Post removed

[mr_lebowski]

1. Gee, I dunno ... could the answer actually be RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES?

"even though the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had already begun investigating the company in conjunction with the attorneys general of Illinois and New York"

Naw ... impossible ...

Srsly this is a highly questionable article.

Even if it's not she should just ridicule it, call it Fake News, and threaten to sue.

Everyone will forget in 2 days anyway.

[shanny]

4. "Even if it's not...(ridiculous)"

Interesting sentiment.

[mr_lebowski]

5. I didn't say it was ridiculous ...

Trump gets away with everything, so our side might as well just act like him from now on. Seems to be working out great for him.

You follow now?

[Celerity]

2. Beto surrogate piling on in the article

“It’s disgusting,” says Julie Contreras, a Chicago-based activist whose “Afuera con Herbalife” campaign sharply criticized the company for preying on Latino communities. Contreras says that her Spanish-language nickname for Harris is “Que Mala,” a play on “Kamala” that translates to “how bad.”

“Kamala Harris did a huge injustice” in declining to investigate the Los Angeles-based company, says Contreras, who has publicly supported Beto O’Rourke’s campaign.

[ucrdem]

13. LOL,"publicly supported" isn't hired.

Sarota is hired. Just to take a completely random example.

[dalton99a]

16. +1

[aikoaiko]

20. That's probably why "surrogate" and "supporter" was used instead of staff.

But the example in the article is how surrogates work in our political system.

[shanny]

3. That's disturbing , if true

( I don't know anything about yahoo news).

But I will say that it brings to mind another incident where she could have filed suit and did not: foreclosure irregularities involving Steve Mnuchin and OneWest Bank. Her office had many complaints, could have found many more (according to investigators there), and took no action. All she ever said was they decided not to pursue it (which is not an answer imo).

All I know is having a candidate Wall St and/or the business community fears is one of my requirements, and I don't think she's it.

[mr_lebowski]

7. I'm really not so sure of that ...

What would be disturbing is if there was some shred of evidence that Harris purposefully failed to authorize the request for resources because she KNEW she'd get money from people associated with the company in exchange.

What THIS IS ... is a hit piece. Based on virtually nothing tangible.

[shanny]

17. I did say, "if true."

My concerns remain, however, for the other reason I cited.

[Autumn]

18. I find the use of the term "hit piece" interesting. I think that her decision to not investigate

Herbalife are very much open to discussion. If the connections to someone in her life had any bearing on her decision not to investigate after being asked by state prosecutors while the (FTC) had already begun investigating the company along with the attorneys general of Illinois and New York and she received campaign donations after her decision not to investigate that's a big deal.

[mr_lebowski]

22. I'm not sure you understood my original point.

"while the (FTC) had already begun investigating the company along with the attorneys general of Illinois and New York"

That is, in and of itself, a very reasonable explanation for why she might decide to not take up a California-based investigation of the company as well. The Feds, and two other large-state AG's are already on the case.

How much were these campaign contributions, BTW, I didn't read the whole article?

I'm also just getting very wary of innuendo against Democrats based on flimsy evidence that could absolutely have totally different, and innocuous explanations.

And I hate to say but, even if she DID do what's suggested? I really don't care THAT much honestly. This is 99% how the political system works these days.

The Feds were already on the case, and ended up fining them $200M and made them change their practices, so ... in the end ... unless there's PROOF there was a conversation 'hey, don't commit CA resources to this investigation and we'll cut you a $50k (or whatever) check?' ... I don't care to speculate against one of top Democratic politicians and a CA Senator ... based purely on 'a given order of events looking potentially sketchy'.

Our opponents are a criminal gang at this point. You think every Republican currently holding office wouldn't act the same? Hell yeah they would. You think any of them are ever getting in trouble for acting like this? Hell no.

[Autumn]

23. I didn't misunderstand your point at all. You post here makes the point very nicely why

it's something that should be discussed. I don't aspire to belong to a party or vote for any person that is part of, or behaves like a criminal gang like the Republicans. I don't want to have to support any politician who skirts the law, no matter how small a skirt it is. YMMV. Discussing a politicians actions is vetting, not a bad thing at all.

[bigtree]

26. I'll bite

...maybe someone can explain to me why this hit piece is extremely prominent on right-wing sites and posted almost exclusively on twitter by right-wing oriented handles?

The origin for this smear is from the right, undeniably (playing off of one of her campaign opponent, Loretta Sanchez's old smear). Btw, it's also a hit at JPR, so, cheers.


So, Podesta's ex-wife donated to her campaign and that was supposed to have influenced a decision to not prosecute? How fucking inane. That's the quid pro quo? In what fucking universe is this credible?

Can you not see that PODESTA's name is being used here to elicit a response from the mindless rabble on the right?

Not surprised to see this come here, so much bot nonsense and right-wing propaganda let in under the pretext of 'discussion.' Stop taking the bait.

[RandySF]

6. Here we go.

[mr_lebowski]

8. Right? (nt)

[betsuni]

10. Exactly.

But ... being Beholden to Big Supplement just doesn't seem as scary as Wall Street or the fossil fuel industry or similar.

[NurseJackie]

24. "Big Supplement" --- LOL!

being Beholden to Big Supplement

[underthematrix]

9. This article states an individual Herbalife lobbyist made three

donations to the Harris' senate campaign and sometime thereafter Harris then AG did not provide resources to San Diego to conduct an investigation of Herbalife. In the meantime, the FTC obtained a $200 million settlement from Herbalife.

Maybe future articles will provide more granular detail. Right now, this seems like an attempt to manipulate people's emotions and elicit an outrage response. With a thug like Donald in the WH that's gonna be a very heavy lift.

Harris is not one of my top three presidential candidates even though I love her as my senator.

[Orangepeel]

15. It says an individual whose ex-husband's firm worked for herbalife

Candidates should be vetted, and if there is anything real to this story, let it come out. The accusation as written here Is unconvincing.

[RandySF]

11. Instead of broadsiding Democrats

why don’t you find someone you actually like?

[Thekaspervote]

12. Frankly, I don't care who it is, best these issues come out now

[ucrdem]

14. The facts as presented in Yahoo news are not compelling.

Yahoo news is not compelling either

[WeekiWater]

19. If this is how far they have to stretch..... NT

[BlueFlorida]

21. Meh ... another hit piece against one of the front-runners.

Collecting three entirely independent unconnected events and putting them together in a cause-effect-accusation logic.

This smear started on a RW site Free Beacon.

https://freebeacon.com/politics/kamala-harris-accused-of-letting-company-exploiting-latinos-off-the-hook/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Every time a Democrat is attacked Trump gets wood.

And that's quite a feat for an obese septuagenarian with calcified arteries.

[brooklynite]

27. "Bought and paid for"?

A grand total of $5,200? I didn't know Senators could be bought that cheaply...