3 ms·

And this immunity was created out of nothing, backed by nothing. One of the front runners for president in 2020 literally argued in an appeals court that her pr

And this immunity was created out of nothing, backed by nothing. One of the front runners for president in 2020 literally argued in an appeals court that her prosecutors should have been allowed to fabricate and withhold evidence during prosecutions. Instead of being a pariah and banished from public life, there's a decent chance she'll bring this same mentality to the presidency.

jki275 8y ago
I'm assuming you must be talking about Kamala Harris? Do you have a link?
- merpnderp 8y ago
  "Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris, decided to appeal the case. The state's key argument: That putting a fake confession in the transcript wasn't "outrageous" because it didn't involve physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a hose." https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/08/justice-honesty-government-prosecutor-column/24611623/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/08/justice-ho... This should have ended her career, as it is unforgivable. But she might be the epitome of the downside of "good ol boy" politics.
  - jki275 8y ago
    Wow. That's unconscionable. I've been involved with the legal system enough that little surprises me anymore, but that's a new one.
  - HoppedUpMenace 8y ago
    You have a link that's not an opinion piece? I've searched for this court case and anytime Kamala Harris is mentioned, the articles are blogs or very suspect reporting websites. Also they all have identical content, looking as if each website copy and pasted the content between themselves.
    - merpnderp 8y ago
      I googled the judge's name plus the name of the case and the first result was the hearing transcript. If you're a Kamala Harris fan, prepare to be traumatized. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781830/people-v-velasco-palacios-ca5/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781830/people-v-velas...
      - HoppedUpMenace 8y ago
        I'm indifferent to her in any regard but it would be interesting to see if this gets more attention as we get closer to 2020. Seems fairly straight-forward that she was defending the right of a prosecutor to get away with fabricating evidence.
        mrunkel 8y ago
        Actually no, that's not what was being argued. They state was arguing that the defendant should still be tried on the remaining evidence because they weren't fooled by the prosecutorial misconduct. In essence the defendant shouldn't be rewarded for the prosecutorial misconduct. While the behavior of the prosecutor was clearly abhorrent, it is reasonable for the state to take this position.
        trhway 8y ago
        >In essence the defendant shouldn't be rewarded for the prosecutorial misconduct. no, that's not what was being argued. The decision uses the established precedent that defendant is to be "rewarded" in case of "outrageous or conscience shocking" prosecutorial misconduct. Kamala didn't argue against that. What, in the words of the judges listening to her, she argued is: " On appeal, however, the People dispute that Murray’s misconduct was outrageous or conscience shocking in a constitutional sense, as it was not physically brutal. ... According to the People, this language stands for the proposition that misconduct must be “brutal” in order to shock the conscience and support a sanction of dismissal. " May be you think that the judges misunderstood the arguments presented by the "People" ? :)

jki275 8y ago

I'm assuming you must be talking about Kamala Harris? Do you have a link?

merpnderp 8y ago
"Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris, decided to appeal the case. The state's key argument: That putting a fake confession in the transcript wasn't "outrageous" because it didn't involve physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a hose." https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/08/justice-honesty-government-prosecutor-column/24611623/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/08/justice-ho... This should have ended her career, as it is unforgivable. But she might be the epitome of the downside of "good ol boy" politics.
- jki275 8y ago
  Wow. That's unconscionable. I've been involved with the legal system enough that little surprises me anymore, but that's a new one.
- HoppedUpMenace 8y ago
  You have a link that's not an opinion piece? I've searched for this court case and anytime Kamala Harris is mentioned, the articles are blogs or very suspect reporting websites. Also they all have identical content, looking as if each website copy and pasted the content between themselves.
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    I googled the judge's name plus the name of the case and the first result was the hearing transcript. If you're a Kamala Harris fan, prepare to be traumatized. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781830/people-v-velasco-palacios-ca5/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2781830/people-v-velas...
    - HoppedUpMenace 8y ago
      I'm indifferent to her in any regard but it would be interesting to see if this gets more attention as we get closer to 2020. Seems fairly straight-forward that she was defending the right of a prosecutor to get away with fabricating evidence.
      - mrunkel 8y ago
        Actually no, that's not what was being argued. They state was arguing that the defendant should still be tried on the remaining evidence because they weren't fooled by the prosecutorial misconduct. In essence the defendant shouldn't be rewarded for the prosecutorial misconduct. While the behavior of the prosecutor was clearly abhorrent, it is reasonable for the state to take this position.
        trhway 8y ago
        >In essence the defendant shouldn't be rewarded for the prosecutorial misconduct. no, that's not what was being argued. The decision uses the established precedent that defendant is to be "rewarded" in case of "outrageous or conscience shocking" prosecutorial misconduct. Kamala didn't argue against that. What, in the words of the judges listening to her, she argued is: " On appeal, however, the People dispute that Murray’s misconduct was outrageous or conscience shocking in a constitutional sense, as it was not physically brutal. ... According to the People, this language stands for the proposition that misconduct must be “brutal” in order to shock the conscience and support a sanction of dismissal. " May be you think that the judges misunderstood the arguments presented by the "People" ? :)