munkle
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2012
- 5,639
- 9,817
- 2,130
Ok here we go. The real Kamala. It seems Kamala has a soft spot for pedophiles but not innocent Black men who have been proven innocent. Moreover, her daughter models for a fashion line that was forced to apologize for grooming children with bondage teddy bears, a sick visual of teddy bears wearing leather bondage gear.
coronanews123.wordpress.com
click image for article

click image for article

click image for article

Planet Today: âVictims Accuse Kamala Harris of Covering Up Child Sex Abuse By Pedophile Priests After Donationsâ
âDuring Kamala Harrisâs tenure as San Franciscoâs chief prosecutor she failed to prosecute any of the sexual abuse claims brought against ****phile priests in the city, while at the same time receiving âlarge, unprecedentedâ donations from high-level officials in the Catholic Church.
During Harrisâs 13-year tenure as district attorney and then attorney general, she failed to prosecute a single case of ****phile priest child sexual abuse. To put that in context, during that same period at least 50 major cities across America brought charges against priests.
At the same time Harris failed to pursue prosecution of cases of priest child sexual abuse, her office âwould strangely hide vital records on abuses that had occurred,â according to Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute.
Breitbart report: The bombshell details show that while Harrisâs predecessor, former San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan, had launched an aggressive investigation into priests of the Archdiocese of San Francisco accused of sexual abuse, Harrisâs campaign to unseat Hallinan showed an unusual influx of unparalleled donations from high-level officials of the Catholic Church.
Schweizer wrote:
Harris had no particular ties to the Catholic Church or Catholic organizations, but the money still came in large, unprecedented sums. Lawyer Joseph Russoniello represented the church on a wide variety of issues, including the handling of the church abuse scandal. He served on the Catholic Churchâs National Review Board (NRB) of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The purpose of the NRB was to review Catholic Church abuse cases. Russoniello was also a partner in the San Francisco law firm Cooley Godward. Russoniello donated the maximum amount by law to her campaign, $1,250, and his law firm added another $2,250. He also sat on Harrisâs advisory council when she was San Francisco district attorney. Another law firm, Bingham McCutcheon, which handled legal matters for the archdiocese concerning Catholic Charities, donated $2,825, the maximum allowed. Curiously, Bingham McCutcheon had only donated to two other candidates running for office in San Francisco before, for a total of $650. As with Russoniello, their support was unusual.
In addition to campaign donations from multiple law firms defending San Francisco priests against abuse claims, Schweizer observed that âboard members of San Francisco Catholic archdiocese-related organizations and their family members donated another $50,950 to Harrisâs campaign.â
As Schweizer noted, Harrisâs ties to those working to block exposure of the archdioceseâs secret documents containing information about priests accused of sexual abuse were extensive.
The author explained that attorney Paul Renne of Cooley Godward was the husband of former San Francisco city attorney Louise Renne, a mentor to Harris. Paul Renne worked with lawyer Joseph Russoniello, who, as Schweizer wrote, ânegotiated the agreement to bury the abuse records from public view.â
Though Harris has touted her early career as a sexual crimes prosecutor, after she won her run-off campaign against Hallinan, her office actually worked to cover up the records of claims of sexual abuse by priests of the San Francisco archdiocese.
According to Schweizer:
Hallinanâs office had used the archdiocese files to guide its investigations and talked publicly about releasing the documents after removing victimsâ names and identifiers. Harris, on the other hand, abruptly decided to bury the records. For some reason, she did not want the documents released in any form. Harrisâs office claimed that the cover-up was about protecting the victims of abuse. âDistrict Attorney Harris focuses her efforts on putting child molesters in prison,â her office claimed. âWeâre not interested in selling out our victims to look good in the paper.â
Victimsâ groups, however, were quite eager for the documents to be released.
âThey were outraged by her actions,â Schweizer noted. âFar from protecting victims, they argued, the cover-up was actually protecting the abusers by keeping their alleged crimes secret.â
âTheyâre full of ****,â Joey Piscitelli, the northwest regional director of Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), said, reported Schweizer. âYou can quote me on that. Theyâre not protecting the victims.â
Similarly, attorney Rick Simons, who represented victims of clergy sexual abuse, said Harrisâs action of covering up the documents âshows a pattern and practice and policy of ignoring the rights of children by one of the largest institutions of the city and county of San Francisco, and in the Bay Area.â
When Harris attempted to shift the blame for hiding the records to Hallinan, her predecessor responded that she engaged in âthe kinds of deals that have allowed the church sex scandal to go on as long as it has.â
As a result of Harrisâs efforts to cover up the documents, Schweizer wrote that psychologist James Jenkins, who founded the archdioceseâs Independent Review Board â which oversaw the methods to handle abuse claims â âabruptly resigned from the boardâ:
He accused the church of âdeception, manipulation and controlâ for blocking the release of the boardâs findings. Jenkins argued that Harrisâs deal with the archdiocese not only denied the rights of known victims, it also prevented other possible cases from coming forward.
In April 2010, Schweizer reported Harrisâs office denied a request from a San Francisco Weekly journalist who sought the archdioceseâs abuse records. Similarly, Schweizer wrote he requested the same documents in 2019, through an attorney in California.
âThe San Francisco district attorneyâs office responded they no longer had them in their possession,â he noted.
âWere they destroyed? Were they moved somewhere else?â Schweizer asked. âIt remains a disturbing mystery.ââ
click image for article

click image for article

click image for article

Kamala Harrisâ Biggest Debate Lie: She Protected Children. Liberal Intercept Video and Report of Victims Saying Harris Enabled 100s of Child Rapes for Donations While SF Prosecutor
During the debate one of Harrisâ first big claims of accomplishment was protecting children, women and families. But the media has ignored this: In 2019 The Intercept did a deep dive article âŚ

click image for article

click image for article

click image for article

Planet Today: âVictims Accuse Kamala Harris of Covering Up Child Sex Abuse By Pedophile Priests After Donationsâ
âDuring Kamala Harrisâs tenure as San Franciscoâs chief prosecutor she failed to prosecute any of the sexual abuse claims brought against ****phile priests in the city, while at the same time receiving âlarge, unprecedentedâ donations from high-level officials in the Catholic Church.
During Harrisâs 13-year tenure as district attorney and then attorney general, she failed to prosecute a single case of ****phile priest child sexual abuse. To put that in context, during that same period at least 50 major cities across America brought charges against priests.
At the same time Harris failed to pursue prosecution of cases of priest child sexual abuse, her office âwould strangely hide vital records on abuses that had occurred,â according to Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute.
Breitbart report: The bombshell details show that while Harrisâs predecessor, former San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan, had launched an aggressive investigation into priests of the Archdiocese of San Francisco accused of sexual abuse, Harrisâs campaign to unseat Hallinan showed an unusual influx of unparalleled donations from high-level officials of the Catholic Church.
Schweizer wrote:
Harris had no particular ties to the Catholic Church or Catholic organizations, but the money still came in large, unprecedented sums. Lawyer Joseph Russoniello represented the church on a wide variety of issues, including the handling of the church abuse scandal. He served on the Catholic Churchâs National Review Board (NRB) of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The purpose of the NRB was to review Catholic Church abuse cases. Russoniello was also a partner in the San Francisco law firm Cooley Godward. Russoniello donated the maximum amount by law to her campaign, $1,250, and his law firm added another $2,250. He also sat on Harrisâs advisory council when she was San Francisco district attorney. Another law firm, Bingham McCutcheon, which handled legal matters for the archdiocese concerning Catholic Charities, donated $2,825, the maximum allowed. Curiously, Bingham McCutcheon had only donated to two other candidates running for office in San Francisco before, for a total of $650. As with Russoniello, their support was unusual.
In addition to campaign donations from multiple law firms defending San Francisco priests against abuse claims, Schweizer observed that âboard members of San Francisco Catholic archdiocese-related organizations and their family members donated another $50,950 to Harrisâs campaign.â
As Schweizer noted, Harrisâs ties to those working to block exposure of the archdioceseâs secret documents containing information about priests accused of sexual abuse were extensive.
The author explained that attorney Paul Renne of Cooley Godward was the husband of former San Francisco city attorney Louise Renne, a mentor to Harris. Paul Renne worked with lawyer Joseph Russoniello, who, as Schweizer wrote, ânegotiated the agreement to bury the abuse records from public view.â
Though Harris has touted her early career as a sexual crimes prosecutor, after she won her run-off campaign against Hallinan, her office actually worked to cover up the records of claims of sexual abuse by priests of the San Francisco archdiocese.
According to Schweizer:
Hallinanâs office had used the archdiocese files to guide its investigations and talked publicly about releasing the documents after removing victimsâ names and identifiers. Harris, on the other hand, abruptly decided to bury the records. For some reason, she did not want the documents released in any form. Harrisâs office claimed that the cover-up was about protecting the victims of abuse. âDistrict Attorney Harris focuses her efforts on putting child molesters in prison,â her office claimed. âWeâre not interested in selling out our victims to look good in the paper.â
Victimsâ groups, however, were quite eager for the documents to be released.
âThey were outraged by her actions,â Schweizer noted. âFar from protecting victims, they argued, the cover-up was actually protecting the abusers by keeping their alleged crimes secret.â
âTheyâre full of ****,â Joey Piscitelli, the northwest regional director of Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), said, reported Schweizer. âYou can quote me on that. Theyâre not protecting the victims.â
Similarly, attorney Rick Simons, who represented victims of clergy sexual abuse, said Harrisâs action of covering up the documents âshows a pattern and practice and policy of ignoring the rights of children by one of the largest institutions of the city and county of San Francisco, and in the Bay Area.â
When Harris attempted to shift the blame for hiding the records to Hallinan, her predecessor responded that she engaged in âthe kinds of deals that have allowed the church sex scandal to go on as long as it has.â
As a result of Harrisâs efforts to cover up the documents, Schweizer wrote that psychologist James Jenkins, who founded the archdioceseâs Independent Review Board â which oversaw the methods to handle abuse claims â âabruptly resigned from the boardâ:
He accused the church of âdeception, manipulation and controlâ for blocking the release of the boardâs findings. Jenkins argued that Harrisâs deal with the archdiocese not only denied the rights of known victims, it also prevented other possible cases from coming forward.
In April 2010, Schweizer reported Harrisâs office denied a request from a San Francisco Weekly journalist who sought the archdioceseâs abuse records. Similarly, Schweizer wrote he requested the same documents in 2019, through an attorney in California.
âThe San Francisco district attorneyâs office responded they no longer had them in their possession,â he noted.
âWere they destroyed? Were they moved somewhere else?â Schweizer asked. âIt remains a disturbing mystery.ââ
click image for article

click image for article

click image for article

Last edited: