Several White House employees have reportedly been asked to resign for admitting to past cannabis use, regardless of whether the staff members had been located in states where it was legal at the time.
So, doe this mean VP Harris is also out?
In the interview, given to the New York-based radio show “The Breakfast Club,” co-host Charlamagne Tha God asks Harris if she has ever smoked.
“I have. And I inhaled – I did inhale. It was a long time ago. But, yes,” the California Democrat replies, invoking former President Bill Clinton’s famous “didn’t inhale” remark he made during his 1992 presidential run.
The hypocrisy seems go over the head of most of Liberal America.
While she may have been puffing on a blunt herself, as California Attorney General, the Washington Free Beacon concluded that 1,560 people were sent to prison in California for marijuana offenses between 2011 and 2016. Harris was unapologetic about her position on locking up non-violent offenders, writing in her 2008 book “Smart on Crime” that “Nonviolent crimes exact a huge toll on America’s communities…It’s important to fight all crime. Drug crimes in particular exact a terrible toll and rob people young and old of hope.”
The Biden Manifesto: Do as I say, not as I do.
So it goes.
Paul Plante says
It was “cute” when she was doing it because she is famous.
Who can forget that Hussein Obama himself spent his youth not studying like everyone else, because he was on the “pass through” system, but smoking dope and snorting coke (“some blow”) and he would have tried heroin except he didn’t like the pusher man, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with that, at all.
Catherine Rivera says
Absolutely she should be fired for activity unbecoming of a political figure!
In high public office! Get her out she’s trashy!
Darlene Buckle says
If he White House has passed this ruling about cannabis and has actually fired employees, it is obvious that Kamala Harris should be fired too. Either that or rehire the fired employees.
DK says
Absolutely
Law good for one should be all no matter what position they hold
Rose Bays says
If she could punish them people who smoked it then yes she should get punished herself.
Connie says
Yes, if staff is being fired, Kamala should be, as well.. she shouldn’t get a free ride, just because shes vice president. A rule, is a rule, regardless…
Todd Holden says
She is not really a vice president. You know the election was – pick an adjective. It was riddled with irregularities never seen in an election in history. And on wholesale and multi-state basis. Why do you keep denying that? Every media outlet, social media platform, and court put their fingers in their ears and shut their eyes. The complicity was breathtaking. I am not aware of any court in America – including SCOTUS – that allowed a shred evidence to be heard. And we talk about pot? Really?
Paul Plante says
What exactly would SCOTUS be hearing evidence about?
A failed system of electing presidents that rewards fraud that the Supreme Court itself helped to create?
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON No. 19–465.
Argued May 13, 2020—Decided July 6, 2020
When Americans cast ballots for presidential candidates, their votes actually go toward selecting members of the Electoral College, whom each State appoints based on the popular returns.
The States have devised mechanisms to ensure that the electors they appoint vote for the presidential candidate their citizens have preferred.
With two partial exceptions, every State appoints a slate of electors selected by the political party whose candidate has won the State’s popular vote.
Most States also compel electors to pledge to support the nominee of that party.
Relevant here, 15 States back up their pledge laws with some kind of sanction.
Almost all of these States immediately remove a so-called “faithless elector” from his position, substituting an alternate whose vote the State reports instead.
end quotes
So that right there makes this all a BULL**** process, since the so-called “electors: are nothing more than mindless drones, and the “state” will simply keep replacing them until they all say what the “state” wants them to say, which takes us back to that decisionl, to wit:
A few States impose a monetary fine on any elector who flouts his pledge.
Three Washington electors, Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John (the Electors), violated their pledges to support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
In response, the State fined the Electors $1,000 apiece for breaking their pledges to support the same candidate its voters had.
The Electors challenged their fines in state court, arguing that the Constitution gives members of the Electoral College the right to vote however they please.
The Washington Superior Court rejected that claim, and the State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214.
In Ray, this Court upheld a pledge requirement — though one without a penalty to back it up.
Ray held that pledges were consistent with the Constitution’s text and our Nation’s history, id., at 225–230; but it reserved the question whether a State can enforce that requirement through legal sanctions.
Held: A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee — and the state voters’ choice — for President.
(a) Article II, §1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”
This Court has described that clause as “conveying the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27.
And the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includes power to condition his appointment, absent some other constitutional constraint.
A State can require, for example, that an elector live in the State or qualify as a regular voter during the relevant time period.
Or more substantively, a State can insist (as Ray allowed) that the elector pledge to cast his Electoral College ballot for his party’s presidential nominee, thus tracking the State’s popular vote.
Or—so long as nothing else in the Constitution poses an obstacle—a State can add an associated condition of appointment: It can demand that the elector actually live up to his pledge, on pain of penalty.
Which is to say that the State’s appointment power, barring some outside constraint, enables the enforcement of a pledge like Washington’s.
Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does.
Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint electors, and the Twelfth Amendment only sets out the electors’ voting procedures.
And while two contemporaneous State Constitutions incorporated language calling for the exercise of elector discretion, no language of that kind made it into the Federal Constitution.
Contrary to the Electors’ argument, Article II’s use of the term “electors” and the Twelfth Amendment’s requirement that the electors “vote,” and that they do so “by ballot,” do not establish that electors must have discretion.
The Electors and their amici object that the Framers using those words expected the Electors’ votes to reflect their own judgments.
But even assuming that outlook was widely shared, it would not be enough.
Whether by choice or accident, the Framers did not reduce their thoughts about electors’ discretion to the printed page.
(b) “Long settled and established practice” may have “great weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional provisions.” The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655, 689.
The Electors make an appeal to that kind of practice in asserting their right to independence, but “our whole experience as a Nation” points in the opposite direction. NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U. S. 513, 557.
From the first elections under the Constitution, States sent electors to the College to vote for pre-selected candidates, rather than to use their own judgment.
The electors rapidly settled into that non-discretionary role. See Ray, 343 U.S., at 228–229.
Ratified at the start of the 19th century, the Twelfth Amendment both acknowledged and facilitated the Electoral College’s emergence as a mechanism not for deliberation but for party-line voting.
Courts and commentators throughout that century recognized the presidential electors as merely acting on other people’s preferences.
And state election laws evolved to reinforce that development, ensuring that a State’s electors would vote the same way as its citizens.
Washington’s law is only another in the same vein.
It reflects a longstanding tradition in which electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen.
end quotes
That is totally contrary to what we were told in Federalist No. 68, but who really cares, and if they do, what are they going to do about it?
File a lawsuit with the Supreme Court?
Ray Otton says
You folks are a riot thinking any (D) politician anywhere will suffer repercussions for any misdeed.
Lynda says
She is the 2nd in command…She IS SUPPOSED TO BE SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE!!!! Ahe either Resigns ….or…. Be Fired!!!! She Does Work for ….WE THE PEOPLE!!
Slide Easy says
She is a Joke. A Jamaican-Indian posing as an African American. The only african-american in her was Willie Brown.
These people stole an election and all the right talks about is the mid-term and next presidential election. It is like the an episode of The Twilight Zone.
Paul Plante says
This is “The People’s Democracy of Murka” now, Slide, and in Murka, if you successfully steal the election, you own the election.
If you are elected based on fraud, you are still elected.
People in “The People’s Democracy of Murka” who have been elected based on fraud don’t get unelected if the fraud is exposed, which in a presidential election is not going to happen, just as it didn’t when Kennedy beat Nixon.
And goofy old Joe Biden has been inaugurated, so he is what the American people saddled themselves with, like an albatross around their necks, or a common boat anchor, same difference.
People wanted SOCIALISM, and now they have it in spades.
Up this way a sheet of 4’x8’x1/2″ OSB under Joe Biden is $48 versus $12 last year when Trump was still in, because if it is nothing else, socialism is very expensive, so that is how Joe is going to pay for it, with Weimar Republic style inflation, which takes us to a REUTERS article “Stocks slide as stimulus, infrastructure costs spook investors” by Herbert Lash on March 23, 2021, where we had, to wit:
NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. stocks tumbled on Tuesday as concerns about the cost of infrastructure spending and potential tax hikes to pay for President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion relief bill weighed on investors who also fear further downside in the market.
end quotes
Socialist Joe is talking another $3 TRILLION on top of the $1.9 TRILLION he has just borrowed with The Times reporting that the president’s advisors will bring him a plan as soon as this week that would divide the recovery proposal into two planks with one putting money into boosting manufacturing, improving transportation systems, expanding broadband access and reducing carbon emissions, according to the newspaper, while the other would focus on reducing economic inequities through investments in paid leave, universal pre-K and community college, the report said.
So if you need some OSB, better jump on it while its only $48 per sheet, or next thing you know, it’ll be up to a hundred.
Paul Plante says
No, Slide, they just won a REVOLUTION.
The pink tide, or turn to the left, the revolutionary wave of left-wing governments in Latin American democracies has come to North America and is now firmly entrenched here with the selection of Joe Biden as president.
The oppressed people in America in true Marxist fashion have just taken control of the national government like taking candy from a baby, so easily was it done, and more importantly, they have gained control of the treasury, which they have just begun to loot.
These A-HOLE Republicans who have just been left behind by history are going the way of the Federalists and Whigs in this country as it becomes a one-party system.
Those who don’t know history, and yet remain arrogant despite their ignorance are nothing more than ignorant A-HOLES who deserve everything that history is now going to dump in their laps!
Todd Holden says
She is not worth a damn, riding or walking.
You know the election was – pick an adjective. It was riddled with irregularities never seen in an election in history. And on whole-scale and multi-state basis. Why do you keep denying that? Every media outlet, social media platform, and court put their fingers in their ears and shut their eyes. The complicity was breathtaking. I am not aware of any court in America – including SCOTUS – that allowed a shred evidence to be heard. And we talk about pot? Really?
Paul Plante says
Who denies anything?
What can possibly be denied?
That every media outlet, social media platform, and court put their fingers in their ears and shut their eyes?
Why on earth would you think they would do otherwise?
As to this election being was riddled with irregularities never seen in an election in history, I’m not so sure about that.
Consider this Letter to the Editor in the Lake Geneva News entitled “Opinion: Democrats have a long history of voter fraud” posted on Oct. 29, 2020, to wit:
To the editor:
At one time, my father was a good Democrat.
He was a delegate to the Michigan State Democratic Convention and voted three times for Truman for president.
Yes, you are correct, Truman only ran once for president.
Dad’s voting escapade was arranged by the State Democratic Party.
In 1952, he became a Republican and voted only once in each election.
We have had continuous historical examples of Democratic voter fraud.
In 1959, Mayor Daley (D), after votes in other parts of the state of Illinois were counted, declared the vote count for Chicago making sure it was enough for Kennedy’s victory.
Mayor Daley gave the infamous instructions to Democrats, “vote early, vote often.”
In Wisconsin, we had the documented Democrat plot of cigarettes for votes.
A Democratic operative, Scott Foval in 2016, admitted to the media that he was busing out of state voters to Iowa and Wisconsin to affect swing state elections.
He stated Democrats have been doing this for 50 years.
Democrats have been pushing continuously for eliminating laws that insure the integrity of elections and that your honest vote is not negated by fraud.
They are trying to eliminate voter ID and pushing for doing mass mailings of unsolicited ballots that can be fraudulently filled out.
A recent case of “ballot harvesting” was in Minnesota in Ilhan Omar’s (D) district.
There the buying of mail-in ballots was recorded on video.
The buying and harvesting of mail-in ballots has become an underground business.
Will this destruction of election integrity only stop when Democrats have eliminated your honest vote and have our election’s security ranked with third world dictatorships?
How far will the Democrats go on undermining the integrity of our elections and Democracy until they have felt they have enough unmitigated ruling power?
John S.
end quotes
For the Democrats, election fraud is an art form they have been polishing for more years than you and I have been alive, so who really can be surprised that the art they have polished and developed over the years is still alive and well today?
Not me, anyway.
Paul Plante says
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
– Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists
Paul Plante says
Which actually just happened, right before our eyes.