Post by ray on Aug 14, 2019 3:38:21 GMT
The article confirms that she did in fact laugh about personal use of cannabis whilst she has been putting people in prison for the same reason, although it is thought that the number of people locked up is lower than the number used by Gabbard.
It also confirms that she did refuse the advance DNA testing for the man on death row until she was pressured by US media. She claims that the decision was made by lower level attorneys. I call bullshit. A man on death row for quadruple murder appealing for a new advanced DNA test wasn't looked over by Harris? No chance.
It's a fact that prisoners were being used as for basically slave labour. It happened under her watch.
She's dead wood.
[/quote]
I’m not sure we read the same article??? It says she laughed when asked about another politicians views on marijuana legislation, not the people being locked up for marijuana crimes. It explains further that the marijuana convictions reduced by 90% during her tenure as state AG.
The part about keeping someone in jail is completely disingenuous. A decision was made below her level to not allow the new DNA evidence. A bad decision that she should have involved herself with. As soon as it came to her attention, via a news article, she stepped in and changed the decision. What makes the claim disingenuous is that when the new DNA evidence was allowed, it did NOT exonerate the person, he remains on death row for killing 4 people.
The part about convicts being kept after their sentence was found to be false.
I’m not looking to start a fight, but did you read all of it?
It also confirms that she did refuse the advance DNA testing for the man on death row until she was pressured by US media. She claims that the decision was made by lower level attorneys. I call bullshit. A man on death row for quadruple murder appealing for a new advanced DNA test wasn't looked over by Harris? No chance.
It's a fact that prisoners were being used as for basically slave labour. It happened under her watch.
She's dead wood.
[/quote]
I’m not sure we read the same article??? It says she laughed when asked about another politicians views on marijuana legislation, not the people being locked up for marijuana crimes. It explains further that the marijuana convictions reduced by 90% during her tenure as state AG.
The part about keeping someone in jail is completely disingenuous. A decision was made below her level to not allow the new DNA evidence. A bad decision that she should have involved herself with. As soon as it came to her attention, via a news article, she stepped in and changed the decision. What makes the claim disingenuous is that when the new DNA evidence was allowed, it did NOT exonerate the person, he remains on death row for killing 4 people.
The part about convicts being kept after their sentence was found to be false.
I’m not looking to start a fight, but did you read all of it?
