The more I learn about Harris, the less I like her.

and especially if he ends up nominee they will come at him with the same bs.

a lot of bad decisions...

I was talking about objective fact- and context-driven journalism versus propagandistic agenda-driven schlock.

Please slow down and break those words apart. Progressives don't often talk about media bias, that is almost a complete rightwing term.

Calling everything in the media bias against conservatives is an ironic term Fox News viewers use for everything that doesn't support their anti-intellectual view point. I check mediabiasfactcheck.com so that I know which sites to avoid.

But Republicans sometimes think so (John Fleming and The Onion's Abortionplex article).

And I have no clue what an Abortionplex is. It sounds like a wrestling move. Did someone Abortionplex John Fleming?

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2019, 03:24 AM - Edit history (1)

Is the Associated Press, as well?

to criminal investigations that resulted in no charges?

should be imitated by other prosecutors?

potential sexual assault victims? None that I could think of.

It tends to be more along the lines of tendentious bullshit.

question is why?

From SF Weekly in 2005

libertarian, Ed Snowden fan?

Guess they are really really scared of her, don't want to run against her.

She showed him something the other night, and not just in "the moment." She just radiated presence and fortitude all night, you could feel her own that room. This isn't about being slighted by her, Biden and his folks now know she has "it."

mistake and explain it or perhaps an apology is needed to the victims.

at least in Florida. But if someone was investigated and there was not enough evidence to precede. The big early priest sex abuse cases happened during the 90s in the northeast, even then nothing much happened for victims.

As much as I despise sexual abuse, and religion for that matter, seems to me the records of someone who as convicted, or even charged, should be protected from parents, etc., wanting to file a civil suit. That person is still presumed innocent.

I think the article — a hit piece on Harris— is written assuming many readers won’t see the distinction between a criminal action and civil action.

have to ask for it. When a person is charged with a crime, their name becomes known also, even if they get acquitted. Now, when a prosecutor or DA is investigating a person, that person's name is not released publicly until that person is charged, even here in Florida. If the person is not charged, the record remains sealed. I would assume California works in a similar way.

By the way it was the victims who were requesting the files, not parents. But thanks for caring so much about the rape survivors.

But, when someone is not charged or convicted, the government shouldn't be releasing investigatory records on this matter or any other matter.

apparatus and work-product to further their lawsuits. And she declined to do so, unlike her predecessor.

Show us declined prosecutions and I'll be interested and/or outraged.

It is not the job of the DA of any county to turn over criminal investigative materials to further one party's case in a tort, AFAIK. But I'm not a lawyer, or a cop, or a prosecutor, so maybe I'm deeply mistaken.

People wanted access to files that referenced their abusers. Those files were obtained for that purpose. How can you file suit when the DA is hiding the files?

It does not matter if the prior DA had decided to do so, *if that was an inappropriate action*.

I am open to hearing evidence and arguments that doing so was indeed the role and duty of the DA. But judging by other posts on this thread, I think I am under the correct impression thus far.

either. Good we found this out now and not in a general.

to someone thinking about suing you for everything you have?

I realize abuse of kids is a hot button issue, and should be. But a person not convicted, or even charged, is still presumed innocent.

because the San Francisco Archdiocese was powerful back then, and we would not want those abusing priests to have to face their accusers. Sick. "abuse of kids is a hot button issue"-no, it's a deadly issue leading to suicide, addiction, lost lives, and more abuse.

seek justice for these victims and to make sure the priests were not still reoffending.

"Before Harris was elected district attorney in 2003, a U.S. Supreme Court decision made it impossible to pursue criminal prosecutions of child sexual abuse cases after statutes of limitation had expired. For many victims, that left lawsuits in civil court as the only path for seeking justice." I would add...I an not much interested in protecting pedophile priests from the only justice they will ever face. And the church deserves to pay for protecting those monsters for decadeds.

or prior to that Trump/Sessions, were using the resources of the state to develop evidence -- or had already been in possession of evidence -- which could not be used in criminal proceedings for some reason, and yet they turned it over to parties of a tort who they favored for use in that party's case, everyone on DU wold be screaming bloody murder about the unprofessionalism of the AG, the blatant corruption, the misuse of state power, etc.

Try to step back from the particulars of this one case and apply the proposed behavior as a universal rule, and applied by Repukes in the manner which would most likely make them cream their pants, time after time, case after case... then ask yourself if you really want to undermine this rule/principle/standard because of the particular case in front of you.

To me this looks like a reasonable restraint of a tempting-to-misuse state power, which the particulars of the case make for tawdry propagandistic click-bait.

I'm willing to change my mind on this, but I need more than an appeal to the consequences. Make an argument which would not be scary as f**k if Trumpists were the ones in the same seat of power, using the same power/authority/judgment call to serve whatever *their* priorities were.

these monstrous priests. Scotus ruled in 2003 about statues of limitation. Civil court was the only avenue for justice. And two cases. Were more recent..very disturbuing.

Link to tweet

minority schools are underfunded, etc.

Busing wouldn’t be necessary were it not for white folks refusing to be inclusive, and at a minimum ensure minority schools are equal. There’s more to this than just “busing.”

issue...and Harris should not have ressurected it...I hope to God our candidates do not endorse it. I don't know how or if intergration will be achieved,but it won't happen by busing...I see more diversity in school choice here in Ohio so perhaps that is the way...where parents want to send their kids to a different school.

that busing was only used when the locals dragged their feet in taking steps to integrate schools, or ensure minority schools were truly equal.

politiician that runs on it ...loses. Why don't we run on current issues and not some long dead solution to segregation...that was a dismal failure.

racial equality, including equal schools. Busing was only used to ensure equality when the local white government dragged their feet in pursuing other means to equality.

No one is talking about busing today.

The WA Post is legit but you posted no actual article.

the link.

not that their accusation of some type of wrongdoing is actually founded.

I would not use it as a source.

which I couldn't find on the front page of the main link...

that didn't result in a prosecution?

involving people who weren't ultimately prosecuted?

Anyway, I don't like doing the gop's work for them.

I'm too busy standing up for Biden against those who try to smear him.

Because you obviously know zilch about them, and

The Intercept?!

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

What did Der Sturmer say?

Sorry, it's real. Read the article. SF Weekly has won numerous awards for journalism.

I posted in reply 32.

who have given confidential investigation documents to private parties, involving cases that weren't ultimately prosecuted?

victims said her decisions were different from those of other DAs they contacted at the time.

I imagine we'll be hearing more about this.

Hillary's investigation, even though she wasn't ultimately charged with anything?

I understood that prosecutors were supposed to keep their investigations confidential, speaking only through their indictments. How would this be different?

where prosecutors don't release the confidential information that they've gathered on suspects they don't ultimately charge -- like James Comey did, wrongly, with Hillary Clinton.

But with regard to your point. Keeping victim's identities confidential would also be difficult. If you name a pastor, then you know where he was working in a certain year, and it would be fairly easy to quickly narrow down the names of children he might have had access to -- like altar boys.

the defense would have the right to get the names to depose the victims. So they would have become public.

I understand exactly why she did this.

being revealed?

when she comes in the powerful Diocese gets a break...she ensures that their secrets stay secret with this policy...this is just plain wrong...and after the 2003 SCOTUS ruling, civil courts were the only place justice could be served.

Someone else pointed out that it is not incumbent on a prosecutor or AG to provide investigative materials for a tort. The end.

client, even if the people are unwilling. The fact that information from those people, if left unchallenged, hurts their client would impel them to seek to depose the victims. Maybe a judge could and would keep the victims' identities private, but apparently Harris' team had concluded maybe a judge would not be able to under state statues.