Did Kamala Harris cover up for San Francisco archdiocese sex abuse?

Former San Francisco district attorney could have legally intervened, but chose not to

Kamala Harris (photo: Richard T. Bui)

More than eight years ago in 2010, Kamala Harris, then-San Francisco District Attorney, was running for California Attorney General. And for some reason, her record of covering up sex abuse records belonging to the San Francisco Archdiocese was never part of the political news of her record. Today, Harris is a United States Senator, with an eye for running for President in 2020.

She was San Francisco District Attorney from 2003 until her election in 2010 to State Attorney General.

Reporter Matt Smith at San Francisco Weekly reported in 2010 that Harris rebuffed reporters’ efforts for five years to view her office’s files on Catholic clergy sex abuse under the state Public Records Act, despite statements by former San Francisco DA Terence Hallinan saying they should be released.

The files in question involve the San Francisco Archdiocese files on clergy abuse, and contain details of how the church dealt internally with alleged pederast, homosexual and pedophile priests going back as far as 80 years, according to a second SF Weekly article. Cardinal William Levada was archbishop of San Francisco until 2005.

Matt Smith reported:

Portions of this record came to light in stories by then–SF Weekly staff writer Ron Russell in 2005 and in a May 5 story in The New York Times that recounted elements of Russell’s reporting. By sifting through documents made public as a result of lawsuits, Russell learned that during the 1990s and 2000s, Levada helped keep allegations against pedophile priests shrouded in secrecy. Alleged abusers included Salesian Brother Salvatore Billante, who police alleged had sexual relations with at least 24 children, but charges were dropped after the California Supreme Court overturned a state law extending the statute of limitations for pedophiles. And so the full contents of archdiocese clergy abuse files obtained by prosecutors were never revealed at trial.

Relatively unscathed by his San Francisco legacy, now-Cardinal Levada is the chief Vatican official charged with responding to global allegations of clergy abuse.

In response to Smith’s Public Records Request, Harris’s office said her investigative files were not subject to California’s Public Records Act, and claimed her office essentially enjoys a blanket secrecy privilege.

Smith sent Harris’ response to California Newspaper Publishers Association legal counsel Jim Ewert. “That’s flatly untrue,” Ewert said. The District Attorney’s office “can release them if they want to. But they have decided not to.”

As of 2010, the Archdiocese of San Francisco settled 101 abuse cases and paid $68 million in settlements since 2003, the New York Times reported.

An official accounting of accused priests in the Bay Area has never been made public, but an organization that collects news and data about clergy abuse lists the names of 86 publicly accused priests among dioceses in San Francisco (37), Oakland (25), Santa Rosa (14) and San Jose (10). Many of those named have settled lawsuits out of court, and most are not in prison, the New York Times reported.

Kamala Harris could have legally intervened, but did not. Inquiring minds want to know why she did not?

Kamala’s Misplaced Priorities

As District Attorney, Harris ran into some other ethical difficulties as well: In 2010, a California superior court judge excoriated Harris’ office for failing to notify defense lawyers of known misconduct by a drug lab technician that later led the San Francisco police to shut down an entire section of the lab.

As California Attorney General Kamala Harris ordered a raid on the home of David Daleiden, who in 2015 exposed Planned Parenthood officials openly discussing buying and selling the body parts and organs from aborted babies for research, through Undercover videos, I reported in 2017. Rather than opening an investigation into Planned Parenthood for trafficking in human body parts, California’s then-Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat, filed charges against the undercover investigators, David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress. Harris ordered Daleiden’s home to be raided, and using 11 agents, confiscated video research and evidence, in an attempt to prevent millions of people from seeing what actually goes on inside Planned Parenthood.

Full story at Flash Report.

To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. These abortion fanatics are capable of anything. She is OK with the killing of babies, allows homosexual predators to go unpunished, and CA voters elected her to the Senate. Shame on all of you!

  2. regarding the request for records in 2010, did the requestor petition the relevant civil court to decide if the records were releasable, and if releasable, to compel release?

  3. It is very unlikely Ms. Harris assisted in a covered-up of any sex abuse scandal involving the Archdiocese of San Francisco. She has demonstrated in many instances an anti-pathy for the Church, its leaders and its teachings. Additionally, aggressively prosecuting a sexual abuse scandal in any diocese would have been very popular with her base.

    • Depends on the circumstances. She would definitely fail to prosecute some people in the Church if she had political reasons. Believe me, there are plenty in the Church that would fit that bill.

  4. Her religion is abortion

  5. Kamala is a typical militant Democrat, full of dirty tricks, like we’re seeing with the Kavanaugh nomination. If Republicans screw this up and lose the Kavanaugh nomination and Democrats succeed in running out the clock so Trump can’t get a conservative, originalist nominee on the Court, I will not only never vote for any Republican again, I will never vote again in any election. I will be done with participating in the sham elections that put gutless, unprincipled politicians in place. If Democrats successfully derail Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Court with the ridiculous allegations and dirty delay tactics, it’s all over for this country. All over. And Kamala should be considered a top ten enemy of the Constitution and freedom.

    • Unfortunately Bret, by deciding to not vote you are playing right into the hands of the Democrats! That’s exactly what they want you to do! Don’t do it, ask God for discernment in this issue, but please do not go away! We need every vote! Imagine Kamala Harris as president in 2020! She is potentially more dangerous than Hillary Clinton!

      • What you are saying is exactly the line Republican politicians have used. Vote for us because we’re the defense against Democrat libs. Well, guess what: they are in power: they control the government, and we’re having this silly political dirty fight that threatens Kavanaugh’s confirmation. If Republicans screw this up, it’s all over for America. Without the Court there’s no hope. Republicans need to deliver. If they can’t deliver, then why should they be in power? Soft liberalism from Republicans isn’t much better than hard liberalism from Democrats, and I won’t be a voting pawn that gives Republicans perks on the government dole when they fail every time. This is their last chance. Last chance.

      • Liz, Bret’s right that if Kavanaugh’s nomination is sunk by the Democrats pulling dirty stunts then American politics has descended to a level from which it won’t ever come back… it’s just the raw pursuit of power and the Left is going to win that fight. Chaos and anticonstitutionalism and socialism will turn the whole country into California within two generations. I get your plea to stay in the fight, but it’s looking more and more like it’s game over for America and conservatives. I will also hate and disown the Republican Party if they screw up the supreme court by not getting Kavanaugh confirmed. Republicans have no idea how much true conservatives despise their weakness.

    • Why did you vote after the Republicans spent a year running out the clock on Merrick Garland? How is a full investigation of what is now several accusations of misconduct a worse thing than not even holding a single hearing on a man that both sides thought would have made a great Supreme Court justice?

      • Republicans refusing to confirm a Democrat president’s nominee just months before a presidential election was understandable and good.
        Republicans refusing to confirm a Republican president’s nominee when they had the chance and the Senate vote scheduled, while they now let the minority party use strategically delayed, unsubstantiated, vague, unreliable, disputed by eyewitnesses, accounts of events over 30 years ago to hijack the nomination is deplorable and unforgiveable. I’m with those who say that if Republicans mess this one up it’s the end. And Democrats can have the country. Let it turn into Venezuela. I’ll die before then.

      • If you are insinuating that the charges against Kavanaugh are credible, you are delusional. They change from day to day, and friends of the accusers say they don’t believe the accusations. They are 100% politically motivated fiction, designed to derail his confirmation vote. Kavanaugh is being Borked and Thomased, even though libs didn’t succeed in preventing Clarence Thomas from being confirmed.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Two completely uncorroborated claims against Kavanaugh of “misconduct” from over 3 decades ago? Guilt established purely by accusation? Pure lies and fabrications: And why the justice system has a statute of limits on claims. Not apparently the psycho-political system of today.

        As for Merrick Garland, get over it Anonymous. Joe Biden in June 1992 announced the idea of blocking a SCOTUS appointment BEFORE A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION to be held 5 mos later. He was the basis for blocking Merrick Garland IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR. Now the Left wants to block all Supreme Court nominees in all even-numbered years? As insane as they are.

    • Hutchinson Ivette says:

      Hi, Bret,
      Please read again what you just wrote! Everything you say about Kamala Harris is true and you are short . But if this “lady” gets gets away with what the Democrats ( should read demorats) are doing to Judge Kavanaugh… is not the time to “quit” from your ideals and your own political party!… Is the right that to put on your armour and start fighting…real fighting! There is no way you can win for yourself and for others by waiting and running away … and giving up!!! Think 🤔 about it‼️ Don’t give the enemy what they are wishing for!!!!

  6. Django Campos says:

    Kamala Harris is a potty-mouthed piece of trash. No dignity. No self-respect. Just naked ambition.

  7. I keep pondering why she refused to expose records on priest abuse. She hates Catholics (among her many hates). Was it a bribe from Levada? Does Kamala Harris have something to hide and there was agreement that she wouldn’t be exposed if she blocked opening records? The Church is full of Democrats — were they threatening to stop giving money to her campaign?? There has to be a reason. Harris is not an altruistic person….

  8. Lou Cumming says:

    Kamela aka “Scamela” Harris is a disgrace to our state. She is vulgar, unprofessional, deceitful, two-faced, ambitious to the extreme and overall much worse than her peer, DiFi, in every dimension. Wonder if George Soros is her puppeteer?

  9. Anthony Rios says:

    There is nothing to stop Archbishop Cordeleone from releasing all of the files—now!

  10. Just like Nancy said “we need to vote for the bill so we can find out what’s in it” (HHS Bill). We need to vote for kabanaugh and look into these matters later.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.