Staff Reports
Vice President Kamala Harris has recently taken up residence in the annals of history, but not in the way one would expect from a leader in her position. During an exclusive interview with Fox News, her first on the network since securing the Democratic presidential nomination, she made a bold claim about her time as a prosecutor in California. Harris stated that she took on the notorious Guadalajara Cartel, positioning herself as a tough-on-crime candidate who has directly prosecuted transnational criminals threatening American safety. It sounds like a plot twist in a low-budget crime drama, but the facts reveal a storyline that doesn’t quite line up with her narrative.
The only glaring issue with her declaration is that the Guadalajara Cartel had been handed its eviction notice from the drug scene long before Harris donned her prosecutor’s badge in the 1990s. This once-feared cartel—the stuff of legend in the drug trafficking underworld—had collapsed in the late 1980s due to internal strife, U.S. pressure on Mexico, and the legendary misfortune of facing off against law enforcement. It seems Harris might be mixing her timelines or perhaps just hoping nobody would fact-check her grandstanding.
I am the only person running for president who has prosecuted transnational criminals. I have spent a significant part of my career going after people who present a threat to the safety of the American people.
I take this work quite seriously. pic.twitter.com/NUkOeSZ6pJ
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 16, 2024
Context is vital. The Guadalajara Cartel, originally rooted in Sinaloa and led by Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo, was the front-runner of Mexico’s drug trade. This cartel allegedly enjoyed connections with major Colombian operations and was largely uncontested during its heyday. However, by the time Harris was entering the legal fray, the group had fragmented, with its influence diminishing daily. It’s as if she struts into a room filled with ex-prisoners and claims a victory over an opponent who had already thrown in the towel years before her arrival.
While Harris touts her prosecutorial prowess, one must ask what, exactly, she is celebrating if the gang she claims to have targeted had already been decimated. Any attempted spin to demonstrate her law-and-order credentials backfires spectacularly under scrutiny. It’s akin to boasting about winning a race against yesterday’s champion: impressive only if you ignore the fact that the race was already over.
In this bizarre mix of self-promotion and historical revisionism, Harris not only risks looking out of touch but also diminishes the real battles fought by those who faced true threats and went after active criminal organizations. It’s a veritable path of least resistance for political gain, wrapped in a shiny package of misleading bravado. Meanwhile, the American people are left to decide whom they truly want leading them: someone who engages with actual problems or someone who rehashes the faded glories of yesteryear.
