of the bag at TruthNewsNetwork. Our pick to carry the Democrat banner in the 2020 Presidential election is Kamala Harris. Why is that?

• Democrats are in a tough spot looking for their candidate. All of their candidates espouse pretty much all of the liberal ideas. There aren’t great differences among them — at least policy differences. Whoever they nominate MUST be able to defeat Donald Trump.
• Harris is hardcore, confrontational, never hesitates to take on any and all opponents, and despises Donald Trump. Dems feel she will not back down from the President and can go toe-to-toe with him on pretty much every issue.
• She toes the Democrat Party line. While many who are running differ with the party on one issue here and there, Senator Harris is right in line on pretty much ALL Democrat Party issues.
• She’s mixed race, which is proving to be a plus for candidates more and more. Her father is Jamaican and her mother is Indian. While she’s not African-American, she certainly is a woman of color which gives her an ethnic benefit over the “Old white guy.”
• She’s an excellent speaker. And she’s delivered almost uncountable speeches while an attorney, a state politician (California Attorney General), and a U.S. Senator. That will help her tremendously on the national stage.
• She’s a woman. That linked with her race and legal background and communication skills fit well with her Party’s plans.
• She has the Obama Machine in her corner. No, the Obamas have not come out in support of any candidate yet. But there are details already leaked that they are in support of Harris and are prepared to put that significant machine behind the Senator. In a bitter political race that this certainly will be, having the financial, political, and fully resourced organization that shocked the world twice sending Barack to the White House twice has twice been insurmountable. The Obamas will be a significant source for Harris.
• She’s a she. That cannot be minimized. There are numerous Americans — especially women — who feel the nation owes its people a female President. Female voters outnumber male voters. That cannot be minimized in this race.

Let’s Bullet-Point 10 things you may or may not know about the Senator

1. As both a district attorney and state attorney general, Harris pushed for a new statewide law that lets prosecutors charge parents with misdemeanors if their children are chronically truant. “We are putting parents on notice,” she declared. “If you fail in your responsibility to your kids, we are going to work to make sure you face the full force and consequences of the law.”

3. Harris also has been a strong advocate of civil asset forfeiture. She supported a bill in California that would have allowed prosecutors to seize assets before initiating criminal proceedings — a power now available only at the federal level — if there were a “substantial probability” they would eventually initiate such proceedings. Besides cases involving violent crimes, the legislation allowed seizures in cases involving such crimes as bribery, gambling, and trafficking endangered species. Harris endorsed the bill after then-attorney general Eric Holder sharply limited civil asset forfeiture among federal prosecutors. She argued that the practice gave local and state law-enforcement officials “more tools to target the illicit profits [of transnational criminal groups] and dismantle these dangerous organizations.”

4. As San Francisco district attorney, Harris created “Back on Track,” an anti-recidivism program that she expanded as state attorney general. The program received $750,000 in federal funding and quite a bit of praise from crime-policy experts. But it faced criticism early in its history, when illegal immigrant Alexander Izaguirre, who had pleaded guilty to selling drugs, was selected and graduated, only to later grab a woman’s purse and run her down in an SUV, severely injuring her.

As the Los Angeles Times put it, “Harris’ office had been allowing Izaguirre and other illegal immigrants to stay out of prison by training them for jobs they cannot legally hold.” Harris said she had been unaware that Back on Track had been training illegal immigrants and that they would no longer be eligible for the program.

5. In 2012, she submitted a brief supporting an illegal immigrant’s application for a law license. In 2014, the California Supreme Court ruled in the immigrant’s favor, even though the California State Bar’s rules state that it is disqualifying professional misconduct to commit a criminal act.

6. In her first speech on the Senate floor, Harris declared, “An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” She later avowed the belief that illegal immigration is “a civil violation, not a crime.”

This classification applies to only a portion of those in the country without permission. First, entering the country illegally has criminal penalties. Overstaying a visa is considered a civil violation, not a criminal one, with deportation as the appropriate penalty. But reentry without permission after deportation is a crime, as is, in most cases, working in the United States without legal residency, since it almost always involves some falsification of documents or lying on work forms under penalty of perjury.

7. Harris’s reputation as a tough prosecutor has played a key part in her political rise, and she continues to tout the high rate of felony convictions on her watch. But in 2010, SF Weekly reviewed the work of her office and concluded that “felony convictions for cases that actually go to trial and reach a jury verdict — a comparatively small group that nevertheless includes some of a district attorney’s most violent and emotionally charged cases — have declined significantly over the past two years.” The review found that in 2009, San Francisco prosecutors “won a lower percentage of their felony jury trials than their counterparts at district attorneys’ offices covering the 10 largest cities in California,” and San Francisco’s rate dropped further in the first quarter of 2010. Harris’s 71 percent conviction rate on felony cases had been boosted by a significant increase in pre-trial plea agreements.

8. In October 2017, Harris declared that she would rather shut down the government than vote for a spending bill that did not address the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and ensure those covered by the program would not be deported. “I will not vote for an end-of-year spending bill until we are clear about what we are going to do to protect and take care of our DACA young people in this country,” she said. And she has kept her word, at least so far.

9. In April 2018, Harris urged the Senate Appropriations Committee to “reduce funding for beds in the federal immigration system,” reject calls to hire more Border Patrol personnel, and “reduce funding for the administration’s reckless immigration enforcement operations.”

10. In 2010, a California Superior Court judge declared that as San Francisco district attorney, Harris had violated defendants’ rights by hiding damaging information about a police drug-lab technician and was indifferent to demands that the lab account for its failings. The crime-lab technician had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in 2008; district attorneys are obligated to hand over to the defense information about prosecution witnesses that could be used to challenge their credibility. Prosecutors’ failure to disclose the information about the technician led to the dismissal of more than 600 drug cases.

Summary

There are many more things America needs to know about Senator Harris. In Part II of this story, TNN will give you 10 more things about Harris few know and that are very important as the Democrat race tightens and candidates begin to take a bow.

Back at the 10,000-foot level, we all need to understand that without question, the 2020 presidential election may be the most important election of this century. It will speak volumes to this generation and several to come about whether the greatest country on Earth will abandon the foundation that allowed the creation and perpetuation of that title for 200+ years and become an also-ran Socialist model of some combination of that from several European countries. Many scoff at this idea, but we must not make that mistake. A generation or two of our nation’s educators have filled the minds of corresponding in age young Americans with untruths about capitalism and our representative republic. That explains why so many are marching FOR Free Speech while demonstrating and rioting AGAINST actual proponents who attempt to trumpet the values and benefits of the First Amendment. The paradox of that very chapter in American history illustrates how our teenagers and young adults are acting on what they have been taught and summarily reject the tenets of our social, economic, and judicial foundation.

It’s scary, folks. And there’s more! Make sure to come back tomorrow. We’ll give you those other 10 facts about Senator Harris that most don’t know and we’ll discuss in detail some of her political policies she’s trumpeting that probably will take many aback.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download