“Becerra Okayed This”
Despite Xavier Becerra’s canned tweet, he’s far from off the hook.
ABC10 Reports: “In discovery, there are electronic records of McCluskie telling Williamson that Becerra okayed this.”
SAN FRANCISCO — Xavier Becerra is desperate for voters to look the other way. But questions still remain about his longstanding pattern of contradictions in his own story about what he knew about the illegal payment being made to his former top aides – and when he knew it.
Following this morning’s guilty plea by a second top member of his staff, lawyers reconfirmed what we already knew: Becerra was aware of the illegal payments being made.
ABC10’s Becca Haiger asked the lawyers if Becerra’s former top aides had cleared the payments with Becerra. She reports:
“McGregor Scott, her attorney, also said that McCluskie had told Williamson, Hey, I cleared it with Becerra. He's all good with this.
I asked if there's documentation of that reassurance, if McCluskey had texted it or something to Williamson, and he said in discovery, it's not public record, but in discovery there are electronic records of McCluskie telling Williamson ‘Becerra okayed this.’”
It’s well-worn that Becerra's story about his own involvement has shifted: in November said he was aware of the payments being made to his former closest aides. Then, in April, he changed his story and said he had no idea.
“Becerra can’t tweet his way out of tough questions. Voters deserve to know about his role: is he incompetent, or is he corrupt?,” said Steyer for Governor spokesperson Danni Wang. “As Tom said, Democrats cannot afford to learn we’ve got a criminal on our hands before it’s too late.”
Becerra’s shady behavior this week also raises questions. On Monday, Becerra refused to say whether or not he would be implicated in this case. "We're moving forward," he said, twice, to members of the media, before being whisked away by his staffers.
The Sacramento Bee yesterday reported a key detail: “federal rules bar prosecutors from investigating, bringing charges or making statements ‘for the purpose of affecting’ or of ‘giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party’ 60 days before an election.”
###
