Davis should drop out

The D5 candidate should follow his own "cease and dismiss" request

10.16.12 - 4:14 pm | Guardian Editorial |

(49)

EDITORIAL Kay Vasilyeva, a member of the San Francisco Women's Political Caucus, has come forward with the allegation that District Five candidate Julian Davis grabbed her and put his hand down her pants at a political bar crawl in 2006. That was six years ago, but it's still important — and more than the incident itself, the response we've seen from Davis is highly disturbing. He's utterly denying that it ever happened, and retained a lawyer to send Vasilyeva a letter threatening her with legal action if she continues to talk.

While we endorsed Davis for supervisor, we take these charges very, very seriously — particularly coming at a time when relations between men and women in the progressive movement are badly strained.

Since the SF Weekly, which broke the story, suggested that we knew something about Davis's behavior, we need to state, for the record: When we endorsed Davis, we had heard nothing even remotely close to this type of allegation. Yes, we knew that in his 20s he was a bit of an arrogant ass. We knew that at one point, he actually got into a tugging match with another person over the ridiculous question of who got to hold a campaign sign. We'd heard that, in the past, at somewhat debauched parties, he'd made advances toward women who weren't interested in his affections.

Those could be the acts of an immature man who has since grown up. And since, on a level of policy, knowledge, and positions, he was by far the best and strongest progressive in the race in District 5, we — along with much of the local progressive leadership — thought he was demonstrating enough maturity that he was worthy of our support.

But this new information, and his response to it, is alarming.

We don't take last-minute allegations about a front-running candidate lightly; people have been known to dump all sorts of charges into heated races. When we learned about Vasilyeva's allegations on Oct. 13, we did our own research. We spent two hours with Davis and his supporter and advisor, former D5 Supervisor Matt Gonzalez. We realized that allegations without corroboration are just charges, so we tracked down everyone we could find who might know anything about this incident — and, as we discovered, other similar events. And we have to say: Vasilyeva's account rings true. Davis's categorical denial does not.

More than that, we were offended that he in effect threatened with a lawsuit a woman who, at some peril to herself, came forward to tell the public information about someone who is running for elected office. What was the point of that, if not to intimidate her? It's highly unlikely he's going to sue (and drag this whole mess into court). He says he was just trying to send a message that he has a legal right to respond to defamation, but this is a political campaign; if he didn't want to deal publicly with what he must have known were these sorts of potential allegations, he shouldn't have run for office.

This is a bad time for progressives in San Francisco. The Mirkarimi case has brought to the fore some deep and painful rifts; a lot of women feel that (mostly male) progressive leaders have pushed their issues to the side. For the future of the movement and the city, the left has to come together and try to heal. This situation isn't helping a bit.

Davis needs to face facts: Supervisors John Avalos and David Campos have withdrawn their endorsements. Assembly member Tom Ammiano is almost certain to do the same. With his inability to handle the very credible charge that he not only groped a woman but lied about it, Davis no longer has a viable campaign in the most progressive district in the city, and we can't continue to support him.

Comments

I dont have an opinion on

I dont have an opinion on this but Questions arise to keep the system honest
1) Why didnt she come foreward BEFORE why when Julian was a front runner according to press and weeks away from the vote ? It was 6 years for her to think about it if it was significant.
2) Charges of "Tepid Endorsement" from the Chron to SFBG why didnt the facts or suspicions or investigation come to light from SFBG then instead the SFBG doubled down their endorsement ?
3) The Examiner reported the woman said he was "hansy" a new word for me seemed to create more smoke than light.
4) Confusing this matter with RM matter seems to add no clarity at all.
5) Did the SFBG check out the relation of the woman who came forward and connnections to the other candidates and what was the result.In other words did the timing of the disclosure also have connection to help other candidates or not.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 7:42 am

Yep, and even if Julian doesn't withdraw, he now cannot win.

But he can take votes away from those who might. He's just a distraction at this point.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 7:59 am

The questions remain also

The questions remain also probably no one is unaware of powerful forces afoot to control the BOS developers landlords etc.and they have made this election the one that is the most corrupted by money and other "influences" to manipulate democratic elections.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 8:21 am

Just my thruppence.

Before this gets swamped with posts from 'those who dare not speak their name', howzabout only posting comments in the POLITICS section from those who have no such fear. The nameless ones would not be denied freedom of expression but their comments could be posted in NOISE, where most of them belong. (.<)

Posted by Patrick Monk.RN. on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 9:43 am

That's great "Monk" (as if that's your real name).

Let's just censir anyone and everyone who you don't like.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 10:13 am

"Guest"

1) If you re-read my comment you might realise that I was specifically suggesting NOT 'censiring' anyone.
2) That is my real name. If yours really is Guest - I apolgise.
But thanks for responding, you made my point.

Posted by Patrick Monk.RN. on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 11:54 pm

Making snap decisions during election year is unwise.

Voters or Public Servants who take action or reacts to scandals let out by the elite which have not been processed by fact finding and final judgements or verdicts from a court is playing with fire. Best for all voters to judge each candidate's honesty and value perceived from observation of candidate's recent conduct & behavior for past several years - without including allegations made during year leading up to an election.

Posted by James Leonard on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 1:13 pm

I trust that Tim has done due diligence

Even if you don't always agree with him (I know I don't), he is generally pretty thoughtful on most issues.

Posted by Arielle on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 1:33 pm

Tim has no idea what due diligence is

Please. How much time did he spend alerting his 'readers' to the Mayor Lee perjury scandal. Never mind that there was nothing there except absolute, uncorroborated hearsay. Even Mirkarimi's lawyers gave up on it.

Tim wrote about it because Tim doesn't like Ed Lee.

But when rumors were circulating about Julian Davis? Why...that's just silly high school stuff...nothing to worry about.

Until one of his competitors breaks the news and Tim's Progressive heroes desert Julian.

I do think that Todd Vogt has been duly embarrassed. But he deserves it for attempting to deceive the people by publishing Tim's propaganda under the heading of 'journalism'.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 3:10 pm

His attorneys weren't charged

His attorneys weren't charged with going after perjery. They were charged with getting his job back. WHICH THEY DID!!!!!

Posted by Troll back to ya on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 6:13 pm

Regarding Ed Lee's perjury a

Regarding Ed Lee's perjury a poster states "there was nothing there except absolute, uncorroborated hearsay" thats totally not true there was 2 seperate perjury charges 1)speaking to C. Olague and the 2) job offer conveyed to Walter Wong via Aaron Peskin BOTH were corroborated by SWORN affidavit and an email document from Walter Wong to Aaron Peskin and a possible message left by Olague in a phone message. Not only that the ENTIRE city of SF witnessed the truth challenged Ed Lee promising to be a caretaker Mayor to then receive hundreds of thousands from Ron Conway the twitter investor and others doing business with the city contractors Recology etc in the fraud riddled "Run Ed Run"sleaze bath...there was money laundering "Go Lorrie" election fraud and money laundering "Archway Andrew Hawkins/Veritas Inv.apartment investor election fraud. There was the Ballot fraud widespread through Chinatown FILMED witnessed violating state law...Georges Gascone finds "insufficient evidence" SO when the poster states uncorroborated mmm no there is ample proof of Ed Lee's malfeasance he is a fixer for Willie Brown for over 20 years of corruption I would HARDLY think we can hold him up as truthful or honest to the contrary he plays a vital role in the syndicate that runs SF.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 7:03 pm

Nope. The Lee Perjury thing was hearsay nonsense, sorry

thatsthewayitis- I said that there was nothing in the Lee perjury accusation that wasn't uncorroborated hearsay and you said that that was totally untrue.

Please provide one iota of evidence that wasn't hearsay.

I'm not asking if two people provided hearsay evidence, I'm asking for one example of someone who could say that they directly heard or saw Ed Lee say or do something that contradicts his testimony at Ethics.

If you can't do it, then maybe it's time for you to take a break.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 8:02 pm

Rubbish Troll. You loved hearsay when it was Ivory Madison's

video and other suppositions from Ross and Eliana's neighbors, but now when you are presented with multiple credible reasons to think that Mayor Lee committed *OFFICIAL* *MISCONDUCT* perjury in the course of his duties -- not to mention his using his position of power to serially commit slander against Ross Mirkarimi -- you blandly disparage such evidence.

Listen lying two-faced Troll: call it hearsay if you like. The *fact* is that such evidence is plenty for launching an investigation. A possible first step is subpoenaing all the parties and getting their testimony under oath.

The very fact that you fight so hard against this proves you rightly believe it is very damaging against the mayor. Christina Olague's reactions at various times to being questioned about this are starkly suspicious. Go ahead and blather on with some diversionary nonsense, Troll; *everybody* knows you are chock full beans.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 9:18 pm

There is no video or Wong or Lee making the alleged statements.

There was a video of Eliana's statement.

So the former two are hearsay; the latter is not. The law really is simple, Lilli, if only you'd bother to learn it.

Walker's allegation is self-serving hearsay. She made that statement knowing it couldn't be proven but also that it could n't be disproved - how do you disprove a negative?

Likewise with the other allegation. There's simply no evidence to support either.

Ross, on the other hand, admitted to a crime, because he knew the evidence was there to convict. Huge difference.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 11:13 pm

re: "the former two are hearsay; the latter is not"

I might have explicitly predicted you'd lead off with a bold-faced lie before wobbling over towards an inartful distraction. Its all in such stark contrast to the substance of my comment, isn't it.

That's why you trolls lose on this story. You don't have facts on your side. Slick Mayor Lee, exhibiting little respect for the electorate, didn't think that was going to matter.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 2:39 am

But we havem't "lost on this story" because Ross was convicted

while Lee hasn't even be investigated by the DA. So "we" won and you lost.

It's because there was corroborating evidence for Ivory's hearsay allegations - Eliana's own words on ideo, and she was actually there at the time of the incident..

The equivalent would have been if Olague had denied Walker's claim and then Walker produced a video of Olague admitting the conversation. Except that there was no such video or any other evidence that corroborates Walker's story.

So Walker is simply making an allegation about a conversation that she admits he was not present for. The charitable view of that is that Walker was mistaken about what she thought she heard second hand. The uncharitable view, given her obvious bias, was that she was trying to derail the ethics commission hearing on Ross's misdeeds with a complete mischievous fabrication. The DA appears to share my view.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 3:38 am

You "haven't lost" because reactionaries never admit to such,

though I will credit you for incorporating a two slightly "higher" forms of mendacity into your trickery.

It is, of course, a sort of tautology to cite the railroading of Ross on misdemeanor false imprisonment charge right alongside DA Gascon's refusal to investigate Lee's perjury.

And your false analogy of Olague is quite impressively slimey and dishonest -- nothing I wouldn't expect from you -- but it sidesteps the reason Eliana made the video; it sidesteps the difference in severity between misdemeanor false imprisonment and felony perjury; it sidesteps the fact that Eliana has been put under oath and has said only one thing, whereas Olague has not; and it completely sidesteps the matter of Ed Lee's "permit expediter" friend's contact with Aaron Peskin.

I'll credit you for the boldness and tenacity of your attempt, but your side is completely fungus-eaten.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 7:01 am

Nope, you're refuted. The simple fact is that there

IS independent evidence backing up Ivory's hearsay about Ross's DV.

But there is NOT independent evidence backing up Walker's hearsay claim that Lee committed perjury.

Of course, if you've been hiding a videotape of Olague admitting to the convo with Lee, I'm all ears, as that would prove Lee is a felon. So, let's see it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 8:08 am

Yes. It's just more of the same: bold AMH lies.

What else *can* there be?

As for the lack of videotape evidence, there is a completely un-coached phone message attributed to Olague which elsewhere on this page has been used to discredit the validity of Walker's sworn statement owing to a minor transposition of wording which has no bearing on the susbstance of it.

Noted that you also continue to sidestep the affadavit from Aaron Peskin.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 8:36 am

Silli Lilli- just don't understand the idea of hearsay do you?

Whether the statements by Peskin and Walker are sworn or not is irrelevant- both of those statements are considered hearsay as it is testimony given by a witness who relates not what he or she knows personally, but what others have said.

In this case, neither Peskin nor Walker claim to have personally witnessed Lee meeting with others and discussing the Mirk case. Olague and the other guy- allegedly telling Peskin and Walker that they spoke with Lee about the case does not prove it actually happened. You need the testimony of Olague and the other guy stating that they discussed the specifics with Lee.

Posted by Castro Guy on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 8:56 am

"You need the testimony of Olague"

Yes. Exactly correct. Thanks.

We do indeed require more than just the *highly* suspicious reactions to media inquiry by Olague and Wong. We need the two of them -- and the ten other supervisors -- to be put under oath and be made to give a sworn accounting of what happened.

The affadavits from Walker and Peskin along with their phone records etc, provide ample justification for such an investigation, and the only hangup is that DA Gascon is exhibiting a continued pattern of not looking into Lee malfeasance.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 9:57 am

No, Lilli, that's not how the system works.

First you come up with probative evidence and then, and only then, so witnesses get called to testify under oath.

Until there is any actual evidence, rather than the rantings of two biased sources, there is no prima facie evidence. It's all hearsay.

Something like, er, say, a videotape!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 11:04 am

You are saying the videotape wasn't a basis for investigation.

This is an example of the pitfalls inherent in arguing positions which aren't supported by facts.

Just taking your implied equivalency at face value for the moment, what you are saying is that since Walker's and Peskin's sworn statments don't represent a valid basis for further investigation, then the videotape Ivory Madison coached Eliana Lopez to make for the putative reason of innoculating her in a future custody battle was a valid basis for further investigation either; an implicit -- and wholly deserved! -- indictment of DA Gascon's performance in this matter.

D'Naive? Is that you?

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 11:37 am

Mayor Lee or Christina Olague or Debra Walker lied.

Are you saying that Debra Walker Lied ? Either Mayor Lee & Christina are lying OR Debra Walker is lying. Which side has a recent history or lying or leaving a room full of folks to die in the Mayor Lee Testimony Time Bomb Threat ? Does Debra Walker have a recent history of lying ? If Mayor Lee has already proven himself to be a liar or hide truth or do dishonorable things while In Office, then common sense and their own behavior, conduct & omissions show you which side to believe. If you had to stake your life on whether something was real or not, would you trust your life with Mayor Lee & Christina Olague OR Debra Walker ?

Posted by James on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 2:36 pm

We don't have law by lilli in California, really sorry.

lilli, really sorry but in the state of California you can't be convicted of perjury just because one person says that you lied, without corroboration. It can't be a 'my word against yours' thing.

So if Debra Walker said that Christina Olague said that Lee contradicted his testimony you don't have any basis to begin a perjury investigation. BTW, we've already learned that Walker misheard the 'that conversation never happened' line. What else did she get wrong, lilli?

If Aaron Peskin says that he got the impression from Walter Wong that Lee contradicted his testimony you certainly don't have a basis for investigation.

Now you can go on babling about the *facts* and call me a bold face liar or whatever, but you would be much better off if you just took your meds and asked your minders for some additional counseling sessions.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 7:08 am

Troll stupidly leads with straw man, and follows with bold lie

and inanity.

I never claimed that one person claiming another had lied under oath could result in a perjury conviction; rather, I said that *two* people making *sworn* *affadavits* to that effect certainly justifies an investigation.

That investigation has not occured because the mayor is in effect above the law in this town. Wholesale vote fraud and campaign cash corruption also has gone uninvestigated and/or unpunished despite being manifestly well-documented.

Yes, Troll, you are a bold-faced liar. I don't mind whatever ad hominem you direct at me because your track record in truth-telling makes the value of such pathetically obvious. You are a vile tool of the corporatist administration of Edwin Lee.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 7:26 am

So IOW, Lilli, it's all a vast right-wing conspiracy?

Gee, where have I heard that before?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 8:10 am

I think it's particularly

I think it's particularly amusing that ads for Davis continue to flash above and to the right of this editorial.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 7:05 pm

SFBG is happy to take Davis's money still.

In fact, he'll have to spend more now.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 11:14 pm

Did you ever hear about binding contracts?

Do you really think the SFBG is giving the Davis campaign free ad space? I'd assume there's an advertising contract that doesn't contain the clause, "if we don't endorse you, then no ad space for you."

I recall other political ads in their newspaper and website from candidates and ballot measures not endorsed by SFBG, so apparently anyone with ad money can secure advertising space. How American of the SFBG! But how inconsistent with a lot of the SF transplants who post here and who seem to want to suppress speech from people and organizations they disagree.

It's so wonderful the internet was created. Now every petty, lonely, obsessive, and hate-filled person with a computer can spew their misinformation, agenda-specific postings, and hate for all the world to read, or at least read by the tiny number of lonely people who are not busy actually living life among family, friends and career.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 5:51 am

Nope, I never said SFBG is giving Davis free ad space.

I said they are cocntinuing to take his money.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 8:10 am

Evidence of Ed Lee's

Evidence of Ed Lee's Perjury
1) "Peskin, a stalwart of The City’s progressive left wing, said Wong approached him in March on behalf of the Mayor’s Office to talk about offering Mirkarimi another city job, perhaps with the Public Utilities Commission or the Airport Commission.".
San Francisco Examiner
2) “On June 29, 2012 at 2:10 pm, I received a phone message from Supervisor Olague saying ‘Debra, the conversation never happened,’” Walker said. “I responded to her by text message saying that I thought that she should be honest that the Mayor perjured himself. I got a call the next morning from her but didn’t pick up, and she did not leave a message. A few days later her aide asked me to remove my painting from her office that I had loaned her.”
San Francisco Examiner
3) "Lee testified under oath that he never authorized third parties to offer Mirkarimi a city job in exchange for an amicable resignation, and that he never spoke with any members on the Board of Supervisors – essentially the final panel of judges in the saga – about the suspension. Both statements were vocally challenged by current and former city officials."
San Francisco Examiner

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 10:00 pm

Sorry Thatsthewayit isn't

You should qualify this by stating "Hearsay Evidence of Ed Lee's alleged Perjury" Because right now, that is all any one has- hearsay evidence.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 7:39 am

ohhh thats okay dont be sorry

ohhh thats okay dont be sorry ....are you with Weber Shandwick

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 7:49 am

An Iota of Evidence of Ed

An Iota of Evidence of Ed Lee's perjury
4) "But when the perjury matter flared up, Walker claims her former friend Olague shunned her.
“On June 29, 2012 at 2:10 pm, I received a phone message from Supervisor Olague saying ‘Debra, the conversation never happened,’” Walker said. “I responded to her by text message saying that I thought that she should be honest that the Mayor perjured himself.”
On Tuesday, Olague didn’t deny Walker’s account, but said she simply couldn’t remember.
“At this point, I have 20 million other priorities,” Olague said. “I don’t remember. It’s been too f---ing long. How many months has it been?” San Francisco Examiner
5) "If Lee really did have such a conversation with Olague, it could mean he perjured himself before the city Ethics Commission, which is hearing the mayor's case seeking to bounce Mirkarimi for official misconduct. And any such perjury could itself amount to official misconduct.
"This is a bombshell, and it really could bust open the hearing," said Peter Keane, a professor and dean emeritus at Golden Gate University Law School and a former member of the Police Commission. "If the mayor lied on a material question, that goes to his credibility" in asserting that he decided "in a good-faith way" to get rid of Mirkarimi."
SFGate
6 More corroboration "text message" "....although Peskin provided a March 20 text message in which Wong thanked him for his help on behalf of “our friend,” which Peskin said referred to Lee or one of his senior staff members.
San Francisco Examiner

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 10:04 pm

Thanks for confirming - the Ed Lee perjury charge was nonsense

That's what I mean. You don't have one person who saw or heard Ed Lee say or do anything to contradict his testimony. You don't have one document. Nothing.

Zero, zilch. Nada.

Thanks for proving my point.

Any chance that you are going to stop lying about this? It makes you seem really pathetic.

Really. Peskin said that a message referred to Lee? That proves anything?

It only proves what a joke you are.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 10:48 pm

Yes, there really isn't a shred of evidence. Walker lied.

The fact that Olague didn't recall a conversation should be deemed evidence it didn't happen. but of course the elft claim that emans that it did happen. Amazing.

Again, the fact that Olague paused before answering shows she was trying hard tor ecall such a conversation, but simply could not, because it never happened. Again the left infers that that "pause for reflection" is evidence of guilt.

When there's no evidence, people invest suprious stories and theories. But all the evidence is that Walker was lying. Walker had motive, means and opportunity to lie, and did so.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 11:18 pm

Lets let the Jury decide

Lets let the Jury decide about Ed Lee's perjury charges there are at least 2 sworn affidavits and text messages and phone messages to confirm the charges are true and Ed Lee has shown the entire world he is a liar and much worse...plus the phony bomb scare during Lee's testimony and he was the only one evacuated? People can put it together besides this is only a small part of the story of Ed Lee's corruption which has a history of collusion with Willie Brown.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 7:34 am

I have the transcript of Lee's perjury trial

Ok, thatsthewayitis , if it makes you feel any better here is the transcript of your jury trial:

Lee's lawyers: Ms. Walker, did you personally hear or see Ed Lee talk to Olague about Mirkarimi?

Walker: No.

Lee's Lawyers: Mr. Peskin, did you personally see or hear Ed Lee offer a job to Mirkarimi?

Peskin: No.

Lee's Lawyers: You Honor, move to dismiss because the prosecution has not provided anything that can be used as evidence.

OK, thatsthewayitis, does that make you feel any better?

Posted by Troll on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 8:13 am

It's clear from Troll's energetic obfuscation on this perjury

matter that the damage to Lee's reputation is well understood among his circle of admirers and confidants.

What we who believe that Lee committed perjury want is not more fiction writing by the reactionaries, but an investigation including putting the parties in question under oath: Andrew Wong -- whose reactions to being questioned in this matter were even more suspicious than Olagues -- and all the supervisors.

I think it is a matter for the civil grand jury or the FBI since the DA's office has exhibited absolute complicity with the mayor. Does not San Francisco rate higher than having a Rod Blagojevich-style mayor?

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 8:49 am

Well lilli, you will need to come up with SOME evidence first.

Well, if you want to see that trial that you should try to come up with something that might possibly qualify as evidence under our jurisprudence system. Because its been months now and we're still waiting.

You can try your continued bloviating but I suspect that it will only highlight interest in the failures of our mental health system and not problems within the Mayor's office.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 10:09 am

LOL, now Lilli wants the FBI involved purely on the sayso of

the hopelessly discreditted word of major loser Debra Walker.

Did I say LOL already?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 11:02 am

Federal Bureau of lilli

I know..he literally wants the FBI to open an investigation based on uncorroborated accusations by two long time political adversaries of Lee.

And he seems to seriously think that this is what should happen, I guess because he wants it to happen. Who knows.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 12:48 pm

I want an investigation based on their sworn affadavits plus

*corroborating* phone records, plus *highly* suspicious and contradictory responses from Olague and Wong when they were questioned informally in this matter.

We can toss in reference to the *highly* suspicious spiriting of Lee away from the perils of the witness stand under cover of "bomb threat."

You will, naturally, continue with your blithe and lame attempts at obfuscation and distractionary non-sequitur, but anybody who knows anything knows that this matter stinks to high heaven.

The question of whether Ross Mirkarimi may be fit to serve as sheriff after momentarily grabbing his wife's arm during a heated argument about her intention to leave the country with his young son Theo *pales* in comparison to the question of whether we have a mayor who feels able to lie to the people -- to their faces, to their judicial system which is supposed to keep us safe from criminality and treat us all as equals -- the question of whether we have a perjurer mayor is *far* more important than the gossipy rubbish you fools have been prattling about lo these many months.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 1:10 pm

lillireality

About "momentarily grabbing his wife's arm"...I don't know if this will help you or not but everyone else on planet Earth acknowledges that he plead guilty to a crime and accepted DV counseling as part of his sentence.

I realize that you can't deal with this reality.

Or at least something that is reality for everyone else except you. This is something that, if you were a big boy, you would bring up with your minders.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 1:46 pm

Troll has stopped arguing that Lee didn't perjure himself.

Noted.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 3:43 pm

What you want and what you get- two different things

Just curious- when Clinton committed perjury where you demanding that he be removed from office?

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 1:55 pm

Clinton's perjury? His perjury -- such as it *IS* -- was

somewhat debatable, and definitely had *nothing* to do with his job as president.

As a matter of fact, the SCOTUS ruling that put a sitting president on the stand being questioned fishing-trip style over Paula Jones' ridiculous sexual harassment charges was a far greater travesty of justice. We Americans were robbed -- and whether or not you may not agree D'Naive matters not one whit, because I'm fairly confident that it's you who are in a minority.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

The “hearsay rule” is the

The “hearsay rule” is the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible.” However if BOTH Walter Wong and Christina Olague were in court and would be subpoenaed into court to make that evidence “admissible”

Posted by learned guest on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 3:02 pm