Jonathan Turley Has Thoughts After Kamala Harris' Bizarre Non-Answer on Tough-On-Crime California Measure

One unquestionably true thing about Kamala Harris is that she has a penchant for not being well-prepared and not answering questions, something we documented well before she was installed as the Democrat presidential nominee and which has only gotten worse since then.

It's an issue that's become so commonplace that it's earned her an unflattering nickname in some media circles. They call her the "no comment candidate," something my colleague Ward Clark wrote about here.

As for receipts, this is only the tip of the iceberg:

New: Harris is the "no comment" candidate — purposely and strategically—calculating it's safer to be vague on some policies than hit as a flip-flopper or left-winger.

We asked about over 12 of her past stances the past 2 months.

The no comment list:https://t.co/AeYlbC1YUf pic.twitter.com/Icu5aDf3rG
— Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) November 3, 2024

Another receipt she added to the list came Sunday when she was asked if she'd voted yet and if so, how did she vote on California's Proposition 36, a tough-on-crime measure that would "create tougher penalties for some drug and theft crimes."

It is a rollback of sorts to the disastrous Proposition 47 approved by voters 10 years ago, which reclassified some felony crimes as misdemeanors.

Naturally, with fed-up voters in her home state appearing poised to approve the initiative, Harris was asked her thoughts on it as well. Instead of answering, she dodged and weaved:

'So I have my ballot, it’s on its way to California, and I’m going to trust the system that it will arrive there, and I am not going to talk about the vote on that, because, honestly, it’s the Sunday before the election, and I don’t intend to create an endorsement one way or another around it,' she said.
Prop 36 would strengthen penalties for certain drug and theft crimes and reverse progressive criminal justice reforms under Proposition 47.
It would upgrade crimes involving repeat shoplifting and fentanyl from misdemeanors to felonies and would crackdown on repeat offenders.

Watch:

🚨 Kamala was just asked how she voted on California's Proposition 36, which would increase criminal penalties for shoplifters and drug traffickers:

"I am not gonna talk about the vote on that because, honestly, it's the Sunday before the election."pic.twitter.com/3wlkWkM0Ax
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 3, 2024

Huh? This... wasn't a hard question. Either you support rolling back parts of Prop. 47 or you don't. I mean, when did it start that candidates refrained from expressing their opinion on a political issue because they didn't want to influence the vote one way or another? Seriously. Isn't that what this process is all about?

Previously when Harris was asked about Prop. 36, she feigned ignorance of what it was even though she danged well knew:

The other week, Harris was asked about this and said she hadn’t looked at her ballot yet but would keep people posted. pic.twitter.com/ReYx9jIo3o
— Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) November 3, 2024

Her constant evasiveness on the issues that matter most to the American people is not a good look at all, as explained well by George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley in a Twitter/X thread Monday:

We are having a repeat from the Biden-Harris campaign in 2020 as Harris refused to say whether she voted for Proposition 36 in California for tougher criminal sentencing. In 2020, Biden refused to say how he felt about court packing before the election...
...Crime is one of the top issues this election, but Harris insisted that it was too close to the election to make her views known. That rather counterintuitive argument flips the entire point of an election to hash out the positions on major issues...
..If you are running on saving democracy, it would be reassuring to give democracy a chance by being open with voters about your position on major issues like criminal justice.
What is also curious is the Harris is campaigning on her record on crime. One would think that she would want to give an "endorsement" on one side or the other of one of the most significant crime referendums in years. That is what is often demanded of leaders . . . to lead.

As usual, Harris is trying to have it both ways, not answering because she doesn't want to upset either side on the issue at a time when the microscope is on her more than it ever has been in her political career.

Her pattern of avoiding giving direct answers on where she stands on the issues, something that is part of the traditional campaign/election process, lends further credence to claims that Harris is little more than an empty suit.

Whatever she is - empty suit or radical leftist, her candidacy being rejected resoundingly at the ballot box on November 5th would be a welcome development and a bright spot for America, that's for sure.