todd spitzer

A California district attorney reposted on social media 9/11 images along with comments blasting the election of Zohran Mamdani as New York City’s first Muslim mayor. Despite the gory images and strong denunciation of Mamdani, Dan Dow insists that he has no issues with the Muslim community in San Luis Obispo County, where he is the top prosecutor.

He has “strong ties” with the community, Dow said in an emailed statement Thursday to The Times.

But his posts have drawn backlash, and a Muslim advocacy organization is demanding an apology and an investigation.

On Wednesday, Dow retweeted a post on X from a popular right-wing account that appeared to show a snapshot moments after flames jutted from the South Tower, the second of the twin towers struck by a plane on Sept. 11, 2001.

A second visual tweet, more graphic than the first, displayed footage from two angles of a plane barreling into one of the towers. That was posted by the leader of an activist organization, described as a hate group by some, that claims to “combat the threats from Islamic supremacists, radical leftists and their allies.”

Each was posted in the aftermath of the New York City mayoral election won by 34-year-old, self-described democratic socialist Mamdani.

The posts were retweeted and subtweeted days later and 3,000 miles away by Dow, drawing rebuke from some locals, in a story first broken by the San Luis Obispo Tribune.

Dow responded to a Times email for comment saying his issue was not with the county’s Muslim population, which numbers around 500, according to the Assn. of Religion Data Archives.

“I shared the posts because, in my opinion, Mamdani is going to destroy New York being a self-proclaimed socialist,” Dow responded. “I support the Muslim community and have strong ties to our Muslim community in San Luis Obispo.”

The first post Dow retweeted came from the account @EndWokeness, which vows to its nearly 4 million followers that it’s “fighting, exposing, and mocking wokeness.”

The second post came from Amy Mekelburg, founder of Rise, Align, Ignite and Reclaim (RAIR) Foundation, which is listed as a hate organization by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The council’s Los Angeles office demanded Thursday evening that Dow apologize and “retract his recent anti-Muslim social media posts.” CAIR-LA is also asking for an independent investigation into Dow’s conduct and “his fitness to continue to serve as DA.”

The organization is incensed at his retweeting of Mekelburg, whom they describe as “a known anti-Muslim extremist.”

Mekelburg wrote a sizable message on the video post, saying she’d “given my entire self” to warn the world “about the threat of Islam after 9/11.”

“And now … to see New York — my city — stand in this moment, where someone like Zohran Mamdani could even be elected,” she wrote. “My God, New York, what have you done?”

CAIR-LA said that Mekelburg “falsely equated the election of Mamdani with 9/11, reinforcing the harmful stereotype that Muslims are inherently tied to terrorism simply because of their faith.”

Dow subtweeted that specific post with a message that began by highlighting his 32 years of service in the U.S. Army and his four tours overseas.

“I remember like it was yesterday our nation being attacked by Islamic extremists on 9/11/2001,” he wrote. “I love this country and I do not in any way share the same views as the 33-year-old socialist Zohran Mamdani.”

He added in the tweet: “I am very sad to see the Big Apple torn apart by electing an un-American socialist who wants to trample on the values and freedoms that millions of Americans have fought and died for.”

“Dow’s decision to repost content that weaponizes bigotry and baselessly ties an elected Muslim official to terrorism is appalling and reflects the deeply rooted dehumanization and fearmongering in this country that American Muslims have had to endure for decades,” CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush said in a statement.

Dow’s posts also struck a nerve with one of his Muslim allies in San Luis Obispo, Dr. Rushdi Cader, who referred to the district attorney as “a personal friend” to the San Luis Obispo Tribune.

Cader told the Tribune the posts were “highly incendiary and puts Muslims at risk for harm, especially hijab-wearing Muslim women like my wife Nisha, whom Dan has himself described as ‘a kind and gentle lady’ who he ‘prayed would be blessed with peace.’”

Cader added he thought Dow’s “ugly post” was borne “out of disagreement with Mamdani’s politics” rather than any direct attack on Islam.”

Dow’s tweets drew other rebukes.

San Luis Obispo County Second District Supervisor Bruce Gibson called Dow a “Christian nationalist.”

He “occupies a powerful public office that requires decency and discipline,” Gibson said of Dow. “This post is yet another example that he has neither.”

San Luis Obispo Mayor Erica Stewart emailed The Times to say that the city was welcoming to all community members.

“Dan Dow, as the county’s District Attorney, by definition, should be objective and fair,” she wrote. “For someone in his position to express racism is unacceptable.”

Dow had his defenders too.

Orange County Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer serves with Dow on the California District Attorneys Assn. Spitzer is the organization’s secretary-treasurer while Dow is the president.

Spitzer found no fault with Dow’s social media posts.

“Elected officials have a platform to share their views and be judged by their constituents,” he wrote in an email. “It is heartbreaking to see someone who has expressed such anti-public safety and anti-Semitic sentiments elected as mayor of New York, and we as the elected protectors of public safety have a right to express that.”

Orange County Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer harassed and retaliated against a high-ranking female prosecutor in his office after she raised concerns about his conduct and tried to protect other prosecutors who were sexually harassed by another superior, according to a jury verdict Thursday.

The jury, which heard the case in San Diego County to avoid potential conflicts, found Spitzer acted with malice against Tracy Miller, who was at one point the highest-ranking woman in the prosecutor’s office.

The jury also found that the county did not take reasonable steps to prevent workplace harassment, and took “adverse employment action” against Miller.

“Tracy Miller had the fortitude to resist the most powerful law enforcement person in the county, and she prevailed,” John Barnett, Miller’s attorney, said after the verdict was read. “It took a lot of courage, and the jury saw that she was right.”

The county declined to comment on the verdict.

The jury found the county, Spitzer and former Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Shawn Nelson liable for $3 million in damages, including $1.5 million for past emotional distress.

Late Thursday, the jury also ruled Spitzer would be liable for an additional $25,000 in punitive damages.

In a statement to The Times, Spitzer said he accepted “full responsibility for any and all actions which occur in my administration, including my own actions and the actions of my former Chief Assistant District Attorney Shawn Nelson.”

Spitzer, in the statement, made no mention of the allegations of retaliation or harassment made by Miller in the lawsuit but said he had “set a very high standard which I expected all my employees to meet, and Ms. Miller was overseeing extremely important assignments.”

“It is no secret that there was a lot of frustration on my part with her lack of performance in handling these very serious matters,” Spitzer said in the statement after the jury returned with their verdict. “I respect the jury’s decision, and I am heartbroken over the fact that any of my actions could have been interpreted as anything other than a good faith effort to clean up the public corruption in the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, and to create a work ethic that adheres to what Orange County residents demand of its District Attorney.”

Unlike criminal trials, civil trials in California do not require a unanimous verdict. In this civil case, juror decisions ranged from 12 to 0 to 9 to 3 for the various claims upheld against the defendants. The jury voted 10 to 2 to award punitive damages against Spitzer.

Miller accused Orange County, Spitzer and Nelson of retaliation and forcing Miller out after she objected to Spitzer’s actions while heading the office. Miller alleged she tried to protect female prosecutors from being retaliated against after they alleged they were sexually harassed by Gary LoGalbo, a former supervisor who was also friends with Spitzer.

Former and current prosecutors in the office described a “challenging” and “demanding” environment inside the prosecutors office, but some said they faced threats of being fired or demoted.

In her testimony, Miller said Spitzer and Nelson used “gender-based slurs,” disrespected her and undermined her authority in the office.

According to her suit, Miller alleged she had raised concerns that Spitzer had violated the Racial Justice Act by bringing up questions about race while determining whether to seek the death penalty against a Black defendant, and that Spitzer used race in case assignments.

Miller said in court that Spitzer, in retaliation, had threatened to fire her close friends in the office and dismantle programs she had spearheaded.

But much of the trial centered on what occurred shortly after several female prosecutors alleged they were sexually harassed by LoGalbo, a former police officer and the best man at Spitzer’s wedding.

When an internal county investigation confirmed the women were harassed, the report identified Miller and her testimony by describing her position and gender. Afterward, Miller testified, Spitzer targeted her and criticized her for writing notes during executive meetings.

“You could see anytime a subject came up, Tracy was taking notes about our meetings,” Spitzer testified. “There was a point of time where it was very curious to me, why do you seem to be memorializing everything we’re doing?”

Spitzer, who testified on multiple days during the trial, denied the accusations of harassment and retaliation. He acknowledged deep tensions within the office after he assumed the role in 2018 but attributed the opposition to employees who supported the previous district attorney, Tony Rackauckas.

“I knew it was going to be miserable, and it was miserable,” Spitzer said in testimony, at one point wiping away tears.

He said that was part of the reason he chose Nelson, now a county Superior Court judge, as chief assistant district attorney when he first took office.

“I picked him because I was going into battle, in the lions’ den,” Spitzer said.

But Miller testified Nelson’s actions also raised problems in the district attorney’s office after the allegations of sexual harassment were made. For example, prosecutors testified that during a sexual harassment training session for managers, Nelson stood up and said there were “no victims.”

On Thursday, one of the attorneys representing Miller urged jurors to seek punitive damages against Spitzer, arguing that the acts of retaliation and harassment against Miller were not isolated events.

“This wasn’t just a single incident,” he told jurors. “It wasn’t negligence. This was intentional. It was a long-term, long series of events.”

In his statement Thursday, Spitzer apologized while also criticizing Miller’s work performance during her time in the office.

“In hindsight, I realize that I was not as sensitive to the issues Ms. Miller was facing at the time as I should have been, and for that I am truly sorry,” the statement read.

Tracy Kennedy, an attorney representing the county, told jurors that there was no need to seek additional punitive damages against Spitzer, and that the $3 million sent a message to the district attorney about his behavior in office.

“He’s heard it, he understands,” she said. “He has been punished.”

The county still faces eight sexual harassment lawsuits involving allegations that were made against LoGalbo.

“It’s very important for the public to know what happened,” said Barnett, Miller’s attorney. “I was confident that our case was strong and we were right.”

It’s a bitter feud the likes of which are seldom seen in law enforcement circles — or at least those that boil over into public view.

For over seven years now, Orange County’s top prosecutor and a decorated former cop have been locked in an acrimonious dispute that shows little sign of abating. Both parties have accused the other of fractured ethics and corruption, and even an independent arbitrator likened the situation to a simmering cauldron.

Damon Tucker, a former supervising investigator for the county, has alleged in a lawsuit that he uncovered potential evidence of money laundering, terrorist threats and extortion by his then-boss, Orange County Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer. Tucker claims in his lawsuit that Spitzer and others quashed the probe and then fired the investigator as an act of retaliation, leaving him humiliated and shunned by law enforcement.

Spitzer has publicly called Tucker a “dirty cop,” and accused him of working with his opponents — including former Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas — to launch an investigation to hurt him politically. Tucker’s behavior, Spitzer says, was a “disgrace to the badge.”

Now, in yet another escalation of this Orange County drama, Tucker has called on the California attorney general, the U.S. Department of Justice, the State Bar of California and other agencies to investigate Spitzer; the OCDA Bureau of Investigation Chief Paul Walters; and former Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Shawn Nelson, who is now an Orange County Superior Court judge.

“These allegations must be fully investigated,” Tucker wrote in a letter to those agencies.“Failure to investigate these men casts a shadow over our system of justice.”

Tucker’s call for an investigation of events dating back nearly a decade comes as the district attorney’s office is already facing increased scrutiny over its treatment of employees. Both Spitzer and Nelson face a potential civil trial next week over accusations they retaliated against female employees who say they were sexually harassed by former Senior Assistant Dist. Atty. Gary LoGalbo, a onetime friend of Spitzer’s who is now deceased.

Spitzer and Walters have declined to discuss Tucker’s accusations with The Times. Nelson, through a court spokesperson, also declined, saying judges were prohibited by ethical rules from discussing cases before the court or in media reports.

The California Attorney General’s office confirmed that it is reviewing Tucker’s complaint but would not comment further. The State Bar has also begun a review of the allegations and has requested more information and documentation, according to a letter reviewed by The Times. A spokesperson for the State Bar declined to comment or confirm whether a complaint was received, adding that disciplinary investigations are confidential.

The U.S. Department of Justice would neither comment nor confirm that it had received the letter. Tucker said he also sent a letter to California’s Commission on Judicial Performance. The commission also declined to comment.

A veteran investigator of nearly 30 years, Tucker was fired from the DA’s office in December 2020 over allegations he had initiated a unilateral investigation into Spitzer shortly after he took office.

Tucker sued the county — alleging he was fired and retaliated against for uncovering corruption — and in 2022 he won his job back, along with lost wages. Last year, he received a $2-million out-of court settlement from the county, according to Tucker’s attorney.

Kimberly Edds, a spokesperson for the district attorney’s office, said a non-disparagement agreement signed by Tucker and Spitzer as part of the settlement prevented the office from commenting.

Tucker’s accusations date to an inquiry that was begun in October 2016, when another district attorney investigator, Tom Conklin, was assigned to assist the Fair Political Practices Commission in looking into allegations of campaign finance irregularities by Spitzer, who was at the time an Orange County supervisor but was considering a run for district attorney.

In his recent letter to multiple agencies, as well as in his lawsuit, Tucker alleges the investigation into Spitzer was left unfinished and, even though he and another investigator at one point suggested it should be forwarded to the FBI or state attorney general, the investigation was never referred to an outside agency.

A year after the 2016 investigation began, Conklin’s report was leaked to the Orange County Register, and the newspaper reported that Conklin had been unable to corroborate the allegations.

The leak came at a key time for Spitzer, who had just announced his campaign for district attorney. At the time, he told the Register the investigation had been politically motivated by his political rival, Rackauckas, and that nothing had been found. At the time, a spokesperson for Rackauckas confirmed the investigation but declined to comment on the allegations.

The leak sparked an internal investigation in the district attorney’s office and, when the initial investigator retired, Tucker was ordered to finish the case.

Tucker was tasked with finding out who leaked the report, but after reviewing the case, Tucker concluded that Conklin’s investigation was incomplete.

At least 10 identified witnesses in the case were never interviewed, and several leads had not been followed, according to an investigative summary written by Tucker, and given to a senior deputy district attorney he consulted with in the case.

During his investigation, Tucker reached out to superiors and colleagues at the district attorney’s office and said the allegations against Spitzer needed to be sent out to an outside agency, such as the FBI, for an impartial review.

Tucker said that as he continued to investigate and prepared to send the case to an outside agency, things suddenly changed.

The day after Spitzer was elected district attorney in 2018, Tucker said Walters ordered him to stop digging into the accusations, and to remove any mention of Spitzer’s name from questions in his investigation, according to an investigative summary and sworn depositions, taken in Tucker’s lawsuit against the county. Two days later, Tucker was removed from the case.

In a sworn deposition, Walters confirmed he ordered Tucker to remove questions about Spitzer from his investigation the day Spitzer became the district attorney-elect.

“That’s where I have to tell Tucker, ‘You can’t be asking all these questions about Spitzer,” Walters testfied. “It’s not the case. And I make him redact all that stuff.”

Tucker maintains that, up until the election, Walters supported his investigation.

“I was doing the right thing,” Tucker told The Times. “This should have been sent out.” Walters declined to respond to The Times about that accusation.

However, a spokesperson for the district attorney’s office said it was Tucker who refused to turn over the investigation.

“He was given the opportunity and declined to do so,” said Edds, the D.A’.s spokesperson. “He was offered the opportunity repeatedly.”

Tucker disputes that assertion.

Spitzer has characterized Tucker’s investigation as being politically motivated, and has pointed out in sworn depositions that Tucker had donated to his opponent, Rackauckas, and was friends with Rackauckas’ chief of staff, Susan Kang.

According to county records, Tucker made a $2,000 donation to Rackauckas’ campaign in August 2018, after he’d been assigned to investigate the leak.

Tucker had also been critical of Spitzer during the campaign in multiple Facebook posts, before and after he took up the case.

“I think they sent him off on this fishing expedition to get something on me after the primary election in 2018,” Spitzer said in a deposition. “He’s investigating me while he’s making a major campaign contribution to my opponent? That’s not objective.”