prosecutor

A former Los Angeles Police Department commander who authorities said tipped off CBS to a rape allegation against the network’s top executive will not face criminal charges, with two LAPD detectives claiming department leaders undermined the investigation, according to documents obtained by The Times.

The L.A. County district attorney’s office decided in April it would not prosecute Cory Palka for warning CBS executives in 2017 that a woman had walked into the LAPD’s Hollywood station and accused then-Chief Executive Les Moonves of sexual assault, according to a document provided to The Times in response to a public records request.

Although heavily redacted, the declination memo includes details and a timeline that match up with the findings of a 2022 New York state attorney general’s office investigation that first revealed Palka’s relationship with Moonves. The TV executive’s career ended in disgrace after dozens of women came forward to accuse him of sexual harassment and abuse in 2018.

Palka has not disputed that he improperly disclosed information to CBS, but denied any improper benefit from his relationship with Moonves when reached for comment by The Times this week.

The former LAPD chief who led the department during the investigation, Michel Moore, called allegations the matter was not properly handled “absolutely false.”

Representatives for CBS and Moonves declined to comment.

The Moonves affair drew significant attention at the height of the #MeToo movement, but the fate of Palka has remained a question mark in the years since. The newly uncovered documents shed light on both the outcome of the investigation and tensions within the police department over scrutinizing one of its own.

Palka, a former station captain who retired as a commander in 2021, was often referred to as “Capt. Hollywood” and known for mingling with stars, scoring a bit part in the TV series “Bosch.”

In 2022, the New York state attorney general’s office released a report that revealed Palka left a voicemail for a CBS executive in November 2017, shortly after an 81-year-old woman walked into his station and accused Moonves of sexually assaulting her on two occasions in the late 1980s.

“Somebody walked in the station about a couple hours ago and made allegations against your boss regarding a sexual assault,” he said in a voicemail message left for Ian Metrose, who was then CBS’ senior vice president for talent relations, according to reports made public by prosecutors. “It’s confidential, as you know, but call me.”

For months, Palka gave Moonves and other CBS leaders inside information about the rape investigation and slipped the network a copy of the accuser’s report, according to the New York attorney general’s office. At one point, Palka and Moonves met in person and the executive told the captain he “wanted the LAPD investigation closed.”

Ultimately, prosecutors could not bring a rape case because the statute of limitations had long expired. The accuser, Phyllis Golden-Gottlieb, was a television development executive who previously told The Times that Moonves assaulted her in 1986 and 1988. Those dates match an alleged victim described in the L.A. County district attorney’s office’s memo on Palka. Golden-Gottlieb died in 2022.

Former television executive Phyllis Golden-Gottlieb talks about alleged sexual abuse at the hands of Les Moonves in the law offices of Gloria Allred in L.A. on Sept. 11, 2018. Golden-Gottlieb, who died in 2022, worked with Moonves in the 1980s.

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

After hearing from Palka, top CBS executives “began investigating the victim’s personal circumstances and that of her family,” according to the New York attorney general’s report, which was produced as part of an investigation into the TV network’s leaders for selling stock and allegedly misleading investors while not disclosing the allegations against Moonves.

The district attorney’s office said in the memo obtained by The Times that it declined to bring charges, in part, because the statute of limitations on one of the potential charges against Palka had run out.

The LAPD claimed it didn’t learn of Palka’s alleged misconduct until 2022, but a whistleblower complaint filed in late 2023 by Det. Jason Turner alleges Moore knew of the issue much earlier and ignored it, allowing Palka to escape accountability.

Turner also alleged he found evidence that Palka told at least two other LAPD employees about his relationship with Moonves, but said he was barred from interviewing them, according to the complaint, which was filed with the LAPD’s Office of the Inspector General in November 2023.

“Chief Moore’s failure to initiate a complaint circa 2018-2021 against Palka compromised the investigation and allowed Palka to avoid criminal charges,” Turner wrote in the complaint obtained by The Times.

The LAPD declined to comment. Moore unequivocally denied Turner’s allegations, but did not elaborate further in response to questions about the handling of the investigation. Moore announced his retirement from the LAPD in January 2024.

“It is absolutely baseless,” Moore said of Turner’s claim, adding that the Office of the Inspector General had determined the complaint was unfounded.

A spokesperson for the inspector general’s office said they could not discuss the status of Turner’s complaint.

Michel Moore announces his retirement as LAPD chief at a press conference with Mayor Karen Bass at L.A. City Hall on Jan. 12, 2024.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

The ex-chief described the whistleblower complaint as a “distraction” from Palka’s “terrible actions.”

“It was a disservice. It lacked integrity. It tarnished the badge. It was wrong,” Moore said of Palka.

Turner declined a request to comment through his lawyer Thursday. .

In September 2023 — 10 months after the allegations against Palka became public — a different LAPD internal affairs detective presented a case for L.A. County prosecutors to consider against Palka, according to a memo explaining the decision to decline charges. Prosecutors weighed charges of bribery, obstruction and disclosing information from a criminal investigation for financial gain.

LAPD detectives “suspected Palka had possibly engaged in bribery,” according to the document. While there was no evidence Palka was paid directly for leaking the information about Moonves, he received $500 annually to be part of Moonves’ security detail at the Grammy Awards, according to the New York attorney general’s report.

After leaving the LAPD, Palka was hired as chief of security to billionaire hedge fund manager Michael Milken, according to public records and testimony given by Moonves in a deposition for a civil lawsuit reviewed by The Times. Palka is still employed by Milken today, the records show.

Moonves said in the deposition that he recommended Palka for the job.

A separate complaint to the inspector general’s office obtained by The Times shows another internal affairs detective made allegations that echoed Turner’s. In that complaint, the second detective said LAPD supervisors blocked attempts to interview Moonves, Milken and Metrose, the CBS vice president that Palka purportedly first tipped off about the rape case.

“It is my belief that the refusal by our supervisors to permit us to interview these key individuals jeopardized the integrity of the investigation and was done for improper motives,” wrote the detective, who requested anonymity, fearing professional repercussions.

The April memo from L.A. County prosecutors said there was substantial evidence Palka had improperly disclosed information from a criminal case, but they lacked proof that “Palka gained financially,” so charges of bribery and disclosure of confidential information for financial gain could not be filed.

Asked whether Moonves helping Palka land a high-level security job would be considered financial gain, a district attorney’s office spokesman said prosecutors “could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Palka disclosed confidential information in return for financial gain, which is an essential element of the crime of bribery.”

In an email to The Times, Palka did not address questions about the alleged bribery or the district attorney’s charging decision, but challenged the idea that there was any link between Moonves’ recommendation for his current job and the leak of information to CBS.

“My post retirement employment was not considered until I completed my career and fully separated from the LAPD,” Palka said.

Les Moonves, former chairman and CEO of CBS Corporation, poses at the premiere of the new television series “Star Trek: Discovery” in Los Angeles on Sept. 19, 2017.

(Chris Pizzello / AP)

Caleb Mason, a partner at Brown White & Osborn LLP in Los Angeles and a former federal prosecutor, said charges related to Palka’s post-LAPD work would be challenging to prove in court.

“I think a lot of prosecutors would get anxious about filing a case where the theory was simply he had this relationship and after he retired the relationship would get him a job,” Mason said.

In his complaint to the inspector general, Turner said department executives knew of the Hollywood captain’s links to CBS much earlier than has been publicly reported.

CBS attorneys questioned Palka about his relationship with Moonves in 2018, while performing an audit connected to the rape allegations, according to the detective’s complaint. At that time, Palka demanded that the LAPD Command Officers Assn., the union that represents officers above the rank of captain, provide him an attorney, according to the complaint.

“Chief Moore was the Chief at the time and had to have been aware that one [of] his Captains was being interviewed in his official capacity by CBS attorneys for misconduct,” the complaint read. “However, Chief Moore did not initiate a complaint/internal investigation into Cory Palka.”

Muna Busilah, the attorney who Turner claimed represented Palka, declined to say whether or not she was involved in the case. She confirmed she did work with the Command Officers Assn. in 2018, and said there was no requirement to formally notify Moore if a member of the command staff sought legal counsel through the union.

Turner’s complaint accused Moore and LAPD Det. Jason De La Cova, an internal affairs division supervisor, of obstructing justice and dissuading an investigation. De La Cova was the detective who presented a case to the district attorney’s office, according to the declination memo.

“The Chief doesn’t want heads to roll,” De La Cova said to Turner when blocking one of his requests to interview another member of the LAPD, according to the whistleblower complaint.

When reached on Wednesday, De La Cova declined to comment.

A district attorney’s office spokesperson would not say if prosecutors were aware of the misconduct allegations levied against Moore and De La Cova while reviewing Palka’s case. The allegations of obstruction made against the ex-chief and De La Cova in Turner’s complaint have never been presented for consideration of criminal charges, the spokesman said.

De La Cova was previously named in another complaint filed by Tuner.

In 2023, Turner and another detective alleged they were ordered to launch an investigation into Mayor Karen Bass’ receipt of a scholarship from the University of Southern California at Moore’s behest. When both refused, the case was taken over by De La Cova.

Moore has repeatedly denied the allegations. Moore was later cleared of wrongdoing by the department’s inspector general, which concluded in June 2024 after a months-long probe that the detective’s claims were “unfounded.”

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A grand jury declined for a second time in a week to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday in another major blow to the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute the president’s political opponents.

The repeated failures amounted to a stunning rebuke of prosecutors’ bid to resurrect a criminal case President Trump pressured them to bring, and hinted at a growing public leeriness of the administration’s retribution campaign.

A grand jury rejection is an unusual circumstance in any case, but is especially stinging for a Justice Department that has been steadfast in its determination to seek revenge against Trump foes such as James and former FBI Director James Comey. On separate occasions, citizens have heard the government’s evidence against James and have come away underwhelmed, unwilling to rubber-stamp what prosecutors have attempted to portray as a clear-cut criminal case.

A judge threw out the original indictments against James and Comey in November, ruling that the prosecutor who presented to the grand jury, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally appointed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Justice Department asked a grand jury in Alexandria, Va., to return an indictment Thursday after a different grand jury in Norfolk last week refused to do so. The failure to secure an indictment was confirmed by a person who was not authorized to publicly discuss the matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

It was not immediately clear Thursday whether prosecutors would try for a third time to seek a new indictment. A lawyer for James, who has denied any wrongdoing, said the “unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day.”

“This case already has been a stain on this Department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity,” defense attorney Abbe Lowell said in a statement. “Any further attempt to revive these discredited charges would be a mockery of our system of justice.”

James, a Democrat who infuriated Trump after his first term with a lawsuit alleging that he built his business empire on lies about his wealth, was initially charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a home purchase in 2020.

During the sale, she signed a standard document called a “second home rider” in which she agreed to keep the property primarily for her “personal use and enjoyment for at least one year,” unless the lender agreed otherwise. Rather than using the home as a second residence, prosecutors say James rented it out to a family of three, allowing her to obtain favorable loan terms not available for investment properties.

Both the James and Comey cases were brought shortly after the administration installed Halligan, a former Trump lawyer with no previous prosecutorial experience, as U.S. attorney amid public calls from the president to take action against his political opponents.

But U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie threw out the cases last month over the unconventional mechanism that the Trump administration employed to appoint Halligan. The judge dismissed them without prejudice, allowing the Justice Department to try to file the charges again.

Halligan had been named as a replacement for Erik Siebert, a veteran prosecutor in the office and interim U.S. attorney who resigned in September amid Trump administration pressure to file charges against both Comey and James. He stepped aside after Trump told reporters he wanted Siebert “out.”

James’ lawyers separately argued the case was a vindictive prosecution brought to punish the Trump critic who spent years investigating and suing the Republican president and won a staggering judgment in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements. The fine was later tossed out by a higher court, but both sides are appealing.

Comey was separately charged with lying to Congress in 2020. Another federal judge has complicated the Justice Department’s efforts to seek a new indictment against Comey, temporarily barring prosecutors from accessing computer files belonging to Daniel Richman, a close Comey friend and Columbia University law professor whom prosecutors see as a central player in any potential case against the former FBI director.

Prosecutors moved Tuesday to quash that order, calling Richman’s request for the return of his files a “strategic tool to obstruct the investigation and potential prosecution.” They said the judge had overstepped her bounds by ordering Richman’s property returned to him and said the ruling had impeded their ability to proceed with a case against Comey.

Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington. AP reporter Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — A Sacramento lobbyist and former high-level staff member in the California Legislature on Thursday accepted a plea agreement tied to a criminal case that includes Gov. Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff and an advisor to a top Democratic candidate for governor.

Lobbyist Greg Campbell stood emotionless beside his attorney, Todd Pickles, inside a Sacramento federal courtroom and pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States and one charge of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud.

U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley told the defendant that each charge carried a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000 and a supervised release period of up to three years. As part of the plea deal, prosecutors said they would seek lighter sentencing.

Campbell, who is not in custody, left the courthouse with his attorney, who gave a brief statement to reporters after the hearing.

“Mr. Campbell will remain focused on his family and making positive contributions to the community,” Pickles said. “Mr. Campbell is deeply grateful for the support from his family and friends during this difficult time.”

Campbell, a 52-year-old Davis resident, is one of three influential Democratic political strategists whose arrests last month rattled Sacramento’s political establishment.

Federal prosecutors accused political consultant Dana Williamson of allegedly conspiring with Campbell and Sean McCluskie, a former top aide to gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, to siphon funds from Becerra’s dormant state campaign account between February 2022 and September 2024.

Williamson, a former chief of staff for Gov. Gavin Newsom, is facing additional charges for allegations that she lied on her tax returns and falsified documents related to her COVID loan. She pleaded not guilty to the charges and is out on a $500,000 bond.

McCluskie pleaded guilty last month to one count of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud. A status of sentencing hearing for both McCluskie and Campbell is set for Feb. 26.

These cases are the product of an investigation by the FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation.

NORFOLK, Va. — The Justice Department failed Thursday to secure a new indictment against New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James after a judge dismissed the previous mortgage fraud prosecution encouraged by President Trump, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Prosecutors went back to a grand jury in Virginia after a judge’s ruling halting the prosecution of James and another longtime Trump foe, former FBI Director James Comey, on the grounds that the U.S. attorney who presented the cases was illegally appointed.

The Justice Department could go back to the grand jury to try again. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

James was initially charged in October by the U.S. attorney installed by the Trump administration to replace the prosecutor who resigned under pressure to bring criminal cases against Comey and James.

James denied any wrongdoing and accused the administration of using the justice system to seek revenge against Trump’s political opponents.

The allegations related to James’ purchase of a modest house in Norfolk, where she has family. During the sale, she signed a standard document called a “second home rider” in which she agreed to keep the property primarily for her “personal use and enjoyment for at least one year,” unless the lender agreed otherwise.

Rather than using the home as a second residence, James rented it out to a family of three, allowing her to obtain favorable loan terms not available for investment properties, prosecutors alleged.

Even if the charges are resurrected, the Justice Department could face obstacles in securing a conviction against James.

James’ lawyers separately argued the case was a vindictive prosecution brought to punish the Trump critic who spent years investigating and suing the Republican president and won a staggering judgment in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements. The fine was later tossed out by a higher court, but both sides are appealing.

The defense had also alleged “outrageous government conduct” preceding her indictment, which the defense argued warrants the case’s dismissal. The judge hadn’t ruled on the defense’s arguments on those matters before dismissing the case last month over the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as U.S. attorney.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie took issue with the mechanism the Trump administration employed to appoint Halligan, a former White House aide with no previous prosecutorial experience, to lead one of the Justice Department’s most elite and important offices.

Halligan was named as a replacement for Erik Siebert, a veteran prosecutor in the office and interim U.S. attorney who resigned in September amid Trump administration pressure to file charges against both Comey and James. He stepped aside after Trump told reporters he wanted Siebert “out.”

The following night, Trump said he would be nominating Halligan to the role of interim U.S. attorney and publicly implored Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to take action against his political opponents, saying in a Truth Social post that, “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility” and “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

Comey was indicted three days after Halligan was sworn in by Bondi, and James was charged two weeks after that.

The Justice Department had defended Halligan’s appointment but has also revealed that Bondi had given Halligan a separate position of “Special Attorney,” presumably as a way to protect the indictments from the possibility of collapse. But Currie said such a retroactive designation could not save the cases.

Though the defendants had asked for the cases to be dismissed with prejudice, meaning the Justice Department would be barred from bringing them again, Currie instead dismissed them without prejudice — leaving open the possibility that prosecutors could try to file the charges again.

Richer and Diaz write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington.

Republicans have been probing Smith’s investigations into Trump, which resulted in two indictments.

The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee in the United States has subpoenaed former Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith, who led the two federal prosecutions of President Donald Trump.

The announcement on Wednesday came despite Smith previously volunteering to appear for an open meeting with the Republican-led panel, which is probing the indictments against Trump.

“Due to your service as Special Counsel, the Committee believes that you possess information that is vital to its oversight of this matter,” committee chairman Republican Jim Jordan wrote in a letter to Smith.

Jordan also asked Smith to produce records for the committee in addition to his testimony. Smith has been summoned for a closed-door interview later this month.

One of the federal indictments that Smith led related to Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and his actions on January 6, 2021, when his supporters stormed the US Capitol.

The second pertained to his hoarding of classified documents at his Florida resort.

Both cases were dropped after Trump’s re-election in November 2024. Longstanding Justice Department policy bars the prosecution of a sitting president.

Trump has portrayed the indictments as part of a coordinated, politically motivated “witch-hunt”.

Peter Koski, one of Smith’s lawyers, criticised the private nature of the planned deposition in a statement.

“We are disappointed that offer was rejected, and that the American people will be denied the opportunity to hear directly from Jack on these topics,” Koski said.

“Jack looks forward to meeting with the committee later this month to discuss his work and clarify the various misconceptions about his investigation.”

In recent weeks, Republicans in Congress have focused on revelations that Smith’s team analysed phone records of some lawmakers around the time of the January 6 riot.

Smith’s legal team has maintained the records showed only basic information about outgoing and incoming calls: their time, date and duration, but not the contents of the telephone conversations.

“Mr Smith’s actions as Special Counsel were consistent with the decisions of a prosecutor who has devoted his career to following the facts and the law, without fear or favor and without regard for the political consequences,” Smith’s lawyers wrote to lawmakers in October.

“His investigative decisions were similarly motivated, and the subpoena for toll records was entirely proper, lawful, and consistent with established Department of Justice policy. While Mr Smith’s prosecutions of President Trump have predictably been politicized by others, politics never influenced his decision making,” they added.

When asked about the subpoena during an Oval Office news conference on Wednesday, Trump repeated his attacks on Smith, calling him “a sick man”.

Even so, Trump added, “ I’d rather see him testify publicly because there’s no way he can answer the questions.”