Aida Chavez, "The Intercept"
California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris is widely seen as a frontrunner for a spot on the ticket with presumptive nominee Joe Biden, with vetting well underway.
Presidential vetting operations have entire teams of investigators, but for the public, when the pick is announced, the most common source for information about the person chosen is Wikipedia. And there, a war has broken out over how to talk about Harris’s career.
At least one highly dedicated Wikipedia user has been scrubbing controversial aspects of Harris’s “tough-on-crime” record from her Wikipedia page, her decision not to prosecute Steve Mnuchin for mortgage fraud-related crimes, her strong support of prosecutors in Orange County who engaged in rampant misconduct, and other tidbits — such as her previous assertion that “it is not progressive to be soft on crime” — that could prove unflattering to Harris as the public first gets to know her on the national stage. The edits, according to the page history, have elicited strong pushback from Wikipedia’s volunteer editor brigade, and have drawn the page into controversy, though it’s a fight the pro-Harris editor is currently winning.
In 2016, The Atlantic published an article about Wikipedia edits and how a burst of activity could foreshadow Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential pick, noting that Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine’s page had seen significantly more edits than any other candidate’s in the weeks leading up to the announcement. The article also cited a 2008 Washington Post report about Sarah Palin’s Wikipedia page seeing more than 65 edits in the hours leading up to John McCain’s announcement.
Last month, a Reddit user remembered this Atlantic piece and wrote a Jupyter script to see which 2020 vice presidential contender had the most edits in a span of three weeks: Harris had 408, Stacey Abrams had 66, Sen. Elizabeth Warren had 22, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar had four. Another Redditor pointed out that a majority of Harris’s edits were coming from a single person.
Harris has been working to distance herself on the national stage from her prosecutorial record in California, which has increasingly become a political liability, while taking a lead on Democratic police reform legislation after the killing of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. During the 2020 primary, she branded herself as a “progressive prosecutor” and shifted left on issues like health care and climate change. But the most drastic gap is between her current messaging on crime and her past.
A section in her bio that detailed her decision not to prosecute Mnuchin for financial fraud, despite recommendations from her staff attorneys, has also been deleted:
In 2013, Harris did not prosecute Steve Mnuchin‘s bank OneWest despite evidence “suggestive of widespread misconduct” according to a leaked memo….In 2017, she said that her office’s decision not to prosecute Mnuchin was based on “following the facts and the evidence…like any other case”. In 2016, Mnuchin donated $2,000 to her campaign, making her the only 2016 Senate Democratic candidate to get cash from Mnuchin, but as senator, she voted against the confirmation of Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury.A section on an Ethics Commission finding Harris guilty of a campaign spending violation during her San Francisco district attorney race has also been deleted. A line about Harris traveling to Israel and the West Bank in November 2017, where she met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was removed altogether.
The Wikipedia user, who goes by the username “Bnguyen1114,” has made hundreds of edits to Harris’s page throughout the last several months, often getting into fights over the proposed edits with other Wikipedia editors, who pointed out that the language was getting pulled directly from press releases and campaign literature. “You seem to have gone through a database of press releases from Harris’s office, cataloging every single one and adding it to the article,” one Wikipedia editor said. “That is not how we write encyclopedic articles.”
On June 11, the Wikipedia user removed this section referencing the Orange County scandal from the page, saying that they were proofreading for length:
Later that year, Harris appealed a judge’s order to take over the prosecution of a high-profile mass murder case and to eject all 250 prosecutors from the Orange County District Attorney’s office over allegations of misconduct by Republican D.A. Tony Rackauckas. Rackauckas was alleged to have illegally employed jailhouse informants and concealed evidence. Harris noted that it was unnecessary to ban all 250 prosecutors from working on the case, as only a few had been directly involved, later promising a narrower criminal investigation. The U.S. Department of Justice began an investigation into Rackauckas in December 2016, but he was not re-elected.In her first bid for public office, Harris embraced a “tough-on-crime” approach in the San Francisco district attorney race and unseated Terence Hallinan, who was considered one of the “most left-wing politicians in the country.” Under Hallinan, the district attorney’s office focused on rehabilitative justice initiatives instead of incarceration, which led to the lowest felony conviction rates of any county in California.
While campaigning in the Mission District, SF Weekly reported at the time, Harris slammed Hallinan for failing to prosecute anti-war protesters for property destruction. “It is not progressive to be soft on crime,” she said.
On June 8, the Wikipedia user removed this quote from the page, saying that the changes made were “minor edits for length.”
In a paragraph about Harris announcing a new state law requiring law enforcement agencies to collect statistics on how many people are shot, seriously injured, or killed by police officers throughout the state, the user removed the following sentence: “Harris was later criticized by criminal justice advocates for her measured approach.”
This user also tried to make edits to the “Bernie Bro” Wikipedia page, a term that refers to the persistent myth that Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign had a monolithic base of support concentrated only among young white men.
According to the user’s edit history, they tried to remove a paragraph explaining that although Sanders’s base skewed white in 2016, the Vermont senator actually had the most diverse base of any of the Democratic presidential candidates.
Harris’s most fervent online supporters, or stans, call themselves the “KHive.” Though members of the KHive are excited by the prospect of Harris, a daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants, shattering another glass ceiling, they also cite her policy positions as a reason for their support. They generally consider her background as a prosecutor to be a political strength.
The Biden campaign sent me a poll and I voted for Karen Bass.
ReplyDeleteYou'll vote for whoever they tell you to vote for.
ReplyDelete"They" being the primary voters who selected Joe Biden. Who did the republican primary voters select... oh, that's right, the RNC cancelled the republican primaries. Likely because they were a bit afraid of how things would shake out for Dotard. Given his disastrous first term there are probably quite a few people rethinking their 2015 vote for Dotard. A primary might have resulted in another republican candidate getting a lot of votes, embarrassing Dotard. Maybe they'll switch to Biden in the General.
ReplyDeleteWishful thinking, Dervy. Good luck with all. those crossover Republican votes.
ReplyDeleteGOP Operatives Launch PAC To Convince Republicans To Vote For Biden.
ReplyDeleteYawn! They voted Hillary in 2016.
ReplyDeleteSo why bother with a PAC? In any case, the people I was talking about are Democrats who voted for Dotard. I think many of them are rethinking their 2016 vote. Especially given the fact that Dotard has done nothing on trade (trade deficit continues to grow). And given that China isn't going to be inclined to make a deal due to Dotard's election strategy of blaming them for the coronavirus. If Biden selects a Progressive VP who agrees with Bernie Sanders on trade -- he could definitely win them back. Why I'm not in favor of a Biden/Harris ticket (two moderates).
ReplyDeleteExactly. Why bother?
ReplyDeleteA trade VP? lol!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteObviously because they think they can get republicans to vote for Biden. If the purpose was just to make money, they would have formed a Dotard PAC. I've heard Dotard dupes have made Brad Parscale a very wealthy man.
ReplyDeletebtw, while I think Biden should go with a Progressive VP (on ALL issues, including trade), two moderates would still be better than Dotard. He hasn't done anything on trade and (God forbid) he gets a second term... he WON'T do anything on trade. I'm guessing the last time this many American jobs were lost Herbert Hoover was president.
Quote: The last president seeking reelection while presiding over such economic carnage was Herbert Hoover, and the latest national unemployment rate, 14.7%, is the worst since the record of 25.5% in 1932 – three months before FDR sent Hoover packing. [end quote]
How is Biden keeping the country locked down going to improve the economy? You aren't making sense...
ReplyDeleteHow did Dotard locking down the country (which he has taken responsibility for) help the economy? YOU aren't making any sense. If we had locked down immediately, instituted a mask wearing policy, large scale testing and contact tracing -- we could be on the other side of his already. Now that the pandemic is out-of-control we're pretty much f*cked. I'm not sure what Biden is going to do. Or CAN do. But I'll DEFINITELY trust him over Dotard.
ReplyDeleteGee, maybe you should have stayed in lock down instead of rioting during a pandemic over deserving criminals getting wood shampoos.
ReplyDeleteDon't blame Black Lives Matter protests for the spike in coronavirus cases across the US. (excerpt) Black Lives Matter protests... haven't been tied to any increased spread of the coronavirus. ...being outside, wearing masks, and keeping a safe distance from others are all actions that help prevent virus spread. [end excerpt]
ReplyDeleteFYI, the protests (not rioting) are largely in regards to police killings of Black suspects, not beatings. And being a SUSPECT doesn't make anyone DESERVING of an extrajudicial execution.
haven't been tied to any increased spread of the coronavirus. .
ReplyDeletelol! Just preclude asking questions for all answers you don't want people finding out...
...being outside, wearing masks, and keeping a safe distance from others are all actions that help prevent virus spread.
ReplyDeleteYes, spraying bullets into cars filled with 8 year olds from across the parking lot does help prevent the virus' spread.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't. Why is BLM responsible for all crimes committed in the vicinity of their peaceful protests? Isn't that the job of the police?
ReplyDeleteAnd why must you continue to attribute the word "peaceful" to every BLM action, and separate/ disavow every riot as unassociated with BLM? Sounds like an ideology must be at work...
ReplyDeleteI asked you for evidence that BLM-associated people were involved in riots or murders. So far you have been unable to provide any. Did BLM make an announcement that they support riots and murders? Why the HELL should I believe your assertions sans evidence? btw, should anyone "associated" with BLM be implicated -- I would expect a disavowal from the organization. Because peaceful protest, NOT rioting is the best way for BLM to achieve it's goals. Whereas many (all?) in the Boogaloo movement think a civil/race war is the best way for it to achieve Boogaloo goals.
ReplyDeleteYour continued attribution of rioting and shootings to BLM (without evidence) is proof that your ideology is what shapes your (evidence free) opinion.
What are the riots about then? They're just meaningless/ purposeless random outbursts?
ReplyDeleteLOL!
Statues are destroyed because... people hate municipal art?
ReplyDeleteYou kill me.
Next time there's a BLM riot, I promise NOT to read the signs.
ReplyDeleteYou keep characterizing peaceful protests as "riots". There haven't been any "BLM riots". As for why the police are rioting, it is to intimidate the peaceful protesters. The same reason the statues to White Supremacy were erected, btw. To intimidate Black people and tell them to know their place.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the "peaceful" Portland RIOTS about, then? lol!
ReplyDeletePolice benefits?
ReplyDeleteDotard's reelection strategy. btw, the protests have been peaceful. The police riots aren't. You keep mixing the two up.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the police riots about, again? Differential pay?
ReplyDeleteProvoking the protesters. How many times do I have to repeat myself.
ReplyDeleteThey're rioting to provoke peaceful protesters? Sounds like a controlled operation (that only an idiot would characterize as an out-of-control riot, but given the source of the charge, it's perhaps understandable). Don't peaceful protestors have a duty to resist, and not give in to such provocations? Wouldn't it be more responsible, given the circumstances, for them to stay home and not provoke another "rioting" police presence? lol!
ReplyDeleteThe authorities have a duty not to provoke. And, no, it would not be more reasonable for the protesters to call off their free speech rights. Authorities ALWAYS have the greater responsibility.
ReplyDeleteThat's why that except for unusual circumstances, they only dole out wood shampoos.
ReplyDelete