October 9, 2024 • 44 mins
In the final part of the discussion with Steve Cooley, former district attorney of Los Angeles County, he discusses the challenges and controversies surrounding public safety in Los Angeles. The conversation touches on the recall efforts against the California District Attorney, the impact of legislative changes like AB 109, Prop 47, and Prop 57, and the influence of outside funding on local politics. Cooley highlights the consequences of these laws on crime rates and the justice system, and expresses concerns about the future of public safety. He also delves into issues of mental health, the role of law enforcement, and the societal effects of current criminal justice policies.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(01:00:01):
Well, let's talk aboutGeorge Gascon. I
(01:00:24):
think you mentioned that he is a, the
term he likes to describe himself by is
it quote progressive?
That's a term that's used. I don't know
if it fits, but
that's a term that's used.
Okay. Um, but he has been supported, I
believe, by George Soros. Uh, also, I
(01:00:45):
think that Kamala Harris, Newsom, um, and
Elizabeth Warren, the Senator out of
Massachusetts, all support him.
I can't forget Schiff.
And Schiff,
who is one who's actually from Los
Angeles area, but these others are all
outside of Los Angeles, ironically,
uh, supporting a, uh, progressive, uh,
(01:01:08):
uh, prosecutor. So with GeorgeGascon, uh,
there is a recall effort underway with
him as to him. Uh,
what's the status of that?
The status recall effort is the, uh,
people behind it, um,
uh, got 190,000 more signatures than they
(01:01:28):
needed to qualify. Now, in any such
effort, you're going to have certain
signatures on petitions that are invalid.
(...) The registrar recorder, through
certain policy decisions, um,
and his review,(...) which is very
flawed, by the way, of the petitions,
said, "No, uh, it fell 40,000 short."
(01:01:52):
Well, um, a number of people couldn't
quite believe that. And they were right
in not quite believing that.
Because since last November, a number of
volunteers and other people donated money
to really cause a very intense review of
(01:02:14):
the registrar recorder's decisions
regarding the signatures that were
produced. You know what they found?
The voter rolls were hugely bloated
because the registrar recorder had not
followed the dictates of a lawsuit
saying, "You must purge your voter rolls
of people that are like dead,(...) have
(01:02:36):
moved out of state,(...) have not voted
in three consecutive federal
elections." That's the law.
Our registrar recorder had not gotten
around to doing that. So
when you have, let's say,
uh,
500,000 voters on the rolls that
shouldn't be there, that makes your
(01:02:57):
requirement for the 10% of signatures
increased by 50,000. Because you're
required to get 10% of all registered
voters to sign a petition for
people. And this will be the
registered voters in the
county of the United States.
And so, because LA County, uh,(...)
negligently, intentionally,
(01:03:18):
ineptly, did not purge their voter rolls,
(...) the recall proponents were required
to get more signatures than they actually
should have had to
get. That's just part one.
And the rest of it is
they made huge mistakes,
huge mistakes, and they invalidated many
(01:03:41):
signatures which were perfectly valid by
true registered voters in LA County
because of the way they executed their
duties.(...) For example,
if, this is just one small example, but
there's many other examples,
(01:04:02):
if someone never really learned script
writing, they don't have a signature in
that way. So what they do is they print
their name. That's how they legally write
their name. They print it.
If someone down at the clerk's office
sees, uh, "Oh, it's a printed name, they
(01:04:23):
didn't sign it, well, I'm gonna
disqualify it." No, wait a second. That's
how they write their name, but they would
disqualify it. There
were examples like that.
On the form itself, uh, it said,
"Print your, uh, your name and your
residence address." Okay? So you could be
(01:04:44):
a valid registered voter.(...) You print
your name. You sign it. The signature's
right.(...) Let's say you had moved and
you put your residence
address on the form itself.
The current residence address.
Your current residence address. If it
does not match your registered address,
(01:05:05):
they would kick that out. That's
thousands. That's thousands.(...) So
policy decisions were made,(...) uh,(...)
discrete individual decisions were made.
There were mistakes made over and over
and over again by the registrar recorder
the way they reviewed those petitions. I
(01:05:26):
think that the registrar recorder never
thought there would be a challenge. That
no one would go down there and take the
time over many months to review those
petitions.(...) They thought they would
get away with it. Well, I don't think
they're gonna get away with it because
there's probably gonna be a lawsuit filed
to get a written mandate, um, that forces
(01:05:47):
a court to make the decision as to
whether or not there were enough valid
signatures or not. And I think that's
gonna be a very interesting lawsuit,
unprecedented probably in electoral
history, at least in California, um,
where, um, the, the decision made by a
governmental official you should have
faith in will be overturned, uh, by some
(01:06:10):
very dedicated volunteers who just did
the hard work of double checking what
they did down there in
Norwalk at the registrar's office.
Well, this, um, now triggers voter
integrity. Um, and, and the numbers, uh,
I believe on the petition for recall,
there was roughly 700,000
(01:06:32):
plus signatures collected and
they needed 566,000.
Which was an inflated number because they
had to reverse the rules. So it was
something less than that. And they
invalidated, uh, the registrar's office
invalidated almost 200,000.
I can't remember all the numbers, but
somewhere along those lines, it was huge.
(01:06:55):
Huge numbers. It was huge. And now we're
finding out that it shouldn't have been
that huge. They made a lot of mistakes.
They invalidated perfectly valid
signatures by real registered voters.
(...) So, um, yeah, it
shouldn't have been that huge.
So you mentioned, is there a lawsuit
pending now or is it a
lawsuit pending now? Uh, it's in, uh, um,
(01:07:19):
there was an injunction brought, uh, by
the recall committee against the
registrar recorder. That is an ongoing
matter in front of Judge Chalfont in the
Rich Court. And so far, uh, the recall
proponents have been very successful in
court, uh,(...) forcing the registrar
recorder to stop slow walking it,
(01:07:39):
interfering with it.(...) Uh, so thank
goodness there was a judge to keep these
guys honest, uh, by these guys, I mean
the registrar recorder's office.
And, uh,(...) ultimately, um,
uh, after an appeal taken by the
registrar recorder is resolved, there
will be a writ of mandate filed, which is
(01:08:01):
a separate legal matter. And that is
really to have a court order the
registrar recorder to certify the
election because in fact, enough
signatures have been gathered. Uh, and
then the county board of supervisors,
(...) once, um, a recall election is
certified, we'll have to place it on the
(01:08:21):
ballot.(...) Uh, and then we find out
about whether Mr. Gascones progressive
policies are accepted here in Los Angeles
County or is he going to be rejected?
So this is, uh, 2023, uh, in the normal
course of things, if he's not recalled,
when does his term expire?
(01:08:42):
His term, uh, would expire, well,
assuming he's not recalled, because once
you're recalled and, um,(...) uh, it
succeeds, you lose power immediately upon
certification of the recall election. So
assuming he's not thrown out by recall,
uh, he would be, uh, up for the, and he's
(01:09:03):
actually campaigning now for the primary
in March of 2024 and assuming he's one of
the top two, he would be up for election
in November of 2024.(...) It's
theoretically possible, I know this is
crazy,(...) but theoretically possible he
could be nominated as a
candidate for district attorney,
(01:09:26):
uh,(...) in the primary election and
recalled in the same election.
It just is crazy. It's one of the
peculiarities of the recall, uh, laws.
But it's peculiar, uh, because there's
never been a recall of constitutional
officer in Los Angeles County in 170
years. He's the first one up, uh, to
actually face a serious recall where it
(01:09:48):
is likely he will be
recalled. Never been done before.
So governor's been recalled, the DA in
San Francisco has been recalled. I think
there's been a one or two
other recalls in the history
of Los Angeles County. Not but Los
Angeles. Constitutional officers, we've
been around since 1850.
There's three constitutional officers,
assessor, DA, sheriff.(...) One of them
(01:10:09):
has ever been recalled,(...) uh, in Los
Angeles County in 100 most since 1850.
(...) You do the math 73 years.
Been a while. Yeah. Uh, so, uh, so if,
if, uh, let's say if, if the target date
is to get the recall scheduled for March
of 2024, that's also the primary. So, uh,
(01:10:31):
and a recall, I think, even though the
petition to get it scheduled requires 10%
valid signatures. The actual
recall is by majority vote.
Yeah. Well, it's a, it's a,
well under the old system, um,
they would have what they call a
substitution election and there would be
(01:10:52):
a list of people who wanted to be the
district attorney who paid the fee or
whatever.(...) And then there would be a
plurality. Whoever got the most out of
that. Remember Schwarzenegger? Remember.
There are 134 people that applied to be
governor and he got the most plurality.
Get a big plurality, but
it was a plurality. Uh,
(01:11:12):
but,(...) uh, the recall in
all cases is 50% plus one vote.
Right. And then if it's 50% plus one on
the recall, then you get down to the 134
or however many people are
running for the election.
Well, except the legislature, our great
legislature decided to change the rules
and no longer, uh, is there an
opportunity for the public to select the
(01:11:34):
replacement assuming
the official's recalled.
Now what happens is the board of
supervisors appoints an interim. If
someone is recalled, let's say Gascog is
recalled. Say March, uh, once that recall
election certified and he is recalled by
50% plus one vote, then he is out of
(01:11:57):
office.(...) He loses all
power. He has no more authority.
Um, and he cannot run in the general
election assuming he's the top two with
the title district attorney and the board
would appoint sort of a caretaker and,
uh, interim district attorney to
discharge those duties until there's an
(01:12:18):
election and a certified election.
He could win the primary. He's recalled,
but the recall itself does not qualify
him for standing for the general
election. Is that apparently?
Yeah, that's doing work.
All right. But it does disqualify the LA
County board of supervisors from
appointing him to be the RMD.
No, well, yeah, they
(01:12:38):
couldn't appoint him for sure.
He's out. He's out.
He's out. He's not in the game.
He's not in the game. He's gone.
Uh, so, so I guess we're, we're saying
then, uh, and I don't know if many people
know this, but, uh, there probably is a
general impression that if someone is
recalled, that's kind of permanent
disqualification from holding that
office, but that's just
not true in California.
(01:12:59):
Yeah, it's not true in California.
Yeah. Well, uh, the,
um, uh, yeah, you're disqualified from
that office for that term. Right. And you
can run again and be elected again if the
public is willing to make that mistake
again. I don't think they are. All the
(01:13:19):
polling I see and hear about is that he
is, uh, one of the most disfavored
elected officials in LA
County history about California.
Well, I want to come back to this because
there seems to be a, he has a huge
support from govern Newsom who's not from
Southern California. Uh,
big support for someone like Elizabeth
(01:13:40):
Warren from Massachusetts, uh, apparently
financial support from a lot of people
outside of Los Angeles
County, but the citizens.
Big support for George Soros. Yeah.
Millions and millions and millions of
dollars Soros and his little clique of
buddies and, uh, fellow
traveler type people. Yeah.
Uh, my, my, my, my point though is that
(01:14:01):
they don't, they're not County of Los
Angeles voters, but yet here we have the
support from outside of the County, but
the voters in County of Los Angeles who
are dealing with repercussions of these
rising crime rate have
a different attitude.
I think you got to
remember Newsom appointed.
(01:14:22):
Gascon with no experience as a lawyer or
as a prosecutor to be
the DA of San Francisco.
So they're kind of like buddies. Uh, but
Newsom in my view is the kind of person
he is such a politician when he sees
Gascon's stock going down,
(01:14:44):
he'll just, it'll avert his eyes.(...)
It's like I think mayor bass.(...) Uh, I
don't think she's going to be a supporter
of Gascon when she reads the polls and
see how disfavored he is. She won't touch
him with a 10 foot pole. Um, even someone
who's shifty as ship, uh,
will no longer be in his corner.
Well, but it went on a dwell on this
(01:15:06):
point for just a minute because, uh, to
the extent that we're talking about some
type of effective voter nullification of
the voters in Los Angeles County by the
powers that be and the money that be that
comes from outside the County of Los
Angeles. There's something about that
that bothers me. Uh, this should be a Los
(01:15:27):
Angeles County issue, uh, but yet we have
these levers being pulled by powers and
monies that are outside the County.
George, George Soros is master plan is
much bigger than Los Angeles County, but
Los Angeles County was the
big elephant for him to capture.
(01:15:47):
Um, it's one thing to have your way up in
San Francisco with 70,000 people, but LA
County, the largest, most populous County
in the United States of America by far
was the big elephant. They got Chicago,
uh, with Kim Fox.(...) It's a complete
loser.(...) They got the attorney general
in New York, complete loser.(...) They
(01:16:10):
got this guy in Manhattan, New York,
completely complete disaster,(...) but
he's actually gotten people in because
the money he brings into it from outside
hat does impact those voters.
Um, especially the uninformed voters who
may be influenced by a cleverly written
(01:16:31):
ad against an incumbent and for a George
Gascogne or someone of that nature. So,
uh, but I think the public is waking up.
I think that they're trying to figure out
how this is happening to them, why their,
uh, justice system becomes a mess,(...)
uh, an embarrassment,
(01:16:52):
something to be mocked.
Uh, and they go, you know what, uh, maybe
we made a mistake with that Gascogne guy
or with somebody else, Philadelphia, St.
Louis. Uh, some of them are waking up.
San Francisco woke up
and got rid of that loser.
One thing I think that confuses just the
(01:17:12):
common man and woman, uh, on the street
is how someone who has a philosophy that,
uh, that allows the crime rates to
increase, uh, more people on the street
rather than being put away so that they
can't commit crimes.(...) Um, and, and
the, uh, prosecutor is content and thinks
(01:17:35):
that's some type of social progress. But
if you're the individual who is having to
close your store because you're suffering
some ash or grabs or you're the homeowner
that is being broken into and you're
losing, uh, you know, your, your, you
know, family wealth through these, uh,
thefts and burglaries, um, then, uh, we
have an issue where what I have to ask
(01:17:57):
the basic question, what did these people
think I'm talking about the prosecutors,
(...) what are they trying to achieve? Uh,
or you would conclude that not looking
out for the quote victims or do they even
not even consider, uh, these homeowners
or these businesses to be victims. It's a
very confusing situation.
Well, those are victims. That's a good
place to start. I particularly care
(01:18:19):
about, uh, next of kin of murder victims.
When you lose a loved one to a violent
act of murder, some of them are
particularly brutal. And then the
district attorney who seemed to be by law
and by the constitution assisting you at
parole hearings says, no, I forbid my
(01:18:41):
prosecutors from assisting a victim at a
parole hearing. I forbid my prosecutors
from writing the parole hearings
regarding the nature of the crime. As a
matter of fact, my prosecutors cannot do
anything after the sentencing of an
individual for a crime.
They're not to be involved.
(01:19:02):
Uh, that's sort of abandoning victims.
(...) When a mother has to go to a parole
hearing by herself to face
the murderer of her child
and he's got a lawyer and she has to
confront the murderer and the lawyer
(01:19:23):
without any help from the district
attorney or the prosecutor. That is a
tragedy.(...) That is a complete failure.
(...) And that is what happens in Los
Angeles County.(...) That is his policy.
(...) That's what he does.(...) That's
reason so many victims and legitimate
victims groups are fighting for his
(01:19:44):
recall because he's abandoned them every
which way. He couldn't have done anything
more.(...) He's trying to get certain
murderers resentenced to lesser terms.
Then what's coming back? What's the end
game? Because most people, including
myself, would think that the purpose of a
(01:20:06):
district attorney is there to enforce the
laws and that is to keep law violators
away from the public.
That's not what you think they would do.
That's in the government code, by the
way. That's in the Constitution. So
what's his end game?
I mean, what's his end game?
If I could get in George Gasconas head,
I would be accomplishing something I
(01:20:27):
think no one's really been able to do. If
I could get in George Soros' head, that
would be something else
because he is funding all this,
billions of dollars to change the way
American jurisprudence works when it
comes to criminal law.
I can't get inside their head. All I know
(01:20:47):
is the results are horrible for the
law-abiding public across the board. Just
horrible.(...) The system's not working.
The district attorney has turned against
the law-abiding public on the one hand
and the true victims and victims next to
kin on the other. He's turned against him.
(01:21:08):
The system is upside down with
a guy like this in the office.
And what motivates him? God only knows.
What groups and individuals here in L.A.
are in favor of the recall?
Oh, I think law enforcement for starters.
And George Gascona has ordered his
(01:21:29):
prosecutors to not file legitimate,
lawful arrest and provable crimes in like
nine different categories of
misdemeanors.(...)
Those resisting arrests,
a drunken public, some possession of
drugs, things of that nature, trespass.
(01:21:53):
His prosecutors could not file those
crimes. That really denigrates
communities. That's a quality of life
issue.(...) And he has told his
prosecutors, "Don't file them." So that
affects misdemeanors in 78 cities and
unincorporated parts of the county of Los
Angeles.(...) So law enforcement, they
know. They're on the front lines. They're
(01:22:15):
seeing their good arrests
be treated as worthless.
They see their crimes,(...) violent
crimes in many cases, committed by
recidivists not properly filed.
They see juvenile crimes not properly
filed. There are cases of young hoodlums
(01:22:37):
over the age of 16 who commit armed
robberies, stick a real gun in a real
victim's face and steal their stuff.
You cannot get a robbery filed against
that juvenile offender
they cannot file strike
offenses against juveniles.
So what do these have to do? They have to
(01:22:58):
file someone who's a phony baloney crime
like theft, theft from a person. They
can't file an armed robbery because it's
a strike. This is craziness.(...) And
then enhancements.(...) You can't file
enhancements.(...) You can't file priors.
You can't file strikes. So you end up
with a phony charge that doesn't
(01:23:18):
represent the true crime and the facts of
that crime and the record of the
defendant because he wants to reduce the
potential for the ultimate sentence the
court may impose. He does not want a long
sentence. He wants decarceration through
(01:23:39):
kind of like de-prosecution.
That's the way it works.
They do it all through the exercise of
his "prosecutorial discretion."
Well, what's the attitude of the rank and
file prosecutors in the DA's office?
Los Angeles County has a civil service
system in terms of all of its employees
(01:24:00):
and that includes the prosecutors.
The prosecutors of that office, for the
most part, the vast majority, are
dedicated professionals who know their
craft and they are committed to
accurately enforcing the laws of
California, which is the
oath that they took. Okay?
(01:24:23):
They had a plebiscite to determine
whether or not they, the
rank and file prosecutors,
should support the recall. It was 97.3%
of the prosecutors who participated in
that plebiscite, which was the largest
turnout ever in their
history, voted to support the recall.
(01:24:47):
They think he should be recalled.
What about the Los Angeles County
Sheriff? What's his
attitude on the recall?
I know the last sheriff was very
supportive of the recall.
The current sheriff, I don't think he's
really, I think he's
consciously not taken a position
(01:25:08):
at this point. I think the more he's
around and the more he sees the actual
results of Gascon's policies, I think
he'll become a recall supporter. If he
doesn't, then he is just putting his head
in the sand.(...) I have faith that he'll
listen to others in the law enforcement
(01:25:29):
world. He'll listen to the victim's
groups.(...) He'll see the results of
Gascon's policies, maybe when a couple of
his deputies get murdered by someone
who's out, that should be in.
Then maybe he'll have a nirvana and he'll
say, "You know what?
(01:25:50):
This guy's got to go."
Well, you made an interesting point,
regardless of what happens to the recall,
assuming that he wants to run again and
putting the whole recall thing aside.
He stands for
reelection in November of 20…
He's already out there. He's been out
there for a year
campaigning. He's raising money.
(01:26:11):
His ads, his solicitations
are out there all the time.
Within Los Angeles County,
who supports his camp?
I don't know.(...) I don't know who
supports within Los Angeles County. The
last time he got elected because he got
huge, huge financial support from George
Soros and the millions of dollars and
(01:26:34):
others of George Soros' ilk, almost all
of whom were outside of Los Angeles. They
were from the Bay Area or elsewhere, but
who are advancing a view of the world,
not just a candidacy of Gascon. He's the
puppet, but they were advancing their
view of the world when it comes to
criminal justice.(...) He had a lot of
(01:26:56):
money, a lot of money against poor Jackie
Lacey, who did it the old-fashioned way,
just trying to get support from the
people in the county. She
didn't have any great benefactors.
We haven't really, other than referring
to strikes, we haven't
talked much about three strikes.
(01:27:16):
Why don't you talk a little bit about
what three strikes is, how it works,
whether it's been successful failure. You
mentioned that there has been, I think at
some point, a nice change to three
strikes. That's my interpretation of what
you said, but let's visit
that subject for a moment.
Three strikes was a law that in essence
provided the following. If you had two or
(01:27:39):
more qualifying convictions, which means
convictions for a serious or a violent
felony,(...) that a conviction for any
new felony, you could
receive a sentence of $125 to life.
It also had a second strike component. A
(01:28:00):
second strike component was if you had a
prior conviction of one
serious or violent prior,
then as a second striker, the law
mandated you go to prison and that the
term, ordinary term for that offense
(01:28:21):
could be doubled and you had to serve 85%
(...) of that time imposed by the court.
That was the original three strikes law.
Powerful, very powerful.(...) And in some
quarters abused by prosecutors because
(01:28:42):
they were putting people in for $25
to life, stealing a cassette or some
other minor offense that "was a felony,"
two-bit forgery,
something like that. Felony, $25 to life?
(01:29:04):
No. It was disproportionate and it was
not being even-handedly applied because
it was such a powerful law. Well, the
public in their wisdom modified the law,
kept it in place,(...) but they basically
through Prop 36 said, "We like three
(01:29:27):
strikes. $25 to life for that serious and
violent, recidivist offender who commits
a new serious and violent felony."(...)
Yes, but for those who commit
non-serious, non-violent felonies, they
should be prosecuted under the auspices
of the second strike law, which provides
(01:29:49):
for doubling the sentence,
mandatory stay prison,(...) and you must
do 85% of the time imposed by the court.
That was a very thoughtful modification
of the three strikes law. Now, why was it
put forth? It was put forth by people who
(01:30:09):
wanted to save the three strikes law. The
three strikes law barely survived being
declared unconstitutional by the
California Supreme Court. It was declared
unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit. It
was only upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court
on a 4-4-1 vote. It doesn't get any
closer than that. 4-4-1, that's it.
(01:30:30):
That's as close as you can get.(...) So
smart people who wanted to save three
strikes and its benefits in going after
the serious and violent felonies proposed
that amendment, which passed
overwhelmingly because the public
understood they wanted their three
strikes law, but they did not want it to
(01:30:52):
be abused by prosecutors.
There were people out there who really,
(...) others unsophisticated or
ideological, but they didn't want to see
any change in the three strikes law.
Apparently, they weren't paying attention
to how the three strikes law was being
(01:31:12):
challenged over and over again in the
courts and elsewhere and by way of
initiative because it was being abused.
So there was a solution, and the people
saved three strikes. It does work, except
it does not work. If the prosecutor
doesn't allege the strikes, George
(01:31:33):
Gaskell won't allege the strikes. So this
doesn't exist in L.A. County.
It doesn't exist.
So you have a local prosecutor,(...) in
this case a district attorney, that's
basically writing out of the law books,
the penal code,(...) a statute that was
(01:31:56):
approved by the state legislature and the
people of California.
Overwhelmingly, the people approved it
overwhelmingly.(...) The three strikes
law was a proposition, and it was amended
by way of initiative. It was amended by
way of initiative.
This is the people voting.
This is in the Constitution. This is not
some state legislative thing. This is in
(01:32:16):
the Constitution, and he ignores it.(...)
There's something about that I find
greatly offensive when someone takes the
oath to uphold the Constitution of the
United States of America, the
Constitution of the state of California,
and the laws of the state of California,
and then immediately ignores them and
does his own thing. There's something
(01:32:37):
very offensive about that.
The next question, of course, is
impeachment, which is
different from recall.
I don't think there is
impeachment available.
That's my question. Is
there an impeachment?
There is impeachment for recall is the
only remedy to get rid of
an errant public official.
(01:32:59):
In California.
In California, yeah.(...) But the other
way is help vote them out. Get rid of
them. Send them the way of others where
the voters have woken up and realized,
"This is not my best interest when the
quality of my neighborhood is being
seriously diminished." Oh, yeah. And I'm
(01:33:20):
in danger. My family's much more in
danger because of this guy. Get rid of
them. Just get rid of
them. Phone them out. Wake up.
Steve Cooley, where do we go from here?
Well, we vote guest going out. That's
where we recall.(...) That'd be a good
start. And there's a lot of
other things we can do, too.
(01:33:41):
Before we go.
You'd mentioned the mental health issue.
How does that impact crime in Los Angeles
and California as a whole and what's
being done about it?
There are people who are
mentally ill who commit crimes.
(01:34:04):
We see it on television
constantly all across our country.
There are people who are mentally ill,
clearly mentally ill, who do things like
shove people in front of subway trains or
hit people senselessly or attack people
just because they happen to be a
different ethnicity.
(01:34:27):
And these are mentally ill people. And
they do other things that are
manifestations that are mental illness.
(...) In California and I think in
probably other states, many other states,
(...) they have not funded mental health
in terms of institutions where people can
be kept away from the public that they
(01:34:49):
would tend to harm. These are people with
serious mental illnesses, psychosis and
things of that nature
that make them dangerous.
But ever since the Lanterman-Petris Short
Act, it's very, very, very difficult.
Second time you mentioned
that act.(...) Tell us about it.
Okay. Lanterman-Petris
Short Act was enacted, I think,
(01:35:13):
right around the time of Reagan coming
into office. It was pushed by a guy named
Frank Lanterman, who I think was a
Republican, if I'm not mistaken,(...)
from Lock and Yana Flint Ridge. He was
very empathetic towards people with
mental illness because his brother was
(01:35:34):
mentally ill and they greatly restricted
the ability of the state to detain
someone or keep someone in a custodial
setting to deal with
their mental illness.
And they were going to build out
(01:35:55):
outpatient mental health facilities to
deal with that component of society. So
places like Camarillo and other state
hospitals were closed.
So that went away.
And they never did really, they meaning
(01:36:16):
government, never really did, build out
adequately outpatient mental health
facilities that could deal with some of
the very mentally ill people that we see
on our streets. In some instances,
they're committing crimes. In other
instances, they're self-medicating
because that's how they get through life,
I guess.(...) So I think that that was a
(01:36:38):
failure government.(...) They didn't want
to invest the money or they just felt
there's another way to handle this
component in our society. So that's where
we are right now. And I think some people
are starting to think, you know what, we
have to have some capacity to put some of
these people in a custodial setting or a
(01:37:00):
lockdown setting where they can be
actually treated for
their mental illness.
And I think a lot of our homeless
population are mentally ill people and a
lot of them are people who are just very
drug addicted.(...) They're just, they
(01:37:22):
live with their drugs, whatever their
drug of choice may be. And they're a huge
component of the homeless population.
And I think that another component here
in Southern California is we got good
weather. You're going to be homeless,
man. You're going to have a tent, you're
going to be living in a tent, better off
being in a tent. And today where the
weather's pretty good, Mediterranean type
(01:37:43):
temperature, it doesn't rain too often,
at least not every year, and we're
supposed to be in some
freezing place like Chicago.
So we're like a magnet. We've attracted a
lot of other people's homeless prone
people out here, or the
on-house as they call them.
(01:38:03):
Has anybody done any studies to correlate
the increase of the homeless population
with the increase in crime rates?
I think the law of the, I think Prop 47
has been a great increase in the homeless
situation crisis that we have because law
(01:38:26):
enforcement isn't able to really arrest
people who have their drug addictions and
put them in the system. And the system's
very forgiving of people with drug
problems. There's all sorts, there's
diversion, there's this, there's that,
there's probation. There's all kinds of
ways to say, "Hey, look, we're the
government, we're here to
help you. We got programs,
(01:38:49):
and we're going to have to maybe lock you
up if you don't get the programs." A lot
of people, they get the message and they
deal with their issues. But
can't do that anymore. Prop 47,
Police can't arrest based upon probable
cause because it's not a felony anymore.
Has to be an offense occurring in their
presence. That's what's
required for a misdemeanor arrest.
(01:39:10):
So that way to enforce laws against a
population that really
needs to be dealt with, gone.
By the way, let's talk
about Prop 47 one more time.
We have Prop 47 because Kamala Harris is
dishonest and disreputable. She was the
(01:39:31):
Attorney General.(...) And when she was
tasked with giving Prop 47 a title, she
called it like the Safe Communities and
Safer Streets Act.(...) Well, that's
really a nice title. And it was complete
BS. And the public fell for it. And they
(01:39:52):
bought into this horrible Prop 47, which
greatly denigrated the penal code and
came to dealing with theft and totally
reduced hard drugs to misdemeanors.
Well, let me ask you this.
Just as we get ready to close,
(01:40:12):
this is your wish list. And
I realize it's a wish list.
And based upon your comments, you realize
it – at least in the short
term anyway, it's not realistic.
But if you could have the state
legislature and the people
of California to make changes
in the next year to address these
(01:40:35):
increasing problems, what would you
recommend to the state legislature and to
the California people
what they should do?
I know this may sound regressive.
That's right.
Tell me – tell me. Get rid of 57.
Restore the determinant sentence law to
what it was, which was
very, very effective.
47 may have go by by.
(01:40:57):
It's been a disaster.
Everything good has come out of 47.(...)
And AB 109,(...) the state of California
should get back into their historic
responsibility of housing people
sentenced to state prison where they have
adequate facilities and they actually
have the programs to help the people as
(01:41:17):
opposed to putting them in the jail
system, which is not designed for people
with longer terms. So get rid of those
three things. Those are the three legs on
a horrible stool. Get rid of those three
things. And then
another part of my wish list,
get over the constant abuse of law
(01:41:43):
enforcement and the unnecessary criticism
of our law enforcement officers because
of people like this jerk brag back in New
York and others, who really
wants to be in law enforcement?
Who really wants to be there if you're
not respected and you face an improper
(01:42:06):
prosecution by a rogue DA?
So that's why law enforcement is having a
terrible time recruiting. And partly it's
because it's not considered to be a
highly regarded profession
anymore. It's being denigrated.
And the defund the police
movement,(...) completely asinine.
(01:42:30):
And the decarceration movement,
completely dangerous.(...) So maybe stop
some of those movements
that have put us all in danger.
Well, in Los Angeles,(...) both with the
LAPD and also with the sheriff's office,
(01:42:51):
are there enough candidates in the
pipeline to fill all the authorized
positions in those two forces?
I hear there aren't. They're both law
enforcement agencies across the country
are now getting so desperate, they're
offering bonuses and housing and all
sorts of other things to entice qualified
(01:43:12):
candidates to consider applying to become
a police officer. And I understand they
aren't meeting their quotas. The sheriffs
are not meeting their quotas. The LAPD is
not meeting their quotas. And that's
being replicated across the country.(...)
And also remember, in Los Angeles County,
we've got 45 other police agencies.
(01:43:33):
Long Beach, Arcadia.
We have 46 cities with municipal police
agencies. They are
having a hard time recruiting.
And you can't forget them because they
patrol and protect one third of Los
Angeles County's residences in terms of
policing. They can't forget them. They're
(01:43:54):
also suffering. And then you take that,
I'm pretty sure it's replicated
throughout California.
And because it's more of a societal thing
than it is just a regional thing.
I'm hearing you loud and clear, and this
comes back to your point that we need
good laws and good prosecutors.
And good cops.
And good judges. And good judges. And
(01:44:15):
well, that's good advice to the people of
California and the people of Los Angeles.
We'll see if they take it.(...) Steve
Cooley. All right. Thank you very much. I
appreciated your time.
Well, let's talk aboutGeorge Gascon. I
(01:00:24):
think you mentioned that he is a, the
term he likes to describe himself by is
it quote progressive?
That's a term that's used. I don't know
if it fits, but
that's a term that's used.
Okay. Um, but he has been supported, I
believe, by George Soros. Uh, also, I
(01:00:45):
think that Kamala Harris, Newsom, um, and
Elizabeth Warren, the Senator out of
Massachusetts, all support him.
I can't forget Schiff.
And Schiff,
who is one who's actually from Los
Angeles area, but these others are all
outside of Los Angeles, ironically,
uh, supporting a, uh, progressive, uh,
(01:01:08):
uh, prosecutor. So with GeorgeGascon, uh,
there is a recall effort underway with
him as to him. Uh,
what's the status of that?
The status recall effort is the, uh,
people behind it, um,
uh, got 190,000 more signatures than they
(01:01:28):
needed to qualify. Now, in any such
effort, you're going to have certain
signatures on petitions that are invalid.
(...) The registrar recorder, through
certain policy decisions, um,
and his review,(...) which is very
flawed, by the way, of the petitions,
said, "No, uh, it fell 40,000 short."
(01:01:52):
Well, um, a number of people couldn't
quite believe that. And they were right
in not quite believing that.
Because since last November, a number of
volunteers and other people donated money
to really cause a very intense review of
(01:02:14):
the registrar recorder's decisions
regarding the signatures that were
produced. You know what they found?
The voter rolls were hugely bloated
because the registrar recorder had not
followed the dictates of a lawsuit
saying, "You must purge your voter rolls
of people that are like dead,(...) have
(01:02:36):
moved out of state,(...) have not voted
in three consecutive federal
elections." That's the law.
Our registrar recorder had not gotten
around to doing that. So
when you have, let's say,
uh,
500,000 voters on the rolls that
shouldn't be there, that makes your
(01:02:57):
requirement for the 10% of signatures
increased by 50,000. Because you're
required to get 10% of all registered
voters to sign a petition for
people. And this will be the
registered voters in the
county of the United States.
And so, because LA County, uh,(...)
negligently, intentionally,
(01:03:18):
ineptly, did not purge their voter rolls,
(...) the recall proponents were required
to get more signatures than they actually
should have had to
get. That's just part one.
And the rest of it is
they made huge mistakes,
huge mistakes, and they invalidated many
(01:03:41):
signatures which were perfectly valid by
true registered voters in LA County
because of the way they executed their
duties.(...) For example,
if, this is just one small example, but
there's many other examples,
(01:04:02):
if someone never really learned script
writing, they don't have a signature in
that way. So what they do is they print
their name. That's how they legally write
their name. They print it.
If someone down at the clerk's office
sees, uh, "Oh, it's a printed name, they
(01:04:23):
didn't sign it, well, I'm gonna
disqualify it." No, wait a second. That's
how they write their name, but they would
disqualify it. There
were examples like that.
On the form itself, uh, it said,
"Print your, uh, your name and your
residence address." Okay? So you could be
(01:04:44):
a valid registered voter.(...) You print
your name. You sign it. The signature's
right.(...) Let's say you had moved and
you put your residence
address on the form itself.
The current residence address.
Your current residence address. If it
does not match your registered address,
(01:05:05):
they would kick that out. That's
thousands. That's thousands.(...) So
policy decisions were made,(...) uh,(...)
discrete individual decisions were made.
There were mistakes made over and over
and over again by the registrar recorder
the way they reviewed those petitions. I
(01:05:26):
think that the registrar recorder never
thought there would be a challenge. That
no one would go down there and take the
time over many months to review those
petitions.(...) They thought they would
get away with it. Well, I don't think
they're gonna get away with it because
there's probably gonna be a lawsuit filed
to get a written mandate, um, that forces
(01:05:47):
a court to make the decision as to
whether or not there were enough valid
signatures or not. And I think that's
gonna be a very interesting lawsuit,
unprecedented probably in electoral
history, at least in California, um,
where, um, the, the decision made by a
governmental official you should have
faith in will be overturned, uh, by some
(01:06:10):
very dedicated volunteers who just did
the hard work of double checking what
they did down there in
Norwalk at the registrar's office.
Well, this, um, now triggers voter
integrity. Um, and, and the numbers, uh,
I believe on the petition for recall,
there was roughly 700,000
(01:06:32):
plus signatures collected and
they needed 566,000.
Which was an inflated number because they
had to reverse the rules. So it was
something less than that. And they
invalidated, uh, the registrar's office
invalidated almost 200,000.
I can't remember all the numbers, but
somewhere along those lines, it was huge.
(01:06:55):
Huge numbers. It was huge. And now we're
finding out that it shouldn't have been
that huge. They made a lot of mistakes.
They invalidated perfectly valid
signatures by real registered voters.
(...) So, um, yeah, it
shouldn't have been that huge.
So you mentioned, is there a lawsuit
pending now or is it a
lawsuit pending now? Uh, it's in, uh, um,
(01:07:19):
there was an injunction brought, uh, by
the recall committee against the
registrar recorder. That is an ongoing
matter in front of Judge Chalfont in the
Rich Court. And so far, uh, the recall
proponents have been very successful in
court, uh,(...) forcing the registrar
recorder to stop slow walking it,
(01:07:39):
interfering with it.(...) Uh, so thank
goodness there was a judge to keep these
guys honest, uh, by these guys, I mean
the registrar recorder's office.
And, uh,(...) ultimately, um,
uh, after an appeal taken by the
registrar recorder is resolved, there
will be a writ of mandate filed, which is
(01:08:01):
a separate legal matter. And that is
really to have a court order the
registrar recorder to certify the
election because in fact, enough
signatures have been gathered. Uh, and
then the county board of supervisors,
(...) once, um, a recall election is
certified, we'll have to place it on the
(01:08:21):
ballot.(...) Uh, and then we find out
about whether Mr. Gascones progressive
policies are accepted here in Los Angeles
County or is he going to be rejected?
So this is, uh, 2023, uh, in the normal
course of things, if he's not recalled,
when does his term expire?
(01:08:42):
His term, uh, would expire, well,
assuming he's not recalled, because once
you're recalled and, um,(...) uh, it
succeeds, you lose power immediately upon
certification of the recall election. So
assuming he's not thrown out by recall,
uh, he would be, uh, up for the, and he's
(01:09:03):
actually campaigning now for the primary
in March of 2024 and assuming he's one of
the top two, he would be up for election
in November of 2024.(...) It's
theoretically possible, I know this is
crazy,(...) but theoretically possible he
could be nominated as a
candidate for district attorney,
(01:09:26):
uh,(...) in the primary election and
recalled in the same election.
It just is crazy. It's one of the
peculiarities of the recall, uh, laws.
But it's peculiar, uh, because there's
never been a recall of constitutional
officer in Los Angeles County in 170
years. He's the first one up, uh, to
actually face a serious recall where it
(01:09:48):
is likely he will be
recalled. Never been done before.
So governor's been recalled, the DA in
San Francisco has been recalled. I think
there's been a one or two
other recalls in the history
of Los Angeles County. Not but Los
Angeles. Constitutional officers, we've
been around since 1850.
There's three constitutional officers,
assessor, DA, sheriff.(...) One of them
(01:10:09):
has ever been recalled,(...) uh, in Los
Angeles County in 100 most since 1850.
(...) You do the math 73 years.
Been a while. Yeah. Uh, so, uh, so if,
if, uh, let's say if, if the target date
is to get the recall scheduled for March
of 2024, that's also the primary. So, uh,
(01:10:31):
and a recall, I think, even though the
petition to get it scheduled requires 10%
valid signatures. The actual
recall is by majority vote.
Yeah. Well, it's a, it's a,
well under the old system, um,
they would have what they call a
substitution election and there would be
(01:10:52):
a list of people who wanted to be the
district attorney who paid the fee or
whatever.(...) And then there would be a
plurality. Whoever got the most out of
that. Remember Schwarzenegger? Remember.
There are 134 people that applied to be
governor and he got the most plurality.
Get a big plurality, but
it was a plurality. Uh,
(01:11:12):
but,(...) uh, the recall in
all cases is 50% plus one vote.
Right. And then if it's 50% plus one on
the recall, then you get down to the 134
or however many people are
running for the election.
Well, except the legislature, our great
legislature decided to change the rules
and no longer, uh, is there an
opportunity for the public to select the
(01:11:34):
replacement assuming
the official's recalled.
Now what happens is the board of
supervisors appoints an interim. If
someone is recalled, let's say Gascog is
recalled. Say March, uh, once that recall
election certified and he is recalled by
50% plus one vote, then he is out of
(01:11:57):
office.(...) He loses all
power. He has no more authority.
Um, and he cannot run in the general
election assuming he's the top two with
the title district attorney and the board
would appoint sort of a caretaker and,
uh, interim district attorney to
discharge those duties until there's an
(01:12:18):
election and a certified election.
He could win the primary. He's recalled,
but the recall itself does not qualify
him for standing for the general
election. Is that apparently?
Yeah, that's doing work.
All right. But it does disqualify the LA
County board of supervisors from
appointing him to be the RMD.
No, well, yeah, they
(01:12:38):
couldn't appoint him for sure.
He's out. He's out.
He's out. He's not in the game.
He's not in the game. He's gone.
Uh, so, so I guess we're, we're saying
then, uh, and I don't know if many people
know this, but, uh, there probably is a
general impression that if someone is
recalled, that's kind of permanent
disqualification from holding that
office, but that's just
not true in California.
(01:12:59):
Yeah, it's not true in California.
Yeah. Well, uh, the,
um, uh, yeah, you're disqualified from
that office for that term. Right. And you
can run again and be elected again if the
public is willing to make that mistake
again. I don't think they are. All the
(01:13:19):
polling I see and hear about is that he
is, uh, one of the most disfavored
elected officials in LA
County history about California.
Well, I want to come back to this because
there seems to be a, he has a huge
support from govern Newsom who's not from
Southern California. Uh,
big support for someone like Elizabeth
(01:13:40):
Warren from Massachusetts, uh, apparently
financial support from a lot of people
outside of Los Angeles
County, but the citizens.
Big support for George Soros. Yeah.
Millions and millions and millions of
dollars Soros and his little clique of
buddies and, uh, fellow
traveler type people. Yeah.
Uh, my, my, my, my point though is that
(01:14:01):
they don't, they're not County of Los
Angeles voters, but yet here we have the
support from outside of the County, but
the voters in County of Los Angeles who
are dealing with repercussions of these
rising crime rate have
a different attitude.
I think you got to
remember Newsom appointed.
(01:14:22):
Gascon with no experience as a lawyer or
as a prosecutor to be
the DA of San Francisco.
So they're kind of like buddies. Uh, but
Newsom in my view is the kind of person
he is such a politician when he sees
Gascon's stock going down,
(01:14:44):
he'll just, it'll avert his eyes.(...)
It's like I think mayor bass.(...) Uh, I
don't think she's going to be a supporter
of Gascon when she reads the polls and
see how disfavored he is. She won't touch
him with a 10 foot pole. Um, even someone
who's shifty as ship, uh,
will no longer be in his corner.
Well, but it went on a dwell on this
(01:15:06):
point for just a minute because, uh, to
the extent that we're talking about some
type of effective voter nullification of
the voters in Los Angeles County by the
powers that be and the money that be that
comes from outside the County of Los
Angeles. There's something about that
that bothers me. Uh, this should be a Los
(01:15:27):
Angeles County issue, uh, but yet we have
these levers being pulled by powers and
monies that are outside the County.
George, George Soros is master plan is
much bigger than Los Angeles County, but
Los Angeles County was the
big elephant for him to capture.
(01:15:47):
Um, it's one thing to have your way up in
San Francisco with 70,000 people, but LA
County, the largest, most populous County
in the United States of America by far
was the big elephant. They got Chicago,
uh, with Kim Fox.(...) It's a complete
loser.(...) They got the attorney general
in New York, complete loser.(...) They
(01:16:10):
got this guy in Manhattan, New York,
completely complete disaster,(...) but
he's actually gotten people in because
the money he brings into it from outside
hat does impact those voters.
Um, especially the uninformed voters who
may be influenced by a cleverly written
(01:16:31):
ad against an incumbent and for a George
Gascogne or someone of that nature. So,
uh, but I think the public is waking up.
I think that they're trying to figure out
how this is happening to them, why their,
uh, justice system becomes a mess,(...)
uh, an embarrassment,
(01:16:52):
something to be mocked.
Uh, and they go, you know what, uh, maybe
we made a mistake with that Gascogne guy
or with somebody else, Philadelphia, St.
Louis. Uh, some of them are waking up.
San Francisco woke up
and got rid of that loser.
One thing I think that confuses just the
(01:17:12):
common man and woman, uh, on the street
is how someone who has a philosophy that,
uh, that allows the crime rates to
increase, uh, more people on the street
rather than being put away so that they
can't commit crimes.(...) Um, and, and
the, uh, prosecutor is content and thinks
(01:17:35):
that's some type of social progress. But
if you're the individual who is having to
close your store because you're suffering
some ash or grabs or you're the homeowner
that is being broken into and you're
losing, uh, you know, your, your, you
know, family wealth through these, uh,
thefts and burglaries, um, then, uh, we
have an issue where what I have to ask
(01:17:57):
the basic question, what did these people
think I'm talking about the prosecutors,
(...) what are they trying to achieve? Uh,
or you would conclude that not looking
out for the quote victims or do they even
not even consider, uh, these homeowners
or these businesses to be victims. It's a
very confusing situation.
Well, those are victims. That's a good
place to start. I particularly care
(01:18:19):
about, uh, next of kin of murder victims.
When you lose a loved one to a violent
act of murder, some of them are
particularly brutal. And then the
district attorney who seemed to be by law
and by the constitution assisting you at
parole hearings says, no, I forbid my
(01:18:41):
prosecutors from assisting a victim at a
parole hearing. I forbid my prosecutors
from writing the parole hearings
regarding the nature of the crime. As a
matter of fact, my prosecutors cannot do
anything after the sentencing of an
individual for a crime.
They're not to be involved.
(01:19:02):
Uh, that's sort of abandoning victims.
(...) When a mother has to go to a parole
hearing by herself to face
the murderer of her child
and he's got a lawyer and she has to
confront the murderer and the lawyer
(01:19:23):
without any help from the district
attorney or the prosecutor. That is a
tragedy.(...) That is a complete failure.
(...) And that is what happens in Los
Angeles County.(...) That is his policy.
(...) That's what he does.(...) That's
reason so many victims and legitimate
victims groups are fighting for his
(01:19:44):
recall because he's abandoned them every
which way. He couldn't have done anything
more.(...) He's trying to get certain
murderers resentenced to lesser terms.
Then what's coming back? What's the end
game? Because most people, including
myself, would think that the purpose of a
(01:20:06):
district attorney is there to enforce the
laws and that is to keep law violators
away from the public.
That's not what you think they would do.
That's in the government code, by the
way. That's in the Constitution. So
what's his end game?
I mean, what's his end game?
If I could get in George Gasconas head,
I would be accomplishing something I
(01:20:27):
think no one's really been able to do. If
I could get in George Soros' head, that
would be something else
because he is funding all this,
billions of dollars to change the way
American jurisprudence works when it
comes to criminal law.
I can't get inside their head. All I know
(01:20:47):
is the results are horrible for the
law-abiding public across the board. Just
horrible.(...) The system's not working.
The district attorney has turned against
the law-abiding public on the one hand
and the true victims and victims next to
kin on the other. He's turned against him.
(01:21:08):
The system is upside down with
a guy like this in the office.
And what motivates him? God only knows.
What groups and individuals here in L.A.
are in favor of the recall?
Oh, I think law enforcement for starters.
And George Gascona has ordered his
(01:21:29):
prosecutors to not file legitimate,
lawful arrest and provable crimes in like
nine different categories of
misdemeanors.(...)
Those resisting arrests,
a drunken public, some possession of
drugs, things of that nature, trespass.
(01:21:53):
His prosecutors could not file those
crimes. That really denigrates
communities. That's a quality of life
issue.(...) And he has told his
prosecutors, "Don't file them." So that
affects misdemeanors in 78 cities and
unincorporated parts of the county of Los
Angeles.(...) So law enforcement, they
know. They're on the front lines. They're
(01:22:15):
seeing their good arrests
be treated as worthless.
They see their crimes,(...) violent
crimes in many cases, committed by
recidivists not properly filed.
They see juvenile crimes not properly
filed. There are cases of young hoodlums
(01:22:37):
over the age of 16 who commit armed
robberies, stick a real gun in a real
victim's face and steal their stuff.
You cannot get a robbery filed against
that juvenile offender
they cannot file strike
offenses against juveniles.
So what do these have to do? They have to
(01:22:58):
file someone who's a phony baloney crime
like theft, theft from a person. They
can't file an armed robbery because it's
a strike. This is craziness.(...) And
then enhancements.(...) You can't file
enhancements.(...) You can't file priors.
You can't file strikes. So you end up
with a phony charge that doesn't
(01:23:18):
represent the true crime and the facts of
that crime and the record of the
defendant because he wants to reduce the
potential for the ultimate sentence the
court may impose. He does not want a long
sentence. He wants decarceration through
(01:23:39):
kind of like de-prosecution.
That's the way it works.
They do it all through the exercise of
his "prosecutorial discretion."
Well, what's the attitude of the rank and
file prosecutors in the DA's office?
Los Angeles County has a civil service
system in terms of all of its employees
(01:24:00):
and that includes the prosecutors.
The prosecutors of that office, for the
most part, the vast majority, are
dedicated professionals who know their
craft and they are committed to
accurately enforcing the laws of
California, which is the
oath that they took. Okay?
(01:24:23):
They had a plebiscite to determine
whether or not they, the
rank and file prosecutors,
should support the recall. It was 97.3%
of the prosecutors who participated in
that plebiscite, which was the largest
turnout ever in their
history, voted to support the recall.
(01:24:47):
They think he should be recalled.
What about the Los Angeles County
Sheriff? What's his
attitude on the recall?
I know the last sheriff was very
supportive of the recall.
The current sheriff, I don't think he's
really, I think he's
consciously not taken a position
(01:25:08):
at this point. I think the more he's
around and the more he sees the actual
results of Gascon's policies, I think
he'll become a recall supporter. If he
doesn't, then he is just putting his head
in the sand.(...) I have faith that he'll
listen to others in the law enforcement
(01:25:29):
world. He'll listen to the victim's
groups.(...) He'll see the results of
Gascon's policies, maybe when a couple of
his deputies get murdered by someone
who's out, that should be in.
Then maybe he'll have a nirvana and he'll
say, "You know what?
(01:25:50):
This guy's got to go."
Well, you made an interesting point,
regardless of what happens to the recall,
assuming that he wants to run again and
putting the whole recall thing aside.
He stands for
reelection in November of 20…
He's already out there. He's been out
there for a year
campaigning. He's raising money.
(01:26:11):
His ads, his solicitations
are out there all the time.
Within Los Angeles County,
who supports his camp?
I don't know.(...) I don't know who
supports within Los Angeles County. The
last time he got elected because he got
huge, huge financial support from George
Soros and the millions of dollars and
(01:26:34):
others of George Soros' ilk, almost all
of whom were outside of Los Angeles. They
were from the Bay Area or elsewhere, but
who are advancing a view of the world,
not just a candidacy of Gascon. He's the
puppet, but they were advancing their
view of the world when it comes to
criminal justice.(...) He had a lot of
(01:26:56):
money, a lot of money against poor Jackie
Lacey, who did it the old-fashioned way,
just trying to get support from the
people in the county. She
didn't have any great benefactors.
We haven't really, other than referring
to strikes, we haven't
talked much about three strikes.
(01:27:16):
Why don't you talk a little bit about
what three strikes is, how it works,
whether it's been successful failure. You
mentioned that there has been, I think at
some point, a nice change to three
strikes. That's my interpretation of what
you said, but let's visit
that subject for a moment.
Three strikes was a law that in essence
provided the following. If you had two or
(01:27:39):
more qualifying convictions, which means
convictions for a serious or a violent
felony,(...) that a conviction for any
new felony, you could
receive a sentence of $125 to life.
It also had a second strike component. A
(01:28:00):
second strike component was if you had a
prior conviction of one
serious or violent prior,
then as a second striker, the law
mandated you go to prison and that the
term, ordinary term for that offense
(01:28:21):
could be doubled and you had to serve 85%
(...) of that time imposed by the court.
That was the original three strikes law.
Powerful, very powerful.(...) And in some
quarters abused by prosecutors because
(01:28:42):
they were putting people in for $25
to life, stealing a cassette or some
other minor offense that "was a felony,"
two-bit forgery,
something like that. Felony, $25 to life?
(01:29:04):
No. It was disproportionate and it was
not being even-handedly applied because
it was such a powerful law. Well, the
public in their wisdom modified the law,
kept it in place,(...) but they basically
through Prop 36 said, "We like three
(01:29:27):
strikes. $25 to life for that serious and
violent, recidivist offender who commits
a new serious and violent felony."(...)
Yes, but for those who commit
non-serious, non-violent felonies, they
should be prosecuted under the auspices
of the second strike law, which provides
(01:29:49):
for doubling the sentence,
mandatory stay prison,(...) and you must
do 85% of the time imposed by the court.
That was a very thoughtful modification
of the three strikes law. Now, why was it
put forth? It was put forth by people who
(01:30:09):
wanted to save the three strikes law. The
three strikes law barely survived being
declared unconstitutional by the
California Supreme Court. It was declared
unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit. It
was only upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court
on a 4-4-1 vote. It doesn't get any
closer than that. 4-4-1, that's it.
(01:30:30):
That's as close as you can get.(...) So
smart people who wanted to save three
strikes and its benefits in going after
the serious and violent felonies proposed
that amendment, which passed
overwhelmingly because the public
understood they wanted their three
strikes law, but they did not want it to
(01:30:52):
be abused by prosecutors.
There were people out there who really,
(...) others unsophisticated or
ideological, but they didn't want to see
any change in the three strikes law.
Apparently, they weren't paying attention
to how the three strikes law was being
(01:31:12):
challenged over and over again in the
courts and elsewhere and by way of
initiative because it was being abused.
So there was a solution, and the people
saved three strikes. It does work, except
it does not work. If the prosecutor
doesn't allege the strikes, George
(01:31:33):
Gaskell won't allege the strikes. So this
doesn't exist in L.A. County.
It doesn't exist.
So you have a local prosecutor,(...) in
this case a district attorney, that's
basically writing out of the law books,
the penal code,(...) a statute that was
(01:31:56):
approved by the state legislature and the
people of California.
Overwhelmingly, the people approved it
overwhelmingly.(...) The three strikes
law was a proposition, and it was amended
by way of initiative. It was amended by
way of initiative.
This is the people voting.
This is in the Constitution. This is not
some state legislative thing. This is in
(01:32:16):
the Constitution, and he ignores it.(...)
There's something about that I find
greatly offensive when someone takes the
oath to uphold the Constitution of the
United States of America, the
Constitution of the state of California,
and the laws of the state of California,
and then immediately ignores them and
does his own thing. There's something
(01:32:37):
very offensive about that.
The next question, of course, is
impeachment, which is
different from recall.
I don't think there is
impeachment available.
That's my question. Is
there an impeachment?
There is impeachment for recall is the
only remedy to get rid of
an errant public official.
(01:32:59):
In California.
In California, yeah.(...) But the other
way is help vote them out. Get rid of
them. Send them the way of others where
the voters have woken up and realized,
"This is not my best interest when the
quality of my neighborhood is being
seriously diminished." Oh, yeah. And I'm
(01:33:20):
in danger. My family's much more in
danger because of this guy. Get rid of
them. Just get rid of
them. Phone them out. Wake up.
Steve Cooley, where do we go from here?
Well, we vote guest going out. That's
where we recall.(...) That'd be a good
start. And there's a lot of
other things we can do, too.
(01:33:41):
Before we go.
You'd mentioned the mental health issue.
How does that impact crime in Los Angeles
and California as a whole and what's
being done about it?
There are people who are
mentally ill who commit crimes.
(01:34:04):
We see it on television
constantly all across our country.
There are people who are mentally ill,
clearly mentally ill, who do things like
shove people in front of subway trains or
hit people senselessly or attack people
just because they happen to be a
different ethnicity.
(01:34:27):
And these are mentally ill people. And
they do other things that are
manifestations that are mental illness.
(...) In California and I think in
probably other states, many other states,
(...) they have not funded mental health
in terms of institutions where people can
be kept away from the public that they
(01:34:49):
would tend to harm. These are people with
serious mental illnesses, psychosis and
things of that nature
that make them dangerous.
But ever since the Lanterman-Petris Short
Act, it's very, very, very difficult.
Second time you mentioned
that act.(...) Tell us about it.
Okay. Lanterman-Petris
Short Act was enacted, I think,
(01:35:13):
right around the time of Reagan coming
into office. It was pushed by a guy named
Frank Lanterman, who I think was a
Republican, if I'm not mistaken,(...)
from Lock and Yana Flint Ridge. He was
very empathetic towards people with
mental illness because his brother was
(01:35:34):
mentally ill and they greatly restricted
the ability of the state to detain
someone or keep someone in a custodial
setting to deal with
their mental illness.
And they were going to build out
(01:35:55):
outpatient mental health facilities to
deal with that component of society. So
places like Camarillo and other state
hospitals were closed.
So that went away.
And they never did really, they meaning
(01:36:16):
government, never really did, build out
adequately outpatient mental health
facilities that could deal with some of
the very mentally ill people that we see
on our streets. In some instances,
they're committing crimes. In other
instances, they're self-medicating
because that's how they get through life,
I guess.(...) So I think that that was a
(01:36:38):
failure government.(...) They didn't want
to invest the money or they just felt
there's another way to handle this
component in our society. So that's where
we are right now. And I think some people
are starting to think, you know what, we
have to have some capacity to put some of
these people in a custodial setting or a
(01:37:00):
lockdown setting where they can be
actually treated for
their mental illness.
And I think a lot of our homeless
population are mentally ill people and a
lot of them are people who are just very
drug addicted.(...) They're just, they
(01:37:22):
live with their drugs, whatever their
drug of choice may be. And they're a huge
component of the homeless population.
And I think that another component here
in Southern California is we got good
weather. You're going to be homeless,
man. You're going to have a tent, you're
going to be living in a tent, better off
being in a tent. And today where the
weather's pretty good, Mediterranean type
(01:37:43):
temperature, it doesn't rain too often,
at least not every year, and we're
supposed to be in some
freezing place like Chicago.
So we're like a magnet. We've attracted a
lot of other people's homeless prone
people out here, or the
on-house as they call them.
(01:38:03):
Has anybody done any studies to correlate
the increase of the homeless population
with the increase in crime rates?
I think the law of the, I think Prop 47
has been a great increase in the homeless
situation crisis that we have because law
(01:38:26):
enforcement isn't able to really arrest
people who have their drug addictions and
put them in the system. And the system's
very forgiving of people with drug
problems. There's all sorts, there's
diversion, there's this, there's that,
there's probation. There's all kinds of
ways to say, "Hey, look, we're the
government, we're here to
help you. We got programs,
(01:38:49):
and we're going to have to maybe lock you
up if you don't get the programs." A lot
of people, they get the message and they
deal with their issues. But
can't do that anymore. Prop 47,
Police can't arrest based upon probable
cause because it's not a felony anymore.
Has to be an offense occurring in their
presence. That's what's
required for a misdemeanor arrest.
(01:39:10):
So that way to enforce laws against a
population that really
needs to be dealt with, gone.
By the way, let's talk
about Prop 47 one more time.
We have Prop 47 because Kamala Harris is
dishonest and disreputable. She was the
(01:39:31):
Attorney General.(...) And when she was
tasked with giving Prop 47 a title, she
called it like the Safe Communities and
Safer Streets Act.(...) Well, that's
really a nice title. And it was complete
BS. And the public fell for it. And they
(01:39:52):
bought into this horrible Prop 47, which
greatly denigrated the penal code and
came to dealing with theft and totally
reduced hard drugs to misdemeanors.
Well, let me ask you this.
Just as we get ready to close,
(01:40:12):
this is your wish list. And
I realize it's a wish list.
And based upon your comments, you realize
it – at least in the short
term anyway, it's not realistic.
But if you could have the state
legislature and the people
of California to make changes
in the next year to address these
(01:40:35):
increasing problems, what would you
recommend to the state legislature and to
the California people
what they should do?
I know this may sound regressive.
That's right.
Tell me – tell me. Get rid of 57.
Restore the determinant sentence law to
what it was, which was
very, very effective.
47 may have go by by.
(01:40:57):
It's been a disaster.
Everything good has come out of 47.(...)
And AB 109,(...) the state of California
should get back into their historic
responsibility of housing people
sentenced to state prison where they have
adequate facilities and they actually
have the programs to help the people as
(01:41:17):
opposed to putting them in the jail
system, which is not designed for people
with longer terms. So get rid of those
three things. Those are the three legs on
a horrible stool. Get rid of those three
things. And then
another part of my wish list,
get over the constant abuse of law
(01:41:43):
enforcement and the unnecessary criticism
of our law enforcement officers because
of people like this jerk brag back in New
York and others, who really
wants to be in law enforcement?
Who really wants to be there if you're
not respected and you face an improper
(01:42:06):
prosecution by a rogue DA?
So that's why law enforcement is having a
terrible time recruiting. And partly it's
because it's not considered to be a
highly regarded profession
anymore. It's being denigrated.
And the defund the police
movement,(...) completely asinine.
(01:42:30):
And the decarceration movement,
completely dangerous.(...) So maybe stop
some of those movements
that have put us all in danger.
Well, in Los Angeles,(...) both with the
LAPD and also with the sheriff's office,
(01:42:51):
are there enough candidates in the
pipeline to fill all the authorized
positions in those two forces?
I hear there aren't. They're both law
enforcement agencies across the country
are now getting so desperate, they're
offering bonuses and housing and all
sorts of other things to entice qualified
(01:43:12):
candidates to consider applying to become
a police officer. And I understand they
aren't meeting their quotas. The sheriffs
are not meeting their quotas. The LAPD is
not meeting their quotas. And that's
being replicated across the country.(...)
And also remember, in Los Angeles County,
we've got 45 other police agencies.
(01:43:33):
Long Beach, Arcadia.
We have 46 cities with municipal police
agencies. They are
having a hard time recruiting.
And you can't forget them because they
patrol and protect one third of Los
Angeles County's residences in terms of
policing. They can't forget them. They're
(01:43:54):
also suffering. And then you take that,
I'm pretty sure it's replicated
throughout California.
And because it's more of a societal thing
than it is just a regional thing.
I'm hearing you loud and clear, and this
comes back to your point that we need
good laws and good prosecutors.
And good cops.
And good judges. And good judges. And
(01:44:15):
well, that's good advice to the people of
California and the people of Los Angeles.
We'll see if they take it.(...) Steve
Cooley. All right. Thank you very much. I
appreciated your time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.