Scumbag Kamala Harris: a political obituary

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/scumbag-steve

First off, you have to view the Kamala Harris phenomenon in the terms it makes sense to spend any time thinking about it: what it says about today's politics and especially today's Demorat Party and its allies/enablers.

In late 2018, CNN's supposed political experts said this:

But the 2018 election convinced us that Harris seems to be exactly what Democratic voters are telling the party and its politicians they want representing them going forward. A young-ish -- she's 54 -- non-white woman, Harris looks like the Democratic Party base these days. And if 2020 is anything like 2018, that's a very good place for her to be.
Add it all up, and we've got a new #1 on our 2020 rankings!

It says quite a bit about Dem/left politics and Dem media flaks that this is what passes for quality analysis.

Let's give a brief rundown of Harris' performance on the national stage, the details of which are already available in this blog.

The first time that I witnessed Harris on the national stage, in her opportunity to shine as it were, her interrogation of Brett Kavanaugh was slimy, bad-faith.  This is the (then-)candidate who, within two months, CNN's so-called analysts tout as the best or most likely face of the Demorat party going into the next presidential election cycle.  Anyway, how could anyone be impressed with her line of questioning which was supposed to show how tough she could be going up against Trump?  For someone such as myself who could see through this little scummy and unimpressive charade for what it was, it would not come as a surprise that within a year her candidacy would be dead and buried.

Consider her choice of words upon announcing her candidacy - again, she and her supporters being under the impression that there is something impressive, admirable, tough, etc. about Harris:

“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.”

(Does it really matter if you spin this statement to "imply" that Harris was referring to admissible evidence?  Can you imagine the reaction of Demorats far and wide if a Republican prosecutor said something like this?  They immediately assume the worst for much less, when it's a Republican.  This is obviously so; look at how they go out of their way every time to construe/spin a Trump statement as "racist" and try to shut down debate about his original point on that basis alone.  You don't think these assholes are that pathetic?  See the "Democrats" and "leftist losers" tags in this blog for the overwhelming evidence that they are, indeed, sadly, this pathetic.)

Perhaps if this was an isolated gaffe, we might leave open the possibility that these wicked words could come from a presidential-caliber person's mouth.  But this was just par for the course for Scumbag Harris, and many, many Demorats are culpable for ignoring how this is so.

I've already detailed Scumbag Harris' shameful behavior and statements pertaining to sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh; my most conservatively worded discussion of this blatant scummery is here.  The Kavanaugh episode is a big, bold-colored stain right in the middle of the Demorats' garments, a stain that one can fail to notice only by wearing partisan blinders.  To reach a judgment before both sides are heard, and to unaccountably disregard exculpatory information, is not something an honest person, especially with a background in law, would do.  Period.  There is no explaining away this behavior that can make Harris look like non-scum.

Fast forward some months, to the time of the first Demorat '20 presidential debates, when Harris decided to go after front-runner Biden on racial issues.  In doing so, Harris proved herself to be nothing other than a gratuitous, opportunistic, shallow, cynical and dishonest race-baiter.  When Biden spoke of working with people one has severe differences with, using Southern segregationists as examples, Harris (along with Cory Booker, it should be noted) didn't address his point (about working with people one might even find seriously objectionable; the examples used are incidental to the point) but rather turned it into Biden being "too cozy" with segregationists.  But that obvious non-sequitur wasn't enough for Harris, because in the subsequent debate she ambushed Biden on his civil rights record, thinking she was being impressive even though she was going after Demorat icon Obama's hand-picked VP.  (Gee, if only she had put as much thought into the problem this raises as she put into having "young girl who rode a bus" t-shirts for sale on her website just as soon as she launched her busing-issue ambush, huh?)

Yet, somehow, this dishonest ambush briefly launched Harris to the top of the Demorat presidential polling.

Only weeks later, Scumbag Harris got a taste of her own medicine ambush-wise, when competitor Tulsi Gabbard called her out as a drug warrior and dirty prosecutor.  All that Harris could do is shake her head as though such an ambush was totally unfair.  The main difference this time around is that Gabbard's ambush had some teeth to it.   And guess what: pretty much the split second Harris got this taste of her own medicine (only honest and factual this time around), her candidacy plummeted.

Her sinking candidacy was a tacit admission by primary voters that Harris simply didn't have what it takes to appeal to voters.  But what ever gave the likes of CNN's political editors the impression that she did have what it takes?  And did they really learn the lessons they should have about Scumbag Harris?  Have Democrats generally learned anything?  Have they learned anything from the leeway they extend to her that they'd never extend to their political opposition?  Have they learned that maybe their zeal for identity politics falsely fed their view of Harris as somehow impressive or appealing?  Do Demorats give (Demorat) women and people of color greater leeway to say stupid, dishonest, destructive things, to better avoid charges of racism and sexism if they call such things out?  Do they openly acknowledge that Harris' dishonesty and scummery were key factors in her collapse, or is it merely left to tacit admission?  Some of the Democrats blamed her failed candidacy on racism and sexism, proving that they don't get it and that they're willing to employ vile arguments and claims.

But here's a conclusion I find inescapable: There's lots of dishonesty, scummery, and intellectual bankruptcy in the Demorat Party and the American left in general, but Harris managed to stand out enough in that regard to turn off even many fellow Demorats.  (It actually matters to them when a Demorat in good standing like Biden gets dishonestly smeared....)  PHILOSOPHER'S QUESTION: What, then, is their threshold for being turned off by dishonesty, scummery and intellectual bankruptcy (from Demorats)?  Right now, their threshold surely is way too high.  Harris wasn't the only one in on the patently dishonest effort to smear and destroy Kavanaugh, after all.  [Edit: And I sure as shit am not going to downplay the importance of the Kavanaugh episode: it shows Demorats' true colors when the chips of justice, truth, honesty, honor, consistency, etc. are down; and their selective willingness to believe the unbelievable speaks volumes. [Edit: Just the other day it was relayed to me that an acquaintance had referred to Kavanaugh as a "sex fiend" or words to that effect.  Inasmuch as such zero-evidence notions are planted in the heads of people around the country, the 'rats have achieved much of their goal there.]]  They don't reject Harris for her prominent role in that smear-job; if anything, they embrace her in that regard.  How else did she manage to emerge as the front-runner in the wake of that vile spectacle?

I mean, gee, when you boil it down, philosopher-like, to the essential point, it is this:

She saw how well smearing Kavanaugh worked for her among Demorats; how else might she have gotten the impression that using smear tactics against Biden might also work for her?

PHILOSOPHER'S QUESTION: If that there question doesn't stimulate you to wonder just how much of an intellectual and moral cesspool today's Demorat Party (& allies/enablers) is, then what would?

[Edit: One of the Demorats' two articles of impeachment is about "obstruction of Congress."  Let me put it in the simplest possible terms: Why would anyone in their right mind trust these Demorats to be fair and honest with any evidence provided to them?  Why cooperate with proven scum like Adam Schiff unless one is compelled by a court to do so? [Edit: Speaking of Scumbag Schiff, he asserts - willfully disregarding the Mueller no-collusion findings - that Trump would cheat again as Schiff still claims Trump did in 2016.  Fellow Demorats, by their complicit silence, appear just fine with such obvious dishonesty.  Trump is supposed to willingly cooperate with this POS, and the complicit fellow scumbags, why?]]

Demo rats vs. Kavanaugh, again

The rat-like elected creatures of one of the two major political parties seem to operate on the assumption that the rest of us think and moralize as sloppily and dishonestly as they do.  The latest accusations against now-Justice Kavanaugh does not (and cannot) vindicate these creatures and what they were up to the last time around.

They blew their credibility when they deemed credible the evidence-lacking accusations made against him in 2018 (including, as in the case of Sen. Warren, the ridiculous repeat-drugged-gang-rapes allegation from Swetnick).

They looked the other way when a Demo rat president was accused of rape.

They refused to impeach a Demo rat president even though he lied under oath, even as they now call for the impeachment of Trump and Kavanaugh.

They looked the other way when Demo rats in the highest offices in the state of Virginia faced scandals and Republicans would be their replacements.  (When it comes to comparable claims made against Republicans, they routinely immediately assume the worst.)  As one article put it, Demo rats were rendered speechless as scandal engulfed Virginia's Demo rat leadership.  Isn't being caught dead to rights something that naturally causes speechlessness?  (Rand-bashers also get speechless - and also not contrite - when their reckless misrepresentations and smears are refuted.)  They have no defense for their blatant double standards, after all, and no one will believe their bullshit anyway.

This isn't to comment on the credibility of the latest accusation or new shit brought to light by the latest NYT piece.  It is, however, to say that Demo rat politicians (along with various others in the media) should be left out of any discussion of these things, as they only bring toxicity and deliberate partisan water-muddying.

I mean, think about it from the perspective of anyone who wants to build a credible case against Kavanaugh: how on earth would such a person make any use of anything that the elected rats have had to say on the matter?  Bringing in what they say could only damage one's credibility.

It's epistemic chickens coming home to roost, is all.  The bums lost.  If getting Kavanaugh ousted is what justice requires, then let's find some credible spokespeople for the cause, which means encouraging the elected rats to STFU so they don't manage to build sympathy for their target.

Addendum: Any responsible inquiry into this sort of thing will involve looking at the pushback from the other side, which Demo rats clearly refuse to do.  One example: "What Pogrebin and Kelly left out of their story, yet reported in their book, is that the alleged victim doesn’t remember the incident and refuses to talk about it. That’s journalistic malpractice."  Is it really too much to ask for "reporters" at "the paper of record" to, well, report such things in their article?  (Using the Witch Hunt Epistemology of the Demo rats, the alleged victim's lack of memory should probably be attributed to drunkenness on her part.)  (The linked NY Post piece also discusses - although this isn't new - the glaring holes in the Ramirez story about drunken junk-exposing at Yale.)  Or: how is it that the author of the National Review piece could come up with ample grounds for skepticism, right on the spot (namely: how does the logistics of a classmate directing someone else's junk work?  Witch Hunt answer: Kavanaugh must have been so blacked-out drunk that he didn't mind someone else pushing his junk in this or that direction), whereas elected rats treat the allegations as a basis for impeachment?  (The phrase "journalistic malpractice" also comes up in that piece, for the same reason.  So either some coordination of talking points is going on, or the authors are simply speaking common sense, independently.  And it is common sense.  The "paper of record" apparently lacks it.)  One of the rats, Scumbag Kamala Harris - again, a career prosecutor who cannot fail to know about the obligation to hear both sides before rendering a verdict - appears to believe (both in 2018 and this time around) allegations after having heard only the allegation-side.  Other things being equal, it is better for such a rat to remain a Senator where the alternative is being elevated to President.  [Edit 9/16: Six '20 Demo rats on twitter immediately called for impeachment after the latest "news": Scumbag Harris, the two outright fools O'Rourke and Castro, Warren, Sanders and Booker [edit: Mayor Pete].  Scumbag Harris in particular claims that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate in his confirmation hearings.  This is one example of how destructive a format twitter is.  A "longer" format would virtually call forth evidence for such a serious charge, some weblink or explanation or other, because unlike Scumbag Harris many Americans don't find it remotely obvious that he lied to the Senate.  But this serially dishonest and unaccountable, and ultimate unimpressive creature abuses the twitter format to make unfounded charges.  How is she supposed to be better or more impressive than the Orange Man?]

Addendum #2: Even if Kavanaugh lied to Congress, that doesn't in any way vindicate or excuse the rats' epistemic criminality.  (Heck, even if the accusations against him are true, the Dems did a terrible job of justifying their position that the accusations were credible, just as they routinely do a terrible job justifying their positions generally nowadays.  Heck, even if Republicans are scumbags, that still doesn't vindicate Demo rats.  The best they could hope to show in that case is that they're less scummy than Republicans, but I very much doubt that they could show that, either.  Today's Demo rat party is too much of a sick puppy and, given the nature of epistemic justification, if they happen to be right about something [e.g. climate change] it is an accident.  Since when do Demo rats listen to experts on subjects where the expertise would not vindicate the Dem viewpoint?  They routinely ignore the majority of economists when it comes to the minimum wage, for example.  And anyway, neither Dems nor Reps have particularly good arguments for rejecting libertarianism, and neither party is remotely progressive when it comes to philosophical education of the citizenry which is far and away the biggest no-brainer of all time.)

Addendum #3: Some more pro-Kavanaugh commentary that the epistemically reckless Demo rats ("epistemically reckless" is the minimum charge I would level at these willfully scummy creatures) can be relied upon to deliberately/culpably ignore: Dreher and Kimball.  And it's not like it pleases me to say that the only thing Demo rats are reliable about these days is being intellectually reckless, lazy, etc.  I would rather that they behave like decent human beings.

Scumbag Kamala Harris vs. Obama

If Joe Biden has a spotty record on civil rights, why would Obama make him his VP?

Evidently that is a question that didn't occur to Scumbag Kamala Harris as she schemed her bad-faith ambush on Biden.

Terms I've come up with to describe Sen. Harris, descriptors of what people hate in politicians (and it's almost amazing so many observers have failed to notice these in Scumbag Harris): dishonest, phony, opportunistic, panderer, cynical, more clever than wise and not very clever at that, intellectually shallow, race-baiter, malicious, demagogue.

Her role in the Kavanaugh smears when the chips were down says it all; of the Dems getting in on that appalling act, she is surely the most despicable.  How would you feel about having her as prosecutor in a case against you?  Kavanaugh found out the hard way.

And this is the candidate the betting markets are assigning the best chance to win the nomination?

[Addendum 7/6: Others are catching on!]

Democrats & freedom

One thing that doesn't appear to be on the agenda of Democrats these days is freedom.  When was the last time you heard a Democrat politician praise the virtues of freedom?  They promote cannabis legalization and abortion on demand, but do they couch these subjects in terms of freedom?  If cannabis legalization doesn't bring in big tax revenues, do they still favor it?  When Democrats talk abortion, they often (dishonestly) couch it in terms of "women's health" (as though it's women's health that Republicans are focused on here).  (Let's say we termed Second Amendment rights "self-defense rights."  Dems are squishy about or opposed to self-defense rights, then?  And we can make it all one-sided to ignore mass shootings, much like how Dems treat "it's her body" as an abortion debate-stopper?)

I'm keeping an eagle eye on any mentions of freedom that come from the 2020 Democrat candidates.

(Speaking of which, 4 of the top 5 Democrats based on the betting markets decided to smear Brett Kavanaugh on the basis of hazy testimony and in disregard of other sworn statements to the contrary.  I've discuss this nakedly partisan and intellectually- and morally-bankrupt ugliness previously, but I should also bring up this, which no one else seems to have noticed (which would indicate a widespread epistemological bankruptcy): Not only could the accuser(s) not provide specifics as to time and place, but no one else came forward to say what supposed party it might have been that both Ford and Kavanaugh attended.  Shouldn't that fact have jumped right out at the lawyers on the Judiciary Committee?  ffs)

The only mention of the term "freedom" from any of these candidates that I've noticed so far was from a recent speech by Sen. Sanders: Democratic socialism means freedom for working families, etc.

I'm not sure which is better: not talking about freedom at all, or using a bastardized conception of freedom (and/or a contentious conception of freedom not accepted by more than some Americans).  Sanders is quoted as saying, "There is no freedom without economic freedom."  I consider it highly doubtful that Sanders has ever sought out the strongest representatives of pro-capitalism thought that he could find, to put his notion of freedom to the dialectical test.  (Is there any politician today who's done such a not-intellectually-bankrupt thing?)  Is my own life/mind mine to dispose of (refer to the preceding link), or does 'the community' exercise a veto over that?

A number of Democrat-run states today are running amok in the tax-raising department.  (Have any Democrats cut taxes since Kennedy?  Okay, so there were tax breaks in Obama's 2009 stimulus package, but we're talking rather desperate measures there.)  Among their tax-raising schemes is "clawing back" whatever money they can from people who flee their states due to the tax burden.  Rush Limbaugh described on his radio show how the state of New York basically harrassed him for years after he bolted to Florida: "How is this freedom?" he asked.  Great question!

My distinct impression is that the main focus of Democrats is on "fairness," and on employing the mechanisms of politics to secure benefits for people.  (See Haidt for more.)  Thought or talk of freedom ends up falling by the wayside.  Is it because they really don't have any policies to offer in that regard?

Now to pondering some important value that Republicans don't speak much about (and what that reveals about their value-priorities) . . .

[Update 6/22: At today's South Carolina Democratic Convention, Kamala Harris - almost surely the most slimy of the leading 2020 Dem candidates - asked the following questions as though they should taken seriously: "We have in this White House a president who says he wants to make America great again, but what does that mean?" Harris asked the crowd. "Does that mean he wants to take us back to before schools were integrated? Does that mean he wants to take us back to before the Voting Rights Act was enacted? Does that mean he wants to take us back before the Civil Rights Act was enacted?..."  (Further along in the Kamala Harris sliminess dept., she characterized Joe Biden's statements about Dems cooperating with bad people - in this instance, southern racists - as "coddling the reputations of segregationists."  And: she refers to "[t]he senators that [Biden] is speaking of with such adoration...".  Had enough of Harris' shit yet?  It'll keep on coming....)   Meanwhile, Kirsten Gillibrand used the phrase "reproductive freedom" by which one can only assume she means the freedom to kill unborn humans (let's call this "fetus-killing freedom") since Griswold v. Connecticut (obviously the correct - libertarian - legal decision) doesn't seem in jeopardy at any time in the foreseeable future.  In any case, "reproductive freedom" is one freedom Dems seem willing to talk about, which raises the next question: How about freedom elsewhere?  Why is this seemingly the only "freedom" Dems in general - Bernie's rhetoric appealing to freedom noted above duly noted - treat as sacrosanct right now?  As might become clear at this point, when Dems do mention "freedom," they raise other questions about their grasp of the meaning of freedom.  At least Rawls put liberty first in order of lexical priority and by doing so kept that plainly separate from the egalitarian principles of his theory. [Edit: one crucial caveat is that economic liberty isn't explicitly part of Rawls' lexical scheme here.]  If Dems could cite Rawls chapter and verse (much less have a good counter to Nozick/Rand) they might be considerably more formidable against their political opponents - but they have squandered those intellectual potentials for the sake of their political agenda (making them that much less effective in the latter!).  In all their hubris - aided and abetted by a quasi-incestuous left-dominated academic culture - they would have us believe that it's only Republicans who do this....]

[Update #2: To aid in the "eagle eye on any Dem mentions of freedom," I'll set up google search links here for the top 10 or so Dem candidates so that we can see the contexts in which they mention it: Biden; Booker; Buttigieg; Gabbard; Gillibrand; Harris; Klobuchar; O'Rourke; Sanders; Warren; Yang.  It appears that Buttigieg - the candidate who impresses me so far as the least idiotic and corrupt of the bunch - is talking the most about freedom but largely in what I term the bastardized leftist sense....]

2020 Dem hopefuls with a due-process problem

This concerns the way numerous Democrats assigned high levels of credibility to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's sexual-assault accusations against Supreme Court nominee (now Justice) Brett Kavanaugh.

To recap: Dr. Ford "remembers" her friend Leland Keyser at the supposed party in question as much as she "remembers" Kavanaugh being there; Keyser and the others named by Ford as having been at the party in question all stated under penalty of perjury that they don't recall this supposed party.  This fact is a basis for not affirming a belief in the truth of her testimony.  A reasonable takeaway is that, since human memory is notoriously fallible, her memory here is unreliable.

(In philosophic terminology, to believe X is to affirm the truth of X, to endorse X as being true; belief is usually -- save perhaps for Gettier problems -- a component of having knowledge of X, and knowledge is the subject of the branch of philosophy known (ahem) as epistemology.  In normative terms, epistemology answers such questions as: How should we, in aspiring to be virtuous or excellent reasoners, assess evidence?  What should we consider credible, i.e., worthy of eliciting belief?  In the legal context, proper assessment of evidence is part and parcel of principles of due process.)

I'll go down the list of declared 2020 presidential hopefuls on the question of the credibility of Dr. Ford's testimony, in the order that they currently appear in the betting markets:

1. Sen. Kamala Harris (former state attorney general of CA):

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: I think it's going to be about, it comes down to credibility...and it's going to about listening to what each party has to say, but I believe her... (source)

Harris is quoted as saying this on Sept. 18, 2018, although Ford and Kavanaugh did not testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee (of which Harris is a member) until Sept. 27, 2018.

In other words, this attorney and member of the Judiciary Committe had already determined that Ford's testimony was true.  On its face an attorney (edit: a prosecutor, no less; how would you feel about her prosecuting a case where you're the accused?) knows better than this.  This is evidence of intellectual dishonesty or negligence on her part, and it shows she was prejudiced on a matter that would come before her committee.

Does this sound like someone who is fit, character-wise, to be President of the United States?  More on Harris's epistemic and/or conceptual malpractice here.

2. Beto O'Rourke (businessman, former Representative from TX, and charismatic pretty boy):

Wisely, O'Rourke doesn't appear to have affirmed the truth of Ford's testimony, and further, he hasn't announced he is in the running for 2020 even though the betting markets are giving him roughly 8:1 odds.

3. Joe Biden (former Vice President and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee):

Biden is quoted (Sept. 28) as follows:

Biden says Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, “gave courageous, credible and powerful testimony” before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday. He says he believed Ford and “the country believed her.”

My same observations and questions about Sen. Harris apply here.  Unlike the other examples covered here, there doesn't appear to be a direct quotation or recording from him.  His only "out" here would be if he were misquoted.

4. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA, former Harvard law professor):

This case is more egregious than those of Harris and Biden.  From Warren's facebook page:

Elizabeth Warren
September 27, 2018 · 
I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. My heart broke watching her testify. She’s a hero – brave, compelling, credible – and she made it clear: Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t belong anywhere near the Supreme Court.
Based on the multiple, credible accusations against him from Dr. Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick – and based on his unhinged, dishonest performance in the hearing – it’s even more clear today that Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination must be withdrawn.

The same observations and question about Harris and Biden apply here, but also Warren asserts that the Julie Swetnick accusation -- that Brett Kavanaugh participated in druggings and gang rapes at multiple parties -- is credible.  This accusation isn't even credible on its face.  (As I said in a facebook comment at the time, if you believe this accusation is credible on its face, you might just be a Democrat.)  The accusation is lacking enough in credibility that the follow-up FBI investigation didn't even bother with Swetnick.  In her Oct. 1 interview, she backtracked on all of her key claims.  This was after Warren's Sept. 27 statement above, and so we can only conclude that Warren found Swetnick's pre-backtracked accusation credible.

If Warren finds that credible, what wouldn't she find credible?

Isn't this picture starting to look pretty pathetic?  These people are somehow slam-dunk, no-brainer preferable to Trump?

5. Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT):

BURLINGTON, Vt., Sept. 27 – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Thursday after Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:"I listened to Dr. Ford, and I listened to Judge Kavanaugh. I believe Dr. Ford. Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the Supreme Court. (source)

Sanders believes one or more variants of socialism is a great idea.  He has a track record of poor epistemic judgment.

6. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI):

Gabbard's comments on the Ford-Kavanaugh matter are decent and responsible.  No due-process problem for Gabbard here.

7. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY, attorney):

"I believe her," Gillibrand said. "Her story is credible. If you listen to everything about it, the fact that she told her therapist about it five years ago." 

"A friend, most recently, she told a reporter before Kavanaugh was even named to be a nominee, this is a woman who has endured trauma and experts have said, this is what trauma looks like," the Senator continued. "You don’t remember everything. You remember the most poignant moments. You remember the things that are seared into your memory and has affected you your whole life." 

"I believe her. She is credible. She should be heard and this Senate should treat her with respect and dignity that she deserves," she said. (source, Sept. 19)

As with Harris, Gillibrand reached her conclusions before hearing both sides on Sept. 27.

The people bolded above have chosen to disregard -- to disbelieve -- Leland Keyser and others' sworn statements to the Judiciary Committee.  Why?

5 of the 7 Democrats assigned the highest betting odds for '20 have made it clear to the American people that they don't place a high value on assessing evidence carefully, conscientiously and scrupulously even when the reputation and career of an accused individual is at stake.

Why should we expect them to assess evidence carefully, conscientiously and scrupulously when it comes to anything else?

How on earth can these people rightly self-identify as progressives?

And how on earth could anyone of conscience ever willingly assist, enable, excuse, or attempt to normalize this kind of behavior?  How much intellectual bankruptcy in a culture or polity would it take for widespread enabling of it (including in mainstream media outlets) to occur?

(It should go without saying that if these people are using the term "believe" in some other sense than its normal and plain one, that doesn't reflect well on them, either.)

This is what happens when corrupt political practice clashes with philosophy.  Philosophy can and will lay the smackdown.

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?]