Brigadier General Jeffrey Magram was a commander and senior officer of the California National Guard until he was removed from that post by Governor Newsom and Adjutant General Matthew Beevers. General Magram is claiming that the firing was due to his protection of a Jewish subordinate from antisemitic comments by Beevers. The general has now filed a lawsuit, contesting his dismissal, at a time when Governor Newsom is considering a 2028 presidential campaign.
That's inconvenient. Or is it? First, the background of the case:
Former brigadier general Jeffrey Magram is suing the state of California and Adjutant General Matthew Beevers, a Newsom appointee who has faced allegations of denigrating a Jewish subordinate as a "kike" lawyer. Magram alleges that Newsom "facilitated and ratified" a Beevers-driven campaign of anti-Semitic discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against him that started after Magram defended a fellow Jew from Beevers's anti-Semitic rants and ended with Newsom's office signing an order to dismiss Magram in November 2022.
Sacramento Superior Court judge Richard K. Sueyoshi rejected the Newsom administration's efforts to quash Magram's lawsuit in an Oct. 31 ruling authorizing six of its eight counts to proceed toward a trial. The ruling will force the Newsom administration to comply with document discovery and deposition requests that Magram says have been ignored since he filed his lawsuit in January 2024.
Here's the basis for the rejection:
The Newsom administration has yet to respond to any of Magram's allegations since he filed his lawsuit in January 2024, instead arguing in motions that the case should be dismissed entirely because of the Feres doctrine, a legal doctrine that arose from a 1950 Supreme Court case that bars servicemembers from suing the military for personal injuries sustained in the performance of their duties.
But Sueyoshi, the Sacramento Superior Court judge, said the Newsom administration's interpretation of the law was incorrect. The judge wrote in his Oct. 31 ruling that the Feres doctrine was not intended to shield the military from the legal consequences of subjecting a general to a campaign of anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination, as Magram alleges in his lawsuit.
Discovery ought to be interesting. But the case is still gathering steam; Judge Sueyoshi's rejection of Newsom's attempts to quash the case means that everything will proceed, and one wonders how many bright lights will shine in how many dark corners during discovery.
Read More: Oregon Judge Issues Final Judgment on National Guard Case - 3 Guesses and the First 2 Don't Count
Of course, the real question is this: Could this affect a possible 2028 "Newsom for President" run?
A few years ago, that answer would have been an unqualified "yes." But now? Remember, we just saw a candidate elected as Mayor of New York who has routinely spat out anti-Israel remarks, and if you draw one of Kamala Harris's beloved Venn diagrams with the circles being "anti-Israel" and "antisemite," there's going to be a considerable amount of overlap. Just look at unrest and outright riots on many of our nation's college campuses in the last few months for evidence of that.
Gavin Newsom, he of the impeccable coiffure, has made no bones about his presidential ambitions. A settlement out of court may be the way to make this go away; and if that's what the Newsom administration does, then we can and should take that as a confirmation that, yes, Gavin Newsom has his gimlet eye on the Oval Office.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member