In a not-to-be-missed column, Anita Chabira calls out the questions Xavier Becerra has yet to answer involving his former top aides’ corruption scandal.  

CALIFORNIA –  It’s Friday afternoon and Xavier Becerra is about to head into the weekend, hoping that folks will forget about the federal corruption scandal plaguing his campaign.

It was just yesterday that a second top Becerra aide plead guilty on federal corruption charges – and lawyers confirmed evidence that Becerra “okayed” the payments. 

While Becerra would like to think otherwise, the case is far from closed.

A column from the Los Angeles Times’ Anita Chabira yesterday outlined the details of the case and what Becerra’s still hasn’t answered about his own knowledge or involvement: 

“Did Becerra never question why an account with almost no activity was costing so much to manage? Did he never wonder what Williamson was doing to earn all that money? Should he, with his decades of legal and political experience, have seen red flags, even with a trusted advisor?,” wrote Chabria. 

“I still have questions.”

We do too – and so do voters making their decisions with just over two weeks before the election. 

“Becerra white-knuckled his way through the week and is hoping that voters will forget or look the other way – but we won’t,” said Steyer for Governor spokesperson Danni Wang. “In this criminal case, he was either incompetent or corrupt, and we deserve to know before it's too late.” 

Key excerpts from Anita Chabria’s column can be found below, with the full piece here. 

—

Though Williamson’s guilty plea may seem like an ending to the saga, it shouldn’t be, because there’s still a lot lurking in the dark corners of this deal.

…voters have a right to know…

…Scott, the attorney, also said Thursday that Williamson assumed, based on her conversations with McCluskie, that McCluskie had spoken to Becerra about the concept of the money transfer. Text messages in court records show a brief and ambiguous exchange between McCluskie and Williamson that backs that up.

Scott said Williamson never spoke directly with Becerra about the scheme.

That leaves the distinct possibility that Williamson believed Becerra knew what was happening — but never asked him. Dumb? Maybe. But Williamson isn’t usually dumb.

“The understanding that McCluskie conveyed to my client was it was OK to proceed,” Scott said.

Becerra has repeatedly said he believed the $10,000 a month was a legitimate fee being paid to manage the funds in the dormant account while he could not — though that is an amount above what is usual for such work, as my colleague Dakota Smith has reported.

Becerra has also repeatedly used some variation of the “case closed” line, seemingly hoping to move past this scandal without further answers.

But at the very least, it deserves some kind of mea culpa from Becerra or lessons learned, a more robust conversation than the brush-off it’s been getting. Because either McCluskie is one heck of a con man who rolled both Becerra and Williamson, making both believe what was happening was kosher with entirely different tales, or someone isn’t being entirely honest.

Did Becerra never question why an account with almost no activity was costing so much to manage? Did he never wonder what Williamson was doing to earn all that money? Should he, with his decades of legal and political experience, have seen red flags, even with a trusted advisor?

…

###