Speaker 1: This is Gavin Newsom. So when I started the podcast,
Speaker 1: I made the point that I wanted to reach out
Speaker 1: to people I disagree with and do so in a
Speaker 1: civil way to have a dialogue people I agree with.
Speaker 1: But I also made a commitment to all of you
Speaker 1: that I wanted to break news. After all, I'm the
Speaker 1: current governor of California. I make decisions on a daily basis,
Speaker 1: and I thought it was important on some critical decisions
Speaker 1: to bring people in to the decision making process. And
Speaker 1: of course a lot of attention has been given as
Speaker 1: of late, particularly with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's
Speaker 1: announcement earlier in this week about the Menandez brothers and
Speaker 1: the Menandez brothers case. There's been a lot of inquiries.
Speaker 1: A lot of folks like you have reached out and
Speaker 1: have asked, is that influencing a determination for clemency? Does
Speaker 1: what the DA just said, Does that influence the process
Speaker 1: that's being conducted by our Board of Parole hearings. It doesn't.
Speaker 1: It may influence the court. The court resentencing will continue
Speaker 1: to go forward. The DA now the new DA is
Speaker 1: pulling back recommending from the Menendez brothers to be re sentenced,
Speaker 1: But it doesn't impact the processes underway that review for
Speaker 1: clemency in my office or the independent risk assessment that
Speaker 1: will be concluded on June thirteenth by the Board of
Speaker 1: Parole Hearings. And I'll repeat that, on June thirteenth, both
Speaker 1: Lyle and Eric Menendez independently will have their final hearing.
Speaker 1: A report then will be submitted to me on the
Speaker 1: thirteenth of June for consideration. We will submit that report
Speaker 1: to the judge for the resentencing, and that will weigh
Speaker 1: into our independent analysis of whether or not to move
Speaker 1: forward with the clemency application to support a commutation of
Speaker 1: this case. So this was a very significant announcement from
Speaker 1: the DA this week, but it doesn't fundamentally change the
Speaker 1: facts as it relates to the independent investigation in my
Speaker 1: office the Board of prole Hearings, or fundamentally change or
Speaker 1: alter the process that's underway with the resentencing. It just
Speaker 1: changes the recommendation from one supporting with the previous DA
Speaker 1: in la resentencing and one now with the current DA
Speaker 1: opposing it. I get to question a lot about celebrity
Speaker 1: and whether that has an impact on decisions decisions for
Speaker 1: the court, decisions that we make as it relates to
Speaker 1: applications for clemency, this commutation. And it's a great question
Speaker 1: because I think it cuts both ways. Yes, celebrity ways.
Speaker 1: It has an impact, but in what direction does it weigh?
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's used actually against people because they're so high profile,
Speaker 1: they're actually held to a higher level of scrutiny and standard.
Speaker 1: At the same time, you don't want that celebrity also
Speaker 1: to influence on the other side. So it's a balancing act.
Speaker 1: But I'm deeply mindful of it, and that's why it's
Speaker 1: critical that our team independently stress tests the nature of celebrity,
Speaker 1: and that's why I move forward with the Board of
Speaker 1: Parole hearings to independently review with a group of experts
Speaker 1: for psychologists and others. The facts of this case not
Speaker 1: born by any bias because of celebrity. So a lot
Speaker 1: of people have asked me if you watched any of
Speaker 1: these Netflix series, if you see any of the dramatizations
Speaker 1: around the Menendez brothers, including more recently Ryan Murphy's dramatization.
Speaker 1: The answer is no, I've not seen one. I've seen
Speaker 1: a few clips here and there on social media, and
Speaker 1: I don't intend to watch these series because I don't
Speaker 1: want to be influenced by them. I just want to
Speaker 1: be influenced by the facts. I'm obviously familiar with the
Speaker 1: Menendez brothers just through the news over the course of
Speaker 1: many decades, but not to the degree that many others
Speaker 1: are because of all of these documentaries and all of
Speaker 1: the attention they've received. So that won't bias my independent
Speaker 1: and objective review of the facts. And again, it's not
Speaker 1: just my independent objective review of the facts. It will
Speaker 1: also be made by my staff, my team that does
Speaker 1: this kind of work on a consistent basis. So on
Speaker 1: June thirteenth, we will have the Parole Hearing Board recommendation
Speaker 1: as it relates to the risk assessment as it relates
Speaker 1: to the forensic psychologist, and that recommendation, that assessment, that
Speaker 1: independent analysis will help guide the decision making that my
Speaker 1: office is independently reviewing as it relates to the clemency application.