If Mayor Lee lied


What’s going to happen to Mayor Ed Lee?

That’s the big question after a series of news reports have suggested that the mayor was less-than truthful under oath in his statements to the Ethics Commission. If he actually lied on the stand, that would be considered perjury, which is a felony.

But the reality is that the mayor’s not going to jail. First of all the District Attorney’s Office would have to investigate and file charges -- and does anyone really think this DA, George Gascon, is going to subpoena Walter Wong and demand that he talk under oath about his interactions with Lee (who is a close friend)? I think Gascon ought to do it; there’s clear evidence that a crime may have been committed, and the public has a right to know about it, but I suspect that will never happen.
And even if the DA pushed, and Wong told the truth, and the truth contradicted the mayor, would a jury believe Wong over Lee?

It’s really hard to prove perjury. Maybe one of Lee’s staffers talked to Wong and the mayor wasn’t directly involved. Maybe the recollections of the two men have faded in the past few months. Maybe the mayor’s defense would be able to throw up enough chaff that nobody in the courtroom could figure it out.

So it’s not going to be about a criminal case against the mayor. But the revelations of what’s gone down here go far beyond any possible perjury indictment.

For starters, Ross Mirkarimi’s lawyers have every right and responsibility to demand that the Ethics Commission members hear from Debra Walker, Walter Wong, and -- I would argue -- every member of the Board of Supervisors. Here’s why:

The crux of Mirkarimi’s legal case at Ethics is that the mayor had no grounds to remove him from office -- and that Lee never gave Mirkarimi due process or a chance to explain himself. The way the suspended sheriff tells it, the mayor never asked for an explanation of what happened that New Year’s Eve, never tried to talk to Eliana Lopez -- never, in short, did any investigation into the incident before deciding the file misconduct charges (except for talking to Ivory Madison).

The way the mayor tells it, Mirkarimi refused to provide an explanation.

That distinction is critical, and the only basis for deciding what happened is for the judges -- the commissioners -- to use their best information and judgment about who’s telling the truth.

In other words, the mayor’s credibility is central to the entire case.

So if there’s any evidence that Lee lied about his discussions with Walter Wong or about whether he talked to any supervisors, then the commissioners would have the responsibility to consider that when evaluating the rest of his testimony. If you can’t believe everything he said, can you believe anything he said?

Some commissioners may argue that it’s not their business to determine if the mayor perjured himself, and on one level, that’s true -- Ed Lee isn’t on trial here. But his credibility either makes or breaks the case. So the panel needs to hear from witnesses who can address that question.

Then there’s the much larger, more disturbing possibility that the mayor sought to influence (or might have been in a position to influence) members of the Board of Supervisors, who will be sitting as the final judges of Mirkarimi’s fate.

There’s a reason that the City Attorney’s Office has advised board members not to talk about the case. They’re sitting in a judicial role, and they can’t legally fulfill that obligation if there’s any indication they’ve already made up their minds. And if the mayor has talked to any of them -- and there’s any indication at all that anything he said could be seen as seeking to influence their votes -- well, in a courtroom you’d call that jury tampering. It’s a little different in a political forum, but still: Any supervisor who had a conversation with the mayor will be under pressure to recuse himself or herself -- and every recusal helps Mirkarimi.

It doesn’t matter how many supervisors are in the room, in the country, recused or otherwise unable to vote -- the mayor still needs nine to remove the sheriff. Three recusals and the whole thing collapses.

That’s why all of this is so fascinating and potentially explosive.

Oh,and by the way: When Lee set this process in motion, he should have known that he'd be testifying under oath and that anything he said or did might come out. You'd think he'd have been a little better prepared. 

So what's going to happen to Ed Lee? Legally, nothing. But he may have done serious damage to his own case.


Newsom screwed his underling, his best friend's wife, and nothing happened because he was a worthy victim and he got off.

Daly, Sanchez, Mirkarimi, Hall and Jew were outsiders and they were punished to the full extent of the "violations" they committed as relates to infringing on the privileges of power.

That's how it rolls around these parts.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 4:48 pm

He didn't live here!!! The man who not only LIED about living in the city, but then once he was in office he started taking bribes.

Posted by D.native on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 10:10 pm

Michela Alioto-Pier did not live in San Francisco and rarely was present in her office.

Willie Brown's underlings fleeced this city for all it had and were never prosecuted.

This is what happens when you step over the line and are in with power, compared to what happens when you are not in with power.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 5:57 am

Not just Alioto-Pier, don't forget Chris Daly, who maintained a pied a terre in the city while raising his family in Fairfield.

Oh, wait. He was a Progressive.

Never mind.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 6:16 am

up to the last year of his second term.

Stop being disingenuous and fabricating alternative spin lacking of detail to defame and libel the character of others. Hmmm, sounds like conservative news-speak. Guess that is where you learn it.

Crawl back under the bridge, Troll.

Posted by MistOfTheCity on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 11:04 pm

Plus he was an incompitant arse, at least Michela was plesant

Posted by Chris Pratt on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 6:24 am

is the very reason he is so reviled by some personages. Telling indeed, how thin the veneer of truth covering their lies.

While Ed Jew *never* lived in the city, but rather only owned rental real estate and had a business here, Chris Daly lived in the city for years before he was elected supervisor, and maintained his only residence here for all but the last year of his service.

That his buying a house in Fairfield and and having his family reside there can be said to be in any way analagous to Ed Jew's malfeasance -- which included not "accepting bribes" as has been written, but *demanding* *them* in outright extortionary fashion -- is pattently absurd and reflects quite poorly on those espousing such a ridiculous position.

There's been plenty of lying going on by those who only care about money and power -- never people, who were always Daly's constituency -- and the Wikipedia article on him desperately needs editting. Some of the claims made in that article are countered by the material in the article's own citations despite that fact that they are universally tripe articles and columns which appeared in the Chronicle and were written by such luminaries or corporate wisdom such as Rachel Gordon, and Chuck Nevious.

For instance, when Daly appointed two environmentalists to the PUC -- an act which was sustained by an eight-to-two vote of the board of supervisors -- he prevented Brown from his continued stonewalling in leaving the PUC slots open rather than have his political/fund raising cronies voted down because they were so absolutely unqualified to serve on that body.

Lying filth Righties. There is absolutely no way to compromise or accommodate them without having such efforts towards comity backfire. Daly was a hero.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 7:55 am

That's why he had so much influence on electing a successor from D6 when he left.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 8:11 am

If you even paid attention, Daly didn't even try to get a successor elected in the same way D5 Supervisor Matt Gonzalez didn't either.

A bridge...A bridge...Go for it, Troll.

Posted by MistOfTheCity on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 11:07 pm

>"If you even paid attention, Daly didn't even try to get a successor elected"

Yeah. He endorsed James Keys who hardly got any votes.

So the week after he made a big spectacle out of bullying David Chiu with the haunting speech his successor Jane Kim nominated Chiu to be BOS President.

Let me guess...now you're going to say 'Shows what you know, Troll...he wanted it to go that way'.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 12:05 am

If Ed Jew had been cozy with the power elite, it would not have made a difference if he lived in Burlingame and demanded bribes, he would have been deemed a "worthy victim" and would have been given cover and an out.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 8:18 am

and didn't mean to dispute it by my comment.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 8:28 am

One can be cozy with the power elite and do anything and get away with it, one can be on the outs with the power elite and do anything and go down for it.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 8:47 am

he was a reliable Rightist vote on the BOS, and Newsom delayed for *months* without acting despite a full-blown FBI investigation and clear evidence he had lied about his residency.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 8:56 am

Can't argue with @lilli's logic on this one.

The LAST thing that Newsom wanted to do was appoint his young budget assistant Carmen Chu to succeed Ed Jew.

And with good reason. She is a lock with the voters and just look at her BOS voting record! Well she hasn't voted Yes on a Progressive measure yet but it's only been a few years.

BTW, several polls show that 76% of the voters are glad that @lili was banned by SFgate.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 9:09 am

There is a difference between voting right or left and supporting corruption. Some on the left support corruption and are in with the Democrat Party and are left untouched.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 9:15 am

utilizing public safety assets and an ethics process in a overtly political manner to harm an adversary who has no record of corruption, versus former mayor Gavin Newsom delays in doing so in the case of a poitical ally who was corrupt.

I think the ethics law was always understood by most voters to be for dealing with corrupt officials and violations of provisions in the city charter and not a "oh my god we elected a weirdo and need the mayor to bail us out" process.

Those who applaud this ever so marginal process against Mirkarimi are mostly those who will always applaud diminished democracy and centralized power.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 9:48 am

Daly is an arrogant scumbag. He ran his uber progressive agenda and then when he was done moved to the burbs because, hell, San Francisco is no place to raise a family. Ed Lee is also a scumbag. In fact the entire SF "city family" is a disgrace.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 08, 2012 @ 12:19 pm

sorry for having a bit too much nuance for you; I'm sure from your perspective that's the way it looks.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 08, 2012 @ 12:49 pm

polarizing figure who drive some moderates away from supporting progressive policy ideas. And it was no surprise to me that his heir apparent to D6, Walker, got creamed. People had had enough, even the liberal denizens of D6.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 08, 2012 @ 1:04 pm

Don't you understand that criticism of Daly (or Mirkarimi) is the same as being a rightwinger around here?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 11:12 am

who supports gay marriage and abortion be deemed to be a right-winger, troll who "must be being paid to post here".

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 11:28 am

But daly did something for the city, he stood up for people, the blowhard that he is. What did MAP do?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 10:01 am

I'm not saying that he couldn't stand to be much more suave and tactful, but as you point out, at least he stood up for his constituency, unlike so many of the apparatchiks who get on the board.

MAP got "us" wheelchair access to the chairman's dias, don't you recall?

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 10:08 am

MAP stood up for her constituency, she dug her heels in, she would not stand for anyone crossing her, she put her foot down, she not only talked the talk, but she walked the walk and still she put San Franciscans first by running for supervisor, yet undaunted, she stood for Mayor too, all of this from St. Helena.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 10:11 am

the well-heeled matrons of Pacific Heights. The rich are such a tiny minority (1%) that somebody's gotta stand up for them.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 5:12 pm

Jason Grant Garza here ... whether perjury, bad faith, abuse of power, abuse of office or MORAL HAZARD ... these are common tactics used by the city to WIN.

The city does NOT care about HUMANITY, the LAW, Right Conduct, it's LEFT for DEAD INNOCENT VINDICATED VICTIMS just winning at ALL COSTS ...

Don't believe me ... type my name into a google search engine or better yet ... go to http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com to see the city's paperwork regarding case C02-3485PJH where the city denied me EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES. At the website you will see the city "TESTILYIED" to have my case dismissed 2003 only to sign a "Confession/Settlement" Agreement in 2007 with the Office of Inspector General ADMITTING FAULT and GUILT for BREAKING FEDERAL LAW against me. Then they LEFT me for DEAD. Any more questions as to whether the city will lie or misrepresent or better yet MIS-SPEAK? Ha,ha,ha.

So when I went to start an investigation and accountability (how can you correct if not) I was ... you know the GAME. Now I went seeking MEDICAL services again 2011 (see case # 11081) at the MINISTRY of SUNSHINE and again the city gave the INCORRECT harmful and injurious city attorney advise and I was denied PUBLIC RECORDS. When I challenged them ... I still await not only the records but the MINISTRY holding them accountable and sending foward to ETHICS as requested. I guess I should just DIE now since HOPE, Good Conduct, Righ Action will never happen at the MINISTRY. Call and ask the MINISTRY (Andrea 554-7724) where the HIPAA expert is in case # 11081 and if they are not screwed since I will not let it pass or WHITEWASH. When I tried to escalate the matter to Mr. Herrera ... you know the drill ... yet, I have kept all the paperwork to post to the web. Call and ask Allie or Tara ( 554-4748) how many times I have called to escalate my matter to Mr. Herrera and if I have NOT been told that Mr. Herrera will NEVER EVER contact me. I have the records ... my I can not get redress from my government officials when they CONCEDE ... how can you correct and hold accountable ... UNLESS naturally the PROCESS is RIGGED ... does it remind you of the ROSS proceeding?

In my case # 11099 the city can not provide the CORRECT information as to who "ACCREDITS" them (DPH) for patient/medical care" however, the MINISTRY has said it can not make DPH produce something it does not have, See case # 11099 ... Again faulty process, garbage in, garbage out is what the city provides and when BUSTED as in the "confession/settlement" agreement where the city admits breaking federal law against me ... I'm still Left for DEAD ... tactics, unaccountability, and inhumanity (Moral Hazard) is how this operates, runs and devolves.


Shall we NOW see the cover-up over the records (PUBLIC RECORDS) for the Bomb Scare, the PUBLIC being left as FODDER, or others spoken to? Wait it's coming ...

Yes, go to http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com to see HOW the city attorney PLAYS the GAME of JUSTICE, HUMANITY, COMPASSION, ETHICAL BEHAVIOR, Investigation and accountability in order to correct (ha,ha,ha) ... any more questions?

So again a "POUND OF FLESH" from Ross

ETHICS ... ha, ha, ha. WHERE ???? Not investigate? (their crimes) Falsely accuse and charge without investigation (then have the city attorney represent trump up charges) and when one of your own (city family) gets questioned ... Denial, Deflection and Deferment (3 d's of risk management.) Again proving what is GOOD for the GOOSE IS NOT GOOD for the GANDER ...

Shall we again ask the ETHICS COMMISSION if they are going to re-open ALL the "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" cases that they shot down from the MINISTRY of SUNSHINE or has that too "FALLEN from REALITY?"

"Telling the TRUTH during times of UNIVERSAL DECEIT is a REVOLUTIONARY Act." George Orwell

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 5:59 am

Boo fucking hoo, fucking hoo.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 7:51 am

Tim, what is this 'clear evidence' that you speak of??:

"subpoena Walter Wong and demand that he talk under oath about his interactions with Lee (who is a close friend)? I think Gascon ought to do it; there’s clear evidence that a crime may have been committed,"

I'm only aware of double hearsay. That Aaron Peskin said that he spoke to Wong and that Wong spoke to Lee. The same Peskin who authored 'Anyone but Lee' articles for the SFBG. The same Peskin who filed volumes of charges against Lee with Ethics.

There is no corroboration anywhere in sight.

BTW, the notion that Lee would agree to pass damaging information through Peskin is beyond silly.

Are you holding some information out from us that contains 'clear evidence'?

Because right now I'm thinking that this is just another example of Tim Redmond's School Of Laughable Mock Journalism. Which is fine except that some people my get here by googling and might assume that it is a proper journalistic environment.

Am I missing something?

Posted by Troll on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 5:15 pm

After reading all of the above, I guess it boils down to your perspective and/or what is real evidence. Mayor Lee may have hurt his credibility or not but when you weigh what he was alledgely covering up by perhaps not telling the truth, it is extremely petty compared to Domestic Violence. Asking Olague's opinion (if this happened) wow what a sin and how atypical of City Hall - really! Trying to find a job for Mirkarimi - how unkind and criminal of Lee. What I do see is retaliation against Lee for bringing charges against Mirkarimi, who by the way, when asked if Mayor Lee had tried to help him during their private conversation - said No - that Mayor Lee simply said he had a choice of resigning or being brought up on charges. In addition, all of this endless speculation and accusation against the Mayor related to the bomb scare overlooks the fact that the Mayor did come back and finish his testimony and showed no indication that he gained anything from the interruption.He was subdued before and subdued after. He walked in under a cloud from the beginning. Those people who say that the interruption took place at a crucial time in the testimony are engaging in fantasy. Watch the video. The alledged perjury had taken place much before the interruption and Kopp was on to something else when the meeting was shut down. I do believe that trying to "get Ed" is serving several purposes - a major one is to divert attention from Mirkarimi. This latest attack on a witness not only serves to scare away witnesses who try to testify in future DV cases but also witnesses coming up like Madison. I have neve been so ashamed by so called progressives in SF who are making all of us on the left look bad by their infantile behavior and mob mentality.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 08, 2012 @ 5:54 pm

Oh my. Now that *is* paid damage control. Nice try. You must be getting top dollar for tripe of such quality.

What about the perspective that the Brown/Pak/Lee machine has used public safety assets and other City and County resources to achieve machine politic goals?

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 08, 2012 @ 6:38 pm

LOL. I was reading Guest's comment and thought it seemed rather sincere, open and based on real events. So I was wondering how long it would take for someone to accuse him of getting paid to write it. Because SFBG comment #235 on page 4 is worth anything.

This stuff where Progressives feel that people who disagree with them must be getting paid to do so is sort of sad, actually. But in this case I admit it did make me really laugh.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 08, 2012 @ 7:02 pm

Are you suggesting that John Henry Pearce is not getting paid?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 12:04 pm

guarantee you that nobody is getting paid to post comments at this SFBG site because, quite simply, only about 20 people read it anyway, and none of them show the slightest sign of ever being influenced by anything they read.

The idea that people are being paid to post here is fanciful, and there isn't a shred of proof for that. It's just that leftists are so amazed when anyone has a different opinion from them that they have to immediately invent right-wing conspiracy theories to account for it.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 12:23 pm

Yet people with no political similarities to those of this site appear to post with a fervor that is either ideological, pathological or, failing that quid pro quo.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 12:47 pm

not right-wing extremists at all. They're not spewing KKK propaganda or demanding an end to all welfare. They're simply people in the moderate center, politically, but they appear right-wing to folks here because folks here are so far to the left.

So for all the vitriol heaped on Brown, Newsom and Lee, they are Democrats who are left of center, and are deemed "liberals" anywhere outside SF.

Likewise people like me who post here aren't Republicans at all. We're just worried about some of the far-left policies and how they could harm SF.

If you think I'm right-wing, you should meet some of the folks I know in Texas. They think I'm a bleeding heart liberal. I can't win..

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 1:41 pm

overdone. Everything is contextual. No right winger -- which I define as motivated to increase economic and political inequalities, a basically Un-American drive -- would attempt to appeal to base racist or religio-conservative memes on this site. An intelligent -- or at least crafty -- winger would mask their true goal and simply attempt to shift thought in their direction.

So, I call bogus on your attempt at making fine distinctions. And since -- thank you SFBG -- I'm allowed to say it here: fuck you very much.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 8:07 pm

Shepard Kopp was just getting started. You might also want to ask yourself why Ivory Madison and her hubby got all incensed over a ruth bernhard art print in M's house.
Why Ms. Madison refuses to testify at the hearing.

Why Ms. Madison went ape shit crazy when her law school journal published an article which had some quotes from Playboy.

What is the root of this extraordinary prudishness? There's more.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 1:16 pm

If its perjury. Impeach him.

Simple as that. Maybe Mirkarimi can take his job as compensation for the witch hunt against him.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 5:22 pm

crime. This isn't about Ed Lee - it's about Ross Mirkarimi's fitness to serve as sheriff - which has been compromised.

The Guardian WANTS this to be about Ed Lee, what Ed Lee said and more. It's not - it's about a sheriff who committed the crime of domestic violence and is too poor to serve without his salary - so he wants it no matter what - he and his defenders will do and say anything to keep him in that office.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 7:45 pm

The problem with this is that Ed Lee is making this all up as he goes along and it turns out that he's in over his head like Newsom was.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 7:57 pm

as sheriff. Mirkarimi is sworn to uphold the law which he subverted by beating his wife - this is the issue. Ed Lee is not on trial here - nor is Ross Mirkarimi - he plead guilty already. This is a hearing on Ross Mirkarimi's fitness to serve as sheriff of San Francisco.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 8:30 pm

And for these proceedings to have any legitimacy, the maintenance of their integrity is paramount. If Ed Lee can apparently commit felony perjury then the integrity of the process is fatally compromised.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 9:31 pm

That doesn't alter the fact that Ross committed a vicious crime, and that alone makes him unfit for office.

If Lee does something wrong, then have an ethics committee hearing for that, but it's irrelevant to the issue of whether a convicted criminal should be sherriff. He shouldn't.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 6:43 am

completely mendacious and trite comment.

The only thing that alters the fact that Mirkarimi "committed a vicious crime" is... the *FACT* that he commited *NO* such crime.

As for your empty recommendation to defer investigation of Lee's possible perjury until some later process -- for which no mechanism exists and therefore will never take place -- that's quite amusing.

Why not investigate and apply knowledge of Lee's behavior in this matter to which it directly applies? Try to explain again, maybe.

The Rightist propagandists have all along imputed a dual standard to those objecting to the conduct of the investigation and attacks on the sheriff and they have been guilty as sin all along.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 9:28 am

Lee lying (if he did) wasn't a proximate cause of Mirk beating his wife. So the decision about whether a wife-beater should keep his job is independent of any alleged subsequent "crime" by the mayor.

The only issue is whether Ross's crimes make him unfit for office. It's reasonable for Lee to think so because 3/4 of the city believe that. The only remaining issue is whether Lee sought advice from others when firing Ross. Seems like a prudent thing to me to seek counsel.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 10:06 am

process were *not* an opportunistic political gambit on the part of the mayor and his backers, cheered on by a pro-corporate press and numerous troglodytic commenters, you might have a point.

Mention of the ridicuously suspect polling is just par for the course. Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. With that kind of rash attitude, it's just a matter of time before more of the power elite and their underlings are questioned under oath.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 11:00 am

You keep mentioning the "ridiculously suspect" polling on this issue without ever, not a single time, citing ANY polling supporting your contention that the populace is seething with anger at Ed Lee and rioting in the streets in support of the embattled (suspended) sheriff. Where is this evidence? You cannot simply discount every single poll taken so far as "biased" while maintaining that you and your friend's opinions are representative of the majority of San Franciscans. Chairman Mao said "Speak clearly - lay out the facts!" You are neither speaking clearly not laying out any facts other than what you overheard in the Supplements section of Rainbow Grocery.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

SF to quickly get a sense that people want Ross gone. My circle of friends includes bike activists, Obama election workers, gays and tenants, and they almost all think Ross should resign. These are Democrat voters to a man (or woman). The women, in fact, are more critical of Ross than the men.

Given that Ross won with only about 30% of the vote, due to the vagueries of IRV, it's hardly surprising if his approval level now was around 14% and, in fact, that was the latest poll tells us. Fits with reality unless you're in a progressive cacoon.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 1:45 pm

towards Lee, though I'll certainly admit I'm personally pretty ticked-off at him and the political machine antics. What I have stated is that both polls I've heard about are not what they have been portrayed as being.

The first poll was conducted before Ross Mirkarimi had a chance to get his side of the story out, and was a push-poll because when the question was asked whether Lee had done the right thing by suspending the sheriff, it was prefaced by a provably false statement that the charges that were dropped when he plead guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment were more serious. This was directly contradicting what the distric attorney himself said.

The second "poll" has only been alleged. No polling questions, no methodology, no information regarding the polling subjects, etc. etc. have been released. It has been talked about so much, but nobody can even prove it exists. Bogus. Totally bogus.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 2:39 pm