This whole thing about Kamala Harris and the Catholic Church is an obvious hit job.

[pnwmom]

Where did it originate? With rightwing sources that quickly fed it to places like the AP.

If you think it's NORMAL for prosecutors to hand over investigative materials on subjects or targets who were never prosecuted, then please explain why, after decades of similar accusations, more prosecutors haven't turned over their files to attorneys handling civil lawsuits. Instead, the attorneys for the plaintiffs have been getting information released by Grand Juries (post indictment) and from the Dioceses themselves.

Why is Kamala Harris the only (former) prosecutor being attacked for keeping investigation records of unindicted people confidential? It's NOT because prosecutors have all been handing over files on people they decided not to prosecute.

James Comey was the exception, the heavily criticized exception, when he released information about Hillary even though they'd decided not to prosecute her. What Kamala Harris did is standard procedure.

Do you really want to live in a police state? Can't you see the risk here? If this were the common practice, then every time a prosecutor couldn't get a conviction of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he'd simply hand the case over to a civil attorney, who could litigate a case developed with all the resources of the state and win it by the civil standard: only a preponderance of the evidence -- 51%. Does that seem like a good idea to you?

[betsuni]

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

Biden had a Daily Hit Job Special for awhile; now it's Kamala's turn.

[RHMerriman]

2. A hit job dating back to 2010?

A hit job dating back to 2010?

[link:http://www.sfweekly.com/news/a-secrecy-fetish/|]

Yeah, okay ... this started with her predecessor in the SFDA's office, back in 2005:

[link:http://www.sfweekly.com/news/zipped-up/|]

Yeah, okay.

Good luck with that.

[pnwmom]

4. The current flurry of stories about it is. n/t

[RHMerriman]

7. That seems ... "hurtful"...

That seems ... "hurtful"...

[pnwmom]

9. No, it's a crock. It was then and it is now.

Prosecutors don't hand over cases they've developed, but decided not to prosecute, to civil attorneys.

If you think otherwise, name a case. You should be able to because there have been many civil cases developed against various dioceses by now. Which one used files they obtained from a prosecutor rather than a diocese or a grand jury after an indictment?

[RHMerriman]

12. California Public Records Act

California Public Records Act

[link:http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=6250.|]

GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV
TITLE 1. GENERAL [100 - 7914] ( Title 1 enacted by Stats. 1943, Ch. 134. )
DIVISION 7. MISCELLANEOUS [6000 - 7599.2] ( Division 7 enacted by Stats. 1943, Ch. 134. )
CHAPTER 3.5. Inspection of Public Records [6250 - 6276.48] ( Chapter 3.5 added by Stats. 1968, Ch. 1473. )

ARTICLE 1. General Provisions [6250 - 6270.7] ( Article 1 heading added by Stats. 1998, Ch. 620, Sec. 1. )

6250.
In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.

(Amended by Stats. 1970, Ch. 575.)

SF Weekly sued and reported it in 2005 and 2010. The public's right to know is hardly a crock, unless you think defending pedophiles and the institution that protects them is more important.

Sounds hurtful.

[pnwmom]

18. That same act includes an exemption for law enforcement investigative records.

An exemption that is routinely utilized. How come you left that part out?

[Demsrule86]

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

Consider all the released shit on victims of police shootings...about shoplifting and other stuff...

[pnwmom]

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

It's to protect the right to a fair trial.

[SouthernProgressive]

48. Pretty sure you are backing up the argument against Harris.

There were options. You are highlighting that. She chose an option. They are highlighting the option she chose.

There was no rule requiring her to act in a spicific and singular way. It was by choice.

[pnwmom]

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

[SouthernProgressive]

52. Example of what?

You were the one highlighting options.

[pnwmom]

55. An example of when a prosecutor made public or gave to a private attorney

(for a civil lawsuit) investigation records involving a possible defendant that the prosecutor decided not to prosecute.

The exemptions in both the CA records act and the Federal FOIA are there for a purpose.

And I don't mean just some attorney who's trying to pressure Kamala by claiming other prosecutors have been more helpful. I want to see actual evidence that this has happened. We know by now that attorneys lie all the time to reporters, if they think it will help their case.

[lapucelle]

54. It doesn't fit the narrative some are trying to spin.

Did all this start on The Intercept?

[sl8]

72. Did you notice the list of exceptions to that exception?

There's quite a few exceptions to the exception in section (f). Do you think any of them apply?
I'm thinking in particular of the information they're required to give "to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof".

From https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=6254
(I excerpted all of section (f))

ARTICLE 1. General Provisions [6250 - 6270.7] ( Article 1 heading added by Stats. 1998, Ch. 620, Sec. 1. )

6254.
Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, this chapter does not require the disclosure of any of the following records:

[...]

(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. However, state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 13951, unless the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or unless disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation. However, this subdivision does not require the disclosure of that portion of those investigative files that reflects the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.

Customer lists provided to a state or local police agency by an alarm or security company at the request of the agency shall be construed to be records subject to this subdivision.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation:

(1) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual’s physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.

(2) (A) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name and age of the victim, the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved. The name of a victim of any crime defined by Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9, or 647.6 of the Penal Code may be withheld at the victim’s request, or at the request of the victim’s parent or guardian if the victim is a minor. When a person is the victim of more than one crime, information disclosing that the person is a victim of a crime defined in any of the sections of the Penal Code set forth in this subdivision may be deleted at the request of the victim, or the victim’s parent or guardian if the victim is a minor, in making the report of the crime, or of any crime or incident accompanying the crime, available to the public in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.

(B) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the names and images of a victim of human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1 of the Penal Code, and of that victim’s immediate family, other than a family member who is charged with a criminal offense arising from the same incident, may be withheld at the victim’s request until the investigation or any subsequent prosecution is complete. For purposes of this subdivision, “immediate family” shall have the same meaning as that provided in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 422.4 of the Penal Code.

(3) Subject to the restrictions of Section 841.5 of the Penal Code and this subdivision, the current address of every individual arrested by the agency and the current address of the victim of a crime, if the requester declares under penalty of perjury that the request is made for a scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purpose, or that the request is made for investigation purposes by a licensed private investigator as described in Chapter 11.3 (commencing with Section 7512) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code. However, the address of the victim of any crime defined by Section 220, 236.1, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9, or 647.6 of the Penal Code shall remain confidential. Address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph shall not be used directly or indirectly, or furnished to another, to sell a product or service to any individual or group of individuals, and the requester shall execute a declaration to that effect under penalty of perjury. This paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit or limit a scholarly, journalistic, political, or government use of address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, commencing July 1, 2019, a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, as defined in subparagraph (C), may be withheld only as follows:

(A) (i) During an active criminal or administrative investigation, disclosure of a recording related to a critical incident may be delayed for no longer than 45 calendar days after the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, if, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, such as by endangering the safety of a witness or a confidential source. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this paragraph, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation and the estimated date for disclosure.

(ii) After 45 days from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, and up to one year from that date, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. After one year from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall promptly provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that the interest in preventing interference with an active investigation outweighs the public interest in disclosure and provide the estimated date for the disclosure. The agency shall reassess withholding and notify the requester every 30 days. A recording withheld by the agency shall be disclosed promptly when the specific basis for withholding is resolved.

(B) (i) If the agency demonstrates, on the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in withholding a video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure because the release of the recording would, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the expectation of privacy and the public interest served by withholding the recording and may use redaction technology, including blurring or distorting images or audio, to obscure those specific portions of the recording that protect that interest. However, the redaction shall not interfere with the viewer’s ability to fully, completely, and accurately comprehend the events captured in the recording and the recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.

(ii) Except as provided in clause (iii), if the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction as described in clause (i) and that interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the agency may withhold the recording from the public, except that the recording, either redacted as provided in clause (i) or unredacted, shall be disclosed promptly, upon request, to any of the following:

(I) The subject of the recording whose privacy is to be protected, or his or her authorized representative.

(II) If the subject is a minor, the parent or legal guardian of the subject whose privacy is to be protected.

(III) If the subject whose privacy is to be protected is deceased, an heir, beneficiary, designated immediate family member, or authorized legal representative of the deceased subject whose privacy is to be protected.

(iii) If disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, and provide the video or audio recording. Thereafter, the recording may be withheld by the agency for 45 calendar days, subject to extensions as set forth in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A).

(C) For purposes of this paragraph, a video or audio recording relates to a critical incident if it depicts any of the following incidents:

(i) An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.

(ii) An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury.

(D) An agency may provide greater public access to video or audio recordings than the minimum standards set forth in this paragraph.

(E) This paragraph does not alter, limit, or negate any other rights, remedies, or obligations with respect to public records regarding an incident other than a critical incident as described in subparagraph (C).

(F) For purposes of this paragraph, a peace officer does not include any peace officer employed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

[...]

[pnwmom]

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

the bottom line. For one thing, the priests that were investigated weren't arrested.

[emmaverybo]

16. You can defend Harris's decision and argue with the opinions reported in the news stories, but

are you saying all the news stories are “a crock?”
Maybe the AP story is “fake news.”
But usually the AP reports what people say accurately.
We shall see.
The controversy about Harris in regard to her handling pedophile priest cases is not new.
SNAP is an actual support network online.
It too did not arise out of the Democratic primaries.

[pnwmom]

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

If you disagree, show me a specific case where a prosecutor who decided not to indict someone released the prosecutor's case records to private attorneys for their use in bringing a civil case.

The Catholic church has had plenty of dioceses involved in cases like this, and they've all been subject to the same statute of limitations problems. So how come local prosecutors all over the US, if they can't bring a case they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, haven't been turning over their records to lawyers bringing civil action -- which only requires a preponderance of the evidence?

[emmaverybo]

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

by the Catholic Church.

[pnwmom]

26. Then show me a case NOT involving the Catholic church where a prosecutor decides not to prosecute

but instead hands over his investigation records to private attorneys for their use in bringing a civil claim.

Here is the Exemption to the CA Public Records Act that pertains here:

https://www.ucop.edu/general-counsel/_files/access-privacy/summary_public_records_act.pdf

EXEMPTION FOR INVESTIGATIVE RECORDS AND INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION (Gov. Code, § 6254(f))

A. Investigative Records

Records of complaints, preliminary inquiries to determine if a crime has been committed, and full-scale investigations, as well as closure memoranda are investigative records.48 In addition, records that are not inherently investigatory may be covered by the exemption where they pertain to an enforcement proceeding that has become concrete and definite.49

Investigative and security records created for law enforcement, correctional or licensing purposes also are covered by the exemption from disclosure. The term “law enforcement” agency refers to traditional criminal law enforcement agencies.50 Records created in connection with administrative investigations unrelated to licensing are not subject to the exemption. The exemption is permanent and does not terminate once the investigation has been completed.51

[emmaverybo]

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

know there will be all kinds of “buzz” which I suspect her team is well prepared for.

[Demsrule86]

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

He is the link another poster provided it...https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

I have to say...she can't be our nominee...

[lapucelle]

58. That opinion piece is problematic, to say the least.

There's a reason that this piece is on the op-ed page. Personally, I don't trust op-ed writers who need to resort to distortion and equivocation to make their case.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100211759707#post20

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100211759707#post24

[lapucelle]

57. Do you have a link to the AP story? N/T

[Demsrule86]

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

[RHMerriman]

64. Akin to the current flurry of stories about public policy choices in the 1970s?

Akin to the current flurry of stories about different individuals' public policy choices in the 1970s?

Or a story about a deadbeat Dad and activist Mom (both with Phds and both employed full-time) who chose to have their children live in a working class neighborhood with working class schools in the impoverished dystopian hellhole that was Berkeley, California in the 1970s, rather than move to Madison, Wisconsin?

The senator grew up in privilege. All she's done lately is attack a fellow Democrat in a bid to gain some traction in South Carolina, because otherwise, she's dead in the water.

Haven taken that path, however, her supporters should not be surprised when her history is brought forward - however "hurtful" it may be. Life's hard that ways, sometimes...

[SleeplessinSoCal]

15. Harris was seen as the one to watch in 2010

She made big waves as newly elected attorney general of big blue California.

[RHMerriman]

62. Sec. Clinton and Vice President Biden were seen as the ones to watch.

Sec. Clinton and Vice President Biden were seen as the ones to watch in 2010.

Harris was a newly-elected statewide officer who had no track record beyond being in charge of one of the mid-sized county prosecutor's offices in a state with 58 of them.

Reality intrudes yet again.

[qazplm135]

53. so you ARE ok with talking about the past

of various politicians.

Good to know!

[RHMerriman]

61. Be great if she was talking about Trump's past, wouldn't it?

Be great if she was talking about Trump's past, wouldn't it?

Instead, she's an cynical manipulator of emotional bullshit who is the definition of a blue falcon.

Good to know!

[qazplm135]

63. lol

and my post talking about how fragile some Biden supporters are to criticism got flagged, but this mess remains.

Interesting.

[RHMerriman]

65. Fragile - like the little girl who grew up a legacy of two Phds?

Fragile - like the little girl who grew up a legacy of two Phds?

Forced to live in a working class neighborhood with working class schools in the dystopian hellhole that was Berkeley, California, in the 1970s, by her two parents, both with Phds and both with full time jobs?

Yeah, that's interesting all right.

However did she survive?

[qazplm135]

68. boy she really left a mark on you didn't she?

Show me on the doll where Kamala hurt you.

[RHMerriman]

70. Doing Trump's work for him?

Doing Trump's work for him?

That leaves a mark on all of us, but few of the effects will hit those in the circles where the senator hangs out.

She attacked a fellow Democrat on spurious grounds, and has misrepresented the circumstances of her childhood in what is about as cynical a way imaginable, and which will fall apart the moment anyone with actual opposition research capabilities looks into it - if they have not already, which seems doubtful.

But apparently you think that's an attractive proposition in a Democratic presidential candidate. Blue Falcons, unite!

Good to know.

[qazplm135]

71. yawn

get some courage and fortitude.

[RHMerriman]

73. And your personal example of such, friend?

Taking the oath?

Running for office?

Volunteering? Anything?

Other than attacking your own side, apparently...

[qazplm135]

75. not getting the vapors

every time my candidate gets questioned already puts me ahead of you.

[RHMerriman]

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

Having a candidate that doesn't knife her fellow Democrats puts me ahead of you...

[qazplm135]

96. lol

oh no...he got knifed? Welp, buckle up Sparky, because when you are in front, knives, bullets, and large anvils are going to come. If Harris gets in front, same thing is going to happen to her. Heck, it's starting to happen now already. And guess what, she will have to deal with it too. And if I whined about it on a message board, it won't make it happen any less.

[RHMerriman]

97. No problem, comrade ... knife the enemy ... not your allies.

No problem, comrade ... knife the enemy ... not your allies.

It was a cynical play, doing Trump's work for him, and given how fortunate the senator was as a child, it's built on a lie.

Says volumes about the senator.

[Andy823]

66. Maybe you should

set an example for everyone else.

[RHMerriman]

67. I'm not running for president...

The senator is. Kind of her job...

She wasn't drafted, after all. She volunteered.

Biden calls Trump out every day; it's been the basis of his campaign that he is the anti-trump.

Warren, O'Rourke, Castro, have all gone after him, in recent days, on the treatment of refugees alone.

What has the senator been doing, again?

[gldstwmn]

3. It's an attack by Trump, Biden or maybe both.

Accusing her of protecting pedophiles is scummy.

[Cha]

8. It's Not a hit job from Biden.. this is from Biden

about Kamala..

Link to tweet

Actually Biden said he wasn't going to attack other Dems.

[pnwmom]

20. I think it's Trumpers. n/t

[mcar]

40. I think so too

[RHMerriman]

13. And accusing Biden of protecting racists was for the common good?

And accusing Biden of protecting racists was for the common good?

Harris went after Biden because she's flailing and can't even get AAs to support her. He was ahead 45 percent to 5 percent with AAs before the debate.

It's pretty transparent.

[MarcA]

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

[RHMerriman]

60. Just think if she used the same tactics on Trump...

Just think if she used the same tactics on Trump...

who is, after all, the real threat.

[emmaverybo]

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

recent AP story involving SNAP, a network for survivors of pedophile priests, picked up by several outlets, LA Times and WaPo among them, is “fake news,” then I am sure we will find that out.

The DA’s office secrecy around claims involving the SF diocese was referred to in Sept. 2O18 in a story about Catholic Church sex abuse cases published in the Los Angeles Times.

Not an issue that arose suddenly with Biden’s candidacy or Harris’s.

[pnwmom]

21. I think that attorney was attacking Harris because he thought it might work.

But the Trumpers are reviving it now to smear Harris, because she now appears to be a threat.

[emmaverybo]

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

it concerns a new development in SNAP’s campaign.

Sure, Trump’s researchers could have found out what SNAP was up to and tipped off AP to interview the SNAP representative, a survivor, and the others mentioned.

However, whatever Hallinan’s motives, or whether or not Harris was right not to cooperate with civil cases, she probably will have to defend her reasons.

[pnwmom]

24. The attorney who was trying to get Harris to hand over public investigative records

so he could use the prosecutors records to bring a civil action -- instead of subpoenaing the Diocese for the records.

And, yes, Harris will need to explain her actions, and I'm sure she will. She was following normal procedure, followed by prosecutors all over the country. Where have you heard of prosecutors giving their investigative product to private attorneys so they can file civil actions?

[Demsrule86]

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

[Demsrule86]

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

I assume you are unlike me aware of this stuff...I was surprised. I did not support her as a presidential candidate but admired her.

[Demsrule86]

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

She should have expected her record to be examined. And I don't believe that WaPO, the AP and the Sanfran examiner are all lying about her record and some links are contemporaneous so would have nothing to do with the primary.

[treestar]

44. Maybe we can see the problem with negative campaigning now?

Hillary got it for defending an accused pedophile. Are we tired of this type of thing yet? Maybe she will learn that it will go both ways?

[tishaLA]

5. It's a hit job, although I doubt from the right

And I suspect Sen Harris and her team are prepared for them. As the story goes, they've been preparing for months.....

[Cha]

11. So from the left.

[mr_lebowski]

6. No offense, pwnmom ... I think you should read this ...

This is from 2005, obviously well-removed from the current political fray, and from a publication with very solid liberal bona-fides. The argument you're suggesting was made ... does not, in fact, appear to have been the one that WAS made. If it were as simple as just 'we're not allowed' ... why didn't Harris' office say that? It does not appear as though the reality was 'they weren't allowed'.

I'm just saying.

On background: Stogner is the SCOTUS case that was decided 5-4 around this time saying that, basically, you couldn't retroactively extent statutes of limitations. And 'the documents' or 'records' ... are a massive record dump from the Archdiocese, chronically sex abuse ... handed over to Hallinan pre-Stogner (and pre-Harris).

http://www.sfweekly.com/news/zipped-up/

Now that Stogner has mooted criminal action on most of the alleged wrongdoing described in the documents turned over to Bay Area prosecutors, there would seem to be little law enforcement reason for district attorneys to keep many of the records secret. But head prosecutors in San Francisco and San Mateo counties have refused public records requests seeking the documents.

In Marin County, meanwhile, the position of the District Attorney's Office on release of the records is muddled at best, with the office first agreeing to release the records, and then, apparently, undermining its own position by failing to file court documents that set out a legal rationale for the release.

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris has assumed a pro-secrecy posture, rejecting the public records request that her Marin counterpart initially chose to honor. (Harris' press spokeswoman, Debbie Mesloh, said that the DA would comment on the matter but that she was unable to do so until after the deadline for this article.) Linda Klee, Harris' chief of administration and spokeswoman on the issue, says that making the church documents public would have a “chilling effect” on potential witnesses in future prosecutions.

Pressed as to why the public interest isn't served by making the documents available, Klee tells the Weekly, “If we did it for you, we would have to do it for everybody. Where do you stop, and where do you start?”

Klee says the public records law allows her office to withhold the documents, but she also acknowledges that it does not require her office to keep them secret. She says the decision to withhold is based on long-standing office “policy.”

The policy could not be very old. Former District Attorney Hallinan says that his office had no such policy, that he declined to sign the protocol the church offered him, and that he believes the records that he obtained from the church ought now to be released under the California Public Records Act.

Hallinan also expresses disappointment that Harris, who defeated him in his bid for re-election to a third term in 2003, has chosen to keep the church sex abuse materials under wraps. “My policy was and still would be that when I received any sort of materials like that they would become public records,” Hallinan says. “Those are materials that should be brought out to the public.”

The argument that she couldn't release the docs because, basically it would be wrong like Comey's decision was wrong ... do not appear to be contemporaneously 'backed up' as the argument being made. And this is per a respected liberal publication, at the time.

I'm surely not saying I'm positive one way or the other, but it's worth considering what was said at the time is all.

[pnwmom]

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

Harris''s policy isn't just long standing office policy, it's long standing justice department policy. That's why James Comey was so heavily criticized for releasing info about Hillary after he decided not to prosecute her.

If it were standard procedure to release, then why haven't we seen prosecutors doing this all over the country, in cases like this? They ALL have faced the same statute of limitations problem. Why haven't they all been handing over their files to civil attorneys?

It's not like this is the only diocese affected.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287181032

[Thekaspervote]

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

[Demsrule86]

31. This is the one that shocked and surprised me.

[UniteFightBack]

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

[Demsrule86]

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

I personally did not know any of the stuff now coming out and I don't believe it to be false either.

[treestar]

43. I can hardly believe the hypocrisy

if it weren't for the hypocrisy of the right wing I'd be stunned! The complaint that she's being attacked is incredible.

[IluvPitties]

34. It's politics, like the busing crap.

You get hit with everything but yhe ktichen sink. If you survive, you get the nomination.

[Demsrule86]

35. Isn't this the argument Trump makes with his executive privilege and all?

Only now and then perhaps too this argument is used to shield criminals and may have been used protect the Catholic diocese from lawsuits brought by victims who deserved their day in court and recompse for their suffering. Were there political reasons for how this case was handlled? I believe truth is antiseptic and when there is not another path for justice...it needs to wielded to defend victims not powerful entities like the Catholic Diocese .

[pnwmom]

49. Both the California act and the FOIA have an exemption for prosecution investigation materials

for a good reason: to protect the right of defendants to a fair trial. Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but civil cases require a much lower amount of proof -- only 51%. Prosecutors with cases not strong enough to win at trial could threaten defendants -- and get them to plead -- by threatening to hand over their investigation to private attorneys for a civil action, which could also be devastating for a family. Families with an innocent defendant could have to weigh how many years in prison might be worth avoiding the risk of losing everything they own.

[Chitown Kev]

38. Well...

Every serious candidate is going to get hit with stuff from their past and (in Mayor Pete's case) even their present.

Better to get to and through this in the primaries...because Trump is ging to throw any and everything, truth and lies, at our nominee...and he will have help in doing so.

[mcar]

39. Kick

[Celerity]

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

That is way before the debates and also right around the time Bernie was really starting to slide.

AS SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY, KAMALA HARRIS’S OFFICE STOPPED COOPERATING WITH VICTIMS OF CATHOLIC CHURCH CHILD ABUSE

June 9 2019, 3:00 p.m.

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/kamala-harris-san-francisco-catholic-church-child-abuse/

[treestar]

42. It's her turn in the barrel already?

So this is the way it's going to be, she participated, let her deal with it. By the way, her response is the most important factor, so I've been told. Time to start apologizing and fixing.

[pnwmom]

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

And that's why both the relevant CA statute and the FOIA have exemptions related to prosecution investigatory materials.

Prosecutors should not be able to threaten civil trials, relying on only a preponderance of evidence (more evidence of guilt than not -- so 51%) if they can't prove criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Right-wingers are using a despised target -- pedophiles -- to try to undermine the criminal justice system for ALL of us.

[treestar]

69. Victims of priests

Molesting them could find that very hurtful.

[highplainsdem]

45. No, the story originated with attorneys representing abuse victims.

[pnwmom]

46. But the new flurry is coming from Trumpers, I think -- that and people

who would love to destroy our ability to have fair trials

Think about what's going on here. They are using the issue of pedophiles to get support for undermining our belief in requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They want prosecutors who can't prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt to be able to hand over case materials to private attorneys to bring a lawsuit requiring only a "preponderance of the evidence." This would be an incredible tool in the hands of prosecutors. They could tell defendants in any criminal trials (not just of Catholic priests, if this precedent became set) that if they don't take a plea -- even though there is flimsy evidence -- that they will be sued in civil court on that flimsy evidence. So an innocent person could accept a plea involving a short term of prison time in order to avoid a civil case that could target everything their family owned.

[pnwmom]

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

And we know not to trust that publication.

[crazytown]

93. Deleted reply was meant to be an email

:embarrased:

[pnwmom]

95. No problem!

[madville]

59. I'm more concerned about her arguing to uphold all those convictions in California

After it was proven 100s had evidence tampered with and/or fabricated against them, testimony falsified, and evidence suppressed by prosecutors under her CA DOJ. Thankfully she lost that argument and 100s of convictions were rightfully overturned. People haven't really been exposed to or paid attention to her actual record yet, it's certainly not an example of a Progressive prosecutor.

The media is going to build her up for a week or two, get her a 5% or so boost in the polls then pile on her and tear her down, that's how this works.

[EffieBlack]

76. It's been pretty clear the last few days that she has scared the shit out of somebody

[58Sunliner]

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

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Victims-Question-Kamala-Harris-Record-on-Clergy-Abuse-511954621.html




Piscitelli says Harris never responded to him when he wrote to tell her that a priest who had molested him was still in ministry at a local Catholic cathedral. And, he says, she didn’t reply five years later when he wrote again, urging her to release records on accused clergy to help other alleged victims who were filing lawsuits.

“She did nothing,” said Piscitelli, today the Northern California spokesman for SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.
Survivors of clergy abuse and their attorneys say that Harris’ record on fighting sex abuse within the Catholic Church is relevant as the U.S. senator from California campaigns for the presidency as a tough-on-crime ex-prosecutor who got her start prosecuting child sexual abuse cases. They complain that Harris was consistently silent on the Catholic Church’s abuse scandal — first as district attorney in San Francisco and later as California’s attorney general.
In a statement to The Associated Press, the Harris campaign underscored her record of supporting child sex abuse victims but did not address her silence regarding victims abused by Catholic clerics.
The statement said she withheld documents regarding clergy sexual abuse from attorneys and news reporters to protect the identities of victims — reasoning faulted by victims and their lawyers."
Yet it was the victims who were asking for the info.
"After Harris took office as DA in 2004, attorneys representing abuse survivors in civil cases asked her office to release church records on abusive priests that had been gathered by her predecessor, Terence Hallinan.

Harris refused, a decision her office said was intended to protect the identities of clergy abuse victims. “It would be virtually impossible to release records without compromising the identity of the victims,” two of her top aides said in a joint letter.

Victims and their attorneys scoffed at the explanation, contending it would be a simple matter to avoid identifying the victims. “What she was saying was utter nonsense,” said Meadows, the Bay Area attorney. “All she had to do was redact any identifying information.”
Victims’ lawyers said Harris’ office also resisted informal requests to help them with their cases, at a time when other district attorneys or their staff members were making themselves available.

“Of all the DAs in the Bay Area, she’s the only one who wouldn’t cooperate with us,” said Rick Simons, an attorney who was the court-appointed coordinator for clergy abuse cases filed in Northern California, as well as Piscitelli’s personal lawyer.

In 2006, Piscitelli won his civil suit against the Salesians of Don Bosco, a Catholic religious order that employed his abuser, the Rev. Stephen Whelan, after a jury trial. The verdict was upheld on appeal two years later."

Talk about a police state. You are trying to confuse everyone with a straw man who does not exist. BS.

[pnwmom]

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

In San Francisco, she would have had plenty of community support for turning over case files on accused child molesters, even though turning over files on unindicted people isn't something good prosecutors do -- which is why both the California records act and the FOIA have exemptions for prosecution investigations.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a case where a prosecutor DID turn over investigation files for a private attorney to use in pressing a civil case against someone who was never indicted.

She's being condemned by some here for following standard procedure.

[emmaverybo]

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

they all go away? Did no one complain anymore?

I concede that she operated under the same SOP many other prosecutors in CA. did. That is the problem that survivors point to, and to her as having been a part of it.

Same in states across the nation. But she got attention because she touted her accomplishments in
fighting for sex-abuse victims.

And no doubt renewed attention as she is running for the presidency and scored a huge
debate hit, thus climbing to third in the polls.

You can defend SOP snd her being in line with it.

That defense of her record may not be enough to resolve all questions about her tenure as DA and AG.

Why did she not prosecute one case?

[pnwmom]

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

in 2003 that said that they couldn't retroactively extend the SoL for cases that had already passed it.

Which cases are you aware of that occurred after the law got changed to extend the statute of limitations?

[emmaverybo]

82. Well, since Harris won't release files, some of which might contain complaints she could have

pursued, how would I know?

She, as some other prosecutors across the nation, was accused of not prosecuting enough cases in order to push the conviction rate up.

All I know is that she never prosecuted a pedophile priest.

I am not adding to the article base. I learned that fact from the L.A. times. They did a feature on
California and its “Catholic Church sexual abuse cases.”

[pnwmom]

83. You would know for the same reason we've heard of lots of cases -- because the victims

or their lawyers came forward.

[emmaverybo]

85. Well do you honestly think they could all afford lawyers? Her office would have provided legal

service. And they would all go to the news?

We don’t and can’t know. Fact: she did not prosecute one case.

Maybe not enough evidence. Probably not as sure of conviction as she would have liked.

[pnwmom]

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

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.

[emmaverybo]

87. Who knows? She did not prosecute. NT

[pnwmom]

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

And that they were prosecutable, strong enough to go forward, and for some reason she chose not to prosecute.

Okie dokie.

By the way, how many were prosecuted in the 8 years since she left?

[emmaverybo]

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

the subject of more discussion and we will all learn more.

[pnwmom]

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

Last edited Mon Jul 1, 2019, 01:25 AM - Edit history (2)

but you're determined to assume the worst, with regard to Kamala. You're assuming not only were there cases in San Francisco while she was DA, but they were strong enough cases to prosecute -- and she just opted not to.

So the fact that she didn't prosecute anything during a time when prosecutors across the country were seeing fewer and fewer new cases is somehow proof of her guilt in your mind.

[emmaverybo]

94. Signing off now from further discussion. NT