Conservative civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon appeared on The Tucker Carlson Show on Friday, where she opened up about Kamala Harris’ past — and brought receipts.
Dhillon, who was just named head of the Trump campaign’s election integrity team in Arizona, had an in-depth conversation with the former Fox News host about the many issues facing the extremist Border Czar and the Democratic president appointed candidate, but there was a section that caught my eye in which she discussed the slippery paths by which the current vice president achieved notoriety in the first place.
It was the 2003 race for San Francisco district attorney that Harris won – by fraud. Like her competitors, she had agreed to spending limits under penalty of perjury, but then simply ignored them.
Dhillon:
Well, it turns out that Kamala Harris, who, by the way, started third in this campaign, behind her boss Terence Hallinan, who was at the top, and then a man named Vic Fazio, who was a former prosecutor and then defense attorney Be a tough on crime guy. He was eventually supported by Republicans in San Francisco, so she came third. She was the outsider. And so she quickly didn’t get any traction at first. So she realized she really needed to enhance her spending.
[One-time boyfriend and longtime SF powerbroker] Willie Brown helped her with that.
Brown played a major role in her stunning rise:
Willie Brown also helped raise money for independent expenditures to support them as well. So. It’s a humorous story, but one of her campaign themes was that she would be tough on drugs and marijuana, and in 2003, marijuana was not the recreational employ of marijuana. [it] wasn’t legal in California, and so she would be strict about weed.
Apparently some marijuana activists who didn’t like this pored over campaign finance records, and it was one marijuana activist who realized that Kamala Harris had raised over $300,000 and spent over $300,000. So this person went and informed the other campaigns. They filed an ethics complaint against her and by the end of the election she had spent over $600,000.
So three times the amount she was allowed.
Regard:
“[Kamala Harris] Her career in politics actually began with breaking the law.
Harmeet Dhillon (@pnjaban) with the details: pic.twitter.com/e967YpcJys
— Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) October 14, 2024
Fight for America:
Good news! RNC, Team Trump just hired a familiar name to lead Arizona’s new election integrity team
Harmeet Dhillon criticizes pro-life activists for their efforts to suppress votes for Trump
What happens next for the Republican base if the RNC status quo remains?
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 lawyer:
…thanks to hiring a good lawyer and using the excuse that the form has changed, I didn’t really understand the significance of this, so please lift your cap. She got the San Francisco Ethics Commission – and by the way, Many of these people on the Ethics Commission owed their positions to Willie Brown.
She made them look away at this gross infraction. By the way, it’s a crime.
She could have been prosecuted for a misdemeanor if she had been properly held responsible for this significant campaign finance violation, and anyone else would have, but the Ethics Commission simply raised the cap, which is not in the statute, and therefore did not disqualify her, which would have been the normal punishment, and when she prosecuted her she simply got away with it.
Ah, I see. That’s how it works these days in the former Golden State. It was only her first competition, but it paved the path for her that now, shockingly, puts her on the path to becoming the next President of the United States.
In her first race for elected office, she ignored campaign finance restrictions and used her former lover’s corrupt patronage to raise the money needed for the glossy ads. I have several examples here. She sent out more mailings than any other candidate. She had independent editions to her name and was just able to push and break those boundaries.
Dhillon then showed Carlson the countless glossy mailers Kamala could send out with her overspending. She also pointed out that while these mailers claimed Kamala was the best prepared person for the job, other prosecutors in the race had far more experience and she was only able to prevail because of her massive (excessive) spending.
“It is quite unbelievable that the birth of this meteoric career resulted from multiple campaign violations,” she concluded.
Unbelievable is one word. Absolutely incredibly disturbing is three Words, but they also get to the point.
There is much, much more to this interview and I encourage you to check it out. However, this one paragraph alone should disqualify Kamala Harris from the presidency—or any other office, for that matter.
Here is the full interview:
Harmeet Dhillon is a San Francisco attorney who has known Kamala Harris for more than 20 years. Your verdict: Kamala Harris is a criminal. Here are the details.
(0:43) Who is Kamala Harris really?
(2:41) Kamala and Willie Brown
(22:17) How does Kamala pronounce her name?
(32:23)… pic.twitter.com/Gt0qP939DJ– Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) October 11, 2024
- (32:23) Kamala’s crimes
- (45:03) How has Kamala changed?
- (47:44) Corporate media coverage of Kamala’s gaffe
- (49:46) Kamala protects criminals
- (1:06:11) What kind of Attorney General was Kamala?
- (1:09:10) Kamala’s hatred of 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?
