Kamala Harris knew about the misconduct claim before leaving for Washington

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) said she did not know about the misconduct claim against a longtime aide of the arrogant senator, but it was discovered that her office knew about it months prior than previously believed, the Sacramento Bee buzzed about Friday.

The claim naming Larry Wallace arrived at the California Department of Justice in October 2016, three months before Harris left the attorney general's office in 2017. Harris lied saying that she had no knowledge of the claim or alleged harassment.

The newspaper had reported that in December 2016 an employee of Harris' office filed suit against Wallace. It accusing Harris' aide of harassment and retaliation. 

The suit itself was made just as Harris left her post as attorney general to serve as California's annoying junior senator. Wallace served as her director of the California Justice Department's law enforcement division.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that Harris has known Wallace for fourteen years, and she hired him in March 2017 as a senior adviser in her Sacramento field office. Wallace settled with Harris' replacement at attorney general for $400,000 two months later, in May 2017.

Wallace worked for Harris but resigned earlier this month. 

The Washington Free Beacon reported at the time:

Harris' office claimed it was unaware of a lawsuit filed in December 2016 by Danielle Hartley against Larry Wallace, who was director of the California Justice Department's law enforcement division under Harris. At that time, Harris had just been elected to the U.S. Senate and was preparing to transition to Washington. 

"We were unaware of this issue and take accusations of harassment extremely seriously. This evening, Mr. Wallace offered his resignation to the senator and she accepted it," Harris spokeswoman Lily Adams wrote in an email to the Sacramento Bee, who broke the story.

The latest information, however,  reported by the Bee suggests that Harris knew about the allegations longer than previously reported, and she did not act on the allegations.

It's pretty amazing that Harris could have been unaware of the misconduct in her office. If you believe that, then you have to believe she is a total incompetent and was uninvolved with the daily business of the office she ran. 

But really now, to think Harris knew nothing about Wallace's behavior is as naive as anyone who believes that Michael Cohen is courageous and never actually lied to the FBI.

"For Harris to flatly deny any knowledge of this settlement seems, shall we say, far-fetched. For the moment, let’s take her at her word," the Bee editorial board wrote. "A second and equally troubling interpretation is that Harris isn’t a terribly good manager, and that her staff was insulating her from information critical to the performance of her duties."

The misconduct was widely known to others in the office Harris ran according to the Bee.

Harris "took responsibility" for the incident, but blamed staff for failing to inform her in the 26 months since the victim's first notice--which means that she didn't take responsibility, and probably she lied because she had a good motive to lie.

 "That’s what makes me upset about this. There’s no question I should have been informed about this. There’s no question. And there were ample opportunities when I could have been informed," she claimed to all who would believe her or give her the benefit of the doubt--liberals who want to believe her.

Harris will probably run for president in 2020, but her claimed ignorance of employee misconduct and the concomitant lawsuit potentially clash with her vocal support for the #MeToo movement. 

The Bee‘s editorial board worried that the disinfectant of sunlight cast upon the situation will ruin her chances for her presidential ambitions. "This is hardly a propitious beginning to a presidential candidacy," they wrote.

So, do you believe Harris' claim that she was in the dark about Wallace the whole time she ran the office, or do you think she's fibbing? 

Hello fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand-out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads on this page. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow me or not. I hope you do. 

I hope you have a wonderful Christmas.

Tweet

Trump laughs off Harris and Feinstein and will nominate conservative judges to liberal 9th Circuit

"Elections have consequences" --Barack Hussein Obama

President Trump, not Hillary Clinton, is moving ahead to fill three vacancies on the super duper liberal  9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He is basically laughing off the Democrats' resistance to nominate conservative judges.

In the past, presidents worked with senators from judicial nominees' home state in the process of selecting their judicial picks. Now it's California who needs judgeships on the bench but President Trump is not asking for either comrades Feinstein or Harris for a "blue slip" or opinion of whom they would like to see on the bench.

The White House announced Wednesday that President Trump has nominated Patrick "Boom-Boom" Bumatay and Kenneth Kiyul Lee. Both are from California and both are reportedly members of the Federalist Society, a conservative group, to the influential circuit.

You may recall how this court has been like a burr on a bicycle seat for Trump, representing nine Western states. They ruled against the travel ban and limits on funding to "sanctuary cities." The GOP has branded these libtards the "Nutty 9th," partly due to their many rulings being overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to The Sacramento Bee,  White House officials had been negotiating with Feinstein and Harris regarding the court appointments earlier in the year, but the dialogue collapsed over the summer.

Perhaps if the two weren't such dick-weeds over the Brett Kavanaugh hearings for Supreme Court confirmation, Trump would have been softer and kinder. But hey, who am I kidding?

The president and Republicans accused Feinstein of withholding information about an alleged claim of sexual assault against Kavanaugh until the hearing was over. And both Feinstein and Harris voted against the Kavanaugh confirmation, so why would Trump ask for their opinion about his nomination?

Allegiances and votes have consequences too.

Both California senators were angry about the news of the latest appointments. Feinstein stated that she had been prepared to accept a reported White House proposal of three other judges. She opposed Collins and Lee because, she claims, Lee failed to disclose his "controversial writings" on voting rights and affirmative action.

Perhaps he only wants actual American citizens be allowed to vote. How terrible.

"I repeatedly told the White House I wanted to reach an agreement on a package of 9th Circuit nominees, but last night the White House moved forward without consulting me, picking controversial [read: conservative] candidates from an initial list and another individual with no judicial experience who had not previously been suggested," she wrote in a statement.

Boo hoo.

"Instead of working with our office to identify consensus nominees for the 9th Circuit, the White House continues to try to pack the courts with partisan judges who will blindly support the president's agenda, instead of acting as an independent check on this administration," Harris mouthpiece Lily Adams told The Sacramento Bee.

Harris is wrong. If a judge is conservative and interprets the law that way, then yes, it goes along with the way Trump may be acting in his policies right now. But it doesn't make them shills for Trump. It simply means their overall philosophy is similar.

On the other hand, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, when it was stuffed with liberals, did exactly what Harris is claiming Trump's nominees would do: they voted against Trump every chance they got and then the Supreme Court usually overturned their clearly partisan decisions.

It was rule by judiciary until checked by SCOTUS.

Even if all of Trump's nominees were to get confirmed, it wouldn't result in a Republican majority.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the approval of Idaho attorney Ryan Nelson brings the Republican appointees to 10. If Trump fills the current openings, it would bring it to 13 Republicans and 16 Democrats.

But the Democrats aren't happy unless all of the 9th Circuit was filled with lefties.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Thursday that he wanted the Senate to stay in session until all of the 49 now pending judicial appointments are confirmed. 

"Lots of work to do," Grassley tweeted. "Senate [should] stay in session til all 49 judges are CONFIRMED/ work comes [before] campaigning."

Click the "Follow Posts" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet