Harris response to Gabbard

[mcar]

Link to tweet

?s=19

@KamalaHarris calls @TulsiGabbard an "apologist for an individual, Assad, who has murdered people in his country like cockroaches. She has embraced and been an apologist for him... I can only take her criticisms so seriously."

Link to tweet

?s=19

To be clear, Tulsi didn’t just go to Syria and push diplomacy, as she likes to say. She toured Aleppo just after Assad had perpetrated war crimes there and she declared it a victory for peace. She helped Assad whitewash a mass atrocity.

[DetlefK]

1. This is the guy Tulsi Gabbard is rooting for:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/08/syria-torture-prisons/

Rape. Torture. Murder.

[mcar]

4. Yep

She's David Duke's favorite Democrat, too.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

44. .

[bigtree]

2. k&r

Last edited Thu Aug 1, 2019, 09:34 AM - Edit history (2)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[susanr516]

59. I hadn't seen this before

Well done, Kamala!

Thanks for posting this.

[SouthernProgressive]

3. Missed her opportunity at the debate.

Tough part about debates. Not everyone who tuned in is reading the twitter page of Josh Rogan.

[FredSanderson]

5. Well, that clears it up, Gabbard supports a genocidal murderer and there can be no further look at

the actual details.

Are we intellectual democrats capable of analysis beyond Twitter talk, or Republican Twitter stupid?

[mcar]

6. She also was lying about Harris's record

There, see? I looked at the actual details. Do you still think I'm stupid?

[Princetonian]

7. No she wasn't. That is why Harris is not denying anything but rather attacking the messenger.

Lots of news articles out there supporting every word Gabbard said and more:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=221644

Harris is not viable as a general election candidate.

[mcar]

13. Yes, she was

Lots out there showing the reality of Harris's record, not just the cherry picked, exaggerated, and false parts.

[Princetonian]

18. Saying so doesn't make it so.

I hope Harris will face very public scrutiny over her past record. What goes around comes around.

[mcar]

19. See #17

[Princetonian]

20. So? The data is not disputed. Attacking the messenger will not work.

As AG, the buck stops at her desk. She is responsible for what happens.

[sacto95834]

57. Still waiting to hear from Harris...

On the debate stage and in her post debate interview with Anderson Cooper, Kamela did not dispute any of the charges Tulsi laid out. All I heard from Harris was how proud she was of her record as Attorney General, and that she was expecting this type of attack as she is a first tier candidate. While Tulsi is only polling at 1%.

She needs to address the charges or deny them herself. All Tulsi's claims are documented in newspaper articles or from interviews of people who worked with Harris.

Harris is my senator and I voted for her twice. I am disappointed if she cannot lay out a credible rebut and only cast doubt on the messenger....which is repeated up thread. I want Harris to do well, but play by the rules or get out of the game.

[Princetonian]

58. You summed it up perfectly.

sacto95834 (255 posts)
57. Still waiting to hear from Harris...

On the debate stage and in her post debate interview with Anderson Cooper, Kamela did not dispute any of the charges Tulsi laid out. All I heard from Harris was how proud she was of her record as Attorney General, and that she was expecting this type of attack as she is a first tier candidate. While Tulsi is only polling at 1%.

She needs to address the charges or deny them herself. All Tulsi's claims are documented in newspaper articles or from interviews of people who worked with Harris.

Harris is my senator and I voted for her twice. I am disappointed if she cannot lay out a credible rebut and only cast doubt on the messenger....which is repeated up thread. I want Harris to do well, but play by the rules or get out of the game.

Welcome to DU from another newbie.

[womanofthehills]

64. Harris addressed some of this on Rachel's show a few weeks ago

Lawyers under her made some decisions on their own - not realizing they should have gotten her input. I'm sure it was hard for her in the beginning getting into a man's world.

[rzemanfl]

8. Bookmarking. n/t

[Alpeduez21]

9. OK I'll bite

What “details” am I missing that should not cause me to think supporting Assad is a terrible idea?

[SidDithers]

10. Welcome to DU...

Sid

[Princetonian]

11. A sincere welcome to DU

I agree.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. Good one. One of those things that there's more to

this story...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

56. Of course! Still think there's more to her story.

[ehrnst]

50. Speak for yourself.

Are we intellectual democrats capable of analysis beyond Twitter talk, or Republican Twitter stupid?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

54. Ha. A segment who can't even justify a position why

Donald J Trump is not worthy of Impeachment? The biggest demon we have ever known in our lifetime?

[ehrnst]

61. To someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

And won't see anything else, even when someone points out to them that it's their own toe.

At some point, one just gives up trying to communicate with someone in such a segment.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

62. Oh good!!!!

[ehrnst]

63. lol

[thesquanderer]

12. That may be a good attack, but it's a horrible "response."

Regardless of whether it came from Gabbard or anyone else, Harris needs a better response to the things Gabbard brought up. Attacking the messenger or changing the subject won't do.

[mcar]

14. I disagree

I think Harris's response was fine.

[femmedem]

15. Exactly. Deflection is even worse when she's had time to prepare a real response.

I don't know how much voters will care, but I doubt it will go away until she can explain this part of her record.

The president of my local NAACP branch was talking to me about this even prior to the debate, so there's going to be at least some resonance.

[mcar]

16. ...

Link to tweet

?s=19

This alone disqualifies Tulsi Gabbard. I hope people watch it and spread it. Shameful defense of Assad. Unwilling to criticize a brutal mass murderer. Well done, @andersoncooper.

Link to tweet

…

[mcar]

17. Politifact

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/jul/31/fact-checking-democratic-debate-detroit-night-two/

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii on Sen. Kamala Harris’ time as a prosecutor: Harris "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana."

This claim about Harris putting "over 1,500 people in jail" for pot violations is cited in a February article by the Free Beacon, a conservative online news website. The article says "at least 1,560 people were sent to state prisons for marijuana-related offenses between 2011 and 2016," when Harris was California attorney general. It says the data comes from reports from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

PolitiFact could not immediately access that data during the debate. But we do know that as attorney general, Harris would not have personally prosecuted marijuana cases. Those cases would have been handled by lower-level state attorneys.

[femmedem]

21. Now that is an effective response.

I hope there's an equally good response about withholding evidence.

The article you linked to also had a good response to Gillibrand's attack on Biden's op-ed from the 80's. Thanks for posting it.

[mcar]

24. ...

[Chemisse]

30. That is helpful. Thanks for finding that info.

As a Harris supporter I am interested in getting to the bottom of these accusations. I posted a lengthy article that I found that discussed her record as AG. https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287222554

[mcar]

40. Thanks!

[bigtree]

39. thanks for this

...

[dalton99a]

22. And NO COLLUSION

[mcar]

23. Forgot about that one!

Thanks.

[Chemisse]

31. WTF!!

No wonder she did the aggressive hit job on Harris last night!

[nini]

26. Tulsi is gonna get payback for that

She'll be exposed now as the homophobic fascist loving moron she is.

So many people are clueless to her background.. she opened the door.

[BlueIdaho]

27. No fan of Tulsi

But that doesn’t change Harris’ prosecutorial record - she will have to answer for her past just like everyone else.

[bigtree]

29. she has, repeatedly, raised and answered in successive elections

...won every one of them, in the state where these things supposedly matter.

What she didn't need to do was spend time on that stage rehashing well-worn, misrepresented, trumped up nonsense.

[BlueIdaho]

32. Ironic

Since she expects other candidates to do exactly that. Her record has NOT been fully reviewed - but it will be. It’s part of process.

If she has nothing to hide, she has nothing to fear.

[bigtree]

37. well it's fine to ask stale, well-worn questions

...but when you misrepresent her record in the same line, you really can't expect more than Gabbard got, which was nothing.

Kamala Harris is not obligated to answer the concerns of a homophobic Assad apologist.

Link to tweet

[BlueIdaho]

38. So what about when The NY Times asks...

BTW - nice character hatchet job.

[bigtree]

41. the NYT knows better than to come at Kamala with such ignorant nonsense.

...see post #17

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/jul/31/fact-checking-democratic-debate-detroit-night-two/

[treestar]

48. Right, it wasn't anything others haven't said

some of it is right wing stuff you see out there, and so Kamala must learn to deal with it and be prepared for it. There is much uglier stuff about Willie Brown that the Orange Menace will certainly use, though he is worse himself. But having no shame, he'll start up on it.

[BlueIdaho]

49. Yup!

Let’s face it Tulsi is not going to be around much longer. If Kamala wants to be in it to the end - she’s going to have to defend criticisms of her record - right, wrong or Republican. She’s going to have to do much more than shake her head and move to another - more favorable topic.

Blind devotion by her fans will not get her elected. If she is to be President, she’s going to have to keep answering hard and unfair questions regardless of where they come from. That’s the nature of campaigning for the highest office in the land.

[Vegas Roller]

28. K&R

Tulsi acts like a Russian agent

[Chemisse]

33. Mission accomplished for last night.

I hope she doesn't qualify for the third debate.

[MontanaMama]

34. That's what Malcolm Nance says...

That she’s Putin’s plant in the Dem party. Tulsi isn’t on our side.

[TSIAS]

60. Malcolm Nance is a clown

[MontanaMama]

65. Lol!

Putin would LOVE to install Gabbard in the WH. Malcolm isn’t the only person saying it.

[Sparkly]

70. I believe Malcolm.

[crazytown]

45. That's no act

[Ponietz]

35. To be fair, Harris could have included 'Gabbard is an apologist for Individual #1'.

On this site, last night, someone, appallingly, advised to check out Breitbart for good interviews of Gabbard. I can only be grateful that these efforts to boost Gabbard are fumbling and transparent.

[BeyondGeography]

36. Harris is getting some bad advice here

She shouldn’t be mud wrestling with a candidate who is starving for oxygen and polling at 1%. Defend your record without acknowledging the attacker and move on. All the upside is with Gabbard on this one.

[mcar]

42. I agree

She stood up for her record, with a "talk to the hand" demeanor toward Gabbard, which Tulsi deserved.

[DesertRat]

43. k&r

[mcar]

46. A good Twitter thread on Harris's accomplishments as AG

Link to tweet

?s=19

[treestar]

47. That is not a good response

It does not address the criticism.

[Peachhead22]

52. I'm no fan of Tulsi Gabbard, but...

...regardless of who the messenger was, it was good to get the question out now. Does anyone think Trump wouldn't use this info and more against Harris if she was the nominee? This way Harris gets to work on her answers to it. Rather than being caught by surprise later on.

Primaries are not just about someone's vision for the future, it's also vetting the candidate's past, and getting them ready for the General Election.

[bigtree]

55. it was a rw lie, an absolute sham of a question

She got caught lying...

Politifact:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii on Sen. Kamala Harris’ time as a prosecutor: Harris "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana."

This claim about Harris putting "over 1,500 people in jail" for pot violations is cited in a February article by the Free Beacon, a conservative online news website. The article says "at least 1,560 people were sent to state prisons for marijuana-related offenses between 2011 and 2016," when Harris was California attorney general. It says the data comes from reports from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

PolitiFact could not immediately access that data during the debate. But we do know that as attorney general, Harris would not have personally prosecuted marijuana cases. Those cases would have been handled by lower-level state attorneys.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/jul/31/fact-checking-democratic-debate-detroit-night-two/

Link to tweet

[sacto95834]

68. Since the PolitFact article...

The SF Chronicle reports:

The attack: Gabbard said Harris “put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”

The context: The Gabbard campaign pointed to a February article in the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative media outlet, headlined, “Kamala Harris Packed California Prisons With Pot Peddlers” as attorney general. The article cited statistics from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that said “at least 1,560 people were sent to state prisons for marijuana-related offenses between 2011 and 2016” during the time Harris was the state AG. On Thursday (Aug 1), a department spokesman told The Chronicle that 1,974 people were admitted for hashish and marijuana convictions during that period.

Harris didn’t back legalizing cannabis for recreational use until last year, two years after California voters did. She also opposed a statewide ballot measure to legalize weed in 2010, when she was San Francisco’s district attorney and running to be state attorney general. Harris called that proposal “flawed public policy.”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Fact-checking-the-Democratic-debate-attacks-14275081.php

[Peachhead22]

69. So her office did?

Like, the people she was in charge of? Call it command responsibility or "the buck stops here". Either way, she had the prosecutorial discretion to say "let's not worry about low level marijuana convictions that much. We have more important matters to worry about."

ICE and many other agencies and entities are doing odious stuff right now at Trump's direction or indifference. Should we give Trump a pass because he's not the ICE or border agent doing horrible stuff to migrants and their children?*

And the source of the data doesn't matter so long as the data is accurate.

*Please be assured: I'm not comparing anything Sen. Harris did to anything Trump does. I'm just making a point about command responsibility. If she's the nominee I'll crawl through broken glass in a snowstorm to vote for her. On Sen. Harris' worst day she's light years better than Trump's best day.

[SidDithers]

66. Harris would get a post hidden at DU...

for calling Tulsi an “Assad apologist”.



Sid

[Devil Child]

67. Ah the good 'ol Assad deflection

When one can't address the content of Gabbard's criticisms then deflect with Assad.