Home>Articles>Assemblyman Bonta Seeking to Bar California DAs From Reviewing Police Use of Force Cases

Soros funded threat graphic. (Photo: Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk)

Assemblyman Bonta Seeking to Bar California DAs From Reviewing Police Use of Force Cases

‘This proposed legislation raises hypocrisy, even for legislators, to new heights’

By Katy Grimes, October 29, 2020 8:57 am

Late last week, California Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Oakland) announced plans to introduce legislation to require the state’s elected District Attorneys to recuse themselves from an investigation, and prosecution of law enforcement misconduct, if they have received campaign contributions from law enforcement unions.

This is designed to elect more of billionaire George Soros-funded District Attorneys, sympathetic to defunding the police and ending cash bail in the state, say many of California District Attorneys.

California Globe has learned that Bonta may be trying to position himself to run for Alameda County District Attorney, and seemingly unlimited Soros funding.

Assemblyman Rob Bonta. (Photo: Kevin Sanders for California Globe)

Bonta said the legislation will be introduced in the new legislative session in December, and will be sponsored by the Prosecutors Alliance of California, and co-sponsored by some District Attorneys, including San Francisco’s Chesa Bouldin, Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton, San Joaquin County District Attorney Tori Verber Salazar, and former San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon – DAs who were heavily funded by billionaire George Soros’ Super PAC, or appear to be trying to jump on his band wagon.

Gascon, formerly San Francisco District Attorney and Soros funded, moved to Los Angeles to run against current DA Jackie Lacey.

The Soros funded “Justice Collaborative” emailed elected District Attorneys across California, demanding they “reject police union contributions and endorsements” and aggressively threatening: “We will be publishing whether you respond “yes,” “no,” or “declined to answer” by Tuesday, July 7th.” This email was followed a week later with a threat to publish non-compliance: “ When The Appeal publishes the final list of responses, they will use the attached graphic.”

Soros funded threat graphic. (Photo: Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk)

“This is about trust in law enforcement, and trust in the independence of our elected prosecutors,” said Bonta.  “As people across our cities, states and our nation have come together to raise their voices and demand greater justice, we must cure the conflict of interest that gives, at minimum, the appearance that police officers are not being held accountable due to police unions’ direct campaign contributions to District Attorneys.”

“Now, more than ever, prosecutors have the responsibility to promote equal justice and build trust with the communities we serve. In order to do that, we must eliminate the conflict of interest existing when elected prosecutors accept police union support,” said San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin.  “It is only when prosecutors are not financially beholden to law enforcement unions that the public can be confident in the decisions prosecutors make about holding police officers accountable.”

Chesa Boudin is seeking to silence DA’s by taking away their right to contributions and endorsements of Law Enforcement.  It’s all designed to elect more Soros DAs, sympathetic to defunding the police and ending bail in the state.

However, the hypocrisy of this is the donations (below) to Boudin’s campaign for San Francisco District Attorney… many public defenders maxed out contributions under San Francisco law. What are public defenders doing contributing to a District Attorney?

El Dorado DA Vern Pierson. (Photo: eldoradoda.com)

“This proposed legislation raises hypocrisy, even for legislators, to new heights. Members of the California Legislature, including Rob Bonta, harvest cash by the wheelbarrow loads, from every special interest under the sun all through the legislative session,” President of the Board of Directors of the California Association of District Attorneys, and El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson told the Globe. “They then vote on legislation affecting those very same special interests on an almost daily basis. This bill says ‘do as I say; not as I do.’”

“Let’s see Mr. Bonta’s bill that says he and his legislative colleagues can’t vote on an issue in which they’ve taken money from one of the special interests that’s funnels obscene amounts of money to fuel their political careers,” Pierson added. “The cynicism and hypocrisy of this proposal is truly breathtaking.”

“Perhaps most ironic is the Justice Collaborative’s statement in their email, ‘Campaign endorsements and contributions send a message to constituents,” Attorney Charles Bell wrote in a letter (below) to the California State Bar Association regarding Assemblyman Bonta’s proposed rule to prohibit campaign endorsements and contributions. “They tell voters that a candidate aligns with the values and interests of the donor.’ The irony is that this very email demonstrates the core values of the First Amendment and the fundamental protection of political and ideological speech. As poignantly stated in Citizens United, ‘speech is the essential mechanism of democracy’ … and ‘For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.’”

Now Assemblyman Rob Bonta is proposing a bill barring elected District Attorneys from reviewing a use of force case.

Should judges refuse donations from DAs or defense attorneys?  The law is clear on it, according to Attorney Bell:

  • Campaign endorsements and contributions are protected by the First Amendment.
  • The proposed rule is unconstitutional because it is content based.
  • Law enforcement endorsements and contributions do not create a conflict for a District Attorney.
  • The proposed rule applies only to some, not all.

“A review of the proponents’ financial supporters, advocates and own endorsers reveals they are on the “political payroll” of those who support these agendas,” Bell wrote. “These agendas include the prosecution of police officers irrespective of the facts or law.” Examples of these agenda driven groups include:

  • George Soros and his network of foundations that he financially supports, including:
  •  Open Society Foundations
  •  California Justice and Public Safety PAC
  •  Tides Foundation
  •  Fair and Just Prosecution
  •  Color of Change
  •  ACLU ($50 million in grants awarded in 2014)
  •  The Justice Collaborative
  •  Shaun King, Real Justice PAC/Black Lives Matter

“In the recent 2018 election cycle, Soros and his network of foundations and supporters poured nearly $3 million into California candidates who support his platforms. These include races in San Diego, Sacramento, and Alameda counties,” Attorney Bell wrote. “It is also well-known that Shaun King, who has a social media following of millions of people, has made false accusations against police officers. In fact, in 2018 he falsely accused a Texas Trooper of kidnapping and rape on his various social media platforms.”

“It is as logically incongruous as it is intellectually disingenuous to assert that law enforcement contributions and endorsements to a District Attorney candidate create an intolerable conflict yet a contribution by an organization requiring a District Attorney candidate to decide to prosecute or not to prosecute a case in conformity with its stated beliefs and mission does not,” Attorney Charles Bell wrote.

“The proponents’ proposed rule is unconstitutional, content driven and politically motivated to silence District Attorneys and candidates who are supported by law enforcement. It is a flawed attempt to stifle opposing viewpoints and chill political discourse. There is no conflict of interest that would authorize a prohibition on endorsements and contributions. This proposed rule violates the fundamental principles of democracy and should be wholly rejected,” Bell concluded.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Spread the news:


3 thoughts on “Assemblyman Bonta Seeking to Bar California DAs From Reviewing Police Use of Force Cases

  1. There needs to be a computer database of all California’s who support abolishing the police. If they call 911 the police can check their data base and only respond to those who support the police. Callers can then be redirected to the local antifa office. Antifa will respond to protect the criminal and beat the hell out of the caller for harassing the criminal.

    1. No kidding, CW —- wouldn’t be surprised to see the very thing you propose pop up at about this time next year — maybe earlier? — if the justice system continues to be dismantled, as it has been, by the usual suspects. Asm Rob Bonta? His middle name is “Hypocrite,” not that he and his doppelgangers have ever given a rat’s rear end about that. In fact, hasn’t cash from special interests in exchange for legislation that favors them become the hallmark of the mega-majority Democrat California Legislature?

      My more modest proposal would be to require that any George Soros-funded group with the word “justice” in the name would have that word preceded by the adjective “anti,” and thus you would have the more accurate “Anti-Justice Collaborative.”

      As for the aggressive threats toward D.A.s in California who actually have integrity and who are actually doing the jobs they were elected to do, the whole package from the Soros-funded gang of ugly “do-it-or-elses” whose final gift is the publication of the graphic above strikes me as more like receiving a severed finger in the mail after your family member has been kidnapped than anything else. But that’s me.

      Thanks a million to Katy Grimes for the heads-up on this. It’s always good to know what these people are constantly up to with their twisted lies. And threats.

    2. It is your fear that has you mistaking “defunding” the police for “abolishing” the police CW. I mention the cause only to offer you a small chance to succeed in attaining some personal growth if you are ever motivated in that way. Your error, or failure to comprehend is substantial enough to classify your entire statement as coming from someone currently incapable of producing a qualified suggestion. In case you are unable to understand what I just pointed out I will simplify it. What you said was stupid as it came from an idiot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *