the Conservative TAKE
Politics • Culture • News
Kamala Harris and Willie Brown: The Scandalous Relationship We Must Not Ignore
The 1995 ABC News Moment: "Are You His Daughter?"
September 10, 2024
post photo preview
Kamala Harris, then 30, and Willie Brown, then 61, are seen together after they started dating in 1994
In 2020, former Mayor Willie Brown acknowledged having an extramarital affair with Kamala Harris.

In today's political climate, where every aspect of a public figure's past is scrutinized, it's entirely appropriate to examine Kamala Harris' relationship with former California State Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. Harris' political ascent, tied to her personal relationship with the powerful politician, raises legitimate questions about her rise in San Francisco politics and the path that eventually led her to the vice presidency.

Kamala Harris was 29 when she began a relationship with Brown, who was 60 at the time. Brown, often referred to as "The Godfather" of San Francisco politics, wielded enormous power and influence. Their relationship was far from a simple personal affair; it coincided with significant advancements in Harris’ political career, many of which can be traced directly to Brown’s backing.

How Brown Elevated Harris' Career

Willie Brown's support for Harris wasn't subtle. He appointed her to two lucrative state commission positions during the 1990s, one of which was the California Medical Assistance Commission, where she earned over $70,000 a year, equivalent to $120,000 today. Harris held that role from 1994 to 1998, attending only two meetings per month. Critics in the Democratic Party expressed frustration, not only because Harris lacked the necessary qualifications for the role, but because such positions were typically reserved for seasoned political allies who had helped keep Brown in power. Instead, he gave it to Harris, who was his girlfriend at the time.

November 8th, 1995 edition of the San Luis Obispo County Telegram Tribune.


Willie Brown, Kamala Harris' much older lover, not only gifted her a BMW but also helped her secure a second state commission position, significantly boosting her salary and establishing her both financially and politically. This infusion of wealth and political influence laid the groundwork for Harris to advance in her career, positioning her for greater success as she climbed the ranks within California's Democratic Party.

Breaking Up, But Not Letting Go

While their romantic relationship ended shortly after Brown was elected mayor of San Francisco in 1995, his influence on Harris’ political life did not. Even after their breakup, Brown played a significant behind-the-scenes role in Harris' campaign for San Francisco District Attorney in 2003. Brown is known to have used his connections and political clout to steer wealthy donors toward Harris, helping her secure the financial backing needed to launch her successful bid for the DA's office.

Vice President Kamala Harris has long denied that her relationship with former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, 31 years her senior, was the defining factor in her political rise. Pictured together in 1995.

Harris, however, publicly distanced herself from Brown as she pursued her own political ambitions. In a now-famous interview with San Francisco Magazine, Harris stated that Willie Brown’s career was "over" and made it clear that it was now her time to shine. This cold dismissal of the man who had greatly advanced her political career is emblematic of Harris’ strategy to shed associations with political figures that could hinder her climb.

A Tough Prosecutor? Not So Fast

Throughout her career, Harris has portrayed herself as a tough prosecutor who fought against predators, fraudsters, and others who broke the law. However, her tenure as San Francisco District Attorney and later as California Attorney General is marked by controversy. Critics argue that Harris was more interested in advancing her political career than serving justice. Reports from both left-leaning and mainstream media have highlighted instances where she failed to properly prepare for her roles, such as not reading critical briefing materials.

Harris’ reputation as a prosecutor also included mixed signals, as she advocated for policies that were tough on crime in some cases but lenient on certain offenders in others. As vice president, this inconsistency has been mirrored by her struggles to find footing in national politics.

The 1995 ABC News Segment: A Viral Moment Revived Ahead of the Debate

The 1995 ABC News Segment - "Are you his daughter?"

In a notable 1995 ABC News segment, a reporter questioned Willie Brown about his relationship with Kamala Harris during his time as California State Assembly Speaker. The reporter, noticing Harris frequently by Brown's side at political events, bluntly asked if she was his daughter. Brown chuckled and clarified that Harris was not his daughter but acknowledged their relationship. This public moment highlighted the noticeable age gap between the two and underscored the influence Brown had in promoting Harris within California’s political scene, which raised eyebrows even at the time. Interestingly, this clip has recently resurfaced and is going viral ahead of tonight’s debate, reigniting conversations about the early days of Harris’ political career and the role Brown played in her rise to power.

placeholder


The Willie Brown Connection: Still Relevant

When discussing Harris’ political career, the influence of Willie Brown remains a crucial component. Despite attempts to distance herself from him, the facts of how she got her start cannot be ignored. Their relationship opened doors for her and propelled her into the upper echelons of California’s political scene. The notion that this should not be discussed, or that it is irrelevant to her current position, is misguided. When any political figure's rise to power involves close relationships with influential individuals, it’s natural—and fair—to question the dynamics at play.

In the context of Kamala Harris’ political ascent, her relationship with Willie Brown isn’t just a personal affair from the past; it’s part of the narrative that shaped her career. It’s worth noting that Harris has had to compete mostly within the liberal strongholds of California, where her competition largely consisted of other Democrats. She has never had to face the kind of fierce political opposition that figures like Donald Trump have thrived on, particularly in high-stakes national contests.

As we look to future elections, Harris’ past, including her relationship with Willie Brown, will continue to be a relevant discussion point for those assessing her qualifications and ability to lead. If anything, it raises essential questions about the nature of political power, influence, and personal ambition in American politics. Kamala Harris’ journey shows how powerful connections and strategic relationships can be just as influential as policy stances and public service records. It’s not shaming to ask these questions—it's simply holding leaders accountable for the entirety of their public life.

And in Kamala Harris' case, that public life cannot be fully understood without examining how she got her start with the help of Willie Brown.

Source: Megyn Kelly and Charlie Spiering Podcast Discussion

This information is sourced from a discussion between Megyn Kelly and Charlie Spiering, author of Amateur Hour, on Kelly's podcast from July 23, 2024. In their conversation, they explored Kamala Harris' early political career and the pivotal role Willie Brown, California’s most powerful politician at the time, played in advancing her. Kelly and Spiering highlighted how Harris' relationship with Brown led to key political appointments and lucrative opportunities that significantly shaped her rise within the Democratic Party.

community logo
Join the the Conservative TAKE Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Odds of Love: A Probability Study Proving Jasmine Crockett’s Race Baiting Ignores the Real Challenges of Finding a Conservative Black Match

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Representative Jasmine Crockett’s recent criticism of Representative Byron Donalds for marrying a white woman highlights a regressive mindset steeped in ignorance and racial bias, casting doubt on her ability to engage with the diverse realities of American life.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1906302926571618409

By implying that Donalds has been “whitewashed” through his interracial marriage, Crockett clings to outdated stereotypes that dictate racial loyalty over personal agency, exposing her own hypocrisy in advocating for equality while policing others’ private choices. This narrow perspective stands in stark contrast to the evolving dynamics of relationships across racial lines, as evidenced by a probabilistic analysis of partner selection among conservative Black individuals. To illustrate the complexity of such dynamics, consider the following study estimating the likelihood of a conservative Black man finding and marrying a conservative Black woman who aligns with his values—a scenario Crockett might deem more “acceptable,” yet one fraught with its own...

00:00:46
00:01:20
Biblical Citizenship in Modern America Commentary Ep14 - Understanding the Times 3

00:00 Introduction
02:03 Week 13 review
04:56 Our Current Education System
05:59 Six Verbs for Advancing Truth in the Country
09:08 What Our Elected Officials Don't Know About America
10:44 The Foundation of Law
12:12 Who Were the Signers of the Declaration of Independence?
13:52 Benjamin Rush
15:44 What is Patriotism?
18:34 Summary of Workbook

00:25:36

Just my opinion, but it seems like a lot of people are grifting off Charlie Kirk’s memory for clicks. I’m not saying everyone, and shoot, I could probably be accused of the same thing. Fair point. My team is waiting for at least the funeral before putting out a full load of content... but the former just doesn’t feel right. Full disclosure: I did a one-hour livestream that night and was a guest on another show a few days later, but that’s about it.

I truly appreciate the sincere takes from people who’ve had the courage to speak. So all I’m really asking for is discernment and tastefulness, at least until after the funeral. But that’s just me, and just my opinion.

What I do know is this: The Left is already spinning (and distracting away from) this. I submit that are trying desperately to ease their guilt, undermine Charlie’s vision, and divide MAGA. They are trying to save their (soon to be out of power for the foreseeable future) Democrat Party.

The real takeaway is...

🧨 The Deep State’s Attempt to Spin Damning Declassified Evidence

As declassified documents continue to expose what appears to be a coordinated intelligence operation against Donald Trump, the Deep State and their media allies are in full damage-control mode.

Case in point: Fox News just featured an op-ed by former CIA officer and Biden State Department spokesman Ned Price, attempting to “debunk” the bombshells released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Make no bones about it, this isn’t an objective counterpoint. This is a narrative-management operation by a career Deep State insider.

🕵️‍♂️ Here’s What They’re Trying to Sell You:
That Obama couldn’t have led a coup because… he congratulated Trump after the election. (Yes, seriously.)

That Gabbard is using “sleight of hand” and “conflating” terms, even though her claims are backed by declassified U.S. intelligence.

That the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was sound , even though multiple internal reviews, the Durham Report, and Senate oversight found evidence it was politicized.

That the ...

post photo preview
Why Subpoena Them If They’ll Plead the Fifth? Because It’s Protocol for Prosecution.

Here is what many do not understand. I get the frustration but there is a method to the madness. Let me explain.

Subpoenaing Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, and others over the RussiaGate scandal (even if they ultimately plead the Fifth) is not just a procedural move; it’s a necessary step in any serious pursuit of justice and public accountability.

🔹 Why Subpoena Them?

1. Establish the Record:

You must formally bring these individuals under oath to compel their testimony. Whether they answer or invoke the Fifth, the act of subpoenaing is essential to build the official record and demonstrate due diligence in investigating the alleged conspiracy.

2. Indictment Requires Precedent:

Before a prosecutor can credibly seek an indictment (especially against former high-level officials) there must be an evidentiary trail. That includes prior sworn testimony or refusal to testify. Subpoenaing them is a legal and political prerequisite to indictments.

3. Public Opinion Matters:

...

post photo preview
post photo preview
Census and Gerrymandering: How the GOP Is Fighting Back
UPDATED - 8/15/25 7:55am

America is standing at the edge of a political earthquake. It’s not just about one executive order, one census, or one round of redistricting. What’s unfolding is the culmination of decades of partisan maneuvering, demographic shifts, and constitutional disputes (and the results could permanently change the balance of power in Washington).

At the center of the storm is a startling admission: the U.S. Census Bureau overcounted several Democrat-leaning states in 2020, while undercounting Republican-leaning states. According to the Bureau’s own post-enumeration survey, these errors handed Democrats an estimated five extra congressional seats (and the electoral college votes that go with them) at the direct expense of red states like Florida and Texas.

Even more frustrating to many Americans, the Bureau insists the “oops” must stand until the next census numbers are applied in 2032. That’s nearly a decade of political power built on faulty data.

Trump’s Bold Countermove

President Donald J. Trump has decided that’s unacceptable. On August 7, 2025, he instructed the Commerce Department to conduct a new, highly accurate mid-decade census (one that excludes illegal aliens from the population count used for congressional apportionment and electoral college allocation).

Trump’s rationale rests on both constitutional and practical grounds. The Constitution requires an “actual Enumeration,” not statistical guesswork, and certainly not a count that inflates the representation of states with large populations of non-citizens. Under this new approach, red states like Texas and Florida could gain multiple seats, while blue strongholds like California, New York, and Illinois could see their delegations shrink.

Analysts estimate that excluding illegal aliens from the count could shift up to 14 seats from blue states to red states. California alone might lose four House seats. Florida and Texas could each gain four. The ripple effects on the Electoral College would be seismic, potentially locking Democrats out of a 270-vote path even if they won every “blue wall” state.

The Hypocrisy of Gerrymandering

While Democrats howl that this is an “attack on democracy,” they’ve long played the very same game in reverse. In fact, some of the most egregious gerrymanders in modern history exist in deep-blue states:

  • Massachusetts: Republicans make up 36% of voters but hold zero congressional seats.

  • Connecticut: 42% Republican, zero seats.

  • Maine: 46% Republican, zero seats.

  • New Mexico: 46% Republican, zero seats.

  • New Hampshire: 48% Republican, zero seats.

  • Rhode Island: 42% Republican, zero seats.

  • Vermont: 32% Republican, zero seats.

  • Hawaii: 38% Republican, zero seats.

  • Delaware: 42% Republican, zero seats.

Even in states where Republicans do hold seats, the imbalance is stark:

  • California: 38% Republican voters, but just 9 of 52 seats (20.9%).

  • Illinois: 44% Republican voters, but only 3 of 17 seats (17.6%).

  • Maryland: 34% Republican voters, but just 1 of 8 seats (12.5%).

  • Oregon: 41% Republican voters, but only 1 of 6 seats (16.7%).

This disparity is no accident. Blue states have systematically drawn maps to wipe out Republican representation. Now that red states are returning the favor, Democrats are discovering they have no room left to retaliate… they’ve already maxed out their own partisan advantages.

Texas as the Flashpoint

The battle has been especially fierce in Texas. After Democrat lawmakers fled the state to block legislation, Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton moved aggressively. Arrest warrants were issued for runaway legislators, and GOP lawmakers openly discussed increasing Republican representation with each week Democrats refused to return.

Under the Supreme Court’s 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, partisan gerrymandering is a “political question” beyond federal court jurisdiction (meaning states can draw districts however they see fit). Red states are seizing that opportunity to counter decades of Democrat-drawn maps in blue territory.

The Bigger Picture

What’s happening now isn’t just about maps, or census methodology, or one executive order. It’s about a political realignment that could define American governance for a generation. By excluding non-citizens from the count and aggressively redrawing districts, Republicans could secure a structural advantage in both Congress and the Electoral College that Democrats would be hard-pressed to overcome.

Democrats have long argued these tactics undermine democracy. But as even some liberal commentators admit, they’ve been using the exact same tactics in their own states for years (and in many cases, more aggressively than Republicans ever did).

The irony is inescapable: the party that perfected the art of gerrymandering and census manipulation is now on the receiving end of its own playbook.

If the trends hold, the 2026 midterms could deliver a decisive shift in power… not just for the next Congress, but for decades to come.

Read full Article
Restoring Federalism: Repealing Selective Incorporation and Returning to the Founders’ Vision of State Sovereignty

 

Executive Summary

If constitutional originalists such as historian David Barton or jurists in the tradition of Justice Clarence Thomas could propose one constitutional amendment, it would be this:

"To repeal the doctrine of selective incorporation, thereby restoring the Bill of Rights to its original purpose: a restraint solely on the federal government, not the states."

The selective incorporation doctrine—derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause—has enabled federal courts to impose nationalized standards on state governments, in areas ranging from religion and speech to criminal procedure and gun rights. Though seemingly protective of individual liberties, this doctrine has also eroded state sovereignty, upended local moral governance, and consolidated federal judicial supremacy—a direction wholly foreign to the Founders’ original design.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Yes, We Have the Evidence: Obama Officials Accused in Treasonous Coup Against Trump

In a bombshell report, conservative commentator Dr. Steve Turley claims that former President Barack Obama is at the center of a scandal that dwarfs Watergate, potentially marking one of the most significant political controversies in American history.

placeholder
 

According to Turley, newly declassified intelligence documents (released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard) reveal a "treasonous conspiracy" orchestrated at the highest levels of government, implicating Obama himself.

Turley cites a Truth Social post by President Donald Trump, featuring an AI-generated video symbolically depicting Obama’s arrest and imprisonment. While the video is not literal, Turley argues it reflects a growing sentiment that “the walls are closing in” on the former president. He describes the unfolding events as a “national scandal” with a paper trail leading directly to Obama—one that could become what Turley calls the “crown jewel” of Trump’s historic legacy.

AI Generated

 

The Allegations: A Coup in Motion

Turley’s central claim is based on over 100 declassified documents, which he says have been referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. According to Turley:

  • Before the 2016 election, every major U.S. intelligence agency (including the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Department of Homeland Security) agreed there was no evidence of Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign.

  • Despite this, Turley alleges that in December 2016, shortly after Trump’s victory, Obama ordered a coordinated effort to fabricate intelligence contradicting those findings.

This alleged effort involved senior officials such as:

  • FBI Director James Comey

  • Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe

  • CIA Director John Brennan

  • Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

  • Secretary of State John Kerry

  • National Security Adviser Susan Rice

According to Turley, this operation was intended to delegitimize Trump’s presidency, amounting to a “systematic creation of false intelligence.” Citing Tulsi Gabbard, Turley calls this a “treasonous” act that undermined the democratic process and triggered a constitutional crisis.

Beyond Partisan Lines: A Threat to Democracy

Turley emphasizes that this is not a partisan issue:

“It’s irrelevant whether you’re Republican or Democrat… What Tulsi is exposing represents a fundamental attack on the democratic process.”

He warns that the alleged actions went far beyond political maneuvering. They represented a direct assault on the legitimacy of a duly elected president and on the will of the American people.

Whistleblowers & the Call for Justice

Turley also claims that whistleblowers from within Obama’s administration are now coming forward, ready to testify. These individuals, he says, are preparing affidavits describing how federal institutions were weaponized against the American people.

Gabbard has emphasized the need for accountability:

  • Prosecutions and indictments are necessary, she argues, to restore trust in democratic institutions.

  • Turley agrees, framing this not as a matter of revenge, but of justice, ensuring that no future administration can misuse intelligence agencies for political ends.

Media Complicity & the Fight for Truth

Turley warns that the legacy media—which he labels as “complicit” in the scandal—may attempt to bury or discredit the story. However, he insists:

“The documents don’t lie.”

He predicts that within months, a major media figure might break ranks and expose the media’s role in covering up the scandal, further amplifying its national impact.

Final Word: A Populist Crossroads

In a broader appeal, Turley urges Americans to stay engaged:

  • He calls on citizens to demand accountability and stand with a populist movement that cuts across traditional political lines.

  • He stresses: “The rule of law must apply equally to everyone.”

As the Justice Department—now led by Pam Bondi, reviews the evidence, Turley promises to continue monitoring developments and keep his audience informed.

placeholder


Source: Dr. Steve Turley

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals