The queen of the #MeToo movement in DC, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), who is also allegedly planning to run for President in 2020, has found herself in a bit of a pickle. It turns out that one of her top staffers in DC, who previously worked for her at the CA Department of Justice, had to pay a substantial sum of cash to make a sexual harassment charge go away.
Much like Hillary Clinton, another Democrat presidential hopeful, Harris claims not to have any knowledge of her senior advisor’s settlement with the plaintiff. Ironically, the hypocritical Senator introduced a bill to address workplace sexual harassment, which included a ban on employers who require their workers to agree to non-disclosure clauses.
The Sacramento Bee reports – A longtime top staff member of U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris resigned Wednesday after The Sacramento Bee inquired about a $400,000 harassment and retaliation settlement resulting from his time working for Harris at the California Department of Justice.
Larry Wallace, who served as the director of the Division of Law Enforcement under then-Attorney General Harris, was accused by his former executive assistant in December 2016 of “gender harassment” and other demeaning behavior, including frequently asking her to crawl under his desk to change the paper in his printer.
The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 30, 2016, when Harris was still attorney general but preparing to be sworn in as California’s newly elected Democratic senator. It was settled less than five months later, in May 2017, by Xavier Becerra, who was appointed to replace her as attorney general.
By that time, Wallace had transitioned to work for Harris as a senior advisor in her Sacramento office.
“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.
Harris, who has said she will decide over the holidays whether to run for president in 2020, has been a prominent figure in the #MeToo movement against workplace sexual harassment. Last year, she was among a group of female senators that were the first to call for the resignation of Sen. Al Franken after multiple women accused him of sexual misconduct, and she introduced a bill in June to ban forced nondisclosure agreements in harassment settlements.
Senator Kamala Harris, was one of the Democrat Senators who led the charge to destroy Justice Bret Kavanaugh’s life. In the uncomfortable exchange below, Harris can be seen grilling Kavanaugh on his connection to the Mueller investigation.
During her questioning, Harris asked Kavanaugh, “Have you had any conversation about Robert Mueller or his investigation with anyone at” the law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres.
Kavanaugh responded by saying he wasn’t sure who works at that specific firm, which employs an estimated 300 people.
Harris begins with a vague, leading question that can be misinterpreted in any number of ways. The senator then belittles the witness by claiming the question isn’t complicated. She then offers to clarify the question, all the while pretending to be precise, and then restates her original, confusing line of inquiry almost verbatim.
This sort of interrogation is designed to trick a scared and ill-informed suspect into saying something that can later be twisted and used against him by the prosecution. In many cases, this tactic works. But Kavanaugh was smart enough to insist on precise language, much to Harris’ obvious chagrin. Unfortunately, a lot of the people who get caught up in the criminal justice system don’t have Kavanaugh’s background or presence of mind. These people often find themselves on the losing end of the underhanded word games preferred by prosecutors like Harris.
All of this is to say: Wednesday’s interaction between Harris and Kavanaugh reminds me of the senator’s shameful record when she served as the district attorney of San Francisco and as California’s attorney general.
In that position, she was a petty tyrant who regularly advocated for absurdly harsh penalties, all while protecting her corrupt friends in government. She was a cheerleader for civil asset forfeiture. She championed an anti-truancy law that called for a $2,000 fine and jail time for the parents (by 2012, two mothers were imprisoned in California under this law). She even opposed attempts to do away with the state’s draconian three-strikes law, which called for life sentences for a third “strike” even if it was only a minor felony.
Watch the exchange here: