As bad as crime has been in California over the past decade, it has increased at a frightening rate over the past year as crime-lenient prosecutors refuse to admit that their coddling of repeat offenders isn’t working. Saturday night’s armed robbery of a Secret Service agent who had just worked for President Biden is the perfect example.
READ MORE: Joe Biden’s America: Secret Service agent robbed during President’s visit to California
If you thought California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom actually cared about the safety of families in his state, email exchanges between Newsom’s chief of staff and the head of the California District Attorney’s Office obtained by CBS California on Monday will prove you wrong.
Newsom, who has presidential ambitions (despite repeated denials), is trying to look like he is trying to do something about the problem. But he is a staunch supporter of “justice reform” and one of the architects (along with then-San Francisco District Attorney George Gascòn) of the 2014 Bill 47 that created the problem in the first place. So he cannot support attempts to repeal or “fix” Bill 47 without admitting that his brilliant ideas didn’t work. Apparently Newsom is unaware that a sign of intellectual and emotional maturity is the ability to recognize and admit when one is wrong or one’s idea didn’t work.
And that’s why he’s pulling out all the stops to prevent the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, recently approved for the November 2024 ballot and aimed at correcting Law 47.
Newsom’s administration, along with leaders of Sacramento’s Democratic supermajority, has drafted a list of public safety bills that are currently moving through the legislative process. The aim is to confuse voters so that they think the initiative is not necessary:
Democratic strategist Steve Maviglio said the tactic, while potentially unpopular, could be effective for Democrats who fear the initiative could lead to a return of mass incarceration in the state.
“A poison pill in legislation is essentially designed to kill something they don’t like,” Maviglio said. “The goal is to confuse voters so they’ll vote no.”
However, any legislation passed can easily be reversed next year if Democrats still have a comfortable majority (and could potentially retain a two-thirds majority). If Fix Prop 47 is passed by voters, the legislature will not be able to change its provisions, making it a indefinite and public offense for Newsom.
Normally, Newsom can force the supermajority to get his way, but there are currently too many Democratic lawmakers who stand to lose their seats if they don’t do something substantive for public safety for him to get away with it. And the Republican minority has become extremely vocal and united in its opposition and messaging (apparently aided by daily reports of repeat offenders committing novel violent crimes), making it even harder for vulnerable Democrats to go along with Newsom’s agenda.
RELATED: “Buckle up, Pilar Schiavo” – California Assembly Republicans warn Democrats who protect illegal alien pedophiles
Because of the factors above, this slate of public safety bills is struggling in the House, and Newsom is desperately trying to implement his Plan B: trying to “work with” the California District Attorneys Association to get them to pass a legislative package and then drop the ballot initiative. That attempt failed spectacularly over the weekend, and then Newsom’s chief of staff, Dana Williamson, resorted to violent and bullying tactics in an email thread that was then leaked to CBS News California Investigates.
The thread begins with Totten responding to a proposal from Newsom’s office, pointing out that it really doesn’t do anything. Like, nothing at all:
Unfortunately, this proposal will not meaningfully and specifically address the necessary reforms proposed in the People’s Initiative, particularly the shoplifting crisis. This proposal does not address repeat theft, accumulation, excessive theft, or flash thefts. Rather, this proposal seeks to change the law regarding failure to appear in court rather than directly addressing the underlying criminal behavior and history of the defendant. This proposal would rarely be charged due to its extremely narrow scope, evidentiary difficulties, and the likelihood that it would rarely, if ever, apply to offenders (see the attached legal analysis).
Totten then raises the possibility of working together on a bill that would be mutually beneficial and save millions of dollars in campaign costs. He then reminds Williamson that his coalition’s bill has already been approved for a vote:
We have heard from others that there may be a willingness to consider a legislative initiative in 2024 that addresses the shoplifting and fentanyl crises. If that is true, we should meet. I have informed members of our committee and other law enforcement representatives and I am sure they will all attend.
As you know, the Reduce Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Act is qualified for the November 2024 ballot after the submission of over 900,000 signatures. This ballot bill was crafted to provide holistic, compassionate, and common sense solutions to the theft, fentanyl, and drug crises plaguing California.
Williamson then tries to arrange a meeting over the weekend (Father’s Day weekend) because the language needs to be included in the legislative package by Monday for deadline reasons, but refuses to put anything in writing other than a promise that Newsom would agree to a joint ballot proposal – in 2026.
Totten responds that public safety issues are too urgent to wait another two years, then says:
If the administration is willing to consider amending Proposition 47 on the 2024 ballot, then we would be ecstatic to meet. If not, we understand and accept your decision and do not believe further meetings would be productive.
The above statement seems quite heartfelt, but one must remember that Newsom is not used to being pushed back. Williamson then responds (at 10:15 p.m.; make your own assumptions about his state of mind at this time on a Saturday night):
If that’s your position, then I agree with you, there’s nothing to discuss. It’s really amazing that you’re not able to pull off a win. And the consultants you work with haven’t won anything in a decade. Good luck.
She quickly adds:
And as for your personal privileges, it’s really rude that you agreed to a meeting, then backed out and didn’t respond.
This is why no one wants to work with you.
While we all know that violence and bullying are a regular occurrence, it’s still shocking to see this in print. However, this isn’t Williamson’s first rodeo of making horrible comments to her colleagues. She deleted her Twitter account the night of the debate between her boss and Ron DeSantis after these tweets appeared about Lorena Gonzalez of the California Labor Federation and Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA).
Finally, on November 30, I received a screenshot from the Twitter account of Gavin Newsom’s Chief of Staff Dana Williamson, shortly before she deleted her account @danawill2023. So was it the insult that was tweeted? @LorenaSGonzalezor insulting @KevinKileyCA that forced her to do so? pic.twitter.com/RMDenWIhVF
— Jennifer Van Laar (@jenvanlaar) December 4, 2023
As proof that Williamson meant business, “poison pills” were inserted into pending public safety bills on Monday, sometimes despite opposition from authors and co-sponsors. Those amended bills will be sent to committee on Tuesday as Democrats in Sacramento, like the rats they are, abandon the sinking ship.
Regarding the email thread, Totten told CBS:
“While I am not prepared to comment on negotiations on the ballot bill, I can say that we had one goal in pursuing this ballot bill: to address the unintended consequences of parts of Proposition 47 that have led to increases in shoplifting, fentanyl trafficking and overdose deaths. In addition, we want to provide stronger incentives to get hard drug users into treatment. Unfortunately, state leaders are prioritizing politics over public safety.”
And Newsom’s office said:
We regularly engage with a variety of stakeholders across the political spectrum. The California District Attorneys Association requested a meeting with our office, but canceled. It appears that their decision was based on a position that does not reflect the consensus of their broader coalition.
Hmm, maybe that’s why the Newsom administration likes to enter into nondisclosure agreements when drafting legislation?
The entire email thread can be read below.
RE response to the Governor’s Office proposal, edited by CBS, edited from Jennifer Van Laar on Scribd
