Full circle - Page 2

After months of discussion and faulty charges, the case against Ross Mirkarimi comes down to the initial act — and how broadly to define 'official misconduct'

08.21.12 - 5:04 pm | Steven T. Jones |

(52)

Deputy City Attorney Peter Keith delivers a closing statement that included unsupported accusations.

PHOTOS BY MIKE KOOZMIN/SF NEWSPAPER CO.

But the commission pointedly refused to enter that debate, with Commissioner Jamienne Studley saying, "I don't think determining constitutionality is what I signed on for as a commissioner."

Chair Benedict Hur, the sole dissenter in recommending a finding of official misconduct, expressed far more concern about the precedent they were setting than with the fate of Mirkarimi, whose actions he strongly condemned as "clearly wrongful and unlawful."

"There has to be a direct relationship of the behavior to the office held," Hur said. "If we don't find a nexus, we are opening this provision up to abuse down the road."

Commissioner Paul Renne led the charge in interpreting misconduct in the broadest possible way, arguing it didn't even have to be related to his official duties. "There's nothing in that clause that says the misconduct has to relate to the office," Renne said.

But Hur called that a "dangerous precedent," saying he has "grave concerns" about how such a broad interpretation could be applied in the future. "I have a lot of concerns about where you draw the line if you don't relate it to official duties," he said.

For example, could members of the Board of Supervisors be removed after getting arrested at demonstrations — as has happened many times before in connections with labor and other disputes — or even for using colorful language with constituents or colleagues that might violate a future mayor's "standard of decency?"

Mirkarimi attorney Shepherd Kopp said there's a good reason why recall is the preferred means of removing an elected officials accused of wrongdoing, calling the charter "an imperfect document" that can't cover all circumstances — indeed, it doesn't allow for the removal of mayors, even those who commit serious crimes — noting that "this is a rarely brought proceeding and it can have the effect of contravening the will of the electorate."

"These proceedings," Kopp said, "are far too susceptible to the vagaries of politics."

THE PILE-ON

Lee's decision to overcharge Mirkarimi could be a costly one. The City Attorney's Office won't release expenses associated with ongoing legal actions like this one, but most indications are that it will run into the millions of dollars, perhaps many millions depending on how Mirkarimi fares in the courts if he is removed and challenges the city's actions.

According to the City Attorney's Office, the official misconduct proceedings against former Sup. Ed Jew in 2007 cost the city $381,505 in legal fees, but that was a relatively short and simple proceeding, with just one Ethics Commission hearing and couple of state court appearances before the case was settled.

By contrast, the case against Mirkarimi has already entailed five months of detailed exchanges between the two sides' attorneys, covering a wide array of legal issues, and months-long investigations of matters only tangentially related to the core charge. The city has paid out money for expert witness. Mayor Lee cast a wide net to catch the fish that he had already hooked before setting out to sea.

Even if the Jew case had played out to completion, it would likely have cost just a fraction of what Mirkarimi's will, for a simple reason: Mayor Lee acted quickly and brought a broad array of charges before investigating them.

Comments

nice job, Steve

nice job, Steve

Posted by CitiReport on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 9:40 pm

Excellent report on the state of the city's case.

The pieces fell into place for me. Perhaps my opinion is colored by what I've read on this forum and others like it and I am projecting the behavior and attitudes of them who post anti-Mirkarimi diatribes here, but this is how I see it: the main difficulty for Mayor Lee derives from the fact that he is a party to hatred in this case.

Lee comes off seeming so cool most of the time, but get him flustered and see what is beneath the surface: a mean person. If Lee had acted without hatred against Ross Mirkarimi, it would have gone so much better for everyone.

Perhaps Ross wouldn't have had such a great array of DV advocates lined-up against him and been facing a courtroom in the shadows of billboards which proclaimed his guilt.

Perhaps there wouldn't have been such aggressive charging by the DA against Ross Mirkarimi. Maybe Lee would have demostrated some interest in what Ross and Eliana themselves had to say about what happened.

Certainly without Lee's evident gaffe of having most of his charges discredited by the EC -- and lets not forget his "bomb scare" performance -- Lee could come out of this looking far better, but does he deserve to?

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 10:24 pm

Perhaps Ross should not have

Perhaps Ross should not have committed Domestic Violence, then he would not have been arrested for it, then he wouldn't be going to Domestic Violence Counseling.

Perhaps Ross should not have false imprisoned his wife and then plead guilty for it, then he would not have three years probation.

Perhaps Ross should have came clean from the beginning and cooperated with authorities investigating his case, then he would not have lied about having three guns instead of two.

Perhaps Ross should stop blaming everyone but himself for this mess that he created.

Etc, etc, etc....Marsha, Marsha,Marsha.....!

Posted by GuestOfNoOne on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 10:43 am

Perhaps...

Perhaps you should have read the story and addressed the issues it raises, which are more relevant and far-reaching than rehashing decisions made 8-9 months ago.

Posted by steven on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 3:04 pm

Perhaps the decision made by

Perhaps the decision made by the ethics commission, you know the guilty of official misconduct one, is eating on your nerves.

Perhaps what is relevant is that the ethics commission has made the correct decision regarding events that you say occurred 8-9 months ago.

Perhaps there is no far reaching or rehashing of events that is the basis of what the commission needed to address in regards of making a correct decision in the first place.

But, as always, whenever things don't go the progressive's way, it's all about insulting and spinning and belittling anyone who opposes them. Sour grapes!

Posted by GuestOfNoOne on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

Whether Ross's behavior fails to meet the required standard of

decency, ethics etc. is a subjective notion and opinions seem to fall into rpedictable ideological lines. So the SFBG will say it doesn't meet that standard in this case although, if it were a right-winger in that situation, they would say the exact opposite. Nobody reads the SFBg for neutral objectivity.

But the other question is whether Ross can still do the job, and that's a less subjective matter. There are really three issues here:

1) Does Ross have the necessary respect from the LE community to command?

2) Are there some fairly obvious conflicts of interest in having a recent criminal still on probation working in a LE role?

3) Does Ross still have a popular mandate, which is the only democratic basis for him to serve?

I would guess that a majority of SF voters have concerns about all three. This really isn't about Lee at all. It's about the city's best interests.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 2:56 am

Respect from the law enforcement community?

1. I worked in the the post office in SF over a quarter century. I can assure you that NONE of the postmasters since the early eighties had respect from the vast majority of workers. Guess what? We didn't have a say. I hear that in most businesses the employees don't get to vote for who their bosses are.

If members of law enforcement can't perform their jobs with Mirkarimi as Sheriff then they need to find another line of work.

2. If a cop gets a speeding ticket on his off hours is he precluded from enforcing the traffic law? That's dumb.

3. Mirkarimi was elected. He has a greater electoral mandate than Lee has for being Mayor.

Let the game play out. I look forward to Mirkarimi resuming office and having an in-house investigation of the role of Sheriff Dept's personnel in the fake bomb scare when Lee's perjured testimony was interrupted.

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 8:45 am

You're dreaming, "Bob".

But then what else should we expect from someone whose idea of a career is working for the post office for 25 years?

Posted by Anonymous on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 9:17 am

No Bob, that also only exists in your 'pretend' world

Bob, you continue to say things that just aren't true. You don't think we notice that you lie constantly??? For example:

>"3. Mirkarimi was elected. He has a greater electoral mandate than Lee has for being Mayor."

Um, no. Lee beat Avalos 59.6% to 40.4%. Mirkarimi beat Miyamoto 53.5% to 46.5%. What you said is factually untrue.

I've noticed this a couple of times, like when you wrote that the city charter says that only a felony is official misconduct and another time when you said that the city hall door guards weren't notified of the bomb scare.

Try to stop making stuff up. You lie just too much for a grown person.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 9:50 am

Ross got more votes than Ed Lee

That's a true fact.

When you cherry-pick, you can find facts that support anything you like. You should be very familiar with the tactic. You use it all the time.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 10:50 am

Okay, Progressives. 53% of the vote IS higher that 60%.

Greg, I quoted the official, final results of the elections. That isn't cherry picking.

You point out that Mirkarimi, out of a field of 4, wound up with a few thousand more votes than Lee did out of a field of 14, Including Avalos, Chiu, Hererra, Dufty, Alioto Pier.

Avalos, who was the candidate closest to Mirkarimi, lost to Lee by a margin of 1.5:1 but you want to argue that Mirkarimi has a better mandate because he only ran against 4 people and not 14.

Okay, Progressives. 53% of the vote is more than 60%.

What other handicaps do you guys need to to make this a fair fight?

Posted by Troll on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 11:09 am

More cherry picked facts

Some more true statistics taken directly from the department of elections:

By vote share on the first ballot (when voters could pick anyone they wanted without having their choices narrowed down):
Lee: 31%
Ross: 38%

By the *number* of votes on the first ballot:
Lee: 60K
Ross: 70K

Number of votes in the final round after IRV:
Lee: 84K
Ross: 87K

These are the "final, official results," "not cherry-picked" as you say.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 11:24 am

Those statistics don't matter

Only the statistics that I pick matter.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 11:28 am

Okay! Preogressive rules apply (out of sympathy)

But um, Gregg, the first ballot is not the "final, official results". Do you understand the difference between "first" and "final"???

Lee was competing in a field of 14, Mirkarimi in a field of 4. And Mirkarimi wound up with a few thousand more votes. Avalos was comparable to Mirkarimi and Lee crushed him.

I admit it. For the Progressives that is an astounding victory. Amazing, in fact. Lee, fighting 13 opponents got a few fewer votes than Mirkarimi did fighting 3 opponents.

Yes. For the Progressives that is something to really brag about. But only for Progressives. For able bodied adults it really ain't much.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 11:37 am

A leader that is not

A leader that is not respected by the people he leads is NOT a leader.
No one wants a Domestic Violence Abuser for a Sheriff, unless you condone that it is okay for a Sheriff to commit Domestic Violence.

Posted by GuestOfNoOne on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 10:35 am

Gee I'm not a right-winger

and I think Ross' behavior and subsequent plea constitute official misconduct. I guess it's possible.

Posted by sfsoma on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 9:46 am

*Only* a right winger would say "I'm not a right winger"

"I guess it's possible"

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 5:53 pm

Whose opinion matters most?

Ross never had the respect of the LE community, but he had the respect of voters who wanted the LE community overseen by progressive leadership. And if you want to know if he has a "popular mandate," recall him, which is "the only democratic basis" to remove an elected official. There's a reason why we elect our sheriffs (and why we elect the mayors who appoint the police chiefs): the people should control the cops, not the other way around.

Posted by steven on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 3:10 pm

But the voters approved the City Charter

We're just going by the rules of the city charter, which the voters did approve. If you think that an elected official should only be removable via recall then get some signatures and change the city charter to reflect your views. Right now the Mirkarimi removal process is following the rules that the voters established.

They aren't nonsensical either. If the Mayor, the Ethics Commission and 9 of 11 Supervisors agree that somebody should go then maybe a recall is overkill.

And we do get to save the awful expense of one of those elections. Just ask the RCV department about how good it is to eliminate some of those wasteful elections.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 3:46 pm

Ethics can PROCEED to the SUPERVISORS who will sit in JUDGMENT

Jason Grant Garza here ... "But later, when attorney Scott Emblidge — who is volunteering his legal services to both the Ethics Commission and Board of Supervisors on this case — offered his interpretation that the charter language requires removal of officials found to have committed official misconduct, the commission accepted that and opted not to consider recommending a lesser punishment to the Board of Supervisors. "

GREAT ... now the ETHICS COMMISSION can move against the FOUR SUPERVISORS found GUILTY of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" that was decided and sent to ETHICS per sunshine for violation prior to ROSS' December date while he was NOT in office. Here clearly the SUPERVISORS were in office and FOUND GUILTY by SUNSHINE. Check out on city website http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=11889 ... go and check out case # 11048.

Then ETHICS can call all the cases that it failed for "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" as found guilty by SUNSHINE ... re-open them ... apply the same NEW STANDARD and RULE interpretation ... and APPLY EVENLY. They can start with my NURSE RATCH case see http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com where the paperwork is on the web. There is also the paperwork the ETHICS COMMISSION specifically asking about the "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" phrase and you will NOTE ... NO RESPONSE. Was the COMMISSION UNETHICAL then and made up now ... then where are the calls and re-opening of the cases?

So, before the FOUR SUPERVISORS can sit in JUDGMENT of ROSS ... will it be heard in ETHICS ... for their "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" according to the MINISTRY of SUNSHINE that happened before ROSS' ....

Why is NO ONE asking this questions ?

At the very LEAST the FOUR SUPERVISORS MUST recuse themselves from voting or go through the NEW RULES and STANDARD process at ETHICS as did ROSS before they can sit in JUDGMENT. These (supervisors) sitting in JUDGMENT must be "ABOVE REPROACH" and this MUST be addressed before or then already found guilty of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" by SUNSHINE (the fact finders) will decide. THEY MUST be cleared by ETHICS before under the same INTERPRETATION of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" that they used against ROSS. Shall we see how the INTERPRETATION of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT: plays out in this ETHICS proceeding for the FOUR SUPERVISORS?

"LIVE by the SWORD ... DIE by the SWORD." I can just hear the ETHICS COMMISSION when it comes to this "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" against the supervisors ... they will probably say "THAT IS NOT WHAT WE CLAIMED WHEN WE INTERPRETED the OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT definition THAT WE USED AGAINST ROSS. or maybe they will say on;y the MAYOR can remove for "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" even though the SUNSHINE found them guilty and referred to ETHICS just as the MAYOR ... shall we wait and see ???

As another point ... my prediction regarding the MAYOR'S possible perjury and the BOMB threat can TRUE ... preliminary, perfunctory , no real investigation ... move on ... we are waiting for another crises so that the MASSES will forget. Yes, a perfect ten (10) on the 1 to 10 "STINK FACTOR."

Oh, and for the NAIVE, KOOL AID drinkers ... the SUNSHINE TASK FORCE has been closed (not operating ... not performing ... and NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE) since June 2012 it is now going to be September 2012 ... are the COMPLAINANT/VICTIMS not entitled to speedy process ...ha,ha,ha. The sheer INSANITY belies all the LIES of CONCERN. COMPASSION, MORALITY, HUMANITY, CIVILITY ... the list goes on and on.

However nothing NEW ... go to htpp://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com to see JUST how far the city will go to WIN. Enjoy ...

P.S. Shall we see how NO ONE addresses these issues or better yet responds and tries to divert by saying WHAT a NUTTER I am in order to deflect/divert from the TRUTH.

A nation of FOOLS deserves what it receives ...

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 6:02 am

Jason...

That cut and paste is very useful.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 7:37 am

Cut and Paste is VERY USEFUL when telling the TRUTH repeatedly

Jason Grant Garza ... yes GUEST cut and paste is EXCELLENT especially when it INVOLVES the TRUTH.

Too bad the TRUTH does not change NO MATTER how much you try to distract from it ... oh, and if I was lying I would be arrested.

Again, thank you for looking at the TRUTH and carrying the FLAME.

Again a NATION of FOOLS deserve what it gets ...

However again thanks for your compassion ... it is JUST LIKE what I got from
the city after signing a settlement/confession admitting fault and guilt for breaking FEDERAL LAW against me and then LEFT me for DEAD. It is on http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com

Unless you'd rather comment on "cut and paste" as oppose to seeking out the TRUTH on the web.

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 11:29 am

Sssshhhh.

It is much better to just quietly ignore his rankings like everyone else around here

Posted by D. native on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 7:36 pm

Very lengthy article for a

Very lengthy article for a sad excuse of a law enforcement official who admitted to domestic violence against his wife and convicted of false imprisonment.

A Sheriff on criminal probation and court-ordered domestic violence counseling is truly absurd. Even more ridiculous, is the SFBG constantly praising this buffoon as if he is some sort of Gandhi.

I am certain the progressive bloc can find someone with more integrity and class to idolize and place on the pedestal. Mirkarimi just keeps reminding the world that progressives have extremely low standards.

I should know, I voted for him and not Lee or Gascon, or Herrera. Never! Again!

Posted by GuestOfNoOne on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 8:38 am

Agreed, Ross has set back our movement and harmed our agenda.

I really don't understand why my brothers and sisters on the left cling to supporting this abuser. Why do we need him when he is tainted? Can we not look forward and not back?

We will not see a furthering of progressive values in this town until and unless we drop our baggage, and seek to genuinely move forward. We can do better and we must do better than this, else risk isolation and irrelevance.

Posted by Anonymous on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 9:21 am

Isn't that cute? A "concern troll" coop.

Two of them doing their thing in unison.

The only rough spot is that Anonymous obviously forgot to enter a different alias in the name field. There isn't anyone who reads these message boards who might believe he is a progressive.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 9:44 am

I'm definitely not a progressive...

I totally voted for George Gascon, Chris Cunnie, and I was 110% for Ed Lee -he's pro-business and pro-tax breaks for job creators. But this whole thing has really gone too far.

I believe in American democracy, not removing political opponents from office like they do in third world countries. I didn't vote for Mirkarimi, but by trying to force him out at all costs, and wasting taxpayer money doing it, Mayor Lee has sullied the office to which we elected him to. He has done a lot of damage to the reputation of decent, ethical moderates, and set us back just as we were on the verge fulfilling Mayor Brown and Mayor Newsom's dream of taking the city back from progressives.

We need to focus on important issues like repealing rent control, cracking down hard on homeless punks, and giving job-creators more tax breaks to locate in the city -not getting sidetracked on political games.

I've never been a Mirkarimi supporter, but at this point not only am I voting against any recall, I'm also going to vote against Ed Lee next time.

Posted by Anonymous on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 10:15 am

Lilli and his god Ross. How

Lilli and his god Ross. How cute when minions protect their idol...again progressive standards are on an all time low.

There's still Matt Gonzalez and Avalos. Two progressives that I voted for that are much better to idolize than your wife abuser with a badge! Let's raise those standards people and bring integrity to progressive values, if any.

Posted by GuestOfNoOne on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 10:23 am

As a moderate I must disagree

I like cops who have strong conservative credentials, like Chris Cunnie. Or Miyamoto, who isn't afraid to break out the baton and crack some heads when protesting punks get too loud. But the fact is that the voters of San Francisco voted for Mirkarimi, and we need to respect the process of American democracy. This isn't China, where the party boss gets to remove someone he doesn't like.

Ed Lee should stop wasting taxpayer's money and move forward, not backward. I voted for the guy because I thought he would restore civility to San Francisco politics. Instead, he's perjured himself and planted a bomb scare to avoid testifying. His behavior has done a lot of damage to people who've been fighting progressives for years. For the sake of ethics and civility, I think Ed Lee should resign.

Posted by Anonymous on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 10:45 am

Priceless. As a "moderate," Anonymous likes "cops who have

strong conservative credentials," who aren't "afraid to break out the baton and crack some heads when protesting punks get too loud."

No. Anonymous, you certainly aren't a progressive -- as your earlier lament that Mirkarimi had hurt "our" cause plainly reveals was your intent to be deceptive about -- and you aren't a moderate either. You are a Nazi.

Not a terribly bright Nazi, either.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 11:36 am

Cunnie and Miyamoto are

Cunnie and Miyamoto are hardly conservative. Ofcourse, Mirkarimi supporters (a.k.a. DV is OK as long as your progressive) would always cry 'conservative' to everyone except their idolized buffoon. One thing for sure, they are not convicted of false imprisonment nor are they going to court-ordered Domestic Violence counseling.

And the whole, "i'd be a better Sheriff since I'm a convict' excuse is just plain old lame!

Posted by GuestOfNoOne on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

Clear eyes

We've never idolized Ross or put him on a pedestal. He is flawed individual (like most of us) who made a terrible mistake that we have repeatedly condemned, was punished for it, and he's been trying to learn from it and make amends. But if you actually read my article and tried to comprehend it, you'd see that this process and decision have far broader implications than the fate of one man. In your haste to remove Ross, I'd urge you and other critics to pause for a moment and think about whether you really want to give mayors an extraordinary new power to remove elected officials based on their own standards of decency.

Posted by steven on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 3:17 pm

Obviously I read the article

Obviously I read the article since I am posting. And I urge you to please redirect your energies to progressive leaders who actually deserve praise and adulation that you give to your angel Ross.
Ross has pushed back progressive values the minute he abused and imprisoned his wife.
It's time to praise Avalos, even Campos for all their positive community interactions and not give such divine adoration to a Domestic Violence Abuser and Convicted False imprisoner.
I didn't think low standards wS progressive, but you prove me wrong every single time you write a 'Ross is a victim of politics' article.

Posted by GuestOfNoOne on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 5:04 pm

Sorry- but ANY time a LEO breaks the law

it should be considered official misconduct. LEO's are held to a higher standard and know that when they are hired.

Would the SF SD or SFPD hire a person to be a deputy or an officer while the person is on active probation and in DV counseling? nope- not in a million years. Why should Ross be held to a different standard?

Posted by D.native on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 9:35 am

Captain Greg Corrales cost

Captain Greg Corrales cost the City $270,000 in damages after beating on civilians under color of authority. This has not stopped Corrales' advancement through the department and he is slated to start collecting a nice six figure retirement package when he soon retires.

Clearly LEO are allowed to remain on the job so long as the DA needs them.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 9:56 am

Corrales needs to go too AND

Corrales needs to go too AND the fire chief! Too bad Ed Lee wasn't Mayor at the time, but thank goodness now a guy with a badge won't get away with official misconduct. Kudos to Mayor Lee for setting precedent on this issue. I didn't vote for you before, but will be checking your name the next round!

Posted by GuestOfNoOne on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 10:27 am

It's just so weird how the SFBG has chosen THIS

as their Waterloo. It's like - with all of the other consequential things going on in SF these days they have chosen to back to the hilt a criminal, stubbornly casting every defeat as a victory and staking the entire reputation of the progressive movement on keeping as sheriff an admitted law breaker. Why?

As a consequence Eric Mar is being put in the worst position possible with a recent poll showing that 52% of voters would be MORE likely to vote against someone who voted to exonerate our erstwhile sheriff. The Guardian is asking office holders to basically commit political suicide to save Mirkarimi - who will not win another term if he's put back in office and whose political career is now finished in San Francisco no matter the outcome of this. Why?

Yeah - there are still a lot of unanswered questions about this case but the biggest ones seem to be why The Guardian is risking everything and asking everyone else to risk everything as well to save Ross Mirkarimi. What does Mirkarimi have on The Guardian that they've chosen this horrific path for the progressive movement in SF?

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 10:13 am

Well Troll II, some may consider it weird, I consider it awesome

Absolutely awesome.

For the opponents of "Progressive SF", Ross has been the gift that keeps on giving. You pretty much summed it up, and I'm not sure if it's based on some bizarre loyalty or flat out stupidity, but the SFBG has chosen to anchor themselves to the most unpopular local politician since... I don't know, Dan White?

You know that shitbag fundie Republican Todd Akin causing the national firestorm over abortion rights? Imagine the RNC not only supporting him, but giving him a prime speaking slot at the national convention. It's sorta like this.

Loves it.

Posted by Scram on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 11:36 am

Mirkarimi must have something on Steven or Tim

to get them to adopt such a craven line towards him and his problems and risk everything progressives have worked for over the past 30 years - all for the politically powerless office of sheriff. It's not like this is the mayor's office we're talking about here.

And yes Scram - this is in many ways similar to Todd Akin holding on despite running the risk of costing his party control of the Senate. Extremists on the left and right are like that - so convinced of their own righteousness that they don't care who or what they destroy in their craven attempts to keep power.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 12:01 pm

There's a reason why progresssives are poor - they're stupid!

Don't forget their other Waterloo - the horrors of "8 Washington!"....I was walking by there last night (on my way to a lovely dinner at La Mar) and it was striking to see all the HIGH RISE BUILDINGS on every side of the forlorn surface parking lot that our town progressives are so dead set on -- wait, what exactly are they in favor of, any way? Is it scaled-down housing for the 1%, extracting a larger contribution from the developer, or preserving the tennis courts and views for the 2% Gateway dwellers?

Oh never mind - they don't think, they just write stupid articles.

But yes, watching them continue to double-down on Ross is quite wonderful.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 3:00 pm

Scram, Troll II, Guest, etc. (all of you who have repeatedly

Scram, Troll II, Guest, etc. (all of you who have repeatedly proclaimed Ross Mirkarimi's guilt and impeding meltdown, lo, all these many months):

*You* keep it up. And *you* keep using the same identities so there will be many future occasions when you can be reminded of your false predictions.

Every single thing you've expounded has been shown to be false. Does that make you stop? Never. You are like engergizer bunnies of mistruth and misdirection. "Pathetic really."

This whole story arc and the function you and the other anti-Mirkarimi haters have played is an excellent study of reactionary politics and propaganda attacks.

Thanks for making your practices so clear and obvious, so that even a child will be able to spot similar gambits in the future.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 7:26 pm

Funny - I thought he plead guilty and Ethics

found the same thing. Lilli seems, as usual, to be living in an alternate reality.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 7:41 pm

On a less overwrought note

Ross has been asked to join Pussy Riot, and apparently, he's seriously considering it.

Posted by Chromefields on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 10:41 am

Pussy who?

Weren't they a girl band in the 90s who used to open for Madonna?

Posted by Greg on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 10:47 am

The beautiful and sexy Eliana and the powerful and masculine

Ross plus their adorable son Theo are a family under siege by Satanic forces which seek to break them up, to neuter the powerfully masculine Ross and oppress his luscious Latina wife. They will not succeed. The ugly, fat skanks of the "domestic violence" movement, never having known a true moment of sexual bliss in their entire lives (unlike the incredibly sexy Ross and the feminine and elegant Eliana who probably experience powerful, overwhelming sexual bliss 2-3 times a day) are determined to destroy this family. They will not succeed.

We cannot let them succeed. We cannot give in to the anti-sex forces, the forces which seek to destroy this incredibly powerful and beautiful family, the forces which are man-haters, the forces which hate beautiful women like Eliana - we cannot give in to them. We cannot and we WILL not.

Such a cast of hateful, ugly mean women the world has never before seen. Poison Ivory Madison and big butt Upton must not be allowed to push their vengeful campaign against this holy family any further than they have already!

Posted by JCCourt on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 11:35 am

Yes, JCC, Satanic ugly fat skanks should be bruised!

Anti-sex activists have tainted Ross, our hero.

Posted by JCCourt/Lilli/ChrisCraft on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 1:21 pm

Wow JC, these "ugly fat

Wow JC, these "ugly fat skanks" you talk about have dedicated their lives to helping Domestic Violence victims cope with their violence, AND have dedicated their lives educating Domestic Violence Abusers to change their ways and learn to respect women and hopefully put an end to abusive relationships.

There is absolutely nothing "sexy" about Ross inflicting violence on his "elegant" Eliana as you so inarticulately put it.

The only "ugly fat skank" in this whole mess are people like you who think that violence between "sexy" and "elegant" people is okay. Truly pathetic.

Posted by GuestOfNoOne on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 2:38 pm

Ross is powerfully masculine

A strong, handsome & incredibly virile man who clearly women like Big Butt Upton and Poison Ivory Madison have a hard time accepting. He's protective of his beautiful family and he should be - look how these horrible, mean women and their "domestic violence" cabals have tried to tear them apart. It's clear none of these women have experienced a single day of sexual bliss in their lives and they're jealous of what Ross and the beautiful Eliana have together. Everyone can see it as clear as day.

Did you observe the hearing? Upton couldn't wait to get her ugly mug in front of every photographer - it was disgusting. Contrast that with the support the gorgeous Eliana and handsome Ross showed one another as they entered this kangaroo court together - Eliana so sophisticated and poised, Ross so dapper and protective. All of these horrible domestic violence women wish they could experience one minute of the powerful joy and love Ross and Eliana have for one another. They were glowing! And I daresay that could be from experiencing the true sexual bliss a man and wife experience when reunited after being forcibly kept apart for months and months as this insistence of this awful city government.

Posted by JCCourt on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 3:13 pm

SFGate poll is 68% in support of not removing Ross.

Go look at the numbers. Only poll I have seen.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 1:51 pm

Tee hee. SFGate's own poll. Just a matter of time before the IT

department fixes it, I'd guess.

Should San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi lose his job?

Yes, the Ethics Commission concluded he engaged in misconduct
120 ( 13.9% )
No, the Ethics Commission has not said he should be fired
589 ( 68.2% )
Yes, he pleaded guilty to domestic violence charges
105 ( 12.2% )
The board of supervisors will decide if he loses his job
50 ( 5.8% )

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 2:09 pm