National Review: Vice President Kamala Harris exaggerated her trial experience when she first ran for San Francisco district attorney just over two decades ago, greatly overstating the number of felony cases she prosecuted in order to bolster her image as the tough-but-fair prosecutor San Franciscans needed to set the city straight.

 

Harris’s overstatements about her prosecutorial record, central to her pitch as a candidate who would clean up inner-city crime, became a point of attack throughout the campaign from opponents who questioned her level of experience.

 

“As Deputy District Attorney in Alameda County from 1990 to 1998, Kamala prosecuted hundreds of serious and violent felonies, including homicide, rape and child sexual assault cases,” Harris’s campaign bio stated.

 

Harris made the same claim in a campaign mailer portraying her as a distinguished, veteran prosecutor with the ability to reduce crime in San Francisco and better manage the district attorney’s office. The flier, obtained by National Review, says Harris had 13 years of trial experience and includes the line from her bio about prosecuting hundreds of serious felony cases.

 

But she only had ten years of trial experience at the time, and she had prosecuted far fewer serious cases than the “hundreds” she touted, an inconsistency her opponents made light of in the midst of an intense campaign.

 

At a 2003 debate forum, one of Harris’s opponents, Bill Fazio, confronted her about the number of serious felony cases she tried as a prosecutor, according to audio of the debate obtained by National Review.

 

“How many cases have you tried? Can you tell us how many serious felonies you have tried? Can you tell us one?” Fazio asked bluntly.

 

“I’ve tried about 50 cases. Mr. Fazio, and it’s about leadership,” Harris replied, without addressing the discrepancy between her statement and her campaign’s claims about her experience.

 

“Ms Harris, why does your information, which is still published, say that you tried hundreds of serious felonies? I think that’s misleading. I think that’s disingenuous. I think that shows that you are incapable of leadership and you’re not to be trusted. You continue to put out information which says you have tried hundreds of serious felonies,” Fazio pressed.

 

“Mr. Fazio, leadership, working with different communities as a career prosecutor, I’ve done that, which is why I, not you, have every law enforcement organization’s endorsement,” Harris shot back.

 

In the same forum, incumbent progressive San Francisco district attorney Terence Hallinan said Harris worked for him for a year-and-a-half and tried one case, a statement Harris disputed during a contentious exchange over Hallinan’s handling of crime and disorder.

 

“She worked for me for a year and half, she tried one case, I was satisfied with the way she worked for me, ” Hallinan said over the interjections of the other candidates. As he continued, Harris told her old boss to stop lying about the number of cases she tried.

 

Before the campaign, Harris had an eight-year stint in the Alameda County district attorney’s office and a nearly two-year tenure in the San Francisco district attorney’s offices, giving her a decade of experience as prosecutor. Harris also worked for the San Francisco city attorney’s office in a civil-law position where she spent much of her time on administrative tasks, timesheets from January 2000 to August 2003 show.

 

Another opponent to highlight Harris’s inflated statements about her prosecutorial experience was the San Francisco tenants union, which endorsed Hallinan and accused Harris of being closely tied to wealthy slumlords.

 

“She claims she has tried ‘hundreds of serious cases.’ In fact, she tried only 2 as a Deputy District Attorney in San Francisco and only 8 during her 10 years in Alameda’s District Attorney’s Office. Why is she lying about her record?” the union’s mailer says. The union also dubbed Harris a “no-show” who was “paid to do nothing” in two patronage jobs.

 

The dispute over Harris’s prosecutorial background was the subject of a lengthy San Francisco Bay Guardian story that contrasted Harris’s campaign with her comments during the debate and additional evidence that she tried a much lower number of cases.

 

“Obviously, the race for district attorney isn’t a contest for who has logged the most hours in the courtroom. But trial experience is an issue in the race – largely because Harris has made it an issue,” the Bay Guardian observed.

 

“And over and over again, she has exaggerated her own experience.”

 

During a meeting with the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic club, Harris said she tried “under 30” cases after being pressed repeatedly by a club member who supported Fazio’s campaign, the outlet reported. With misdemeanors taken into consideration, Harris stated that she tried roughly 100 cases, although misdemeanors are much less significant than the serious felony trials she campaigned on.

 

Sources in the Alameda County District Attorney’s office told the Bay Guardian that Harris tried five to ten felonies over the course of her time there. In San Francisco, she tried two felonies, one of which was a homicide case.

 

Harris went on to defeat Hallinan in the 2003 general election for San Francisco district attorney after the two finished ahead of Fazio in a hotly contested primary. Her victory over Hallinan began Harris’s political career that has her on the cusp of the presidency 21 years later.

 

After becoming district attorney, Harris was elected California attorney general in 2016 and became a senator six years later. Harris’s prosecutorial record, especially as California attorney general, is a major theme of her presidential campaign against former president Donald Trump, the GOP nominee for the third straight cycle. The Harris campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

 

Seeking to distance herself from the soft-on-crime policies she supported four years when she last ran for president, Harris is emphasizing her prosecutorial record to show her experience going after violent criminals and corporations alike. She is similarly using her time as a prosecutor to brandish her border-hawk credentials, hoping voters forget about the record levels of illegal immigration she oversaw as the Biden administration’s “border czar.”

---