Four Times Kamala Harris Incited, Condoned, Or Suggested Violence

Kamala Harris has made (at least) four statements that could be taken to mean she has supported, condoned, or suggested aggression toward political foes. As Lindsey Graham (R-SC) observed at the onset of the trial, “be careful what you wish for.” We can only hope he means to use these political procedures to harass Democrats soon enough. Just as Republicans used Harry Reid’s ill-advised simple majority vote to push through Supreme Court justices, eventually Republicans can take the approach of impeachments for frivolous charges against unwanted opponents. 


During the deadlier, more destructive, and more sustained riots this past summer, Kamala Harris was asked about the so-called “movement” that we were witnessing while on the Stephen Colbert show. Colbert asked with all seriousness about the mostly-peaceful protests raging on in American streets, to which Harris proudly beamed and exclaimed, “Yes!” That alone is disgusting. She continued to say that “they [the riots] are not going to stop…this is a movement…and everyone beware, they’re not going to stop.” Was she threatening us with this statement? Everyone beware? Imagine if Donald Trump had threatened the American populace with continued violence if he didn’t get his way. How would that go over? 


In September of last year, in the wake of the correct decision to not charge three Louisville officers with the murder of Breonna Taylor, Kamala Harris reacted not only predictably but also dangerously. Black lives, such as Daniel Cameron, apparently do not matter when they speak hard truths. Harris glorified the violent and resurgent riots of BLM in downtown Louisville as “brilliant” and even stated that the protests, which left many dead and without a place of business, as “an essential component or mark of a real democracy.” By comparison,  Donald Trump was already condemning what unfolded at the Capitol on the same night. Can you imagine if he, like Harris had said, that the Capitol riot was simply the display of real democracy and encouraged more to join?

Shortly after George Floyd died while in police custody, Kamala Harris wanted to remain relevant. She was a failed presidential candidate but not quite nominated for vice president. So, after watching law enforcement apprehend and jail the violent rioters and looters, she threw her weight behind those destructive forces in a tweet that said: “If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.” As The Federalist observed, those Minneapolis riots resulted in two deaths and over $500 million worth of damage. As an aside and for anyone concerned with the enormous bill, Minnesota’s worthless governor Tim Walz recently signed legislation that will compel all law-abiding taxpayers to pay more of their income to the rebuilding efforts. So there’s that, too.


Finally, in the most horrific display of suggestive speech, Kamala Harris appeared on Ellen DeGeneres’ talkshow before it turned out that Ellen wasn’t so nice after all. In their exchange, Ellen posed the question to Harris if she would prefer to be alone in an elevator with either President Trump, Vice President Pence, or Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Now, a unifying and decent human being would respond that they would simply wait for the next elevator or attempt to find common ground (Harris could have agreed with any of the three that she once believed in law and order too, evidenced by her sending thousands of black men to prison for petty marijuana crimes). Instead, Harris displayed her true colors by guffawing this: “Does one of us have to come out alive”?  If the comment can be made worse, it is that she barely hesitated to think of her response. Can we even begin to imagine if Trump insinuated that he’d rather walk out of a meeting with Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer alone? He would have been impeached on the spot.


Now, it is worth pointing out that each of these statements were made prior to the 2020 presidential election. Clearly, voters – the same voters now urging their congressmen and congresswomen to vote for impeachment – are not concerned with violent rhetoric and suggestive statements hinting at aggression. Indeed, many polls show over half of America supports this entire process. Suffice to say, had Donald Trump been the target of a political insurgency (such as was witnessed all of last summer) and the White House were stormed by BLM or Antifa, they would more probably have likened the siege to Russians collapsing around Hitler’s bunker and celebrated the efforts.


Whether or not Trump is formally impeached is immaterial at this point. When Republicans regain control of the legislative branch, they need to move forward with analogous actions toward their irredeemable political opponents. As Donald Trump said at his speech, we need to “fight like hell” or “we won’t have a country anymore.” One of the battlefields should be the halls of Congress, where every legislative decision currently being wielded against the minority Republicans should be met with equal force when Democrats eventually lose their majority standing.

Nevertheless, the argument against the former president is that he incited an insurrection. This is an entirely capricious and subjective claim because the prosecution must be able to directly connect his speech to protesters’ subsequent actions. There’s also the fact that politicians make broad, sweeping statements all the time, and are never held to this level of account. Of course, relativism reigns supreme when it comes to leftists. Donald Trump can have charges brought against him the likes of which no one has ever seen, whereas the sitting vice president can make outlandish and hostile comments – until she cackles herself blue in the face – without nary a wrist slap.

Kamala Harris has made (at least) four statements that could be taken to mean she has supported, condoned, or suggested aggression toward political foes. As Lindsey Graham (R-SC) observed at the onset of the trial, “be careful what you wish for.” We can only hope he means to use these political procedures to harass Democrats soon enough. Just as Republicans used Harry Reid’s ill-advised simple majority vote to push through Supreme Court justices, eventually Republicans can take the approach of impeachments for frivolous charges against unwanted opponents. 


During the deadlier, more destructive, and more sustained riots this past summer, Kamala Harris was asked about the so-called “movement” that we were witnessing while on the Stephen Colbert show. Colbert asked with all seriousness about the mostly-peaceful protests raging on in American streets, to which Harris proudly beamed and exclaimed, “Yes!” That alone is disgusting. She continued to say that “they [the riots] are not going to stop…this is a movement…and everyone beware, they’re not going to stop.” Was she threatening us with this statement? Everyone beware? Imagine if Donald Trump had threatened the American populace with continued violence if he didn’t get his way. How would that go over? 


In September of last year, in the wake of the correct decision to not charge three Louisville officers with the murder of Breonna Taylor, Kamala Harris reacted not only predictably but also dangerously. Black lives, such as Daniel Cameron, apparently do not matter when they speak hard truths. Harris glorified the violent and resurgent riots of BLM in downtown Louisville as “brilliant” and even stated that the protests, which left many dead and without a place of business, as “an essential component or mark of a real democracy.” By comparison,  Donald Trump was already condemning what unfolded at the Capitol on the same night. Can you imagine if he, like Harris had said, that the Capitol riot was simply the display of real democracy and encouraged more to join?

Shortly after George Floyd died while in police custody, Kamala Harris wanted to remain relevant. She was a failed presidential candidate but not quite nominated for vice president. So, after watching law enforcement apprehend and jail the violent rioters and looters, she threw her weight behind those destructive forces in a tweet that said: “If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.” As The Federalist observed, those Minneapolis riots resulted in two deaths and over $500 million worth of damage. As an aside and for anyone concerned with the enormous bill, Minnesota’s worthless governor Tim Walz recently signed legislation that will compel all law-abiding taxpayers to pay more of their income to the rebuilding efforts. So there’s that, too.


Finally, in the most horrific display of suggestive speech, Kamala Harris appeared on Ellen DeGeneres’ talkshow before it turned out that Ellen wasn’t so nice after all. In their exchange, Ellen posed the question to Harris if she would prefer to be alone in an elevator with either President Trump, Vice President Pence, or Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Now, a unifying and decent human being would respond that they would simply wait for the next elevator or attempt to find common ground (Harris could have agreed with any of the three that she once believed in law and order too, evidenced by her sending thousands of black men to prison for petty marijuana crimes). Instead, Harris displayed her true colors by guffawing this: “Does one of us have to come out alive”?  If the comment can be made worse, it is that she barely hesitated to think of her response. Can we even begin to imagine if Trump insinuated that he’d rather walk out of a meeting with Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer alone? He would have been impeached on the spot.


Now, it is worth pointing out that each of these statements were made prior to the 2020 presidential election. Clearly, voters – the same voters now urging their congressmen and congresswomen to vote for impeachment – are not concerned with violent rhetoric and suggestive statements hinting at aggression. Indeed, many polls show over half of America supports this entire process. Suffice to say, had Donald Trump been the target of a political insurgency (such as was witnessed all of last summer) and the White House were stormed by BLM or Antifa, they would more probably have likened the siege to Russians collapsing around Hitler’s bunker and celebrated the efforts.


Whether or not Trump is formally impeached is immaterial at this point. When Republicans regain control of the legislative branch, they need to move forward with analogous actions toward their irredeemable political opponents. As Donald Trump said at his speech, we need to “fight like hell” or “we won’t have a country anymore.” One of the battlefields should be the halls of Congress, where every legislative decision currently being wielded against the minority Republicans should be met with equal force when Democrats eventually lose their majority standing.

It is worth pointing out the obvious: The Trump impeachment trial that started this week is a political sham. It is motivated by partisan concerns that the former president presents a formidable challenge in the 2022 and 2024 election cycles, either as a supporter of candidates or as a candidate himself. The only recourse is to silence him through the shame of conviction and disqualification from office. The real danger in his speech was the truth of his election claims and his recitement of administration successes. There is simply nothing in his speech, not even a single sentence, that incited the calamity on January 6th.

Nevertheless, the argument against the former president is that he incited an insurrection. This is an entirely capricious and subjective claim because the prosecution must be able to directly connect his speech to protesters’ subsequent actions. There’s also the fact that politicians make broad, sweeping statements all the time, and are never held to this level of account. Of course, relativism reigns supreme when it comes to leftists. Donald Trump can have charges brought against him the likes of which no one has ever seen, whereas the sitting vice president can make outlandish and hostile comments – until she cackles herself blue in the face – without nary a wrist slap.

Kamala Harris has made (at least) four statements that could be taken to mean she has supported, condoned, or suggested aggression toward political foes. As Lindsey Graham (R-SC) observed at the onset of the trial, “be careful what you wish for.” We can only hope he means to use these political procedures to harass Democrats soon enough. Just as Republicans used Harry Reid’s ill-advised simple majority vote to push through Supreme Court justices, eventually Republicans can take the approach of impeachments for frivolous charges against unwanted opponents. 


During the deadlier, more destructive, and more sustained riots this past summer, Kamala Harris was asked about the so-called “movement” that we were witnessing while on the Stephen Colbert show. Colbert asked with all seriousness about the mostly-peaceful protests raging on in American streets, to which Harris proudly beamed and exclaimed, “Yes!” That alone is disgusting. She continued to say that “they [the riots] are not going to stop…this is a movement…and everyone beware, they’re not going to stop.” Was she threatening us with this statement? Everyone beware? Imagine if Donald Trump had threatened the American populace with continued violence if he didn’t get his way. How would that go over? 


In September of last year, in the wake of the correct decision to not charge three Louisville officers with the murder of Breonna Taylor, Kamala Harris reacted not only predictably but also dangerously. Black lives, such as Daniel Cameron, apparently do not matter when they speak hard truths. Harris glorified the violent and resurgent riots of BLM in downtown Louisville as “brilliant” and even stated that the protests, which left many dead and without a place of business, as “an essential component or mark of a real democracy.” By comparison,  Donald Trump was already condemning what unfolded at the Capitol on the same night. Can you imagine if he, like Harris had said, that the Capitol riot was simply the display of real democracy and encouraged more to join?

Shortly after George Floyd died while in police custody, Kamala Harris wanted to remain relevant. She was a failed presidential candidate but not quite nominated for vice president. So, after watching law enforcement apprehend and jail the violent rioters and looters, she threw her weight behind those destructive forces in a tweet that said: “If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.” As The Federalist observed, those Minneapolis riots resulted in two deaths and over $500 million worth of damage. As an aside and for anyone concerned with the enormous bill, Minnesota’s worthless governor Tim Walz recently signed legislation that will compel all law-abiding taxpayers to pay more of their income to the rebuilding efforts. So there’s that, too.


Finally, in the most horrific display of suggestive speech, Kamala Harris appeared on Ellen DeGeneres’ talkshow before it turned out that Ellen wasn’t so nice after all. In their exchange, Ellen posed the question to Harris if she would prefer to be alone in an elevator with either President Trump, Vice President Pence, or Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Now, a unifying and decent human being would respond that they would simply wait for the next elevator or attempt to find common ground (Harris could have agreed with any of the three that she once believed in law and order too, evidenced by her sending thousands of black men to prison for petty marijuana crimes). Instead, Harris displayed her true colors by guffawing this: “Does one of us have to come out alive”?  If the comment can be made worse, it is that she barely hesitated to think of her response. Can we even begin to imagine if Trump insinuated that he’d rather walk out of a meeting with Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer alone? He would have been impeached on the spot.


Now, it is worth pointing out that each of these statements were made prior to the 2020 presidential election. Clearly, voters – the same voters now urging their congressmen and congresswomen to vote for impeachment – are not concerned with violent rhetoric and suggestive statements hinting at aggression. Indeed, many polls show over half of America supports this entire process. Suffice to say, had Donald Trump been the target of a political insurgency (such as was witnessed all of last summer) and the White House were stormed by BLM or Antifa, they would more probably have likened the siege to Russians collapsing around Hitler’s bunker and celebrated the efforts.


Whether or not Trump is formally impeached is immaterial at this point. When Republicans regain control of the legislative branch, they need to move forward with analogous actions toward their irredeemable political opponents. As Donald Trump said at his speech, we need to “fight like hell” or “we won’t have a country anymore.” One of the battlefields should be the halls of Congress, where every legislative decision currently being wielded against the minority Republicans should be met with equal force when Democrats eventually lose their majority standing.

It is worth pointing out the obvious: The Trump impeachment trial that started this week is a political sham. It is motivated by partisan concerns that the former president presents a formidable challenge in the 2022 and 2024 election cycles, either as a supporter of candidates or as a candidate himself. The only recourse is to silence him through the shame of conviction and disqualification from office. The real danger in his speech was the truth of his election claims and his recitement of administration successes. There is simply nothing in his speech, not even a single sentence, that incited the calamity on January 6th.

Nevertheless, the argument against the former president is that he incited an insurrection. This is an entirely capricious and subjective claim because the prosecution must be able to directly connect his speech to protesters’ subsequent actions. There’s also the fact that politicians make broad, sweeping statements all the time, and are never held to this level of account. Of course, relativism reigns supreme when it comes to leftists. Donald Trump can have charges brought against him the likes of which no one has ever seen, whereas the sitting vice president can make outlandish and hostile comments – until she cackles herself blue in the face – without nary a wrist slap.

Kamala Harris has made (at least) four statements that could be taken to mean she has supported, condoned, or suggested aggression toward political foes. As Lindsey Graham (R-SC) observed at the onset of the trial, “be careful what you wish for.” We can only hope he means to use these political procedures to harass Democrats soon enough. Just as Republicans used Harry Reid’s ill-advised simple majority vote to push through Supreme Court justices, eventually Republicans can take the approach of impeachments for frivolous charges against unwanted opponents. 


During the deadlier, more destructive, and more sustained riots this past summer, Kamala Harris was asked about the so-called “movement” that we were witnessing while on the Stephen Colbert show. Colbert asked with all seriousness about the mostly-peaceful protests raging on in American streets, to which Harris proudly beamed and exclaimed, “Yes!” That alone is disgusting. She continued to say that “they [the riots] are not going to stop…this is a movement…and everyone beware, they’re not going to stop.” Was she threatening us with this statement? Everyone beware? Imagine if Donald Trump had threatened the American populace with continued violence if he didn’t get his way. How would that go over? 


In September of last year, in the wake of the correct decision to not charge three Louisville officers with the murder of Breonna Taylor, Kamala Harris reacted not only predictably but also dangerously. Black lives, such as Daniel Cameron, apparently do not matter when they speak hard truths. Harris glorified the violent and resurgent riots of BLM in downtown Louisville as “brilliant” and even stated that the protests, which left many dead and without a place of business, as “an essential component or mark of a real democracy.” By comparison,  Donald Trump was already condemning what unfolded at the Capitol on the same night. Can you imagine if he, like Harris had said, that the Capitol riot was simply the display of real democracy and encouraged more to join?

Shortly after George Floyd died while in police custody, Kamala Harris wanted to remain relevant. She was a failed presidential candidate but not quite nominated for vice president. So, after watching law enforcement apprehend and jail the violent rioters and looters, she threw her weight behind those destructive forces in a tweet that said: “If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.” As The Federalist observed, those Minneapolis riots resulted in two deaths and over $500 million worth of damage. As an aside and for anyone concerned with the enormous bill, Minnesota’s worthless governor Tim Walz recently signed legislation that will compel all law-abiding taxpayers to pay more of their income to the rebuilding efforts. So there’s that, too.


Finally, in the most horrific display of suggestive speech, Kamala Harris appeared on Ellen DeGeneres’ talkshow before it turned out that Ellen wasn’t so nice after all. In their exchange, Ellen posed the question to Harris if she would prefer to be alone in an elevator with either President Trump, Vice President Pence, or Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Now, a unifying and decent human being would respond that they would simply wait for the next elevator or attempt to find common ground (Harris could have agreed with any of the three that she once believed in law and order too, evidenced by her sending thousands of black men to prison for petty marijuana crimes). Instead, Harris displayed her true colors by guffawing this: “Does one of us have to come out alive”?  If the comment can be made worse, it is that she barely hesitated to think of her response. Can we even begin to imagine if Trump insinuated that he’d rather walk out of a meeting with Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer alone? He would have been impeached on the spot.


Now, it is worth pointing out that each of these statements were made prior to the 2020 presidential election. Clearly, voters – the same voters now urging their congressmen and congresswomen to vote for impeachment – are not concerned with violent rhetoric and suggestive statements hinting at aggression. Indeed, many polls show over half of America supports this entire process. Suffice to say, had Donald Trump been the target of a political insurgency (such as was witnessed all of last summer) and the White House were stormed by BLM or Antifa, they would more probably have likened the siege to Russians collapsing around Hitler’s bunker and celebrated the efforts.


Whether or not Trump is formally impeached is immaterial at this point. When Republicans regain control of the legislative branch, they need to move forward with analogous actions toward their irredeemable political opponents. As Donald Trump said at his speech, we need to “fight like hell” or “we won’t have a country anymore.” One of the battlefields should be the halls of Congress, where every legislative decision currently being wielded against the minority Republicans should be met with equal force when Democrats eventually lose their majority standing.

We rely on reader support to keep the lights on. As a conservative site, we have experienced Big Tech shadow bans, censorship, temporary suspensions, and outright account bans. Even some conservative sites choose not to support us. This is capitalism at its finest after all; get views or someone else will.


Your financial support helps us continue producing quality content that advances the values of the American founding and returns a dose of sanity to an insane world. Our site is big enough that if every reader donated just $1 per year, we could not only maintain operations but grow into a formidable online presence. Thank you to everyone that has chosen to support us and we thank others in advance for you support!

5 thoughts on “Four Times Kamala Harris Incited, Condoned, Or Suggested Violence

Comments

2nd Amendment Apparel - Libertas Bella

Welcome to the Blue State Conservative. We are committed to publishing content that highlights, preserves, and strengthens the values and ideals of the United States as envisioned in the Constitution and our founding documents.

 
STAY CONNECTED
WE RELY ON YOU

If every reader donated just $1 this year, we would be able to continue growing our content and reach. Thank you for your readership and for your support!

RECENT
MOST READ

Like Our Content? Stay Connected.