To the editor : I have no problem with the Los Angeles Police Protective League asserting its core job functions and cost of protective services ( “LAPD has ended its role in Kamala Harris’ security detail. What happens now?,” Sept. 7). It is a discussion worth having. But when it says the Los Angeles Police Department was protecting “a failed presidential candidate” rather than a former vice president, I smell a very partisan attitude. I won’t even get into the LAPPL’s jab at the financial status of the Harris family.

Marty Friedman, Manhattan Beach

..

To the editor : It would seem inappropriate to spend city and state resources, both time and money, to provide security protection to Kamala Harris now that the normal six-month Secret Service protection period for former vice pres

See Full Page