Could a lawsuit alleging an anti-Semitic smear campaign against a military commander derail Gavin Newsom's presidential aspirations in 2028? Or, considering the state of a party that just boosted Zohran Mamdani to the mayor's office in New York City, could it enhance Newsom's prospects?
Tough to say, although we can now say for certain that this legal fight will do wonders for the popcorn industry. The Free Beacon reported late yesterday that Newson and his appointed National Guard adjutant Matthew Beevers failed to get the lawsuit quashed. Instead, a state court in Sacramento ordered a trial in the suit brought by former brigadier general Jeffrey Magram, who claims his dismissal two years ago related to his objections to Beevers' alleged anti-Semitic smear campaign against his aide:
A former commander of the California National Guard who says Gov. Gavin Newsom (D.) "facilitated" an anti-Semitic campaign that resulted in his wrongful termination will have his day in court, a judge ruled Friday. The move could cause a major headache for Newsom ahead of his expected 2028 presidential campaign.
Former brigadier general Jeffrey Magram is suing the state of California and Adjutant General Matthew Beevers, a Newsom appointee who has faced allegations of denigrating a Jewish subordinate as a "kike" lawyer. Magram alleges that Newsom "facilitated and ratified" a Beevers-driven campaign of anti-Semitic discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against him that started after Magram defended a fellow Jew from Beevers's anti-Semitic rants and ended with Newsom's office signing an order to dismiss Magram in November 2022.
Sacramento Superior Court judge Richard K. Sueyoshi rejected the Newsom administration's efforts to quash Magram's lawsuit in an Oct. 31 ruling authorizing six of its eight counts to proceed toward a trial. The ruling will force the Newsom administration to comply with document discovery and deposition requests that Magram says have been ignored since he filed his lawsuit in January 2024.
Well, discovery should be lit, and perhaps almost literally so. Magram isn't just any retired military leader. He had a particular expertise that would have come in mighty handy ten months ago:
In his effort to prove discrimination, Magram points to his personnel file, which is replete with glowing reviews for his record fighting natural disasters. "Lives saved" is a common refrain in Magram’s officer performance reports, which credit him with leading the California Air National Guard’s response to some of the most catastrophic wildfires in state history.
Magram had 37 years of military experience and was only 3 years away from being able to retire with a full pension when Beevers issued a memo in June 2022, deeming him unfit to serve as a senior leader. The memo initiated a long, bureaucratic process that would ultimately end later that year with Newsom ordering Magram’s termination from state service.
The Beevers memo cited a heavily redacted 2021 report from the U.S. Air Force’s inspector general, who was investigating the California National Guard, that claimed Magram "had subordinates transport [him] to personal appointments and run personal errands on multiple occasions." Beevers said the conduct described in the report caused him to lose confidence in Magram’s ability to serve as a senior military leader.
But Magram says that Beevers weaponized a flawed report to justify his firing, thus depriving California of one of its most talented wildfire containment specialists amid a crisis.
Beevers and Newsom argue that Magram got terminated for cause after reports emerged that he had subordinates performing personal tasks, a violation of ethics and regulations. The Free Beacon reviewed the record and reports, and interviewed experts who called the incidents minor. The Air Force had issued a letter of admonishment for having a female subordinate drive Magram's mother to Whole Foods, but had not considered it serious enough for harsher punishment. At the time, the California National Guard told the LA Times that the allegations were not "career-ending," as the Free Beacon notes.
Newsom and Beevers clearly disagreed. Why? Judge Sueyoshi thinks a jury should get the answers to that question. And now Beevers and Newsom will have to explain it in court, under oath, and will have to produce all of their internal deliberations for those jurors to review.
I doubt it will get that far, however. It's far more likely that Newsom and Beevers will throw money at Magram to make this go away, even though it has the potential to make Newsom super-popular in places like New York City and Dearborn. Those didn't do Kamala Harris much good last year, and even Greasy Gavin is smart enough to recognize that. Get ready for the NDAs and the ever-popular "undisclosed terms" announcement.
Or start popping popcorn.
Or both.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Hot Air VIP, VIP Gold, or VIP Platinum, and use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member