I am not saying she’s a bad candidate, and definitely not versus Trump

Wait, what’s the complaint? I read a lot of comments complaining about her prosecutorial record, so I was like what’s her record exactly? Then I shared the article. Are…are you complaining about how the internet works?

Edit: I also think she’s a reasonable prosecutor given she had to work during the “tough on crime” era. I can’t judge for what she did when everyone was doing the same wrong thing. In fact, I think she tried to be better? The question is what would she do differently now.

She covered up that a state crime lab employee was falsifying evidence leading to hundreds of false convictions. She opposed police reform including opposing body cameras. Her office, she claims without her knowledge, argued that prisoners eligible for parole shouldn't be released from prisons so overcrowded that a judge ruled them cruel and unusual because it would reduce the availability of prison labor. She argued on two separate occasions that prisoners who had had their convictions overturned on the basis of actual innocence shouldn't be released from prison because they hadn't filed the motion for release quickly enough.

Her record is staunchly pro establishment and she has participated in acts of overt corruption to maintain the status quo.

Biden pardoned every prisoner in federal prison for possession (which wasn’t many; most are in prison at the state level, but if you’re one of them, it’s significant.) And, the Democrats introduced multiple bills to legalize marijuana.

Because voting’s not important and the Democrats aren’t good enough, though, there were enough Republicans in place that a couple of tepidly oppositional Democrats were enough to defeat the legalization bills.

So, she was literally reflecting the will of the voters with some of her decisions. Given that, I think her choices make sense.

In one instance — her handling of California’s “three strikes” law — Harris was arguably ahead of the time. Under the law, someone who committed a third felony could go to prison for 25 years to life, even if the third felony was a nonviolent crime. But Harris required that the San Francisco district attorney’s office only charge for a third strike if the felony was a serious or violent crime.

California voters in 2004, the year that Harris took office, rejected a ballot initiative to implement a similar reform statewide — though the ballot proposal had some pushback on the details, leading to Harris’s own opposition. It wasn’t until 2012 that voters approved the change.

“There’s been incredibly rapid change in public opinion, in attention to criminal justice,” Silard said, citing his decades-long experience in the criminal justice system and current experience as president of the reform-minded Rosenberg Foundation. “Bringing a reverse lens to that is not fair, and also doesn’t recognize folks who were courageous at that time.”

Emphasis mine

Who's wrong? About what?