As District Attorney of San Francisco, Kamala Harris proposed a program for drug dealers that would have allowed criminals to only be charged for selling narcotics on their third arrest.  San Francisco’s chief of police at the time sent an October 24, 2005 letter to Harris declining to participate in the program, “Operation Safe Streets,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Daily Wire.  “This proposal asks us not to arrest, but instead detain and release observed narcotics sales suspects pursuant to Penal Code Section 849(b) P.C. When the same suspect is arrested the third time for narcotics sales, your office would then charge all three counts,” wrote Heather Fong, who served as police chief until 2009.  The revelation comes as Harris attempts to campaign as a tough-on-crime, law-and-order prosecutor, touting her past record and describing herself as someone who “took on perpetrators of all kinds — predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain.”  But back in 2005, the police chief warned Harris that her proposed policy would allow narcotics sellers to immediately be released back onto the streets without consequences, encourage dealers to come to San Francisco, potentially increase violent crime in the city, and result in a double standard, “as adults would be released while juveniles would be booked.”  “Additionally, narcotics dealers who sell drugs near a school would be released after only a brief detention,” Fong continued, noting, “Undoubtedly, this would send the wrong message to observant children who unfortunately witness drug dealing activity on a regular basis.”  The chief also warned that the public would not view a “detain and release” program favorably, since neither the community nor the police department are sympathetic to drug dealers who “exploit for profit the weakness of others.” She also noted that it would be bad for officer morale and “counter to what every officer is taught.”  Letter from Heather Fong to Kamala Harris, October 24, 2005. Letter from Heather Fong to Kamala Harris, October 24, 2005. Harris’ office told The Daily Journal in April 2006 that the idea behind the proposal was not to allow criminals to get off the hook, but instead help prosecutors build stronger cases against them. The Daily Journal reported that “police have scoffed at the plan.”  “Defense attorneys who regularly represent drug dealers also are pooh poohing Harris’ plan, saying it sounds weird and unworkable,” The Daily Journal’s Dennis Opatrny wrote at the time.  Harris’ criminal division chief, Jeff Ross, reportedly suggested to the police chief at the time that they should move forward with the program despite potential media criticisms.  “It is true that San Francisco is home to some media outlets that may perceive of this program as being too tough on narcotics offenders, because more dealers will wind up behind bars as a result of this approach,” he wrote, adding, “I’m sure you would agree that we must pursue effective enforcement approaches without regard to whether there might be critical media coverage.”  The Harris campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Wire.  A report released Wednesday from The Heritage Foundation found that she has always been “soft-on-crime,” though her representations of her record have varied based on her audience or political climate: she has shown support for defunding the police, bail policies that let violent criminals back onto the streets, and did not seek the death penalty in a number of “egregious cases,” according to the report.  Just weeks after the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody while an officer knelt on his neck, Harris claimed that it “is outdated and is actually wrong and backward to think that more police officers will create more safety.”  She also promised to end cash bail, expunge some felon records, end federal mandatory minimum sentences, get rid of court-ordered fines, impose more restrictions on cops, and more, according to a memo from her 2020 presidential campaign exposed by the Washington Free Beacon in July. 

‘Why do you think they’re telling you the truth and not telling other people other people other things?‘ Quick asked

'his career is over'

'They were censored because Moraes disagreed with his political beliefs'

Followed one of prosecutors' major recomendations

Sentencing is currently scheduled for December 16

The FPD charged Shirah with second-degree murder

Volvo on Going All EV: Never Mind

Media giant Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) is expected to catch a subpoena following a Thursday hearing in the $1 billion defamation suit against its subsidiary, CNN. In a hearing lasting almost four hours, exclusively recorded by NewsBusters, Florida 14th Judicial Circuit Judge Scott Henry cleared the way for Plaintiff and Navy veteran Zachary Young to issue a subpoena to turn over select financial documents that pertained to CNN. In addition, Judge Henry also signaled that punitive damages sought against CNN could go beyond the simple net worth of the network. Looking to “boil it down to something simple,” Judge Henry delivered an analogy likening a request of financial documents from WBD to asking a doctor for the medical records of a patient involved in an accident claim: In a car accident case, the defense does a RFP to the plaintiff saying, ‘send me all your medical records,’ but then, at the same time, there's a notice of production and subpoenas all the medical providers and gets their records not only from the accident but predating it or whatever. And it's just to make sure that what's being produced on one side is the same as what the doctor actually has in their office.     But the subpoena for CNN’s finances via WBD will be limited to the documents the network presented to its parent company. Essentially, this will act as a way to double check to see if CNN was being honest with the financial documents they were turning over as part of discovery; comparing what they turned over to Young’s legal team vs what they told corporate. The Judge’s analogy for this part was that a kid trying to ask a parent for a larger allowance with a very detailed PowerPoint presentation: I compare this, for instance, to, you know, the kid goes to the parents and go, ‘hey, I need to up my allowance this year.’ ‘Well, Johnny, why do you need to up your allowance?’ ‘Well, I got to pay for this. I gotta pay for this, you know, these are the things I wanna do, um, you know, I'm gonna go cut grass and I'm only gonna get, you know, so much from cutting mowing yards during this point in time, so here's where I think you ought to settle on my allowance per week now because this is what I need to pay for lunch or go have fun to the movies with my friends or do whatever.” But it's Johnny's bringing that to mom and dad and saying here, up my allowance. So, I mean, if CNN did internal modeling or predictions and set that within the umbrella for Warner Brothers and Warner Brothers happens to have a copy of it. I think Warner Brothers can produce it, and it's the same thing as asking the doctor's office to produce the records that maybe the plaintiff's attorney produces as well, but the defendant can, you know, in that case has a right to verify it. Y'all have the right to verify it. “I would overrule the objection to the extent that it was prepared by or on behalf of CNN Inc. or CNN Worldwide and just submitted to Warner Brothers,” he added. CNN received more bad news by way of Judge Henry signaling that the punitive damages claim that would be presented to the jury next year would go beyond just the global network’s net worth. Citing previous cases that involved punitive damages, Judge Henry noted that the precedent in Florida was that a juries are instructed to take into account the financial resources of a defendant, not just net worth: All right. So, with those guiding principles, nowhere in here does it say ‘the defendant’s net worth.’ The only thing that financial talks about are: motivation by unreasonable financial gain and the financial resources of the defendant. Resources, not financial net worth of the defendant. The financial resources of the defendant. And then, as I indicated, the note referenced two cases the deal with punitive damages being awarded in other cases. So, that is what the jury is instructed on to make a determination as to the proper amount of punitive damages. “So, obviously information that is being requested in discovery that would go to those things that obviously would have to be admissible evidence at trial are certainly fair game for purposes of discovery,” he said. “And any other request that would drive toward that information or potentially uncover that information would be discoverable.” Young is also allowed to see the last three years of CNN's defamation settlements. These are important because punitive damages are meant to cause enough pain to deter or prevent an entity from repeating the offensive behavior. So, if what they paid in settlements wasn’t enough to correct their behavior, a jury could take that into consideration in setting a price to punish them. CNN did not respond to a request for comment. The relevant portions of the transcript are below. Click "expand" to read: CNN Defamation Suit September 5, 2024 12:03 p.m. Eastern (…) JUDGE SCOTT HENRY: All right. So, with those guiding principles, nowhere in here does it say ‘the defendant’s net worth.’ The only thing that financial talks about are: motivation by unreasonable financial gain and the financial resources of the defendant. Resources, not financial net worth of the defendant. The financial resources of the defendant. And then, as I indicated, the note referenced two cases the deal with punitive damages being awarded in other cases. So, that is what the jury is instructed on to make a determination as to the proper amount of punitive damages. So, obviously information that is being requested in discovery that would go to those things that obviously would have to be admissible evidence at trial are certainly fair game for purposes of discovery. And any other request that would drive toward that information or potentially uncover that information would be discoverable. (…) 1:07 p.m. Eastern HENRY: And then the last bit is on the Warner Brothers subpoena. And I think the way that I'm looking at this is – You know, let's boil it down to something simple. In a car accident case, the defense does a RFP to the plaintiff saying, ‘send me all your medical records,’ but then, at the same time, there's a notice of production and subpoenas all the medical providers and gets their records not only from the accident but predating it or whatever. And it's just to make sure that what's being produced on one side is the same as what the doctor actually has in their office. So, I think even though something may be being produced by CNN, it wouldn't necessarily bar it if Warner Brothers has the same type of document. Having said that, I don't think Warner Brothers should be compelled to produce something that it was creating as its own separate entity. That is separate apart from a financial record that CNN may have internally produced itself, and I think there's a difference of opinion or a difference in terms of how those need to be looked at. And hence some of my questions that I asked you, Mr. Delich of ‘Well do you really think this is the same thing if Warner Brothers is doing it for its evaluation purposes as opposed to CNN walking in to apply for the loan.’ And I think, at least at this point in time, I think there is a slight difference on that because Warner Brothers is not CNN and CNN is not Warner Brothers. So, having said that, if, for number one, for instance, if there is internal modeling or predictions of future revenues or profits for CNN that Warner Brothers has in its records and archives. And it was sent by CNN to Warner Brothers. And it wasn't just generated by Warner Brothers itself. I think Warner Brothers should produce what CNN – you know, I mean – You know, I don't know. I compare this, for instance, to, you know, the kid goes to the parents and go, ‘hey, I need to up my allowance this year.’ ‘Well, Johnny, why do you need to up your allowance?’ ‘Well, I got to pay for this. I gotta pay for this, you know, these are the things I wanna do, um, you know, I'm gonna go cut grass and I'm only gonna get, you know, so much from cutting mowing yards during this point in time, so here's where I think you ought to settle on my allowance per week now because this is what I need to pay for lunch or go have fun to the movies with my friends or do whatever.” But it's Johnny's bringing that to mom and dad and saying here, up my allowance. So, I mean, if CNN did internal modeling or predictions and set that within the umbrella for Warner Brothers and Warner Brothers happens to have a copy of it. I think Warner Brothers can produce it, and it's the same thing as asking the doctor's office to produce the records that maybe the plaintiff's attorney produces as well, but the defendant can, you know, in that case has a right to verify it. Y'all have the right to verify it. If it's internally done for Warner Brothers. Financing. Modeling You know, what are making a determination on what we're paying on – to shareholders for dividends this year. If it's Warner Brothers doing these things, Warner Brothers doesn't have to produce its own document. Okay? And I know Mr. Delich, I know you're saying, well, it's mom and dad would be the one, they're not selling Johnny, but mom and dad would be the ones selling the car if they had that, and therefore they ought to be able to value that asset that they own. Mom and dad aren't a party to this case. So, at this point I would sustain an objection to anything Warner Brothers prepared itself. I would overrule the objection to the extent that it was prepared by or on behalf of CNN Inc. or CNN Worldwide and just submitted to Warner Brothers. (…)

Democratic officials and various pro-abortion organizations have gone to great lengths to attack abortion-pill reversal, characterizing the life-saving practice as dangerous, unscientific, and ineffective. A recent report highlighted how the Biden-Harris Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, chief among the institutional exponents of this smear, may have unwittingly planted the seed of this narrative's undoing. The CDC acknowledged in its 2024 U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive report that medical abortions can be potentially reversed by precisely the means pro-life organizations employ in their rescue efforts — and it is not the first institution to do so. Mifepristone To extinguish the lives growing within them, some pregnant mothers take a drug called mifepristone in conjunction with misoprostol up to 10 weeks into their pregnancies. Mifepristone — which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has indicated is linked to a number of serious adverse events as well as the deaths of dozens of mothers — starves the uterus of progesterone, a hormone required for a pregnancy to continue. Misoprostal then forces the uterus to contract and expel its contents, including the child, usually within days of starting the medication. The Mayo Clinic noted, however, that sometimes mifepristone tablets are not enough to completely end a pregnancy or clear away human remains. In such cases, surgery is required. Those mothers who immediately regret taking the abortion pill are not altogether hopeless. Reversal Numerous pro-life organizations and health care professionals across the country provide abortion-pill reversals. The reversal process reportedly involves the administration of progesterone to undo the effects of the abortion pill; a follow-up ultrasound to confirm the viability of the baby; and at least two weeks of continued progesterone treatments. There have, however, been conflicting studies in recent years about whether the use of progesterone actually helps reverse the effects of mifepristone. 'The reversal of the effects of mifepristone using progesterone is safe and effective.' A 2016 paper published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, for instance, suggested that the administration of a progestin-based contraceptive — either an etonogestrel implant or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) injection — on the same day as mifepristone "did not alter the success rates [of the medical abortions]." Another study published that same year in Obstetrics & Gynecology alternatively indicated that the administration of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), a progestin hormonal medication sold under the brand name Depo-Provera, increased the chances of "ongoing pregnancy." Pregnancy Help News noted why Depo-Provera would help in this regard: With an increased concentration of progesterone, such as the progestin in DepoProvera, the mifepristone is quickly displaced from those receptors. When providing APR, prescribers offer supplemental bio-identical progesterone, which is similar to what the mother’s body produces. This treatment works rapidly to fight the effects of mifepristone blockage. In 2017, a case report published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care concluded, "Progesterone use in early pregnancy is low risk and its application to counter the effects of mifepristone in such circumstances may be clinically beneficial in preserving her threatened pregnancy." In 2018, a study published in the peer-reviewed professional journal Issues in Law & Medicine claimed, "The reversal of the effects of mifepristone using progesterone is safe and effective." Admissions Pregnancy Help News' Christina Brown highlighted a telling admission in a recent CDC report concerning progestin-only injectable contraceptives, such as Depo-Provera. Under the section, "Special Considerations," there is a subsection titled "Postabortion (Spontaneous or Induced)." There, the CDC states: After a first trimester medication abortion that included mifepristone, concurrent administration of DMPA with mifepristone might slightly decrease medication abortion effectiveness and increase risk for ongoing pregnancy (U.S. MEC 2) (1). Risk for ongoing pregnancy with concurrent administration of DMPA with mifepristone versus DMPA administration after abortion completion should be considered along with personal preference and access to follow-up abortion and contraceptive care. Brown noted that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, another fierce critic of abortion reversals, also appears to have admitted that DMPA can save some babies' lives. In an October 2020 practice bulletin, ACOG stated, "DMPA injection at the time of mifepristone administration may slightly increase the risk of an ongoing pregnancy." Despite ample evidence that the administration of progesterone during pregnancy is safe — it is, after all, usually administered during the IVF process as well as to prevent preterm birth in singleton pregnancies — and its constituents' ostensible acknowledgments that reversal is possible, the American health establishment nevertheless appears committed to denying remorseful mothers the choice of saving their babies. Criticism The ACOG states on its website, "Facts are important, especially when it comes to policies and discussions that impact patients. Claims regarding abortion 'reversal' treatment are not based on science and do not meet clinical standards." The ACOG notes further that while the "concurrent administration of DMPA may slightly decrease the effectiveness of mifepristone for medication abortion, the results do not demonstrate that DMPA 'reverses' medication abortion." The ACOG has dutifully furnished leftists with the perceived credibility they need to target pro-lifers. When New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Heartbeat International and 11 pro-life pregnancy organizations in May for promoting abortion-pill reversal, she cited the ACOG's concerns. "Abortions cannot be reversed. Any treatments that claim to do so are made without scientific evidence and could be unsafe," said James. "Heartbeat International and the other crisis pregnancy center defendants are spreading dangerous misinformation by advertising 'abortion reversals' without any medical and scientific proof." James' lawsuit accused the pro-life groups of fraud for saying that abortion-pill reversal "can reverse the effects of the abortion pill and allow you to continue your pregnancy" — precisely what the CDC's recent report appears to suggest. James is hardly the first pro-abortion activist to clamp down on those seeking to remedy mothers' regret. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) also sued Heartbeat International last year and a chain of crisis pregnancy centers over their promotion of medical reversal. His lawsuit also referenced the ACOG's claims. Colorado's Democratic Gov. Jared Polis ratified legislation in April 2023 exposing health care practitioners to discipline if they dared perform an abortion reversal. The law also forced limits on advertising by crisis pregnancy centers. U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico blocked the law from taking effect late last year, stating, "The law at issue here runs afoul of these first amendment principles." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!