The Kamala Harris-Willie Brown Saga (That The News Media Wants You To Think Doesn’t Matter)-UPDATED

( A missing link to the “Truth or Fiction” site has been added.)

Enter this one under “Tales of Media Double Standards For Hypocritical Democratic Presidential Contenders Aren’t Elizabeth Warren.”

The mainstream news media has anointed Kamala Harris as one of its favorite Democrats, so it’s unlikely that we’ll see much objective or accurate analysis about her unethical relationship with Willie Brown while he was Mayor of San Francisco.  (Harris also appears to be on the road to dinging herself irrespective of this problem.) Watch a progressive “factcheck” site try to spin the Brown connection:try to spin the Brown connection:

Accusations that Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California) had an affair with a married man have hovered around her since the 2000s, back when Harris first made a run for public office.

These rumors stem from a relationship Harris had with former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, but what it had to do with the beginning of her political career has been largely misrepresented.

Kamala Harris was elected to serve as the district attorney of San Francisco in 2003. In 2010, she was elected to serve as California’s state attorney general. Harris held that role office until she was elected to the United States Senate in November 2016.

Throughout her career, rumors that Harris had an affair with a married man (Willie Brown) and used it to launch her political career, have followed. We’ll take a look at the facts and provide a brief overview of the situation.

The Kamala Harris-Willie Brown connection

Kamala Harris and Willie Brown had a relationship in the mid 1990s. At the time, Harris was working as an attorney in various city offices. Brown, who is nearly 30 years older than Harris, had been elected mayor after serving in the state legislature for more than 30 years.

Willie Brown has led an eccentric, outspoken life, and his exploits with women have been well-documented. In 2001, news broke that Brown had impregnated his top fundraiser, for example. However, the claim that Kamala Harris had “an affair” with Brown, implying not only that they had a relationship but that it was furtive and seedy, doesn’t check out.

It’s true that Brown has technically been married since 1958. However, Brown and his wife separated amicably in 1982 — more than 10 years before his relationship with Harris began — according to a 1984 New York Times profile of Brown.

So again, claims that Kamala Harris had an affair with a married man just don’t check out.

Did Kamala Harris use her relationship with Brown to launch her political career?

Kamala Harris and Willie Brown made no effort to hide their relationship in the early 1990s. When Harris first ran for public office in 2003, long after the relationship ended, her previous relationship with Brown didn’t help her chances — it actually hurt them.

Harris’ opponents, incumbent District Attorney Terence Hallinan and local attorney Bill Fazio, turned her previous relationship with Brown into a campaign issue, arguing that Harris could not be trusted to hold Brown accountable as DA because they had been previously involved.

…Brown himself leapt into the fray in late January 2019 with a brief commentary in the San Francisco Chronicle just after Harris announced that she would be running for president, appearing to take credit for helping start her career:

“Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians. The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I “so much as jaywalked” while she was D.A. That’s politics for ya.”

Is this a masterpiece of obfuscation and spin, or what? Wow. Let’s look at a few details:

1. Kamala Harris had an ongoing intimate relationship with the Mayor of San Francisco while he was married to someone else. Not “technically married,” married. Harris is a lawyer: she knows this. Thus she had an affair with a married man. The fact that he was separated from his wife, or that Brown may have been open about it, doesn’t make claims that she had an affair a “slur.” Using “a relationship” is deliberate deceit. They had an affair, a sexual affair. It isn’t a “rumor.” It’s a fact.

2. The affair was a vertical sexual relationship between Harris and her supervisor. That is unethical. A vertical sexual relationship is what President Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky. Ina government office, that creates, at very least, third party sexual harassment, by sending the message to all female employees that they are expected to accede to overtures for social relationships, because that’s the conduct the mayor was modelling.

This is problematical in the #MeToo Democratic party, indeed wildly hypocritical. This was exactly the kind of “relationship” Harvey Weinstein forced on women subordinate to him. However, Harris has never acknowledged the inconsistency between her #MeToo lip-service and posturing and her relationship with Brown.

3.  Was this a quid pro quo affair, Brown getting a younger woman under his control for sex and Harris getting professional concessions? It sure sound like it: Brown says he appointed her to two commissions. Was the subsequent affair part of the deal? At very least, this has the appearance of impropriety, a supposed taboo for government officials—and again sent the message, a message that Willie Brown was just the man to benefit from, that you could take a fast track to success if you slept with him, and really, he wasn’t so bad. Again, here Harris aided and abetted Brown’s use of his extended staff as his own Harem. Whether she knew it or not, she should have known it, as a lawyer and an alleged feminist.

4. What women (or men) didn’t get the appointments Harris got because of her special relationship to the Mayor? How is what happened to them any more just or ethical than those who Elizabeth Warren jumped over or past on her up academia’s ladder by playing a counterfeit Minority Card?

It isn’t.

5. “When Harris first ran for public office in 2003, long after the relationship ended, her previous relationship with Brown didn’t help her chances — it actually hurt them.” Yes, and it should hurt them again, now. The “Truth or Fiction” factcheck is shamelessly shifting the goalposts to confuse readers. The issue is whether Harris received special benefits and career advancement opportunities from the Mayor  while  sleeping with him. The answer is yes, she did. The fact that they were open about the relationship is irrelevant (except that it would have been better for the culture under Brown if they had kept the relationship secret), and the fact that the relationship was criticized later, after she had split with Brown and was running for District Attorney, is moral luck.

6. The statement by Harris during that campaign, cited by the factchecker as exculpatory, is far from it:

“I refuse… to design my campaign around criticizing Willie Brown for the sake of appearing to be independent when I have no doubt that I am independent of him — and that he would probably right now express some fright about the fact that he cannot control me. His career is over; I will be alive and kicking for the next 40 years. I do not owe him a thing.”

Wait: now he doesn’t control you? Doesn’t this sound like she’s ready to use what she learned while in Brown’s confidence against him? Since he did, in fact, help her career—completely altruistically I’m sure, isn’t this a remarkably vicious, mean, ungrateful statement to a man whom she supposedly cared about?

7. Brown’s statement also reflects ominously on Harris. What a sleaze he is. His justification for their relationship, whatever you call it, is exactly like Harvey Weeinstein’s defense: “This is [politics/show business]. Everybody does it.”

The Harris-Brown saga tells us a lot about both Harris and Brown, none of it good.

But Willie Brown isn’t running for President.

19 thoughts on “The Kamala Harris-Willie Brown Saga (That The News Media Wants You To Think Doesn’t Matter)-UPDATED

    • Frank Stephens: “Why does Facebook block my attempt to share your article? This is not the first time Facebook has done that. Just wondering.”

      Jack writes: “It appears to be intentional, perhaps flagged by a complaint; I don’t know. It’s very frustrating, and has hurt traffic here. But it tells me all I need to know about Facebook.”

      Searching under ‘blocked posts on FB’ brings up numerous pages with maybe helpful info: like this one.

      On the at page a commenter wrote:

      You probably didn’t follow 11th tip:

      11. Don’t express your disagreement to a group of extremist people who are willing to falsely report your random posts and comments for it.

      If you get reported sufficient amount of times, you get jailed automatically REGARDLESS of the actual content of the reported stuff.

      It didn’t happen to me (yet), but it did to some of my friends.

      What everyone needs to understand — in my opinion — is that it has been decided that ‘American extremism’ needs to be confronted. It has certainly been decided by the people and the interests that stand behind the NYTs and other American periodicals. And private groups like the SPLC have an important role in identifying ‘extremism’.

      It is beyond any doubt that there are people and groups who have lost trust in the government of the US. And it is also beyond any doubt that these people have radical ideas. Just do some research into those who took great offense to the events of Ruby Ridge and Waca, Texas. Or who outline the involvement of various para-governmental operatives in setting up the Oklahoma Bombing. My research has clearly shown that there are significant numbers of people who have a range of different ideas about (what they understand as) the corruption of government. Some of it — to me — seems sound and well-reasoned, and some of it is paranoid and exaggerated.

      But this seems clear: America is in a crisis. It is imperative that this crisis (as ‘a crisis of democracy’) be resolved, and this means that it must be *managed*. The leaders of dissident groups must be neutralized. That can come about in different ways, but the one that is being employed now is embroiling them in costly lawsuits. This was one tactic that was used in the 1970s against the American Indian Movement’s activists.

      The State has unlimited resources and it has intelligence agencies that can be dedicated to planning how democratic dissidence is confronted, defeated, and *the System* recovers its direction.

      And that direction, that project, is for America to be Walmart America. A place for overweight, rather dreary-looking shoppers to get their merchandize, return to their homes, eat, and watch TeeVee and other wonderful content. You are not to get involved with radical ideas such as ‘functional democracy’ nor to question government and what it has planned for you, and you are not to develop ideas that run counter to the Established Narratives.

      We live now in and under a strange, developing, semi-Maoist regime which struggles to maintain control and to keep political perception under certain *wraps*.

      Oh Heaven! Excuse the last paragraph! It was an indulgence in a kind of dystopic imagining! It itself is evidence of a sort of *conspiracy thinking* which is not at all uncommon today. But, it is thinking that has, at the least, a certain basis in fact.

    • She’s now married to an entertainment lawyer at DLA Piper. She’s obviously much more calculating than either HRC or Fauxchahontas. Who do you think the boys at DLA Piper are hoping becomes president in 2020?

  1. November 16, 2018 at 10:03 am I wrote…

    “The way the Democrats are going these days they’re going to have to nominate Kamala Harris as their Presidential candidate for 2020. She’s black, she’s a woman, she is a Progressive attack dog, she’s a social justice warrior, she’s willing to open her mouth and let it fly to fire up her base like Trump does, she’s the perfect anti-Trump Progressive hack for the Democratic Party candidate. What could go wrong?”

    …I stand by that comment.

    As progressives shove the progressive attack dog, social justice warrior, race baiting, Stacey Abrams into the national spotlight, you might see her as Kamala Harris’ or someone else’s running mate. You heard it here first. 😉

    • I’d take that bet. Kamala has too much baggage, and is already gaffe-prone. A California Democrat also gets the Democrats nothing, since any Democrat will win California. She also has zilch executive experience.

      • Jack Marshall wrote, “I’d take that bet. Kamala has too much baggage, and is already gaffe-prone. A California Democrat also gets the Democrats nothing, since any Democrat will win California. She also has zilch executive experience.”

        Gaffe-prone – who cares – they will rationalize and say look what’s she’s running against.

        A California Democrat drags the party further down the progressive and social justice rabbit hole, that’s what progressives want.

        No executive experience – so what – she’s in Congress, she’s popular, she’s black, she’s a woman, she’s a progressive, she’s got a loose cannon mouth, she’s a social justice warrior, etc, etc; she is the epitome of a fully consumed progressive – that’s what progressives want. To be clear, that’s not what the country needs but she’s the attack dog progressives want. 🙂

        I might be wrong, but I might be right. We’ll see.

  2. Jack wrote, “The Harris-Brown saga tells us a lot about both Harris and Brown, none of it good.”

    That’s true; however, what we’ve seen over the last few years is that progressives are openly hypocritical and no one seems to give a shit anymore about Presidential politicians that have had sorted sexual pasts, Trump is evidence to that and since we’ve been shown that progressives actively engage in tit-for-tat this’ll be their “tit” to counter the “tat” called Trump.

    I don’t think this won’t negatively affect Harris’ chances for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee one bit, in fact I think it’s close to being preordained right now. If she gets the nomination and loses the general election it’ll certainly be blamed on overt racism and misogyny from the political right. Seriously, how can the Democrats/progressives lose by nominating Harris, if she wins she’ll push all the things progressives want and if she loses it will help progress their mantra that all Republicans/Conservatives are demonic and shouldn’t have rights.

    Progressives and social justice warriors clearly want chaos in the streets to try to ram their ideology down everyone’s throat, what better short term way of achieving that end goal than to nominate Harris. If they win, they gain political and social power, if they lose, they’ll rapidly gain social justice power from the ensuing propaganda chaos – either way progressives gain power.

    • Progressives and social justice warriors clearly want chaos in the streets to try to ram their ideology down everyone’s throat, what better short term way of achieving that end goal than to nominate Harris. If they win, they gain political and social power, if they lose, they’ll rapidly gain social justice power from the ensuing propaganda chaos – either way progressives gain power.

      An idea that I have come to is that arriving at an understanding is significantly different from arriving at a position from which political activism is possible. In fact, it seems to me that *understanding* as I would define it might hinder a person from being able to form a political stance from which activism is possible. I will try to explain.

      “Progressives and social justice warriors clearly want chaos in the streets to try to ram their ideology down everyone’s throat . . .”

      Here is what I mean: this is a statement and it is a concretization of a view that would be useful in political activism, but less useful for *understanding*. I say this because, at this moment, I am reading a book by Jonathan Weisman called (((Semitism))): Being Jewish in America in the Age of Trump. Essentially, his position is that every aspect of the turn to the right, and the manifestation of a sort of right-leaning radicalism, is non-different from the anti-liberal and fascist trends and movements of Europe in the 1920-1930s. It is really interesting to read his chapter The Unheard Thunder because it clearly explains why, from a Jewish perspective certainly, the trends in the present are not only alarming and dangerous, but must, according to him, be opposed and defeated. The chapter just before that one is called The Israel Deception and in it he outlines the profound struggle between pro-Israel Jews and those that question and oppose the policies of (what he refers to in so many words) as the *regime* that has political control of Israel.

      I have a range of different thoughts here and I admit that it is hard, at least this AM, to sort through them. One is that I am amazed that once again and all over again, it is the concerns and issues of Jews and their (our I guess I must say for reasons of *full disclosure* though I converted to the Christian faith and am very strongly anti-Zionist) historical situation that are at the fore-front of the present Crisis in America. I say this because — and this is beyond doubt and must be understood — the present emergent Right, here in America and in Europe, definitely has issues with Jewish influence and Jewish power. It is true that the term *globalization*, though it certainly exists as a phenomenon of our present, is associated with Jewish enterprise and this with Jewish ‘control’ and power. Therefore, to be in resistance to the present trends (of hyper-liberalism), one has to identify at least something, some external agent or process, that one can ideologically oppose.

      As anyone with an Internet connection and some fearless curiosity can quickly know, the strains of ideas that oppose the modern liberal forms, and *globalization*, there are indeed vociferous anti-semites who conflate all the evil trends in the world with Jews and Jewish activity. At the same time (IMHO) there is a Jewish-critical position that is coherent and *fair*, and there most definitely is a Zionism-critical position which, in fact, is rarely allowed to be developed because it is immediately associated with anti-semitism.

      Again, and once again, Jews and Jewish issues are at the forefront of the Crisis. I certainly do not mean to say that I think that the Crisis is only about Jews and their historical issues, but that *they* — if I am permitted such a generalization — cannot see it differently, and my evidence for this is Jonathan Weisman’s 2018 book. (Here reviewed by The Times of Israel).

      The blurb by the Kirkus Review on the front of the book: “An urgent and compelling report on the clear and present danger of proto-fascism in the US”.

      I realize that the topic that I am opening up here is one that, and I say this honestly (and will not be appreciated for being honest), is not one that can be rationally and cooly discussed on this Blog nor anywhere, on any site or blog, nor on TeeVee nor anywhere. It is a topic that has become so laden, so difficult, so dangerous, so entrapping, that it must be roundly avoided. To engage in the conversation is always a mistake. Saying this, I do not suggest going against this *rule*. But I do say that for those who are interested in *understanding* (but not necessarily in political action and activism) it is imperative to gain more understanding of Jewish historical issues. (And no one on this blog, as far as I have been able to tell, has even the most minimum comprehension of these matters, and this is true — beyond any & all doubt) among Americans generally. [America, in fact, has the Christian Zionist perspective and this is the stance and perspective that stands behind America’s support from Israel].

      Jerry Falwell put it like this, and he spoke sincerely and clearly: “To stand against Israel is to stand against God”. This is, I suggest, and if a discerning mind examines the issue, the basic idea that runs through American ‘support’ from Israel.

      Now, what am I up to in all this? Why do I (as they say) *wade in* to problematic territories, to *turn over rocks* and to expose the strange creatures that live, hidden, under them? (In truth it is a feature of my personality at this point, and one that I developed as I became a ‘resistor’ to my social conditioning and to my *rebellion* against my own upbringing, family and tribe).

      I maintain that what is now destroying the Republic is, at the core of it, the corruption of the government structure of the US by the military establishment and by industrial-financial interests. What I mean by this — and I am not alone in my view — is that proper government and Constitutional has been substantially usurped by perverting factions. So, if this is so, to *understand the present* becomes, necessarily, an involved project of discerning what has happened, how this came about, and what the correction of it might be. I don’t think I am — yet — capable of understanding and explaining how this came about, yet I am certain that it is the case. And I associate ‘real conservatism’ with a genuine will to understand and, as well, to stop the immense LYING that goes on in our present. (It is the LIE that undergirds much discourse. But, understanding will not necessarily help one to resolve anything, or feel better: it leads to issues of complicity and complex psychological issues).

      But just to look at *symptoms*, and always within a contingent moment, and always to see ‘superficially’, will not lead to any significant level of understanding.

      Turning back to your *statement*: it is superficial and it does not get anywhere near the core of the real issues. You are merely observing *surface*. I believe that it takes a much more evident moral courage to really get the issues out on the table. It involves turning against a *regime of thought*.

  3. After the Kavanaugh hearings I had to chuckle because the first thing on my mind was Kamala Harris. Lucky for her she was able to stomp on everyone on the way up and it worked. Otherwise I’m sure she would have been the first one to jump on the pile of “me too” movers and scream at the top of her loud mouth “He took advantage of poor little ole me”. And it would have worked. Bless her black little heart. And by “black” I mean “sinister” not racist for those of you who keep score.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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