Why Isn't the Leaking of a Medical Examiner’s Report Treated like Adachi's?
How the Chronicle Orchestrates DA Boudin’s Campaign
On a May 10, 2022, the Chronicle’s Joe Garofoli analyzed that the recall of Governor Newsom started to lose steam once a potential successor entered the picture. Similarly, what DA Chesa Boudin needed was a foil. Like the synchrony of a championship football team’s offense, within just 48 hours, the Chronicle’s Megan Cassidy followed up on Garofoli’s column with a piece on the five most likely replacements for Boudin.
Included in the Chronicle column was a front-runner Brooke Jenkins’ work email that Cassidy somehow had obtained.
When I see things like this, I’m reminded of why I’m so proud to be part of this office,” Jenkins wrote to Boudin in an Aug. 7, 2020, email obtained by The Chronicle, referring to his support of an NFL anti-racism campaign.
Jenkins’ email had nothing to do with Boudin’s competency, but it raised an issue on Cassidy’s access to Jenkins’ work emails:
1) How did Cassidy “obtain” the Jenkins’ email?
2) Did Cassidy issue a public records request to the DA’s office?
3) How did Cassidy know to issue a public records request to obtain Jenkins’ emails?
4) What time range did Cassidy request Jenkins’ emails for?
5) Were there any other Jenkins’ emails that were less flattering towards Boudin? Or did Cassidy receive a single email and think that was representative of all of Jenkins’ emails to Boudin? Is that the Chronicles’ due diligence policy?
6) How was Jenkins’ email transmitted from the DA’s office to Cassidy?
To gain clarity, on May 12th, I issued the following public records request to the DA’s office:
Please provide either a copy of the public records request to the District Attorney's office made by the Chronicle and/or Megan Cassidy to obtain Brooke Jenkins' emails and the email or text conversation between the District Attorney's office and Ms. Cassidy that transmitted this information.
On May 18th, I received the following response:
Lou: Our search of all emails resulted in no responsive records.
It is one thing to avoid disclosing that Cassidy didn’t request Jenkins’ emails, meaning the DA’s office gratuitously released them; but it is quite another thing to deny that Jenkins’ emails were electronically submitted to Cassidy. It is nearly impossible that the DA could have mailed, and Cassidy received, Jenkins’ email within the 48-hour period after Garofoli’s column. Do they use carrier pigeons?
Consider that this follows Boudin’s dishonesty to previous public records responses. In 2021, I twice issued public records requests to both SFPD Chief Scott and Boudin on their email and text exchanges. And as I covered in my article, on both occasions Boudin either lied that he did not send texts that showed up on Scott’s cellphone or Boudin filtered out selective texts that were embarrassing yet were recorded on Scott’s cellphone. Just indicators of the lack of a moral compass at the DA’s office.
Here is how access to Jenkins’ emails violated San Francisco’s campaign laws
There are only two ways that Jenkins’ emails were accessed: during work hours or not during work hours.
If Jenkins’ emails were accessed during work hours, there is a violation of section 3.230 Prohibition on Political Activity from the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Code:
(C) Political Activities on City Time or Premises. No City officer or employee may engage in political activity during working hours or on City premises.
On the other hand, if Jenkins’ emails were accessed during personal time, section 3.228 applies:
No current employee of the City and County shall (b) use any confidential or privileged information to advance the financial or other private interest of himself or herself or others.
While it Is recognized that public employees do not have a right to privacy on work emails, and Jenkins’ emails could have been accessed through public records requests, that does not mean employees on personal time can pry into coworker’s emails without a reason or for personal gain. To do so serves the employees’ “private interest” or “another’s (Boudin’s) interest” and violates section 3.228.
But this is the usual rules-don’t-apply-to-us attitude of Boudin’s office.
The Chronicle acting as Boudin’s megaphone
It is disappointing that Boudin’s office continues to sway the Chronicle writers and editorial staff. Cassidy, who bills herself as a crime reporter informed me that she did not want me to forward her my investigative articles: “Lou. I just don’t care for newsletters and never signed up for this one in the first place.” And despite this confirmation bias, Cassidy’s incurious nature, and her complete absence of articles addressing crimes, KQED held her out as an objective moderator in a debate on the recall (which Boudin was afraid to participate in.)
Boudin’s Director of Communication, Rachel Marshall, has been the leading suspect in leaking confidential information to the Chronicle. Following this article is a photocopy of a long email (obtained from sources) to the Chronicle’s editor and chief that is full of Marshall’s illogical and trivial gripes. This is clear evidence of the DA office’s cozy relationship with the Chronicle and an editor, who presumably voted for the newspaper to oppose the recall of Boudin.
Who leaked Medical Examiner’s Report to Chronicle’s Cassidy?
Following up on Cassidy’s mysterious receipt of Jenkins’ emails, on May 24, 2022, Cassidy obtained access to the San Francisco Medical Examiner’s report on an SFPD officer-involved-shooting from “two people (that) were granted anonymity” by the Chronicle. That is: two people with access to this active homicide investigation leaked confidential evidence. And amazingly, Cassidy was able to get the report the same day it was issued.
Back in February 2019, someone leaked a confidential SFPD incident report on Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s death, and SFPD’s command staff and the Board of Supervisors were outraged. To track down the leak, SFPD conducted an illegal raid on a journalist’ residence, several SFPD heads rolled, and eventually the city had paid the journalist $369,000 for violating his First Amendment rights.
Consider: What is the difference between the leaking of the incident report on Adachi’s mysterious death and the leaking of this recent Medical Examiner’s Report? Where is the outrage? What is the status on the investigation to determine who leaked the report?
In ADA Marshall’s email to the Chronicle editor, she vented about anonymous sources providing information not benefiting Boudin (Page 4 below):
Obviously: a) Marshall is speculating on the name of a source, and b) she seems to have a double standard that the Chronicle should only accept anonymous sources if they politically benefit Boudin.
Let’s follow Marshall conjecture on outing sources and connect the dots on who most likely leaked the Medical Examiner’s Report. The criminal investigation into the officer-involved-shooting is handled by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and Boudin’s Independent Investigation Bureau (IIB).
· So, in terms of Marshall’s description of “political motivation behind a source,” which politician is in the tighter June election race: The DOJ’s Ron Bonta or the SFDA’s Chesa Boudin?
· Which office leaked Jenkins’ emails to the same recipient of the Medical Examiner’s Report?
· Which office has the closest relationship with the Chronicle?
· Which office consistently lies to public record requests?
For those that agree with Boudin’s political philosophy, they should at least recognize that none of these are signs of a District Attorney that possesses integrity. Nor is it a sign of the Board of Supervisors’ consistent application of their principles. They were outraged and vocal on the leaking of Adachi’s incident report but are silent about the leaking of a Medical Examiner’s Report. Because the leaked Medical Examiner’s report appears to favor Boudin. And that is the definition of a hypocrisy.
Outstanding factual, investigative reporting. This article clearly substantiates the growing trend among progressives. Rules apply to everyone else except them. Good job Lou!