KAMALA HARRIS PAST NDA’S

KAMALA HARRIS PAST NDA’S

She settled with a top aide who lost her job, and both sides agreed to keep quiet

WITH A NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

Under then-Attorney General Kamala Harris’ direction,

The California Department of Justice paid a nearly $35,000 settlement to Harris’ former chief deputy attorney general,

After a dispute related to her termination in 2011, documents show.

A copy of the settlement agreement provided to The Bee,

By the California Department of Justice says the department paid former Harris aide Terri Carbaugh $34,900.

The agreement came less than a year after Harris, now a U.S. Senator,

And widely considered to be a favorite for the vice presidential nomination, assumed office as California’s attorney general.

As part of the agreement, both the department and Carbaugh agreed “not to disclose,

Discuss or provide the contents or terms of this Agreement to third parties,

Except as expressly authorized by this Agreement or in response to formal requests authorized by law.”

The agreement does not detail specifics of the dispute,

But says the “department determined that Carbaugh should no longer serve in the position of Chief Deputy Attorney General for Administration and Policy.”

Carbaugh challenged that decision and “asserted certain disputed claims and damages relating to her employment with the department.”

Carbaugh agreed to resign, according to the settlement.

As part of the deal, Harris also wrote Carbaugh a complimentary letter of recommendation,

In which Harris described her as “an indispensable member of my executive team and a longtime friend.”

Carbaugh did not respond to questions for this article. Harris’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While the settlement with Carbaugh contained non-disclosure language,

In the Senate, Harris has taken a stand against non-disclosure agreements.

The use of them in sexual harassment cases gained new scrutiny as the Me Too movement unfolded.

In 2018, Harris co-authored a bill to ban employers from requiring workers to sign non-disclosure agreements to get a job.

Harris’ time as attorney general included another controversy.

A veteran Harris staff member resigned his job in 2018,

 after The Sacramento Bee inquired about a $400,000 harassment and retaliation settlement resulting from his time working for Harris at the California Department of Justice.

Larry Wallace, who was director of the Division of Law Enforcement,

Was accused by his former executive assistant in December 2016 of “gender harassment” and other behavior,

Including often asking her to crawl under his desk to change the paper in his printer.

The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 30, 2016, when Harris was still attorney general,

But she was preparing to be sworn in as California’s newly elected Democratic senator.

It was settled in May 2017, by Xavier Becerra, who was named to succeed her as attorney general.

“We were unaware of this issue and take accusations of harassment extremely seriously.

This evening, Mr. Wallace offered his resignation to the senator and she accepted it,”

Harris spokeswoman Lily Adams told The Bee in 2018.

That settlement also included a nondisclosure section, in which Wallace’s assistant agreed not to disclose the settlement amount and agreed not to contact the media about it.

The Department of Justice provided The Bee the Carbaugh settlement on Friday after a reporter inquired about it.

In 2018, The Bee filed a Public Records Act request for settlement agreements for claims filed or threatened to be filed,

While the attorney general or Department of Justice since Harris took office in 2011.

The Carbaugh settlement was not among the records the Department provided in response to that request.

DAWG SAYS: KAMALA HARRIS WAS A TERRIBLE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND WOULD NOT DO HER JOB.

SHE APPEARED TO BE CAMPAIGNING FOR THE SENATE AND NOT AN ATTORNEY GENERAL

ALSO, KAMALA HARRIS, TYPICAL DO WHAT I SAY NOT AS I DO ATTITUDE.

NOT TO MENTION THE WILLIE BROWN THING.


SCOTUS ALLOWS WALL MONEY

SCOTUS ALLOWS WALL MONEY

Court sides with Trump on building border wall with diverted military funds

SCOTUS ALLOWS WALL MONEY

The Supreme Court has allowed President Trump to defy Congress,

And continue to spend more than $6 billion diverted from military funds to pay for the construction,

Of a border wall in parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California.

By 5-4 vote, the justices on Friday rebuffed lawyers for the Sierra Club and House Democrats,

Who sued to challenge Trump’s diversion of funds as illegal and unconstitutional.

They won rulings before judges in California and Texas, but in a brief order last summer ,

The court allowed Trump to continue spending the disputed funds while the litigation continues.

But over the dissents of the four liberal justices, the court kept that order in place.

ACLU AND SIERRA CLUB GOT ON BOARD WITH DEMS

Last week, lawyers for the ACLU and the Sierra Club filed an emergency appeal,

Arguing the court’s order would permit the border wall projects to be completed,

Before the high court ever gets a chance to rule on whether the spending was legal.

House Democrats filed a brief in support of the appeal.

Keeping the stay in place offers Trump “a complete victory without having prevailed in any court,” they told the justices.

The case offers a stark example of how the president can defy the Constitution and its separation of powers with an assistance from the high court.

Early last year, Trump demanded $5.7 billion for the border wall,

But the House of Representatives under Democratic control refused,

Triggering a partial government shutdown that lasted 35 days.

SCOTUS ALLOWS WALL MONEY

The impasse ended when Trump signed a new spending bill that did not include the border wall funding he sought.

But a day later, he declared a national emergency,

And ordered the Pentagon to transfer $2.5 billion to pay for border wall projects.

The administration said the new barriers extending for up 130 miles were designed to prevent “drug smuggling.”

Later, Trump ordered the transfer of another $3.6 billion for new border barriers in Texas.

The Constitution says, “No Money shall shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law.”

In Trump’s defense, administration lawyers cited a provision in law that authorized the transfer of military funds in emergencies.

However, as lower-court judges pointed out,

The law says these transfers must be “based on unforeseen military requirements …

And in no case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress.”

They said Trump’s transfers failed on both counts.

TRUMP CLAIMS NEEDED FOR THE SMUGGLING COMING ACROSS

The need to stop drug smuggling or immigrants from crossing the border was not “unforeseen,”

And Congress did indeed deny the requested funds for the border wall.

But the high court has handcuffed Congress and others who seek to block the executive branch from taking allegedly illegal actions.

Lawmakers as well as ordinary citizens do not have standing to sue to challenge unconstitutional spending.

The Sierra Club sued on behalf of environmentalists and Native Americans,

Who claimed the border wall would damage or destroy sensitive habitats near the border.

They were granted standing in the lower courts,

But that alone was not enough to obtain a court ruling, at least according to the justices.

Last year, the five more conservative justices issued a one-line,

Unsigned explanation of their decision to give Trump a green light to proceed despite the lower court orders.

“Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action,

To obtain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with” the provision that authorizes the transfer of military funds,

they said by a 5-4 vote in Trump vs. Sierra Club.

NO CONGRESS AUTHORIZATION WAS GIVEN

This suggests that because Congress did not specifically authorize lawsuits over this part of the military spending law,

no one may go to court to contest an allegedly illegal transfer.

The result is to shield the president and his administration from legal claims that he is diverting government funds to be spent for other purposes.

After the stay was granted last summer, the case went back before U..S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland.

He ruled the transfers were illegal,

And he issued an another order that would bar further spending of the military funds for building border walls.

The 9th Court of Appeals agreed in a 2-1 decision on June 26.

This set the stage for the administration to file a formal appeal with the Supreme Court seeking review of the ruling.

But that would take months and not yield a ruling until sometime in the first half of next year.

That prospect of delay prompted last week’s effort to have the justices lift the stay and block further construction of the wall.

“This case concerns a protracted and public appropriations debate,

Irreparable damage to a protected landscape, substantial separation of powers concerns,

And the diversion of billions of taxpayer dollars to a project that Congress refused to fund,” they told the court.

But their appeal was denied.

DAWG SAYS: NO WONDER THEY HATE HIM SO BAD, HE IS SMARTER THAN THEY ARE.