SF Chronicle
-=-=
-=-=
an 8 26
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli promised President Donald Trump that California was “a fraudster’s paradise,” and pledged would announce charges within weeks of his appointment. That was two months ago.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Friday that Essayli talked a big game but has failed to deliver.
After the California primary election, Trump and Republicans sounded the alarm that there had to be fraud going on because it was taking too long to count the ballots in Los Angeles County.
"They are trying to steal the governor of California primary, and the mayor of Los Angeles, primary, away from two great Republican candidates. Here we go with the very late and massive numbers of mail in ballots," Trump ranted in all-caps on Truth Social.
Essayli posted his own promise to Trump on X, saying, "Without commenting on any specific investigation, my office has multiple election fraud investigations underway in coordination with @FBILosAngeles . We will follow the evidence wherever it leads and prosecute any violations of federal election law to the fullest extent."
Only a few days later, he was speaking to Glenn Beck, promising to charge individual actors “in the next … one to two months.”
“I hate to put timelines on things,” Essayli said. “We need some of these results to be certified so we can prove some of the allegations. But we will be charging some people.”
He also called on the public to send tips proving voter fraud was "widespread" in California.
“We are looking for any widespread conspiracy, if you will. Right now, I would say our investigations lean more into individual actors,” he explained. “Theoretically, I’d have to charge thousands of people to prove that it changed the outcome of the election. … But we are looking. We are looking.”
When he spoke to Chris Cuomo on News Nation, Essayli said, “there is evidence of voter fraud … and when we’re ready to bring those cases, you’ll see the evidence. You’ll see the case.”
But, that was at the beginning of the summer. On June 14, Essayli promised KCRA news, “So some of them are more developed and they’re ready to charge.”
After nothing for months, it appears the prosecutor is beginning to change the narrative, the report explained. The Chronicle cited Essayli, saying that to get access to the voter rolls, the Justice Department must sue the state of California and it might take a while.
A constitutional law professor explained how situations like this go beyond a debate about whether widespread voter fraud exists.
“At this point, unfortunately, I don’t know why anybody would believe the Department of Justice,” said Justin Levitt, who teaches at the Loyola Law School. “And that is not a thing that I relish saying as somebody who used to work there … It’s also not something that I would have said in the administration of any individual other than President Trump.”
When The Chronicle called the office to ask what the hold-up was, they were told they'd have an update in two weeks.
“It turns out that voter fraud does occasionally happen, but it is incredibly rare, like single-digits-of-balance rare,” Levitt said. “The elections in California, the elections in Southern California, the elections in other parts of California are very clean. And election officials work incredibly hard to make sure that they’re very clean. It does great disservice to the election officials when people run their mouths.”
He explained that Essayli is "a piece" of the larger whole of the Justice Department and currently the DOJ doesn't enjoy much credibility in court.
“I’m not sure this U.S. attorney has established himself as a trusted local partner with the sort of vague allegations of widespread wrongdoing that he hasn’t been able to back up. To be clear, he hasn’t been able to back it up because I don’t personally believe that these things he was saying are true," Levitt said.
Trump and Republican allies spent over a week spreading claims that fraud was afoot in California and calling for action. Levitt explained that these kinds of conspiracy theories from officials spread further mistrust and sow doubt.
-=-=
-=-=
Nonbinding resolutions on the statewide ballot are generally a waste of time, and they are especially annoying when the subject is campaign finance reform and the measure was put on the ballot by aCalifornia Legislaturethat has done so little to curtail its own sleazy practices.
We understand why some voters will be tempted to reject Proposition 59 on principle: send a message to lawmakers to stop piling advisory measures on an already too-crowded ballot, and stop thwarting reforms such as those designed to end fundraising during peak legislative sessions and to provide greater transparency on hearings and bills. Fortunately, the latter issue is being addressed by Prop. 54, a citizens’ initiative that requires hearings to be live-streamed on the Internet and legislation to be in print 72 hours before a vote.
However, the statement in Prop. 59 is too important to bypass. It calls on California’s elected officials to use “all of their constitutional authority” to help overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission decision. That 5-4 ruling blew a gaping hole in post-Watergate reforms by declaring that corporations and labor unions were free to spend as much money as they desire to persuade people to vote for or against a candidate.
The ruling left intact restrictions on direct contributions to campaigns, but that’s not where the big money flows these days. Citizens United gave rise to the creation of super PACs that effectively run parallel campaigns for and against candidates on the ballot. Some of the biggest donors, such as Tom Steyer on the left or Sheldon Adelson on the right, have poured tens of millions into these outside spending groups.[koch dark $ prop 30? prop 37 [superpac?]
The Supreme Court’s reasoning — whether naive or oblivious to reality — was that these supposedly independent efforts “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption” because the money is not being spent in coordination with a campaign.
Yet the lines between an official campaign and a supportive super PAC is becoming more and more blurred, and the FEC has become too debilitated by partisan gridlock to deliver meaningful enforcement of the rules that exist.
The one clear path to restoring control of money in politics would be a constitutional amendment that would assert Americans’ right to regulate donations and spending. It’s a tall order and would require a formidable citizen uprising to demand it.
Prop. 59 would affirm this state’s commitment to genuine campaign finance reform. Vote yes
Kudos to the Chronicle for supporting a YES on 59 vote (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Chronicle-recommends-Yes-on-state-Prop-59-9206221.php). They got it right!
However, to accuse the Legislature “of piling advisory measures on an already too-crowded ballot” is akin to asking the rain to stop in the middle of a severe drought. Advisory measures are extremely rare, they have been on the ballot only three other times in California’s history. Once in 1892 (should senators be elected by the people, passed) and twice in 1933 (both on diverting gas taxes and both defeated).
The concept of the Legislature asking the electorate for direction, to counter balance the all too prevalent voice of the corporations and unions, is a refreshing concept. With two of the four advisory measures to date being direct election of US senators and overturning the SCOTUS Citizens United decision the Legislature has a pretty good track record. With questions as significant as those two more advisory measures would be welcome.
Agreed that 17 ballot measures are a bit much but clearly Prop 59 isn't clutter, its a vitally important step to building democracy and ending corporate rule.
==