Hochman, Gascon Square Off in Debate

Wednesday night, current Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon and challenger Nathan Hochman faced off in a web-based debate sponsored by the Jewish Federation Los Angeles.

And it was the last question of the debate that was almost certainly the most telling. Moderator Alex Cohen, Spectrum News 1’s current political editor, asked both Hochman and Gascon if they could find anything in the other’s campaign or stances on the issue they admired. Hochman said Gascon’s strength is pointing out potential problems and issues (not that he’s even been able to do anything constructive about them.)

On the other hand, Gascon, clearly discomfited by the question, said “We have different views and I’ll leave it at that.”

Stay classy, George. 

The response was more than rude – it was very telling as to how Gascon has approached the job of DA.  I’m right, I don’t want to hear anything else, and that’s it.

Throughout the hour, Gascon stressed a main theme of his campaign – Donald Trump. He called Hochman a “Trumpian fear mongerer” and noted multiple times Hochman used to be a registered Republiucan.

Of course, Hochman (notoriously) actually endorsed Kamala Harris in this fall’s race and ran – he said – as an “independent” candidate because the DA’s office should not be political.

But in Gascon’s world, the “R” is the ultimate disqualifier, hence his obsession. He also repeats it ad nauseum because he has nothing else to run on.

As to the substance of the debate, Gascon claimed his policies are the “balanced reform” the criminal justice system needs, while Hochman spoke of his adherence to the “hard middle” when it comes to dealing with crime.

Hochman said his stance is one that allows for certain lower-level offenders to go through diversion courts and such but that actual criminals do the time they should. And these determinations are not set by a blanket policy like those Gascon has, but by approaching each case individually and trusting the experienced deputy district attorneys and staff to do their job properly.

As to Gascon’s claim of “balanced reform,” that ranks up there with his claim that crime numbers are at worst stable if not down a bit.

The most recent Los Angeles Police Department numbers could be possibly and very generously be interpreted that way, but the Los Angeles County numbers published by the state’s Department of Justice tell a very different story, including a 100%-plus increase in shoplifting (and smash and grab.)

Hochman noted that the DA is the DA for the whole county, not just the city, so Gascon is “gaslighting” the public with such numbers.  

The same could be said for the discussion of Gascon’s near-blanket refusal to prosecute misdemeanors, especially when juveniles are involved – hence the flash mobs of teens descending on a single location, for example.

Gascon said the LA city attorney office handles misdemeanors within the city, not his office. True, but again he seemed to forget the rest of the county (the unincorporated areas and dozens of individual cities) where his office does handle – by ignoring – misdemeanors.

This dichotomy is of particular importance when discussing the recent spate of antisemitic incidents and protests that have been occurring around Los Angeles. Gascon again deflected as to why his office seems to be taking a very very soft line on the matter; Hochman said the first amendment most be protected but when you cross the line you will “got to jail.”

Gascon’s lack of effort and public silence on the issue has “emboldened” law breakers, Hochman said.

That concept has been a theme of the Hochman campaign, saying Gascon’s soft approach to crime ensures that “the only group of people in Los Angeles County who do not live in fear are the criminals.”

The election – in which polls give Hochman a decisive advantage to this point – is November 5.