Conservative civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon appeared on the Tucker Carlson Show Friday, and she laid into Kamala Harris’ past—and brought receipts.
Dhillon, who was just appointed to head the Trump campaign’s Election Integrity team in Arizona, had a wide-ranging conversation with the former Fox News host about the many problems of the extremist Border Czar and Democrat presidential appointee nominee, but there was one section that stuck out to me where she discussed the slippery ways in which the now-VP came into prominence in the first place.
Advertisement
It was in the 2003 race for the job of San Francisco District attorney, which Harris won—by cheating. She had agreed, under penalty of perjury, to spending limits, as had her rivals, but then she simply ignored them.
Dhillon:
Well it turns out that Kamala Harris, who by the way started out in this campaign third, behind her boss Terence Hallinan, who was in the lead, and then a guy named Vic Fazio, who was a former prosecutor, then defense attorney, who was going to be the hard-on-crime guy. He was eventually endorsed by the Republicans in San Francisco, so she was third. She was the underdog. And so she quickly she was getting no traction at first. So she realized she was going to have to really supercharge her spending.
[One-time boyfriend and longtime SF powerbroker] Willie Brown helped her with this.
Brown played an important role in her stunning ascendance:
Willie Brown also helped raise money for independent expenditures to support her as well. So. It’s a funny story, but you know one of her campaign themes was that she was going to be tough on drugs, tough on marijuana, and back in 2003, marijuana wasn’t the recreational use of marijuana, [it] was not legal in California, and so she was gonna be tough on pot.
So apparently, some pot activists who didn’t like this, you know, they were poring over the campaign finance records, and it’s a pot activist who realized that Kamala Harris had raised over $300,000 and had spent over $300,000. So this person went and let the other campaigns know. They filed an ethics complaint against her and at the end of the election she had spent over $600,000.
So triple the amount that she was allowed.
Advertisement
Watch:
Fighting for America:
Good News! RNC, Team Trump Just Hired a Familiar Name to Lead New Election Integrity Team in Arizona
Harmeet Dhillon Goes Off on Pro-Life Activists Over Their Efforts to Suppress Votes for Trump
With the RNC’s Status Quo Preserved, What’s Next for the Republican Grassroots?
Sure, Kamala may have broken a little law here or there, but she’s a progressive Democrat in a one-party state—so what did she do? She simply hired a good attorney:
…thanks to hiring a good lawyer and making the excuse that, oh, the form changed, I didn’t really understand the meaning of this, so please lift the cap. She got the San Francisco Ethics Commission—and by the way, many of those people on the ethics Commission owed their positions to Willie Brown.
She got them to look the other way on this gross violation. It’s a crime, by the way.
She could have been prosecuted for a misdemeanor had she been properly held accountable for this significant campaign finance violation, and anybody else would have, but the Ethics Commission simply lifted the cap, which is not in the Statute, so instead of disqualifying her, which would have been the normal punishment, and prosecuting her, she simply got away with it.
Ah, I see. That’s how it works nowadays in the formerly Golden State. It was only her first contest, yet it laid the path that now—terrifyingly—puts her on a potential course to be the next president of the United States.
Advertisement
So in her first race for elected office, she ignored the campaign finance limits, she used corrupt patronage from her former lover to raise the money necessary to do the glossy ads. I’ve got several examples here. She did more mailers than all of the other candidates. She had independent expenditures on her behalf, and she simply was able to outspend and blow through these limits.
Dhillon went on to show Carlson the myriad glossy mailers that Kamala was able to send out with her over-the-limit expenditures. She also pointed out that while these mailers claimed that Kamala was the best-prepared person for the job, in fact, other prosecutors in the race had far more experience, and she was only able to prevail because of her massive (over) spending.
“It’s pretty incredible that the birth of this meteoric career comes out of multiple campaign violations,” she concluded.
Incredible is one word. Absolutely unbelievably disturbing is threewords, but they also sum it up.
There is much, much more to this interview, and I encourage you to watch. This one section alone, however, should disqualify Kamala Harris from the presidency—or any other office, for that matter.
Here is the full interview:
Advertisement
- (32:23) Kamala’s Crimes
- (45:03) How Has Kamala Changed?
- (47:44) Corporate Media Covering for Kamala’s Gaffes
- (49:46) Kamala Protecting Criminals
- (1:06:11) What Kind of Attorney General Was Kamala?
- (1:09:10) Kamala’s Hatred for the Pro-Life Movement and Free Speech
- (1:18:14) Who Is Kamala’s Husband Doug Emhoff?
- (1:30:47) Kamala’s “Minority” Status (1:39:03) Voters Don’t Like Kamala
- (1:44:59) What Happens If Kamala Wins?