logo
Menendez brothers' freedom in hands of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom

Menendez brothers' freedom in hands of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom

Fox News15-05-2025

The Menendez brothers are one step closer to seeing life outside prison walls after a bombshell decision to reduce their life sentences, leaving the next hurdle in the hands of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
On Tuesday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic slashed the original sentences for Erik and Lyle Menendez from life in prison to 50 years in prison with the possibility of parole.
Jesic's decision to resentence the Menendez brothers opens the door for a parole hearing to determine whether they should be released.
"The question for the board is a simple one — do Erik and Lyle Menendez, do they pose a current, what we call `unreasonable risk to public safety,'" Newsom previously said on his podcast, "This is Gavin Newsom."
In October, Mark Geragos, the brothers' lawyer, filed clemency documents with Newsom after former Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón asked a judge to reduce their sentences.
"I strongly support clemency for Erik and Lyle Menendez, who are currently serving sentences of life without possibility of parole," Gascón previously said. "They have respectively served 34 years and have continued their educations and worked to create new programs to support the rehabilitation of fellow inmates."
In response to their request for clemency, Newsom directed the state parole board to conduct a "comprehensive risk assessment investigation" of the Menendez brothers.
Newsom described the assessment as a "common procedure carried out by the state."
"There's no guarantee of outcome here," Newsom previously said. "My office conducts dozens and dozens of these clemency reviews on a consistent basis, but this process simply provides more transparency, which I think is important in this case, as well as provides us more due diligence before I make any determination for clemency."
Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom's office, which referred to a news conference Wednesday in which he spoke briefly about the parole process for the Menendez brothers and said the process is still unfolding.
"We started a process, as you know, which was intended to help inform the judge in the resentencing of the risk assessment. We thought that would be prudent to do before any resentencing. That process has unfolded over the course of the last number of months, and forensic psychologists did an assessment of the risk of each individual brother," Newsom said.
Certain details of those risk assessments, which have not been made public, were presented during part of Tuesday's resentencing hearing. The analysis from those reports typically includes what led a person to commit the crime, behavior in prison and the likelihood of recidivism.
Both brothers admitted to killing their parents, Mary "Kitty" and Jose Menendez, in a gruesome 1989 shotgun massacre inside their Beverly Hills home. Until Tuesday's resentencing hearing, they had maintained that their actions were self-defense from a lifetime of physical and sexual abuse by their parents.
Newsom's office explained that the legal standard in California for release on parole is whether an inmate poses an unreasonable risk to public safety, which has to be determined before the governor can make a decision on commutations.
"This process doesn't mean there's any guaranteed outcome, but it shows we're doing our due diligence, ensuring transparency, keeping public safety at the forefront, making sure the process is fair for everyone involved and getting closer to a conclusion," Newsom's office said.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation told Fox News Digital it is "looking into the judge's decision and next steps in the parole process."
"When a court resentences a defendant, it issues the new judgment to CDCR. The department then processes the judgment as quickly as possible while complying with legal mandates," the department said.
The department added that "if an incarcerated person's sentence is changed to allow the possibility of parole, CDCR would determine applicable parole-eligible dates."
SIGN UP TO GET TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTER
Clemency from Newsom is also still a possibility.
"So, the question for the parole board is, will they reserve that as a more traditional parole process, or will they choose to have a separate pathway to an independent parole analysis?" Newsom asked.
"And that's a conversation that we're having to make that determination. So, it's conceivable to the point that on June 13 there could be a recommendation to me. I'm the ultimate arbiter and will have to review the parole board's recommendations and report. It's also conceivable that this will happen months and months later. So, that's a process that we're making that's been determined in real time."
Newsom's June 13 parole board hearings are planned to go on as scheduled, and the board will have the opportunity to free the brothers.
No matter what happens with their clemency request, Newsom would still have the final say over whether they should go free.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Neama Rahmani told Fox News Digital Tuesday that Erik and Lyle Menendez "will likely be freed in a matter of months," adding he does not expect "the parole board or Gov. Newsom" to block their release.
Even if the parole board approves their release, the governor has veto power and could issue a pardon on his own.
Stepheny Price is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business. She covers topics including missing persons, homicides, national crime cases, illegal immigration, and more. Story tips and ideas can be sent to stepheny.price@fox.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Gavin Newsom And Jay Pritzker Offering Red States The Deal Of Lifetime
Gavin Newsom And Jay Pritzker Offering Red States The Deal Of Lifetime

Forbes

timean hour ago

  • Forbes

Gavin Newsom And Jay Pritzker Offering Red States The Deal Of Lifetime

Government spending saps economic growth, which is no insight. It's stated routinely in my upcoming book The Deficit Delusion that the centralized and politicized allocation of goods, services and labor in sub-optimal fashion by politicians lays a wet blanket on economic growth. What makes the economically enervating nature of government spending worth mentioning is the ongoing debate about state and local taxes, also known as SALT. Governors in high-tax blue states would like to return to the old state of tax play whereby state and local taxes paid could be 100 percent deducted against federal tax bills. Red state citizens should take this gift from people with names like Newsom and Pritzker and run with it. Except that red state politicians are largely balking. So are their citizens. They see unlimited deductibility of state and local taxes as a subsidy of blue state taxpayers, and an incentive for blue states to tax and spend with abandon at a cost to federal tax collections. Their critiques speak to the undeniable good of an unlimited SALT deduction, for red states. To suggest otherwise is to imply that blue states benefit economically from excessive spending, all at the expense of the federal government's ability to spend. Actually, that's a feature of SALT, not a bug. Once again, government spending is economically harmful. The goal for red state politicians should be to localize the certain damage of government spending to the extent they can. Let California, New York, Illinois and New Jersey pursue a lot in the way of economy and freedom-sapping government so that the federal government has fewer dollars to harm the U.S. economy with. It's certainly odd, but not surprising, that blue state governors would clamor for an enhanced ability to further damage their economies with excessive spending born of high taxes. Much odder is that red states aren't taking the blue states up on an arrangement that to some degree erects a fence around economic foolishness. Red state politicians and their citizens yet again claim the SALT deduction subsidizes high-tax and high-spend blue states. More realistically, it subsidizes the red states that want neither. No doubt blue states see excessive taxing and spending in state as advantageous, and it should be obvious to red staters why: the discredited economic vision of John Maynard Keynes lives on most harmfully in blue states. Their politicians almost to a man and woman buy into the Keynesian notion that government spending grows an economy. Quite the opposite. With full deduction of state and local taxes, what an opportunity for red states to show why Keynes was wrong. Within them there's an underlying understanding that a government that does least does best. Which is yet again why red state politicians and voters should eagerly take the deal being offered from their taxing and spending opposites. The deal implies that blue states will foist more Keynes on their people, the red states quite a bit less. What a deal! Unknown is why red state politicians won't accept such a gift unless, of course, they're more wedded to discredited notions of government waste than their limited government rhetoric suggests.

'Makes no sense': Carville scolds Jewish donors for abandoning party, defends Dem record on Israel
'Makes no sense': Carville scolds Jewish donors for abandoning party, defends Dem record on Israel

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

'Makes no sense': Carville scolds Jewish donors for abandoning party, defends Dem record on Israel

EXCLUSIVE: Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville responds to Jewish donors who no longer support the Democratic Party due to the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. "I've never seen a Democrat have dinner with Kanye West and Nick Fuentes," Carville told Fox News Digital. "I've never seen a Democrat that endorsed the Alternative für Deutschland Party in Germany. I can point to plenty of Republicans who have." Carville is pouring cold water on Democratic donors' excuse that the rise of antisemitism on college campuses, particularly at Columbia University, means they can no longer support the Democratic Party. "In my view, that makes no sense. You can't be for a Democrat because they're protesting against Biden? It's nonsense," Carville said. Carville Accuses Jewish Donors Of Abandoning Democrats For Gop Because They Just Want Their 'F-----g Tax Cut' College campuses became the epicenter of resistance to the war in Gaza as students across the country, a typically Democratic voting bloc, began protesting President Joe Biden during his re-election campaign last year. Read On The Fox News App Columbia's Anti-israel Protesters Say Trump Pulling $400M In Grants From University Is A 'Scare Tactic' Before Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris, students chanted, "Genocide Joe has got to go!" outside his campaign rallies in critical swing states and organized protest votes to express their disapproval of the United States' support for Israel in the war against Hamas. Last month, President Donald Trump's administration accused Columbia University of violating federal law through its "deliberate indifference" toward anti-Israel protests that have persisted on campus since Oct. 7, 2023. But Carville, speaking to Fox News Digital about recent comments on his podcast, said it makes no sense for Jewish donors to turn away from the Democratic Party because of protesters at Columbia. Carville said it is the Democratic Party – not the Republican Party – that has historically supported Israel. "I would tell my Republican friends, which president was instrumental in the founding of the state of Israel? I happen to know Harry Truman. I happen to know he's a Democrat," Carville said. "Which president came closest to achieving Middle East peace and security for the state of Israel? I happen to know his name was Bill Clinton," he added. "Which president installed the Iron Dome, which saved, I don't know, how many thousands of Israeli lives? I happen to know Barack Obama. So, when you're looking at who is more supportive of the state of Israel, it's not even close," Carville told Fox News Digital. Carville drew a stark contrast with the Republican Party as he criticized Trump for dining with Kanye West, who is infamous for making antisemitic comments, and Nicholas Fuentes, considered a "white supremacist, Holocaust denier who hates Jews" by the American Jewish Committee. The longtime Democratic strategist also criticized Elon Musk, who until this week was a loyal Trump confidant and a "special government employee," for endorsing the Alternative for Germany party, considered a "confirmed extremist" group by Germany's domestic intelligence agency. Carville said on his podcast, "Politics War Room," this week that those Jewish donors are most likely embracing the Republican Party because they want their "f---ing tax cut." Speaking with Fox News Digital, Carville reiterated that Columbia University protests weren't a very good excuse for abandoning the Democratic Party. But the White House rejected Carville's perception of the Republican Party. "President Trump received unprecedented support from the Jewish community in his historic re-election, and this support continues to grow as he combats the left's rampant anti-Semitism that is exposed daily. The Trump administration is the most pro-Israel and pro-Jewish in our nation's history, and the President's record stands as a testament to this commitment," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told Fox News Digital. Trump signed executive orders during his first administration, and again last month, aimed at combating antisemitism in the United States. Fox News Digital's Elizabeth Pritchett and Breanne Deppisch contributed to this article source: 'Makes no sense': Carville scolds Jewish donors for abandoning party, defends Dem record on Israel

TikTok influencer slammed for viral video about ‘unchic' fashion
TikTok influencer slammed for viral video about ‘unchic' fashion

New York Post

time4 hours ago

  • New York Post

TikTok influencer slammed for viral video about ‘unchic' fashion

Tara Langdale talked to Fox News Digital about how she received hurtful messages from critics after a not-so-serious fashion post describing what she views as 'unchic' went viral, spawning a cascade of events that made her apolitical post a victim of attacks. The self-described stay-at-home working mom amassed some 250,000 views and found herself on the receiving end of some hate after an April 7 TikTok of her seated, drinking from a wine glass with nicely done hair, gold jewelry and manicured nails as she skimmed through a list of 'unchic' fashion sins. Advertisement Tattoos, Lululemon, baggy denim, camouflage and visible panty lines were just a few that made part one of Langdale's controversial 'unchic' list, which drew backlash from seething critics who called her out with a political twist. 'Voting for Trump is unchic,' one said. 'To her, privilege = chic. Hope this helps!' said another. A third said, 'just say you're a republican and go lmao,' while a slew of commenters took exception to her tattoo stance and ranted about classism. Advertisement The video even caught The Guardian's attention, prompting an article that coined 'chic' as 'a shorthand for a type of conservative-coded aesthetic' and spoke of the 'rigid and airbrushed' looks of Trump allies, sch as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. 4 Tara Langdale received backlash for her 'unchic' fashion TikTok. @tara_langdale / TikTok Though Langdale diddles cribe herself as conservative when speaking to Fox News Digital, she insists not everything is about politics. 'When I get dressed in the morning, I'm not thinking about my political party and how I should dress to showcase that,' Langdale said. Advertisement 'I think conservativism is more of culture, religion – all of those things go into your conservativist mindset. Now, if you're talking about conservative style of dress… that's also going to be more like religion and culture,' she went on. 'Of course, if I'm going to church on Sunday, I'm dressing very conservative. I'm going to keep it classy, but if you see me in the street in my regular day-to-day, I am not at all conservative. I would never consider my style to be conservative. But am I conservative? Absolutely, so I can differentiate the two. I know that the internet has a hard time doing that.' 4 Lululemon made Langdale's controversial 'unchic' list — along with baggy denim, camouflage and visible panty lines. REUTERS 4 Tattoos were also on Langdale's list. xartproduction – Langdale addressed the politicized dogma, saying she doesn't understand why TikTok users jumped to conclusions about 'conservative' or 'Republican makeup' as they did. Advertisement 'Because I'm blonde, because I have more of a natural look about me, I'm not fully glammed all the time… I'm really not sure how that makes me appear conservative, but, again, I just think when people don't agree with what you say, they have to find a way to discredit you, and that's just an easy tactic,' she continued. At the same time, Langdale pushed back against the idea of her video implying that people too poor to afford expensive items are automatically 'unchic,' and pointed to brand-name items like athletic apparel brand Lululemon, Apple Watches and Golden Goose sneakers – all of which can be pricey – as evidence pointing to the contrary. 'Just keep in mind that money talks and wealth whispers, and I don't know any wealthy people that are wearing Gucci across their chest,' she said in her original post. Langdale explained that the TikTok trend of users showcasing 'things I find incredibly chic' grabbed her attention as they began circulating on the app. She found them 'pretentious and off-putting,' so she felt compelled to take her own stab at the video. 4 'When I get dressed in the morning, I'm not thinking about my political party and how I should dress to showcase that,' Langdale said about the political criticism she received. @tara_langdale / TikTok 'Of course, my video came off as pretentious and off-putting as well, but it felt like a certain level of cringe for me, and I don't like to personally attack anybody on social media, so I wouldn't go after a specific creator. I just kind of wanted to hop on the trend… so that was my initial, 'Why I created the video.'' Advertisement Langdale shared that her direct messages on the platform have been 'insane' with threats and comments about her family since the video went viral. 'It does make you step back and take a pause,' she shared. 'Like, is this really worth it for how crazy people react? And I would never want to put my family in danger, but I think a lot of it is just the keyboard pirates that are just back there behind their computer typing whatever they can to try to get more likes in the comments,' Langdale added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store