When Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx was elected to office in 2016, she appointed a transition team to develop policy recommendations. That team was co-chaired by then-California Attorney General and Sen.-elect Kamala Harris.

Other than Harris, no one else on the transition team had been or was a career prosecutor. Most had dedicated their professional careers to social justice causes. 

The transition team’s report reflected this fact.

Only 12 pages in length, the report made 23 recommendations. Key recommendations included highlighting racial inequalities in the justice system, a focus on the prosecution of police misconduct, the need to review convictions earned by the office for possible reversal and the need to increase diversity in the office. 

Never once did the report mention Chicago’s high crime rates or ongoing gang problems. Instead, it focused on things such as developing a plan to make sure all attorneys in the office are trained on implicit bias and racial disparity in the criminal justice system.

Today, is Vice President Kamala Harris trying to run from her radical prosecutorial record? 

When she wants her supporters to believe she was tough on crime, she trots out her tried-and-true tropes about being San Francisco’s and then California’s top legal officer. If that doesn’t sound good, she flip-flops and touts her progressive bona fides. 

But this isn’t Burger King; she can’t have it her way. It’s the White House; the truth matters.

The truth is that Harris’ record shows that she is soft on crime and committed to coddling criminals at the expense of victims and our communities. Consider two cases from her time as San Francisco’s district attorney.

Harris refused to seek the death penalty against a man suspected of being a gang member, Edwin Ramos, who shot and killed a father and his two sons, even though California allows the state to seek the death penalty for multiple murders by the same person. Not only did Ramos kill three innocent people, but he also had previously been charged with robbing a pregnant woman.

In a different case, when a gang member killed San Francisco police Officer Isaac Espinoza and wounded his partner, Harris again refused to seek the death penalty.

At the time, this was considered radical even by liberal Democrats.

U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer called for the death penalty, and then-California Attorney General Bill Lockyer threatened to take the case away from Harris, saying at the officer’s funeral, “If you make charging decisions based on personal philosophy, not on facts, I will take the case away from you.”

On top of her radicalism, as district attorney, Harris also demonstrated gross incompetence. For example, she didn’t disclose exculpatory evidence to defense attorneys about an unethical police expert, resulting in more than 600 cases being dismissed. And later on, as state attorney general, she was excoriated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit for using a falsified confession.

Harris has also flip-flopped on whether police provide public safety. She wrote in her 2009 book, “Smart on Crime,” that having more police on the streets helps public safety. This, of course, is correct. 

But more recently, as political winds in the Democratic Party have shifted against policing and prosecution, Harris told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the idea that “the best way to achieve more safety is to put more police on the streets (is) just wrong.”

And she backed up this change of heart by applauding then-Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s decision to cut $150 million from the city’s Police Department budget.

Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, is no better. He allowed looting and rioting to occur in his state. Then Harris herself encouraged people to give money to a bail fund to spring from jail those were arrested for violating the law.

So don’t be fooled by Harris’ chameleon approach to criminal justice issues. As Chicagoans know all too well, she’s a radical who has supported policies that have caused great harm—particularly to communities of color—in cities across America. And she’s likely to continue supporting these policies at both the state and federal levels. 

We know these policies are dangerous and harmful—but, at a minimum, we should expect Harris to be honest about her positions. Is that too much to ask? Apparently, she thinks so.