Skip to main content

Disturbing statement from Kamala Harris

This is almost unbelievable:

“I can tell you of the cases where I really regret that we were not able to charge somebody that molested a child but the evidence wasn’t there.”

How in the fuck would we want a criminal prosecutor with the sort of mindset expressed here?  What is there to regret about not prosecuting a case where there isn't evidence?  It's not the place of a prosecutor to regret not being able to charge someone without evidence even if there is some extrajudicial standard that would lead someone to reasonably conclude that the suspect committed the crime.  How in the fuck would a prosecutor regret doing her job by the book?

Or let's try this rephrasing: "The evidence wasn't there but (I say) they did it."

What sort of epistemic standard is being used here?  Whatever it is, it ain't a good one.  If the evidence for X isn't there, then what leads her to say that X is the case?  What is she in a position to know that a juror couldn't?

Conversely: had she brought charges without adequate evidence, then would she not have regretted doing so?  (Regretting not doing so doesn't imply not regretting doing so, but still.  The question needs to be asked, and answered without evasion.)

Civil libertarians revile a certain kind of prosecutor -- exactly the kind who would say something as vicious as the above.

Giving her the benefit of the doubt -- that she isn't a total piece of shit who would give prosecutors a bad name -- we would say that she is merely a sloppy thinker-speaker (on matters of justice, no less).

And this is the candidate currently leading among Democrats in the betting markets?  (Let's not forget her and fellow Judiciary Committee Demon Rats' role and complicity in the epistemically reckless smears against Brett Kavanaugh.  Perhaps she regrets not being able to help nail Kavanaugh as a sexual predator due to lack of evidence?)

[Addendum: As for Harris's involvement in the smears against Kavanaugh, it gets worse than I had previously thought.  In addition to the surreal "gotcha" line of questioning (in the, uh, normal part of the hearing process) that should leave a bad taste in the mouth of anyone with common sense, she leaped off the very same epistemic cliff that other Demon Rats such as Sens. Gillibrand, Hirono and Senate Demon Rat leader Schumer threw themselves off of, and declared prior to a full inquiry that she believed Dr. Ford, Kavanaugh's accuser.  This right there damages her epistemic credibility.  Recall that the credibility of Ford's accusation boils down to this: she "remembers" her friend Leland Keyser at the supposed party in question as much as she "remembers" Kavanaugh being there; neither Keyser nor anyone else questioned under penalty of perjury shares Dr. Ford's memory of this supposed party.  If Sen. Harris regularly conducted herself as a prosecutor as disgracefully and slime-like as she did in regard to Kavanaugh, then that's cause for concern to anyone who cherishes justice.]

[Addendum #2: If you really want to piss off commonsense civil libertarians, one good way to do so is to throw your support behind civil asset forfeiture laws.  Harris doesn't disappoint there.  Couple this with a "believe the accuser before hearing both sides" and/or "regret not bringing charges without evidence" mentality and you've got a recipe for plenty of legalized scumbaggery.  For further evidence of Harris scumbaggery, see in particular items 10 and 15 here.]

[Addendum #3: It has been pointed out to me by a prosecutor (an Objectivist who, qua Objectivist, upholds the virtue of honesty as a life-or-death principle, so there's no room for fucking around here) that there are rules of evidence that make the totality of evidence available to prosecutors wider than the evidence that is admissible at trial.  Fair enough.  There must be good reasons for such rules to be in effect, to constrain what the state can do against the accused.  So how is that cause for regret?]


Popular posts from this blog

Make Presidents Great Again

or: What Would Marcus Aurelius Tweet?

The first four presidents of the United States - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison - were philosophical people.  They loved, cherished, and pursued (and may even have attained to some extent) wisdom.  (The American Philosophical Society [APS] of which they were members was co-founded by Ben Franklin; let's call the aforementioned the Big Five of the American Founding.)  It's not a stretch to say that had America's founding generation not been of the intellectual and moral caliber that they were - had they not been the sort of people who would found or become members of a philosophical society - America probably wouldn't be the great nation it has been.

Unfortunately, their legacy has been squandered, to the point that we have the shitshow of today.  Having an uncouth, unread man as president - elected mainly on the promise of taking on the (intellectually bankrupt and therefore) corrupt swamp that is D.C. - is but a symptom of th…

#BlackLivesMatter, #EqualPay and the Anthem

The athletes disrespecting the flag and country during the National Anthem should do better than Trump.  Instead of sowing further division and sending all kinds of the wrong message (and Kaepernick and by extension Nike definitely crossed over the line with the Betsy Ross flag thing without even so much as a word of dialogue with flag- and country-lovers - roughly as shameful and disgraceful as Google's rebuttal-by-firing of James Damore[*]), they should use their creative powers to both respect the flag and send their message.

[*] - This particularly ugly episode in "woke social justice" history has me believing with at least 98% confidence that Rectenwald has these anti-dialogue cultists dead to rights.  I cannot abide these aspiring mini-Maos; disgusting creatures.  I won't even touch the trans issue with a ten foot pole given the rampant toxicity/radioactivity there I've seen just on surface inspection.  If an entity like Google fucks up as badly as it did wi…

Inn Video on Demand (VOD) Technology

As the name proposes, the innovation permits the visitors in lodgings to watch recordings on request which may incorporate motion pictures, music or more assortment of recordings, for example, narratives, travel recordings and so on. Right now will investigate the VOD innovation that sudden spikes in demand for Internet Protocols or IP in short. This is the most recent, productive and helpful innovation starting today.

How to assemble Hotel VOD framework?

A fundamental Hotel VOD framework running on IP convention involves five primary innovation parts -


Streamer or gushing server

Decoder or Set top box

Supporter and Content administration framework/OSS

Encryption and DRM

How about we investigate elements of every one of these segments -

Encoder - The encoder basically convert the source content into fitting codec, for example, MPEG2 or H.264 and bundles it in suitable streamable organization like MPEG2 TS to make it work adequately as an "On request" content. The mo…