Connect with us

News

Inside the long and winding road to Trump’s historic indictment | CNN Politics

Published

on

Inside the long and winding road to Trump’s historic indictment | CNN Politics



CNN
 — 

The New York grand jury listening to the case in opposition to Donald Trump was set to interrupt for a number of weeks. The previous president’s legal professionals believed on Wednesday afternoon they’d at the very least a small reprieve from a potential indictment. Trump praised the perceived delay.

Manhattan District Legal professional Alvin Bragg had different plans.

Thursday afternoon, Bragg requested the grand jury to return an historic indictment in opposition to Trump, the primary time {that a} present or former US president has been indicted. The shock transfer was the ultimate twist in an investigation that’s taken a protracted and winding street to the history-making costs that had been returned this week.

Advertisement

An indictment had been anticipated early final week – together with by Trump himself, who promoted a idea he could be “arrested” – as legislation enforcement businesses ready for the logistics of arraigning a former president. However after the testimony of Robert Costello – a lawyer who appeared on Trump’s behalf in search of to undercut the credibility of Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen – Bragg appeared to hit the pause button.

Costello’s testimony brought on the district lawyer’s workplace to reassess whether or not Costello must be the final witness the grand jury heard earlier than prosecutors requested them to vote on an indictment, a number of sources instructed CNN.

In order that they waited. The subsequent day the grand jury was scheduled to fulfill, jurors had been instructed to not are available in. Bragg and his high prosecutors huddled the remainder of the week and over the weekend to find out a method that might successfully counter Costello’s testimony within the grand jury.

They referred to as two extra witnesses. David Pecker, the previous head of the corporate that publishes the Nationwide Enquirer, appeared on Monday. The opposite witness, who has nonetheless not been recognized, testified on Thursday for 35 minutes in entrance of the grand jury – simply earlier than prosecutors requested them to vote on the indictment of greater than 30 counts, the sources mentioned.

Trump and his attorneys, considering Bragg may be reconsidering a possible indictment, had been all caught off-guard, sources mentioned. A few of Trump’s advisers had even left Palm Seaside on Wednesday following information studies that the grand jury was taking a break, the sources added.

Advertisement

After the indictment, Trump ate dinner together with his spouse, Melania, Thursday night and smiled whereas he greeted friends at his Mar-a-Lago membership, in line with a supply conversant in the occasion.

The Manhattan district lawyer’s investigation into Trump has been ongoing for years, courting again to Bragg’s predecessor, Cy Vance. Its focus shifted by mid-2020 to the accuracy of the Trump Org.’s monetary statements. On the time, prosecutors debated authorized theories across the hush cash funds and thought they had been a protracted shot. At a number of factors, the wide-ranging investigation appeared to have been winding down – to the purpose that prosecutors resigned in protest final 12 months. One even wrote a e-book important of Bragg for not pursuing costs in opposition to Trump launched simply final month.

The particular costs in opposition to nonetheless Trump stay below seal and are anticipated to be unveiled Tuesday when Trump is ready to be arraigned.

There are questions swirling even amongst Trump critics over whether or not the Manhattan district lawyer’s case is the strongest in opposition to the previous president amid extra investigations in Washington, DC, and Georgia over each his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his dealing with of categorised paperwork at his Florida resort.

Trump may nonetheless face costs in these probes, too, that are separate from the New York indictment.

Advertisement

Nevertheless it’s the Manhattan indictment, courting again to a cost made earlier than the 2016 presidential election, that now sees Trump going through down prison costs for the primary time as he runs once more for the White Home in 2024.

It was simply weeks earlier than the 2016 election when Cohen, Trump’s then-lawyer, paid grownup movie actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 to maintain silent about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Cohen was later reimbursed $420,000 by the Trump Group to cowl the unique cost and tax liabilities and to reward him with a bonus.

That cost and reimbursement are keys at challenge within the investigation.

Cohen additionally helped prepare a $150,000 cost from the writer of the Nationwide Enquirer to Karen McDougal to kill her story claiming a 10-month affair with Trump. Trump additionally denies an affair with McDougal. Through the grand jury proceedings, the district lawyer’s workplace has requested questions concerning the “catch and kill” take care of McDougal.

When Cohen was charged by federal prosecutors in New York in 2018 and pleaded responsible, he mentioned he was appearing on the route of Trump when he made the cost.

Advertisement

On the time, federal prosecutors had decided they may not search to indict Trump within the scheme due to US Justice Division rules in opposition to charging a sitting president. In 2021, after Trump left the White Home, prosecutors within the Southern District of New York determined to not pursue a case in opposition to Trump, in line with a current e-book from CNN senior authorized analyst Elie Honig.

However then-Manhattan District Legal professional Vance’s workforce had already picked up the investigation into the hush cash funds and begun taking a look at potential state legislation violations. By summer season 2019, they despatched subpoenas to the Trump Org., different witnesses, and met with Cohen, who was serving a three-year jail sentence.

Vance’s investigation broadened to the Trump Org.’s funds. New York prosecutors went to the Supreme Courtroom twice to implement a subpoena for Trump’s tax information from his long-time accounting agency Mazars USA. The Trump Org. and its long-time chief monetary officer Allen Weisselberg had been indicted on tax fraud and different costs in June 2021 for allegedly operating an off-the-books compensation scheme for greater than a decade.

Weisselberg pleaded responsible to the fees final 12 months and is at the moment serving a five-month sentence at Rikers Island. Prosecutors had hoped to flip Weisselberg to cooperate in opposition to Trump, however he wouldn’t tie Trump to any wrongdoing.

Disagreements concerning the tempo of the investigation had brought on at the very least three profession prosecutors to maneuver off the investigation. They had been involved that the investigation was shifting too shortly, with out clear proof to help potential costs, CNN and others reported final 12 months.

Advertisement

Vance licensed the attorneys on the workforce to current proof to the grand jury close to the tip of 2021, however he didn’t search an indictment. These near Vance say he wished to depart the choice to Bragg, the newly elected district lawyer.

Bragg, a Democrat, took workplace in January 2022. Lower than two months into his tenure, two high prosecutors who had labored on the Trump case below Vance abruptly resigned amid a disagreement within the workplace over the power of the case in opposition to Trump.

On February 22, 2022, Bragg knowledgeable the prosecution workforce that he was not ready to authorize costs in opposition to Trump, CNN reported. The prosecutors, Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz, resigned the subsequent day.

In his resignation letter, Pomerantz mentioned he believed Trump was responsible of quite a few felonies and mentioned that Bragg’s resolution to not transfer ahead with an indictment on the time was “mistaken” and a “grave failure of justice.”

“I and others consider that your resolution to not authorize prosecution now will doom any future prospects that Mr. Trump can be prosecuted for the prison conduct we now have been investigating,” Pomerantz wrote within the letter, which was reviewed by CNN.

Advertisement

At that time, the investigation was targeted on Trump’s monetary statements and whether or not he knowingly misled lenders, insurers, and others by offering them false or deceptive details about the worth of his properties.

Prosecutors had been constructing a wide-ranging falsified enterprise information case to incorporate years of monetary statements and the hush cash funds, individuals with direct information of the investigation instructed CNN. However on the time, these prosecutors believed there was a superb likelihood a felony cost associated to the hush cash cost could be dismissed by a decide as a result of it was a novel authorized idea.

Dunne and Pomerantz pushed to hunt an indictment of Trump tied to the sweeping falsified enterprise information case, however others, together with some profession prosecutors, had been skeptical that they may win a conviction at trial, partly due to the issue in proving Trump’s prison intent.

Regardless of the resignations of the prosecutors on the Trump case, Bragg’s workplace reiterated on the time that the investigation was ongoing.

“Investigations will not be linear so we’re following the leads in entrance of us. That’s what we’re doing,” Bragg instructed CNN in April 2022. “The investigation could be very a lot ongoing.”

Advertisement

On the identical time that Bragg’s prison investigation into Trump lingered final 12 months, one other prosecution in opposition to the Trump Org. moved ahead. In December, two Trump Org. entities had been convicted at trial on 17 counts and had been ordered to pay $1.6 million, the utmost penalty, the next month.

Trump was not personally charged in that case. Nevertheless it appeared to embolden Bragg’s workforce to sharpen their focus again to Trump and the hush cash cost.

Cohen was introduced again in to fulfill with Manhattan prosecutors. Cohen had beforehand met with prosecutors within the district lawyer’s workplace 13 instances over the course of the investigation. However the January assembly was the primary in additional than a 12 months – and a transparent signal of the route prosecutors had been taking.

As investigators inched nearer to a charging resolution, Bragg was confronted with extra public stress to indict Trump: Pomerantz, the prosecutor who had resigned a 12 months prior, launched a e-book concerning the investigation that argued Trump must be charged and criticized Bragg for failing to take action.

“Each single member of the prosecution workforce thought that his guilt was established,” Pomerantz mentioned in a February interview on “CNN This Morning.”

Advertisement

Requested about Bragg’s hesitance, Pomerantz mentioned: “I can’t converse intimately about what went by his thoughts. I can surmise from what occurred on the time and statements that he’s made since that he had misgivings concerning the power of the case.”

Bragg responded in an announcement saying that extra work was wanted on the case. “Mr. Pomerantz’s aircraft wasn’t prepared for takeoff,” Bragg mentioned.

Prosecutors continued bringing in witnesses, together with Pecker, the previous head of American Media Inc., which publishes the Nationwide Enquirer. In February, Trump Org. controller Jeffrey McConney testified earlier than the grand jury. Members of Trump’s 2016 marketing campaign, together with Kellyanne Conway and Hope Hicks, additionally appeared. In March, Daniels met with prosecutors, her lawyer mentioned.

And Cohen, after his quite a few conferences with prosecutors, lastly testified earlier than the grand jury in March.

The second week of March, prosecutors gave the clearest signal thus far that the investigation was nearing its conclusion – they invited Trump to seem earlier than the grand jury.

Advertisement

Potential defendants in New York are required by legislation to be notified and invited to seem earlier than a grand jury weighing costs.

Behind the scenes, Trump lawyer Susan Necheles instructed CNN she met with New York prosecutors to argue why Trump shouldn’t be indicted and that prosecutors didn’t articulate the precise costs they’re contemplating.

Trump, in the meantime, took to his social media to foretell his impending indictment. In a put up attacking Bragg on March 18, Trump mentioned the “main Republican candidate and former president of the US can be arrested on Tuesday of subsequent week.”

“Protest, take our nation again,” Trump added, echoing the calls he made whereas he tried to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump’s prediction would grow to be untimely.

Advertisement

Trump’s name for protests after a possible indictment led to conferences between senior employees members from the district lawyer’s workplace, the New York Police Division and the New York State Courtroom Officers – who present safety on the prison courtroom constructing in decrease Manhattan.

Trump’s legal professionals additionally made a last-ditch effort to fend off an indictment. On the behest of Trump’s workforce, Costello, who suggested Cohen in 2018, supplied emails and testified to the grand jury on Monday, March 20, alleging that Cohen had mentioned in 2018 that he had selected his personal to make the cost to Daniels.

Costello’s testimony appeared to delay a potential indictment – for a short time at the very least.

Through the void, Trump continued to launch verbal insults in opposition to Bragg, calling him a “degenerate psychopath.” And 4 Republican chairmen of essentially the most highly effective Home committees wrote to Bragg asking him to testify, which Bragg’s workplace mentioned was unprecedented interference in a neighborhood investigation. An envelope containing a suspicious white powder and a demise menace to Bragg was to delivered to the constructing the place the grand jury meets – the powder was deemed nonhazardous.

The grand jury wouldn’t meet once more till Monday, March 27, when Pecker was ushered again to the grand jury in a authorities car with tinted home windows in a failed effort to evade detection by the media camped exterior of the constructing the place the grand jury meets.

Advertisement

Pecker, a longtime good friend of Trump’s who had a historical past of orchestrating so-called “catch and kill” offers whereas on the Nationwide Enquirer, was concerned with the Daniels’ deal from the start.

Two days after Pecker’s testimony, there have been a number of studies that the grand jury was going right into a pre-planned break in April. The grand jury was set to fulfill Thursday nevertheless it was not anticipated to listen to the Trump case.

As a substitute, the grand jury heard from one final witness within the Trump case on Thursday, whose id continues to be unknown. After which the grand jury shook up the American political system by voting to indict a former president and 2024 candidate for the White Home.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Donald Trump’s inauguration to be moved indoors because of ‘bitterly cold’ weather

Published

on

Donald Trump’s inauguration to be moved indoors because of ‘bitterly cold’ weather

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Parts of Donald Trump’s inauguration will be moved inside the US Capitol because of freezing weather that is forecast for Washington on Monday.

It will be the first time since 1985 — when a severe cold snap hit Ronald Reagan’s second inauguration — that a swearing-in ceremony has been moved indoors.

The president-elect announced the revised plans in a Truth Social post on Friday, saying he had ordered the inauguration address, as well as prayers and speeches, to be delivered inside the Capitol Rotunda as Reagan had done four decades ago.

Advertisement

“There is an Arctic blast sweeping the Country. I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way,” Trump wrote.

“It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of Law Enforcement, First Responders, Police K9s and even horses, and hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours on the 20th.”

The National Weather Service said an “enhanced winter storm threat” was in place for Sunday afternoon and evening, and predicted about 2-4 inches of snow would fall, with a “reasonable worst case” scenario of 4-8 inches.

“Bitterly cold wind chills” were expected Monday to Wednesday, the NWS said on Friday, as it forecast temperatures to be “well below freezing” during this period.

The agency is forecasting a high of about -5C at 11am local time on Monday, when the swearing-in ceremony is due to begin, with a wind-chill of -13C that it warned could result in hypothermia or frostbite without appropriate attire.

Advertisement

Trump said the Capital One Arena — with a capacity of 20,000 — will be opened on Monday for a live viewing of the ceremony, and that he would visit the venue, located about 2km from the Capitol, following his swearing-in.

Other events, including a victory rally at the arena are scheduled for Sunday and inaugural balls set for Monday night, will continue as scheduled, the president-elect said.

Trump encouraged supporters who choose to come to “dress warmly!”

Continue Reading

News

CNN liable for defamation over story on Afghanistan 'black market' rescues

Published

on

CNN liable for defamation over story on Afghanistan 'black market' rescues

Security contractor Zachary Young alleges CNN defamed him in a November 2021 report, shown above, about Afghans’ fears of exorbitant charges from people offering to get them out of the country after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan. CNN says it will defend the report in a trial set to start in a Florida court Monday.

CNN via Internet Archive/Screenshot by NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

CNN via Internet Archive/Screenshot by NPR

A Florida jury has found that CNN defamed a security consultant in presenting a story that suggested he was charging “exorbitant prices” to evacuate people desperate to get out of Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021.

Jurors found the network should pay $5 million to U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young for lost finances and suffering, and said he was eligible for more in punitive damages. The proceedings turned immediately to expert testimony as both sides presented cases over what punitive damages would be appropriate.

Young sat impassively as the jury’s verdict was read aloud in court.

Advertisement

The November 2021 story focused on concerns from Afghans that they faced extraordinary costs in a “black market” to secure safe passage for relatives and friends, especially those who had worked with U.S. agencies and organizations and therefore were fearful of the takeover by the Taliban.

Young was the only security contractor named in the piece, however, and a caption warned he offered “no guarantee of safety or success.”

He was not directly accused of operating in a black market in the television or written versions of the story, but the words did appear in the caption in the TV version of the story.

On the witness stand during the trial, CNN editors defended use of the term “black market,” saying it meant operating in unregulated circumstances, such as the chaos of Kabul at that time; Young’s lawyers noted that dictionaries consistently ascribe illegality to the term.

The jury found CNN liable for defamation per se, meaning it had harmed Young by the very words it chose, and for defamation by implication, that is, it had harmed his reputation by the implications that a reasonable reader or viewer might take from the story.

Advertisement

Young’s lead attorney, Devin Freedman, had argued that CNN willfully damaged Young, costing him millions of dollars and causing irreparable personal harm, and that the network should be punished for it. Toward the very end of his closing arguments, Freedman told the jury they had the rare opportunity to hold the press accountable.

“Media executives around the country are sitting by the phones to see what you do,” Freedman told jurors. “CNN’s executives are waiting in their boardrooms in Georgia to see what you decide. Make the phones ring in Georgia. Send a message.”

After the initial verdict, Judge William S. Henry instructed jurors that they could only find punitive damages against CNN for its actions in the case at hand, not over any other story or issue.

Even so, over the course of the lawsuit, lawyers for Zachary Young acquired internal correspondence showing several editors within CNN held reservations about the solidity of the reporting behind the story.

For example, Fuzz Hogan, a senior director of standards for CNN, acknowledged in testimony under oath that he had approved a “three-quarters true” story. Another editor, Tom Lumley, had said in an internal message that the piece was “80 percent emotion.” On the stand, Lumley said that it still wasn’t his favorite story, but on the grounds of the craft of story-telling involved.

Advertisement

During the trial, CNN’s lawyers had contended the story’s reporting holds up as fair and true under scrutiny. CNN correspondent Alexander Marquardt had presented viewers with a LinkedIn message from Young saying it would cost $75,000 to evacuate a vehicle with five or six passengers from Kabul to Pakistan. Young said he worked with corporate sponsors, including Bloomberg and Audible, rather than individuals.

On the stand, Young acknowledged that he took a 65% profit margin from the fees he charged, and took inquiries from individuals. He also curtly and coarsely brushed off people inquiring about help who could not afford his fees.

Other groups involving U.S. veterans and non-governmental organizations sought to get Afghans out without such profits, as a former major general testifying on Young’s behalf acknowledged. The retired major general, James V. Young Jr. (not related to Zach Young), said he charged donors for the cost.

CNN’s legal team, led by David Axelrod (the lawyer is not related to the Obama White House official and CNN analyst of the same name) had told jurors they should rely on their own “common sense.”

Axelrod had been able to press Young to concede that some of his claims to potential clients were not borne out by facts; Young had not in fact evacuated people from Afghanistan by air. Nor was he in constant contact with journalists, as claimed.

Advertisement

In his closing argument, Freedman presented Young as a swashbuckling former CIA operative to explain his curtness in messages to desperate people trying to help people.

On the witness stand, however, Young emerged as emotionally vulnerable himself, weeping during testimony. He recounted that, after the story ran, he became despondent, depressed, alienated from intimacy with his wife, cut off from friends and family members. HIs attorney cited “deep and lasting wounds” from the piece.

The piece was presented initially on CNN’s The Lead With Jake Tapper, and a fuller written version subsequently posted on CNN’s website. A few months later, shortly after Young’s legal team threatened legal actions, a substitute anchor apologized to Young on the air for use of the term “black market” in the story, and said it did not apply to him.

Freedman, Young’s attorney, called the apology insufficient.

“This is what makes this case historic: punitive damages,” Freedman told jurors. “A media company has to face an American jury with the power to punish. That is not a frequent event. Do you believe that CNN should be punished? Do you believe they should send a message to other media companies to avoid this misconduct?”

Advertisement

This story will be updated after the jury decides on what, if any, punitive damages to award Young.

Continue Reading

News

Los Angeles Fire Chief Faces Calls for Resignation

Published

on

Los Angeles Fire Chief Faces Calls for Resignation

Three years ago, when Kristin Crowley became the first female chief in the history of the Los Angeles Fire Department, she was lauded as a force for stability.

“There is no one better equipped to lead the L.A.F.D. at this moment than Kristin,” the mayor at the time, Eric Garcetti, said of the 22-year veteran of the department. “She’s ready to make history.”

Now, as Los Angeles reels under an extended onslaught of wind-driven wildfire, its fire chief is being buffeted by challenges in and outside her ranks, tension with City Hall and questions about her department’s preparedness. The fires, which are still unfolding on the city’s west side and in the community of Altadena outside the city, have so far leveled nearly 40,000 acres and claimed at least 27 lives.

Last week, complaints about funding for her department boiled over into a public dispute between Mayor Karen Bass and Chief Crowley. This week, veteran fire managers charged that she and her staff should have positioned more engines in advance in high-risk areas like Pacific Palisades, where the fires began on Jan. 7.

At a news conference, she struggled to explain why an outgoing shift of about 1,000 firefighters was not ordered to remain at work last Tuesday as a precaution amid extreme red-flag conditions. “We surged where we could surge,” she said.

Advertisement

A Jan. 13 letter signed by unnamed “retired and active L.A.F.D. chief officers” accused her of a host of management failures and called for her to step down. “A large number of chief officers do not believe you are up to the task,” the five-page letter read in part.

In an email on Thursday, a fire department spokesperson said that the chief was “focused on mitigating the fires” and unable to respond to the letter. The chief has repeatedly emphasized the progress her crews are making.

“Our firefighters are doing an incredible job,” she said in a news briefing on Thursday, as a continuing air and ground assault brought hot spots in Pacific Palisades closer to containment. “As their chief, I’m extremely proud of the work that our people did and continue to do.”

With thousands of evacuees clamoring to return to the remains of their homes and more red-flag wind conditions in the forecast, many civic leaders in Los Angeles have reserved judgment.

“This was a huge natural disaster not any single fire chief could have prevented, whether they had unlimited resources and money,” said Corinne Tapia Babcock, a member of the Los Angeles Fire Commission, which oversees the department and its chief. “You cannot attack a single person for a situation that is this catastrophic.”

Advertisement

Zev Yaroslavsky, a former member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and City Council, said that “an accounting should and will take place when the smoke clears.”

“But these issues can’t be resolved while the city’s on fire,” he added.

Other civic leaders predicted that, sooner or later, the chief would be held to account.

“She’ll be gone in six months,” said Fernando Guerra, who directs the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University.

Even before the fire, the chief faced strong political challenges, Dr. Guerra said. Her appointment in early 2022 by the prior mayor, Mr. Garcetti, was seen as an attempt to steady the department after years of complaints of harassment and discrimination raised by female L.A.F.D. firefighters.

Advertisement

But it challenged the male-dominated culture of the department, Dr. Guerra noted, as did the election later that year of Ms. Bass as the new mayor. Like other top managers in Los Angeles city government, fire chiefs are mayoral appointees and can be replaced by a new administration. Ms. Bass kept her on.

Even with more than two decades with the department, Chief Crowley was still new in her post — just beginning to develop a base of support — when the Palisades burst into flames last week.

As the fire turned into a catastrophe, critics of Mayor Bass, including Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of The Los Angeles Times, and Elon Musk, the owner of X, the social media platform, charged that the fire department had been underfunded. A December memo from Chief Crowley surfaced, in which she warned the fire commission that a $7.9 million cut in firefighter overtime and the elimination of dozens of civilian positions had “severely limited” the department’s ability to respond to large-scale emergencies.

Ms. Bass had approved a budget last June for the fire department’s current fiscal year that was $23 million less than the prior year’s. But a new contract with the firefighters’ union led to raises, and the final fire budget was actually $53 million more than last year’s.

The claims about underfunding sparked a dayslong dispute with the mayor and her allies. By the end of last week, Chief Crowley had doubled down, telling a local Fox News affiliate that she felt the city government had failed the fire department.

Advertisement

Within hours, she and Ms. Bass — facing criticism herself for having been out of the country when the Palisades fire started — disappeared into the mayor’s office for so long that they missed an evening news briefing. Outside the closed doors, the mayor’s staff repeatedly denied an erroneous report from a British news outlet that the chief had been fired.

By Saturday morning, the mayor and the chief were projecting a unified front, though the tension was apparent. “The chief and I are in lock step,” Ms. Bass said. “And if there are differences that we have, we will continue to deal with those in private.”

But criticisms of the chief flared again this week amid reports in The Los Angeles Times that the firefighting force that was on duty when the Palisades fire started could have been much larger. In years past, the department often paid outgoing shifts overtime to stay at work in times of alarming wind forecasts and tinder-dry conditions.

Internal documents reviewed by The New York Times also showed that the department’s plan on the day of the fire called for advance positioning of only nine additional fire trucks — near Hollywood, the Santa Monica Mountains and elsewhere in the San Fernando Valley — but none in Pacific Palisades.

Patrick Butler, a former L.A.F.D. assistant chief who is now chief of the Redondo Beach, Calif., fire department, said that positioning firefighters and equipment near fire zones in significant numbers well in advance during periods of high wildfire danger has long been a key strategy in the department. “It’s unfathomable to me how this happened, except for extreme incompetence and no understanding of fire operations,” he said.

Advertisement

Others said the fire chief should have kept both the incoming and outgoing shifts of firefighters on duty before the fire as a precaution.

“I can’t speak to why she didn’t exercise it, but it’s a known tactic and it would have doubled the work force,” said Rick Crawford, a former L.A.F.D. battalion chief who is now the emergency and crisis management coordinator for the U.S. Capitol. “I’m not saying it would have prevented the fire, or that the fire wouldn’t have gotten out of control. But she lost a strategic advantage by not telling the off-going shift, ‘You shall stay and work.’”

In the letter purportedly signed by current and retired officers in the department, there were complaints that Chief Crowley had also failed to temporarily call back experienced fire commanders who had recently retired.

“While no one is saying that this fire could have been stopped, there is no doubt among all of us that if you had done things right and prepared the L.A.F.D. for an incident of this magnitude, fatalities would have been reduced, and property would have been saved,” they wrote.

Sharon Delugach, a member of the Los Angeles Fire Commission, said that rumors of disgruntlement within the department had been on the radar but had not risen to the commission’s formal attention before the fires broke out.

Advertisement

Much of the criticism, she said, seemed to reflect sentiments of sexism or homophobia — Chief Crowley is the first lesbian to lead the department — or came from those who were unhappy about change.

Whatever the source, Ms. Delugach said, the timing of the latest dissent is not ideal when many outside of the department seem intent on scoring political points.

“I’m sure they do have very legitimate concerns and I’m sure everybody in the department is there for the right reason,” Ms. Delugach said of the internal criticism. “It’s a shame all this dirty laundry is being aired in the moment of fire.”

Ms. Delugach predicted that Chief Crowley’s future would hinge less on internal and external critiques than on her relationship with Ms. Bass.

“It’s whether she and the mayor can work together, that’s the real question,” Ms. Delugach said. “I hope they can.”

Advertisement

Rachel Nostrant, Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs, Kate Selig and Katie Benner contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

Trending