Posted on 06/16/2026 11:16:07 AM PDT by Red Badger
After posting a video announcing that he and his wife are the subjects of a federal criminal investigation, California Governor Gavin Newsom had his office's Legal Affairs Secretary send a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Justice, demanding "all documents and records including... memoranda, emails, text messages, and Signal messages, from, to, or copying any member of the executive leadership of the U.S. Department of Justice" referencing himself or his wife "between January 20, 2025 and the present."
Yes, he's using taxpayer resources in his personal legal battle. That's not at all surprising.
It's also not surprising that Newsom's having his taxpayer-funded attorney make a baseless request. There are multiple exemptions that would almost certainly apply in this case, where, according to Newsom himself, there is an ongoing criminal investigation involving a grand jury, including Exemption 5 (Deliberative Process, Attorney Work Product, and Attorney-Client Privilege) and 7A (Interference with Enforcement Proceedings). In addition, any communications referencing possible confidential informants fall under a statutory exclusion, meaning that the DOJ isn't required to acknowledge that such communications even exist.
MORE: Gavin Newsom Says He's Under Investigation by DOJ; Sources Say It's Related to His Wife's Taxes
The only thing Newsom is attempting to accomplish here is reverse lawfare, or tying up DOJ resources in a "the process is the punishment"-style. Come after him, he's saying, but I'm going to make it as tedious as possible.
As usual, Newsom's love of transparency only goes one way. Back in March 2025, when Fox News' Los Angeles affiliate submitted a California Public Records Act request for "emails and text messages to and from LA County and LA City officials in the days leading up to and after the fires," they were told that his office "would not be providing those and that the governor's communications are exempt."
However, Newsom's email and text communications, whether from official devices/accounts or personal devices/accounts, are public records and are not exempt from disclosure.
California Government Code Section 7920.530 defines a public record:
(a) As used in this division, “public records” includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.
(b) “Public records” in the custody of, or maintained by, the Governor’s office means any writing prepared on or after January 6, 1975.
There are some exemptions, but Newsom isn't even following the law related to his denial of the CPRA request. The CPRA requires officials/agencies to clearly state which exemption applies to the records requested; the presumption is that all public records - including those that might be on private accounts or devices - are to be produced unless the agency/official can clearly articulate which exemption applies and why. Newsom doesn't even do that, but asks the DOJ to do so.
And, the California Constitution was amended in 2004 by the voters (Proposition 59) to add the "Sunshine" amendment, which adds this right to know as a foundational principle:
The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.
This isn't the first time Newsom's office has refused to provide records to the press. In fact, it would be news if Newsom's administration actually complied with a CPRA request. Usually, though, he just claims that the information requested could jeopardize his or his family's safety; for example, his office refused to produce records related to how much state funding went to pay for his security detail when he visited Montana when the state was on California's no-go list for state-funded travel because its policies were insufficiently woke. Then, when he knew he couldn't weasel out of the issue, he claimed that there was a public safety exemption to the no-go law.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
This is his right to get access to defend himself.
It is also the right of the DOJ to request the same thing from him for messages, emails and texts from 2105-2023.
This will tie things up a bit as for sure he will NOT want to release this information.
“Sorry, we’re unable to comment on ongoing investigations”
That’s how this works, right?
No one is going to jail.
His wife runs a fraudulent diapers for babies program that is merely a fraudulent money laundry. Free diapers that cost the taxpayers like 500% more than they can be bought at the stores.
no one ever does
They ARE, however, going to Hell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.