The Jamal Trulove story has been around for a while, and he recently did a big podcast. Way back in 2019, Vice covered the wrongful conviction. I think this was around the time he got his settlement.
What irritates me is that fact-checkers often home in on one detail in order to pronounce a story false. They do this when it's stated that Biden gave the eulogy at Sen. Robert Byrd's funeral, calling him a dear friend and mentor, and Byrd was actually a Grand Dragon in the KKK. That story is often fact-checked as top-to-bottom false when it's all TRUE except for one detail. Byrd was never the Grand Dragon. He had a different title, I think it was Exalted Cyclops or something silly-sounding like that. It is a very high title--he was at the upper levels of the organization. He was just never the Grand Dragon. So yes, Biden (as sitting VP) eulogized Byrd in 2010 and yes, Byrd was a member of the KKK. Fact-checkers can say it's not true all they want, but it's true except for Byrd's title.
Well, that's kind of been happening but with less success with Jamal Trulove. Kamala Harris was the DA during his trial. She did not prosecute the case, because a DA runs the office and rarely gets in the court-room trenches. Somebody else was the attorney for the prosecution. Plus the two people found to have falsified and hidden evidence were the two officers involved. So there is a story going around by fact-checkers that Kamala had nothing to do with this---she wasn't the attorney and she was never convicted of withholding the evidence. However, Kamala was the DA. The attorney prosecuting Trulove worked for Kamala and Kamala had to sign off on at least some of the paperwork relating to the case. Politifact, for instance, says "Kamala Harris didn't frame and prosecute a man for murder." That's like saying Vito Corleone wasn't a gangster because he didn't do his own wet work.
I think the Trulove story is going to grow some long legs because no matter what Politifact says, Harris was a cheerleader for the witness. She called her brave, authorized getting her new housing, applauded her at every turn. Of course back then in 2007, Kamala wanted to be AG of California and she needed some convictions under her belt to get there.
I hope it opens the door wide to look at some other Kamala convictions. There's a lot of stories there. Another one (less well known) is how a mentally ill woman named Teresa Sheehan in 2008 (again, the year Harris needs more convictions) was in crisis--I don't know exactly what that means--but cops got called. She brandished a knife and threatened them, so they first pepper sprayed her, but when that didn't work, they shot her. Now the miracle in this story is that the Sheehan (the mentally ill woman) survived. So Kamala Harris's office charged the mentally ill woman with criminal threats and assault. (She was acquitted and got a $1M settlement later on.)
There are more of these. Now there are 2 ways to look at Harris's career as a prosecutor. Either she was deliberately framing innocent people (to boost her conviction rate) or she had no idea what her office was even doing. In other words, some say maybe her office was just running amok and while Harris spent her working hours at some wine bistro getting sloshed. (Watch the emerging stories of how Kamala is an alcoholic--they're starting to come out. I have a feeling Kamala isn't the "heir apparent" that she thinks she is. The alcoholic stories are being placed almost entirely by the left.)
But right now, I'm watching the DNC. I don't know why, but I think it's going to be very eventful. At the very least, it'll be historical. I love how Democrats have found voting such an outmoded political form.
There are other stories too. There was a case when she was DA where cops were called out to a disturbance caused by a mentally ill woman. I don't know what happened, but she was "in distress." Cops tried to de-escalate, but she came at them with a knife. They pepper-sprayed her and it only made things worse. So they shot her. She survived. This was October 2008 and Kamala needed to amp up her conviction rate so she could run for AG of California.
So Kamala charged the mentally ill woman (Teresa Sheehan) with assault. Sheehan was acquitted and eventually won a $1M settlement.
Now, as the left will point out, Kamala was not the prosecutor. But she was the DA, so either she knew about the case and decided Sheehan should go to prison or she didn't know about the case because she was not doing her job. Or drunk. None of these explanations give me much faith in her.
The Jamal Trulove story has been around for a while, and he recently did a big podcast. Way back in 2019, Vice covered the wrongful conviction. I think this was around the time he got his settlement.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/jamal-trulove-wants-kamala-harris-to-talk-about-his-wrongful-conviction/
What irritates me is that fact-checkers often home in on one detail in order to pronounce a story false. They do this when it's stated that Biden gave the eulogy at Sen. Robert Byrd's funeral, calling him a dear friend and mentor, and Byrd was actually a Grand Dragon in the KKK. That story is often fact-checked as top-to-bottom false when it's all TRUE except for one detail. Byrd was never the Grand Dragon. He had a different title, I think it was Exalted Cyclops or something silly-sounding like that. It is a very high title--he was at the upper levels of the organization. He was just never the Grand Dragon. So yes, Biden (as sitting VP) eulogized Byrd in 2010 and yes, Byrd was a member of the KKK. Fact-checkers can say it's not true all they want, but it's true except for Byrd's title.
Well, that's kind of been happening but with less success with Jamal Trulove. Kamala Harris was the DA during his trial. She did not prosecute the case, because a DA runs the office and rarely gets in the court-room trenches. Somebody else was the attorney for the prosecution. Plus the two people found to have falsified and hidden evidence were the two officers involved. So there is a story going around by fact-checkers that Kamala had nothing to do with this---she wasn't the attorney and she was never convicted of withholding the evidence. However, Kamala was the DA. The attorney prosecuting Trulove worked for Kamala and Kamala had to sign off on at least some of the paperwork relating to the case. Politifact, for instance, says "Kamala Harris didn't frame and prosecute a man for murder." That's like saying Vito Corleone wasn't a gangster because he didn't do his own wet work.
I think the Trulove story is going to grow some long legs because no matter what Politifact says, Harris was a cheerleader for the witness. She called her brave, authorized getting her new housing, applauded her at every turn. Of course back then in 2007, Kamala wanted to be AG of California and she needed some convictions under her belt to get there.
I hope it opens the door wide to look at some other Kamala convictions. There's a lot of stories there. Another one (less well known) is how a mentally ill woman named Teresa Sheehan in 2008 (again, the year Harris needs more convictions) was in crisis--I don't know exactly what that means--but cops got called. She brandished a knife and threatened them, so they first pepper sprayed her, but when that didn't work, they shot her. Now the miracle in this story is that the Sheehan (the mentally ill woman) survived. So Kamala Harris's office charged the mentally ill woman with criminal threats and assault. (She was acquitted and got a $1M settlement later on.)
There are more of these. Now there are 2 ways to look at Harris's career as a prosecutor. Either she was deliberately framing innocent people (to boost her conviction rate) or she had no idea what her office was even doing. In other words, some say maybe her office was just running amok and while Harris spent her working hours at some wine bistro getting sloshed. (Watch the emerging stories of how Kamala is an alcoholic--they're starting to come out. I have a feeling Kamala isn't the "heir apparent" that she thinks she is. The alcoholic stories are being placed almost entirely by the left.)
But right now, I'm watching the DNC. I don't know why, but I think it's going to be very eventful. At the very least, it'll be historical. I love how Democrats have found voting such an outmoded political form.
Another fascinating piece.
Fascinating.
Here's Tucker Carlson suggesting (among other things) that Kamala put people in prison for political reasons ... https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1826847223298359320.
I see someone may have noticed your article and decided to write one too ...
https://redstate.com/jeffc/2024/08/18/watch-wrongfully-convicted-black-man-recounts-how-kamala-harris-laughed-after-convicting-him-n2178251
In any case, Trump should make a campaign ad about this case and play it in black districts.
There are other stories too. There was a case when she was DA where cops were called out to a disturbance caused by a mentally ill woman. I don't know what happened, but she was "in distress." Cops tried to de-escalate, but she came at them with a knife. They pepper-sprayed her and it only made things worse. So they shot her. She survived. This was October 2008 and Kamala needed to amp up her conviction rate so she could run for AG of California.
So Kamala charged the mentally ill woman (Teresa Sheehan) with assault. Sheehan was acquitted and eventually won a $1M settlement.
Now, as the left will point out, Kamala was not the prosecutor. But she was the DA, so either she knew about the case and decided Sheehan should go to prison or she didn't know about the case because she was not doing her job. Or drunk. None of these explanations give me much faith in her.
"Or drunk."
LOL! A lot of things suddenly become clear is that's the case, don't they?