It marks a significant shift in the county’s approach to criminal justice. Gascón, who was elected just two years ago, drew criticism for his progressive policies that many saw as soft on crime. His tenure stirred controversy and led to rising crime rates, igniting frustration among residents and law enforcement officials alike.
Republican former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did the honors:
Happening Now: @NathanHochmanDA is sworn in to office by @Schwarzenegger.
The Hochman era is now underway in the L.A. County District Attorney’s office and the George Gascon era is over. pic.twitter.com/ja8oiGoMd2
— Elex Michaelson (@Elex_Michaelson) December 3, 2024
Back in December 2020, when Gascón was sworn in, he immediately signed a number of Special Directives that took effect that day and made his criminal-coddling policies – including refusing to charge gang or weapons enhancements and never pursuing the death penalty – the official policy of the LA County DA’s office. (RedState exclusively obtained the Special Directive documents and was the first outlet to publish them in full.)
Similarly, Hochman took action immediately after his swearing-in, immediately terminating the Special Directives.
There it is. Hochman has officially terminated Gascon’s soft on crime special directives. Internal notice to his prosecutors. pic.twitter.com/hxTzdG6Zoa
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) December 3, 2024
One of Gascon’s directives related to not prosecuting certain misdemeanors in almost all circumstances, including:
- Trespass – Penal Code § 602(a)-(y)
- Disturbing The Peace – Penal Code § 415(1)-(3)
- Driving Without A Valid License – Vehicle Code § 12500(a)-(e)
- Driving On A Suspended License – Vehicle Code § 14601.1(a)
- Criminal Threats – Penal Code § 422Drug & Paraphernalia Possession – Health & Safety Code §§ 11350, 11357, 11364, & 11377
- Minor in Possession of Alcohol – Business & Professions § 25662(a)
- Drinking in Public – Los Angeles County Municipal Code §13.18.010
- Under the Influence of Controlled Substance – Health & Safety Code § 11550
- Public Intoxication – Penal Code § 647(f)
- Loitering – Penal Code § 647(b),(c), (d), (e)
- Loitering To Commit Prostitution – Penal Code § 653.22(a)(1)
- Resisting Arrest – Penal Code § 148(a)
At the time, we (along with all other people possessing common sense) warned that by refusing to prosecute these crimes and broadcasting that, the city would be much less safe and desirable. I wrote on December 7, 2020:
Certainly, some of these are misdemeanors where a prosecutor should have the discretion to dismiss the charge or decline to prosecute based on the specific circumstances of that case, but to have a blanket prohibition on prosecution is counterproductive and also makes the city even less desirable for law-abiding people. If police and criminals know that loitering and trespassing won’t be prosecuted, have fun trying to patronize a business without being accosted by panhandlers or worse.
That absolutely came to pass, and law-abiding people were accosted by much worse than panhandlers.
Gascón’s defeat is especially significant because he is the original Soros DA; as RedState uncovered in December 2020, Soros’ “Progressive Prosecutor Project” is Gascón’s brainchild, and he secured the initial $50 million in funding from Soros’ Open Societies Foundation.
“We started looking at a map of the US, trying to identify strategically, what are the urban centers…one of the convos was, how do we go about creating a movement here? Which led to Open Societies Foundation, George Soros’ foundation, putting $50M in 2014 thru ACLU to begin it” pic.twitter.com/J6NyXg89cN
— Jennifer Van Laar (@jenvanlaar) August 4, 2022
There were two recall attempts mounted against Gascón; the second would have likely led to his ouster if it had qualified since polls at that time, in 2022, showed nearly 60 percent of those surveyed would vote to recall him. Unfortunately, according to photos, documents, and audio provided to RedState by a whistleblower involved in the campaign, campaign leaders knowingly submitted tens of thousands of invalid signatures (duplicates, out-of-county, wrong address) on their recall petition, and the petition failed to qualify.
