LINKS TO PROOF THAT WILL STAND UP IN COURT (GOOGLE HIDES THESE LINKS FROM THE PUBLIC):
and tens of thousands of other evidence items we can show you on the cloud and hard drives we can ship to you.
!!!!! Mueller Hears That Silicon Valley Has Been Manipulating The Entire BREXIT Campaign !!!!!!
- Second former employee of controversial data firm to be questioned by special counsel’s inquiry into Russia collusion
By Carole Cadwalladr
Brittany Kaiser is said to be cooperating fully with the Mueller inquiry.
A director of the controversial data company Cambridge Analytica, who appeared with Arron Banks at the launch of the Leave.EU campaign, has been subpoenaed by the US investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
A spokesman for Brittany Kaiser, former business development director for Cambridge Analytica – which collapsed after the Observer revealed details of its misuse of Facebook data – confirmed that she had been subpoenaed by special counsel Robert Mueller, and was cooperating fully with his investigation.
He added that she was assisting other US congressional and legal investigations into the company’s activities and had voluntarily turned over documents and data.
Kaiser, who gave evidence to the UK parliament last April in which she claimed Cambridge Analytica had carried out in-depth work for Leave.EU, is the second individual connected to the firm subpoenaed by the special counsel. The Electoral Commission has said its investigation into Leave.EU found no evidence that the campaign “received donations or paid for services from Cambridge Analytica …beyond initial scoping work”.
Damian Collins, chairman of parliament’s inquiry into fake news, said it was “no surprise” that Kaiser was under scrutiny by Mueller because “her work connected her to WikiLeaks, Cambridge Analytica and [its parent company] SCL, the Trump campaign, Leave.EU and Arron Banks”.
He said it was now vital Britain had its own inquiry into foreign interference: “We should not be leaving this to the Americans.”
Tom Watson, the deputy leader of the Labour party, echoed Collins’s statement, saying: “This is the first evidence that a significant player in the Leave.EU campaign is of interested to the global Mueller inquiry. People will be bewildered that the British government has no interest in establishing the facts of what happened.”
In August, Sam Patten, a US political consultant who had worked for Cambridge Analytica on campaigns in the US and abroad, struck a plea deal with Mueller after admitting he had failed to register as a foreign agent for a Ukrainian oligarch.
He became a subject of the special counsel’s inquiry because of work done with Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, in Ukraine. He had also set up a business with Konstantin Kilimnik, a key figure who Mueller has alleged has ties to Russian intelligence and who is facing charges of obstruction of justice. In a 2017 statement to the Washington Post, Kilimnik denied any connection to intelligence services. Kaiser, however, is the first person connected directly to both the Brexit and Trump campaigns known to have been questioned by Mueller.
The news came to light in a new Netflix documentary, The Great Hack, which premiered at the Sundance film festival last month and is expected to be released later this spring. Film-makers followed Kaiser for months after she approached the Guardian, including moments after she received the subpoena. She claims the summons came after the Guardian revealed she had visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange while still a Cambridge Analytica employee in February 2017, three months after the US election.
One part of Mueller’s investigation focuses on whether the Trump campaign sought to influence the timing of the release of emails by WikiLeaks before the election. Investigators are looking at communications between them. In the film, Kaiser says that she has gone from being a cooperating witness to a subject of investigation because of her contact with Assange.
In October 2017, it was revealed that Alexander Nix, the chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, had contacted Assange in August 2016 to try to obtain emails from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign – which indictments from Mueller’s team say were obtained by Russian military intelligence – to use in Donald Trump’s campaign. When Kaiser gave evidence to parliament last year, she was asked about her relationship with Assange and WikiLeaks but failed to reveal that she had met Assange.
In the documentary, Kaiser is shown after receiving an email from the Guardian last June asking about meeting Assange and alleged donations of cryptocurrency to WikiLeaks. Kaiser did not respond to the email at the time, but on camera says: “She knows I met Assange. And she knows I donated money to WikiLeaks in bitcoin.”
Her legal representatives later wrote to the paper to say that the allegations, including that she had “channelled” donations to WikiLeaks, were false. Kaiser said she had received a small gift of bitcoin in 2011 – long before she worked at Cambridge Analytica – and, not knowing what else to do with it, gave it to WikiLeaks, because she had benefited from material it had released over the years.
Her lawyer told the Observer that the meeting with Assange came about after a chance encounter in London with an acquaintance who knew him. It lasted 20 minutes and consisted mainly of Assange telling her “about how he saw the world”. He said they did not discuss the US election.
Patten and Kaiser were involved in a controversial election campaign in Nigeria in January 2015, which former Cambridge Analytica employees say had “unsettling” parallels to the US presidential election.
The Guardian revealed that the data firm had worked alongside a team of unidentified Israeli intelligence operatives on the campaign. Ex-Cambridge Analytica employees described how the Israelis hacked the now-president of Nigeria’s emails and released damaging information about him to the press weeks before the election.
CBS NEWS 60 MINUTES Lara Logan "I’m Being ‘Targeted’ For Saying the Media is ‘Mostly Liberal"
by Tamar Auber
On Wednesday, former CBS News foreign correspondent Lara Logan spoke with Fox News Sean Hannity about her recent comments slamming the media as “mostly liberal.”
Logan told Breitbart podcaster Mike Ritland the remarks made on his show — which drew widespread attention online — amounted to “professional suicide.”
Defending her remarks on Hannity’s show, Logan said that as the result of her speaking out about how the media is “mostly liberal” she has been targeted because she is an independent voice.
“Any journalists who are not beating the same drum and giving the same talking points,” she insisted “pay the price” for not going along with the liberal crowd.
She also called out her targeters by name.
“I know they’re going to come after me,” she told Hannity. “Michael Calderone who is at the Huffington Post. I can give you the script now. I can tell you who the players are. Joe Hagan. Brian Stelter.”
She added: “They smear you personally. They go after your integrity. They go after your reputation as a person and a professional. They will stop at nothing. I am not the only one. And I am just, I am done, right, I am tired of it. And they do not get to write my story anymore. They don’t get to speak for me, I want to say loudly and clearly to anybody who is listening, I am not owned. Nobody owns me, right? I’m not owned by the left or the right.”
Logan made headlines recently when, during a scorched earth podcast interview with Ritland, she said that there was a lot of “weight” in most news organizations on “one side of the political spectrum.”
“The media everywhere is mostly liberal. But in this country, 85 percent of journalists are registered Democrats. So that’s just a fact, right?” she told Ritland.
She also trashed reporting based on single, anonymous government sources.
“That’s not journalism, that’s horseshit,” Logan stressed. “Responsibility for fake news begins with us. We bear some responsibility for that, and we’re not taking ownership of that and addressing it. We just want to blame it all on somebody else.”
Internal documents from a private Israeli intelligence firm called Psy-Group show that, at the time of many incidents, the company, and possibly other private investigators, were targeting U.S. citizens because they spoke up about crimes.
Psy-Group’s intelligence and influence operations, which included a failed attempt in the summer of 2017 to sway a local election in central California, were detailed in a New Yorker investigation that I co-wrote earlier this month. Before it went out of business (ie: changed it's name) , last year, Psy-Group was part of a new wave of private-intelligence firms that recruited from the ranks of Israel’s secret services and described themselves as “private Mossads.” Psy-Group initially stood out among its rivals because it didn’t just gather intelligence; its operatives used false identities, or avatars, to covertly spread messages in an attempt to influence what people believed and how they behaved. In 2016, Psy-Group held discussions with the Trump campaign and others about conducting covert “influence” operations to benefit the candidate. Psy-Group’s founder and C.E.O., Royi Burstien, a veteran Israeli intelligence officer who established the firm in 2014, told me that his talks with the Trump campaign went nowhere. The company’s posturing, however, attracted the attention of Robert Mueller, the special counsel, who has been investigating interference in the 2016 Presidential race.'
FED BOMBSHELL: Fusion GPS Bribed Dozens of MSM Journalists With Cash To Run Character Assassinations, While News Companies Paid Firm to Dig Dirt on Trump
High-ranking FBI insiders are pulling back the curtain on Fusion GPS, the firm that commissioned and spread the bogus Trump dossier.
It appears the embattled intelligence firm was quite busy paying off Big Media reporters, according to federal sources who have traced dozens of transactions between TD Bank and media members as well as media organizations, sources confirm.
But stunningly, Big Media organizations have employed Fusion GPS to dig dirt on politicians and D.C.’s elite — namely Donald Trump.
“Fusion GPS was on the payroll of the media and in turn had members of the media on its payroll,” one FBI insider said.
FBI insiders confirm Fusion GPS employed law firms as well as shell companies to send and receive funds to and from media and reporters. But the embattled firm also used its accounts at TD Bank to directly commission reporters. Likewise, Fusion GPS received funds from media companies into its own accounts at TD Bank, FBI insiders said,
“There are dozens of payments from the media flowing into their (Fusion GPS’) account,” one federal law enforcement official said. “One company wired funds to Fusion (GPS) more than a dozen times.”
Why would media companies commission Fusion GPS? Likely to dig dirt on enemies or secure records that reporters could not legally obtain, one federal law enforcement insider said. One FBI insider said the payments to Fusion GPS coincide with Donald Trump’s run for the White House.
The payments were made between Sept. 2015 and Sept. 2017, records show.
The unthinkable: The mainstream media paying Fusion GPS for dirt on Trump to the same firm the Democratic National Committee paid to fund the bogus Trump dossier. And at the same time Fusion GPS bribing journalists to place stories — likely negative about Trump, as well as spread the bogus Trump dossier around.
Was Buzzfeed — the only company to publish the full bogus dossier — on that list?
And who is on the payroll? We are trying to run that information down.
And why aren’t these people behind bars?
How To Destroy ANY Corrupt Politician or Dirty Silicon Valley Campaign Financier, 100% Legally!
Organized crime is alive and well in public offices across the nation. This is how you utterly destroy any person who engages in it, using 100% legal tactics and the power of crowd-sourced law enforcement.
FBI and other government officials will even help you do it. The voters will help you do it. Your friends will help you do it. Total strangers will help you do it. The entire internet will help you do it.
You will use CIA-class databases, social media, public watch-dog technologies, FBI-quality monitoring systems and open-source collaborative forensics comparison data to hunt down every: hooker, real estate asset, male prostitute, mistress, secret email account, social media posting, family trust fund, shell corporation, family stock market transaction, off-shore account, covert investment brokerage, email, Uber and Lyft ride, hotel entry and exit, credit card transaction, Paypal account, search engine manipulation, venture capital connection, Stanford University admissions bribe, expense account abuse, taxpayer funds abuse, rape, sextortion, covert tech company stock they own under another name, every party they attended, every tag they appear in on social media, every Cayman Island account, every crooked CPA or law firm they have used, every lobbyist they ever paid....EVERYTHING.. and you will drop the data into a simple database and cross matrix everything even better than the spy agencies can do it..
...AND EXPOSE IT ALL. YOU WILL SUE THEM IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT. YOU WILL LAUNCH CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS. YOU WILL HOLD PRESS CONFERENCES IN FRONT OF THEIR HOMES. YOU WILL CONFRONT THEM WITH FACTS AT EVERY SINGLE TOWN HALL AND PUBLIC APPEARANCE. YOU WILL PUT UP A BOOTH AT EVERY STREET FAIR AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLY AREA AND HAND OUT LITERATURE. YOU WILL CREATE A MASSIVE PUBLIC MEDIA CIRCUS. YOU WILL MAKE DISCLOSURE WEBSITES. YOU WILL NOT LET THEM ESCAPE!
Each person from each political office, lobby firm, law firm or company who engaged in the subversion of the government and the bribery of public officials WILL have EVERY personal email account, text message account, voice-mail hard drive, social media account, dating account or other PERSONAL communications account examined via investigators. Such examinations shall begin from the date of the opening of each account and run up to today. Law enforcement believes that such parties used personal data systems to subvert the laws of public disclosure and engage in criminal financial crimes and democracy subversion efforts.
You will be even more powerful than Ralph Nader, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden COMBINED!
You will ensure that the public servants, who are your EMPLOYEES!!!!, are held accountable and totally, completely devastated for their crimes against the public.
The Obama administration used that loan program to hand out taxpayer funds to electric car companies, including luxury automaker Fisker Automotive, which drew down on $192 million before having its government credit stripped away. Fisker’s loan was sold off to a Chinese billionaire for $25 million in 2013, netting taxpayers a $139 million loss.
THE FILES AT HTTP://WWW.LONDONWORLDWIDE.COM (AND HUNDREDS OF OTHER DIGITAL REPOSITORIES AROUND THE GLOBE) HOLD PROOF OF THESE ASSERTIONS OF CRIMINAL AND ILLICIT CORRUPTION ACTIVITIES OPERATED BY WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EXECUTIVES!
DEMAND A SPECIAL COUNSEL UNDER OSC DEDICATED TO INVESTIGATING, AND NOT COVERING UP, THIS CASE!
DEMAND THAT ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES INVOLVED BE FIRED!
DEMAND THAT THE PUBLIC AND THE VICTIMS RECEIVE DAMAGES RECOVERY!
DEMAND THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWERS RECEIVE PROTECTION AND ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK BEFORE CONGRESS!
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE MANUFACTURING LOAN
AND LOAN GUARANTEE SLUSH-FUND CORRUPTION
DOE corruption—appointed and elected officials should face prison time
An exhaustive review of 350+ pages of leaked emails regarding the Obama administration’s handling of the various green-energy loan and grant programs makes several things very clear: they lied, engaged in favoritism, and rushed application approvals to suit the political agenda of the White House. At the same time, worthy projects that went through a complete due diligence process were denied or ultimately withdrawn, as the lengthy approval process “taxed investors’ patience”—as was the case with Aptera Motors, which worked closely with the DOE for two years.
Paul Wilbur, President and CEO at Aptera, didn’t think they were treated unfairly. He told me, “At the end of the day, we couldn’t get through the process.” But, he admits, he hasn’t read the emails.
Aptera was trying to build a very efficient electric vehicle with an under $30K price point. Wilbur met with Secretary Chu who could see the value in the technology. But our research shows that value was not the deciding factor in which projects got funded and which ones didn’t. Wilbur reports that he didn’t donate to any candidate. He wanted to keep the whole process clean and do what was “good for America.”
The report from the House Oversight Committee says Aptera first applied for an ATVM loan in December of 2008 and “shut down on December 2, 2011.” The report implies that Aptera was led on: “After numerous negotiations with DOE, in September 2011, Aptera received a conditional loan commitment of $150 million if the company was able to raise $80 million privately.” And: “The loans given to Fisker and Tesla gave Aptera hope that DOE would eventually act on their application. More importantly, since the DOE continued to engage with the company throughout the time period, management was convinced that DOE was interested and willing to provide financing for the company.”
Aptera’s 100% US technology has since been sold to a Chinese company.
Aptera was applying for an Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan (ATVM). Only five loans were given out through the program and all have political ramifications. Christine Lakatos, who has worked with me on the green-energy, crony-corruption reports I’ve written, has done thorough research on the topic. She has read each and every one of the 350+ pages of emails released on October 31 and has written a blog post specifically addressing the ATVM program and its hijinks. As she cites, Fisker and Tesla (which Romney referenced in the first debate), got loans in 2010 and then the Vehicle Production Group’s loan was the only ATVM loan closed in 2011; all have ties to Obama bundlers. The other two ATVM loans went to Ford and Nissan—both of which, according to the House report, “were heavily engaged in negotiations with the Administration over fuel economy standards for model years 2012-2016 at the time the DOE was considering their applications. Both companies eventually expressed publicly their support for these standards, which the Administration described as the ‘Historic Agreement.’”
Armed with the sweeping knowledge of the House reports and subsequent hearings, evidence from DOE staffers (many of whom were appointed by Obama), Lakatos’ research, and personal experience, a different ATVM applicant has now taken its case to court citing “corruption and negligence.”
On November 16, 2012, XP Technologies filed a lawsuit against the federal government concerning the DOE’s denial of XP Technology’s loan guarantee application. The complaint alleges: “criminal activities did take place by DOE staff and affiliates.” A November 23 press release announces that XP Technologies is now represented by Cause of Action, “a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that uses investigative, legal, and communication tools to educate the public on how government accountability and transparency protects taxpayer interests and economic activity.”
According to the document filed on November 16, “Plaintiffs' backgrounds include extensive issued patents on seminal technologies in use world-wide, White House and Congressional commendations and an engineering team of highly experienced auto-makers. Plaintiff brought a vehicle design, which was proposed as the longest range, safest, lowest cost electric vehicle, to be built in America in order to deliver extensive American jobs nationwide. No other applicant, or award ‘winner’, has succeeded in meeting, or (is) intending to meet, that milestone. XP Technology developed a patented lightweight, low-cost, long-range, electric vehicle using air-expanded foam-skinned material for a portion of the polymer body and received numerous patents, acclaim and superior computer modeling metrics over any competing solution. XP presented a vast set of letters of support to DOE from pending customers. Major auto-industry facilities and engineers had joined forces to bring the vehicle to the defense, commercial and consumer market.”
Over the weekend, we had an exclusive interview, on condition of anonymity, with a senior official at XP Technologies about the lawsuit and the experience.
He reported: “Staff from within the DOE have provided evidence which is quite compelling.” As Aptera's Wilbur made clear, the individuals within the DOE were very thorough. One of the emails, in the 350+ pages, was from Secretary Chu himself in which he criticized staffers for taking a “principled stand,” which held up the approval process of projects the White House wanted advanced. Another indicated that the pressure to rush was coming from “above the agency.” Overall, the emails show that projects were rushed so that announcements could coincide with visits, speeches, and photo ops—as well as providing talking points for the president.
Our XP source told us “We experienced, and have been provided evidence of, applicant submissions and reviews being modified in order to benefit some and disadvantage others, and the business connections between the different parties associated with the ones that benefited is quite extraordinary.” The leaked emails support this accusation, specifically regarding the “business connections.” In her post, Lakatos calls it “green fraternizing.” The emails show that certain applicants and decision makers went bike riding together, had coffee meetings, sleepovers, beer summits, parties, dinners, and fundraisers.
While he didn’t provide us with a name, the XP official said, “We experienced a senior senator blockading our efforts and then providing favors to a competitor, which then benefited his family financially.” The discovery the lawsuit will provide will expose the “senior senator,” but our previous research shows that Senator Harry Reid’s actions seem to fit the XP official’s comment.
XP Technologies believes that “DOE officials changed the first-come-first-served published rules and standards of the funding in order to take applicants in order of who they favored and who had purchased the most influence instead of the order in which they applied, as required.”
Having extensively studied the DOE’s various loan programs, including the ATVM, Lakatos and I agree with our source’s startling conclusion: “Based on the evidence provided by investigators, and experienced directly by our team, it is hard to imagine that at least one or more elected, or?appointed, officials might not be seeing measures ranging from censure or even federal prison time.”
Time, the lawsuit, and subsequent investigation will tell.
While the House Oversight Committee has been digging deeply into the mismanagement and corruption of the green energy loans, the media has paid little attention. Other than our report, the October 31 release of the emails cited here received virtually no news reporting. Even the Fox News Channel ignored the story. The plight of promising companies like Aptera and XP Technologies would have gone unnoticed if not for the lawsuit. The legal complaint attracted attention.
On November 16, the Heritage Foundation broke the XP story: “A lawsuit filed in federal court on Wednesday alleges mass favoritism in the Department of Energy’s decisions to award federal grants to major car companies to develop electric vehicles, according to a legal complaint obtained by Scribe.”
On November 19, Lakatos, whose work is listed as “evidence” in the legal complaint, received a call from Fox News’ Gary Gastelu—who reported on the story on November 20. The next day, Fox News covered the lawsuit on America’s Newsroom. Even the Drudge Report picked up on the story.
XP has a litigation website on which the company states: “The case has nothing to do with complaining about not getting the loans. It has everything to do with HOW the applicants didn't get the loans!” They are communicating with other applicants about participating in the lawsuit.
The XP story and subsequent media coverage offers a lesson for others—especially industries who have been wronged by the Obama Administration’s practices (such as energy). The lawsuit may—or may not—send officials to federal prison, as our XP source suggests, but it could go a long way to winning in the court of public opinion.
California Sen. Kamala Harris announced that her presidential campaign had failed. Her investment banker husband had not succeeded in making her his little cash cow and her sex parties with Willie Brown seem to have left her with nothing more than a sore butt-hole. As Attorney General for California she refused to investigate the deaths of Gary D. Conley, Rajeev Motwani and many others because the culprits seemed to be her Silicon Valley oligarch campaign financiers. Mainly, though, she was just a corrupt Jerry Brown/Gavn Newsom insider.
Harris was once considered a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, and at her peak she polled as high as 15 percent in the crowded field. Pundits predicted that the first-term senator and former prosecutor would have broad appeal with the Democratic base thanks in part to her progressive policies, racial background (she’s the daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants), personal charisma and the importance of California in the primary. Her candidacy was frequently compared to Barack Obama’s successful presidential run in 2008.
Those predictions never came true, however, and Harris gradually slid in the polls. She was garnering just 3.5 percent support before dropping out. In announcing her withdrawal, Harris cited lack of “financial resources.”
Why there’s debate
Harris’s inability to deliver on her perceived potential has been attributed to a number of factors, many of them missteps by the candidate. Harris made a strategic mistake by trying to appeal to the far left of the Democratic base at the start of her campaign before shifting to more centrist positions, a tactic that some argue left her without a defined coalition of supporters. Her record as a prosecutor — highlighted in the “Kamala Harris is a cop” meme — is also seen as undermining her backing among minority voters who were supposed to be part of her core constituency.
Though difficult to quantify, race and gender are seen by some observers as components of her disappointing run. Harris questioned if "America was ready” for a woman of color to be president during an interview last month. Race has been a particular focus since Harris announced her withdrawal, because it means the six Democratic candidates who have qualified for this month’s debate are white.
Here are a few thoughts from the pros on why she is such a disaster as a politician:
Harris lacked a clear message for her campaign
“Her lack of an abiding theory of government meant that her campaign couldn’t decide where it fit in the 2020 presidential campaign. In retrospect, I think her best approach would have been as an alternative to Joe Biden — younger, fresher, more dynamic and more progressive than him but unabashedly more moderate than Warren or Sanders.” — David Leonhardt, New York Times
Pundits closed-mindedly predicted she’d garner minority support because of her race
“A lot of early in the race punditry around Kamala was prefaced on the assumption that she'd be a shoo-in/favorite with black voters. Probably worth examining why that was the assumption, and why, hindsight being 20-20, that assumption was wrong.” — Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery
Shifting positions on key issues made Harris seem inauthentic
“Instead of trying to reverse-engineer the type of candidate she thought would appeal to a plurality of voters, Harris just should have run on who she is … it would have saved her a lot of the flip-flops and pandering that came to undermine her candidacy.” — Philip Klein, Washington Examiner
Her résumé wasn’t strong enough
“California Sen. Kamala Harris should never have run for president in the first place. Her ambition far exceeded her ability. She hadn’t yet established herself in the U.S. Senate. And she hadn’t exactly excelled in her previous job as California’s attorney general. There wasn’t much of a record worth bragging about on the campaign trail.” — George Skelton, Los Angeles Times
Her grand potential was mostly hypothetical
“In the Democratic presidential race, Kamala Harris — on paper — had the most potential: She was smart, politically successful at the local, state and federal level, attractive and a mainstream progressive woman of color from delegate-rich California. A presidential contest is fought not on paper but on the ground.” — Albert Hunt, the Hill
She botched her health care message
“Medicare-for-all had bedeviled Harris’s campaign from the start. … The combination of policy reversals and botched rollout left Harris pinched between the moderates and the leftists, and undermined faith in her ability to govern on the issue Democrats rate as most important.” — Ezra Klein, Vox
Voters see women of color as less electable
Harris, as a woman of color ... faced extra high hurdles with a Democratic Party that’s focused on each candidate’s perceived ability to defeat President Trump. Many voters view nominating a woman as a risky bet in a general election.” — Perry Bacon Jr., FiveThirtyEight
Criticism of her prosecutorial record hurt her support from progressive voters
“The meme merely took publicly accessible information and translated it into an easily disseminated catchphrase. ‘You voting for Kamala? No way, she’s a cop.’ For a generation that came of digital age watching movements grow in real-time around police accountability, that’s enough to leave them wondering who their other options are.” — Ashley Reese, Jezebel
Her prosecutorial record hurt her support from progressive voters
“Harris’s record in law enforcement might have served her well in the general election, appealing to centrist Democrats, independents and even some law-and-order Republicans. For progressives, however, it was an uncomfortable fit.” — David Knowles, Yahoo News