"These LA Politicians Imported Anti-Semitism Into City Hall" by Daniel Guss
Four city officials refused to denounce DSA's recent celebration of anti-Semitic violence and terrorism. SHOCKER: three of them recently employed an advisor who mocked the Holocaust.
@TheGussReport on Twitter — In October 2022, the Westside Current saw it coming from a mile away with its story about City Hall candidates who were endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, “DSA Endorsements Raise Questions of Anti-Semitism Among Darling, City Candidates.”
Just a few weeks ago, when the DSA publicly celebrated the terrorist attack on Israel, including the kidnapping, torture, rape and murder of children, the elderly and women, four City Hall politicians who were endorsed by the DSA, Councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martinez, Eunisses Hernandez, Nithya Raman and Controller Kenneth Mejia, remained silent. Here is my October 9th column about that.
Clearly, the First Amendment allows these politicians and the DSA to exercise free speech (or to stay silent), and we should be thankful that they did so publicly.
But it should come as no surprise that at least three of them recently employed Josh Androsky, who was busted last week making Holocaust jokes online. Instead of firing him immediately, his latest boss (Soto-Martinez) allowed him to resign, as a tepid face-saving gesture.
Androsky’s anti-Semitic antics, as documented by David Zahniser in the LA Times over the weekend, isn’t his only recent controversy, as he was believed to have parted company with the DSA for sexually offensive misconduct in 2017.
That didn’t stop Androsky from being embraced by Soto-Martinez as a senior level advisor; by Hernandez, who hired Androsky as a campaign advisor last year; and by Raman in 2020.
As part of this column’s approach to transparency, if politicians refuse to answer certain questions, those questions may be shared for public consumption. Following are some that were posed by this column over the weekend to Soto-Martinez, Hernandez and/or Raman:
Do you believe that violence, other than in self-defense, is ever justifiable?
Do you believe that your silence after the DSA celebrations implied to your staff and others in LA that anti-Semitism is okay, even if just "joking" about it?
Why did Hugo accept Josh Androsky's resignation rather than fire him?
Do you see a nexus between your silence about the DSA celebrations and Josh's anti-Semitic "jokes," to the point where he apparently felt comfortable mocking the Holocaust openly on social media (while an employee of the City of Los Angeles)?
Do you believe that "silence is violence" in this instance and, if so, do you now renounce your DSA endorsements?
How do you justify standing by hateful public positions made by the DSA, but you ridicule equally hateful, but not violent, comments made at City Council and committee meetings?
You have openly criticized racist comments made by Kevin de León, but which were non-violent, as well. Where do you stand on hatred of people who hold different opinions than your own?
Did you know about Josh’s alleged misconduct when he was employed by the DSA?
Are you concerned that these incidents in your office will reach a critical mass that could impact your ability to represent your district specifically and city in general?
Is your embrace of Josh any different than the embrace of hateful comments in the Nury Martinez, Kevin de León, Gil Cedillo and Ron Herrera racism scandal from last year?
Ceding the Moral High Ground
What Soto-Martinez, Hernandez, Raman and Mejia have now unwittingly done is fumble any moral high ground that they have previously claimed in the Martinez scandal that continues to hover over de León; over the LAPD; and over others.
It also washes away the effectiveness of City Council to call out those at its meetings who wear KKK outfits to those meetings, or who hold up signs with swastikas, or call city officials racist, sexist, homophobic and other taunts.
What LA now needs to know
How did Josh Androsky, as a senior advisor to Soto-Martinez, influence current policy and agenda items under consideration, and does his time in that role pose any other risk factors?
Soto-Martinez owes LA that explanation.
It appears at this point to be a matter of really bad taste, a poor hiring decision and hopefully nothing more than that. Soto-Martinez has refused to respond. Androsky could not be reached.
(Post-script: A spokesperson for the LAPD states, “at this time there has been no complaint of a crime involving Mr. Androsky reported to the Los Angeles Police Department and thus no investigation has been initiated.”)
Follow me on The Twitters @TheGussReport and sign-up for my free Substack newsletter.
(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a multi-award-winning journalist. In June ‘23, he won the LA Press Club’s “Online Journalist of the Year” and “Best Activism Journalism” awards. He has been City Editor for the Mayor Sam network, and a featured contributor for CityWatchLA, KFI AM-640, iHeartMedia, 790-KABC, Cumulus Media, KCRW 89.9 FM, KRLA 870 AM, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Daily News, Los Angeles Magazine, Movieline Magazine, Emmy Magazine, Los Angeles Business Journal, Pasadena Star-News, Los Angeles Downtown News and the Los Angeles Times in its sports, opinion, entertainment and Sunday Magazine sections among other publishers.)