Did Gavin Newsom Back Antisemitic Vendetta Against Former CA National Guard Hero? – RedState

Brigadier General Jeffrey Magram was commander and senior officer of the California National Guard until he was removed by Governor Newsom and Adjutant General Matthew Beevers. General Magram claims the firing was due to his protection of a Jewish subordinate from Beevers’ anti-Semitic comments. The general has now filed a lawsuit challenging his dismissal, at a time when Governor Newsom is considering a 2028 presidential campaign.

It’s embarrassing. Where is it? First, the context of the case:

Former Brigadier General Jeffrey Magram is suing the state of California against Adjutant General Matthew Beevers, a Newsom appointee who faced allegations of denigrating a Jewish subordinate by calling him a “kike” lawyer. Magram alleges that Newsom “facilitated and ratified” a campaign of anti-Semitic discrimination, harassment and retaliation led by Beevers that began after Magram defended a fellow Jew against Beevers’ anti-Semitic diatribes and ended with Newsom’s office signing an order to fire Magram in November 2022.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi rejected the Newsom administration’s efforts to mistrial Magram in an Oct. 31 ruling allowing six of his eight counts to proceed to trial. The ruling will require the Newsom administration to comply with discovery and document filing requests that Magram says have been ignored since he filed his suit in January 2024.

Here is the reason for the rejection:

The Newsom administration has yet to respond to any of Magram’s allegations since he filed the lawsuit in January 2024, instead arguing in motions that the case should be dismissed entirely because of the Feres Doctrine, a legal doctrine stemming from a 1950 Supreme Court case that prohibits service members from suing the military for personal injuries suffered in the line of duty.

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 protect the military from the legal consequences of subjecting a general to a campaign of anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination, as Magram claims in his lawsuit.

The discovery should be interesting. But the matter continues to grow; Judge Sueyoshi’s rejection of Newsom’s attempts to overturn the case means everything will continue, and one wonders how many bright lights will shine in how many dark corners during discovery.

Learn more: Oregon judge issues final ruling on National Guard case – 3 guesses and the first 2 don’t count

Not so fast, Newsom: California GOP files federal voting rights lawsuit to block Proposition 50 congressional maps

Of course, the real question is: Could this affect a possible “Newsom for president” run in 2028?

A few years ago, that answer would have been an unqualified “yes.” But now? Remember, we just saw a candidate elected mayor of New York who regularly spewed anti-Israel remarks, and if you draw one of Kamala Harris’s beloved Venn diagrams with the “anti-Israel” and “anti-Semitic” circles, there will be considerable overlap. One need only look at the unrest and outright riots on many of our nation’s college campuses over the past few months for proof.

Gavin Newsom, with his impeccable hairstyle, has not hidden his presidential ambitions. An amicable settlement could be the way to make this problem go away; and if that’s what the Newsom administration is doing, then we can and should take this as confirmation that, yes, Gavin Newsom has one eye trained on the Oval Office.

Editor’s note: Schumer’s closure is here. Rather than putting the American people first, Chuck Schumer and radical Democrats forced a government shutdown on health care for illegal immigrants. They own that.

Help us continue reporting the truth about Schumer’s shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.