Lee's charges against Mirkarimi leave questions unaddressed

|
(159)
Mayor Ed Lee ignored questions during his brief announcement yesterday that he was removing Ross Mirkarimi from office
Luke Thomas/Fog City Journal

UPDATED BELOW WITH "RESPONSE" FROM LEE'S OFFICE: Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi was formally suspended today and served with “Written Charges of Official Misconduct” that for the first time outline why Mayor Ed Lee believes Mirkarimi should be removed from office, although they leave unaddressed many questions that Lee has been so far been avoiding answering.

The eight-page legal document prepared for Lee by the City Attorney's Office briefly lays out the process (a hearing before the Ethics Commission, its recommendation, then action by the Board of Supervisors within 30 days thereafter) and the definition of official misconduct, focusing on this phrase: “conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officers.”

That vague language is fairly new and has never been considered or interpreted by any court, and the city acknowledges there are at least “two reasonable interpretations” of its meaning: “This phrase could be either (a) an example of misconduct that, by definition, relates to the duties of all public officers, or (b) an independent, alternative category of official misconduct that does not require a connection to an officer's official.”

Lee's attorneys argue that they don't think a direct connection to an official's duties is required, but they acknowledge that's how it could be interpreted, so they try to make that connection as well, often by relying on evidence and testimony that hasn't been vetted by the courts or by making connections likely to be challenged by Mirkarimi's new attorney, David Waggoner.

The document recounts the “Wrongful Conduct by Sheriff Mirkarimi,” starting with his “acts of verbal and physical abuse against his wife, Eliana Lopez” on New Year's Eve, continuing through the criminal charges filed against him on Jan. 13 with a focus on allegations that he dissuaded witnesses and “encouraged them to destroy evidence” and with his March 19 sentencing for false imprisonment, concluding the section with a reference to the newspaper quote from Don Wilson, president of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, that the plea had hurt morale in the department.

The DSA actively opposed Mirkarimi's election, just as it did his predecessor and mentor, Michael Hennessey, in every contested election in the legendary progressive sheriff's 32-year career, so it seems a little strange to rely on such a self-serving assessment. But that isn't the only point that raises questions and potential challenges, particularly as they try to argue that Mirkarimi's actions related to his official duties.

Part of Mirkarimi's sentence included one day in jail, for which the judge said his booking qualified, meaning that he never actually was inside a cell. But Lee's attorneys argue without explanation that, “Sheriff Mirkarimi's one-day sentence to county jail undermines his ability to receive inmates and to supervise the County jails.” It certainly didn't seem to for former Sheriff Dick Hongisto, who was jailed for several days after being held in contempt of court for refusing to carry out the International Hotel evictions, but who never faced sanctions from the mayor.

The first and seemingly strongest connection it makes between his actions and official duties listed was, “Sheriff Mirkarimi misused his office, and the status and authority it carries, for personal advantage when he stated to Ms. Lopez that he could win custody of their child because he was very powerful,” a charge taken from the videotaped testimony that Lopez gave to his neighbor Ivory Madison.

Lopez's attorneys have noted that she made the video to paint Mirkarimi as abusive in case there was a custody battle, as she says on tape, and that she was seeking confidential legal help from Madison and never intended for it to be released. But her and Mirkarimi's attempts to retrieve it are labeled in the charges as efforts to “encourage the destruction of evidence regarding criminal activity,” which they argue also relates to his duties as a law enforcement officer. This issue is likely to be a matter of serious debate during the Ethics Commission hearing.

Finally, the document argues that because the Sheriff's Department can enforce protective orders in domestic violence cases and funds programs for domestic violence perpetrators – and because it sometimes interacts with the Adult Probation Department, given Mirkarimi's three-year probation – that the charges directly relate to his official duties.

Clearly, these are complicated issues that raise a variety of questions, which is why it was disconcerting yesterday when Lee announced the charges to a room packed with journalists and refused to take any of our questions. City Attorney Dennis Herrera didn't speak at all, simply standing behind Lee looking stone-faced and perhaps a bit uncomfortable.

Earlier today, I sent Lee and his Office of Communications a list of questions that I think he has a public obligation to address given the drastic action that he's just taken against an elected official. I haven't received a reply yet, but I'm including my comments here for you to consider as well:

 

I was disappointed that Mayor Lee took no questions during yesterday's press conference, because I had several that I'm hoping you can address for a long story we're writing on the Mirkarimi affair for our next issue. I'm hoping to get answers by the end of the workday on Friday.
- Will Mayor Lee release the memo he received from the City Attorney's Office on Ross Mirkarimi and whether his crime rises to the level of official misconduct? [Note to reader: That advice memo is different than the charges I discuss above.] It is solely under Lee's authority to waive attorney-client privilege and release the memo, as even Willie Brown urged him to do in his Chronicle column on Sunday. And if he won't release it, can he explain why?
- Lee told reporters last week that he would explain why Mirkarimi's action rise to the level of official misconduct if concluded they did, but Lee didn't offer that explanation yesterday. Why does Lee believe actions that Mirkarimi took before assuming office, which were unconnected to his official duties, warrant his removal from office? Is Lee basing his decision primarily on the crime Mirkarimi committed on New Year's Eve or his actions and statements since then? What specific actions or statements by Mirkarimi does the mayor believe rise to official misconduct?
- Why didn't Lee consult with Eliana Lopez or her attorney before making this decision? None of the purported evidence in this case has been scrutinized by the courts as to its veracity or completeness (that would have happened at the trial). The only two people who know for sure what happened that night are Ross and Eliana, so why hasn't Lee asked either of them what happened?
- Why did Lee set a 24-hour deadline for Mirkarimi to resign or be removed? Did Lee offer Mirkarimi anything in exchange for his resignation, such as another city job?
- Who did the mayor consult with about whether Mirkarimi should be removed before making this decision? Were any members of the DSA or SFPOA consulted? How about Rose Pak or other members of the business community? How about Michael Hennessey? Did he seek input and advice from John St. Croix or anyone from the Ethics Commission?
- It's my understanding that the mayor wasn't required to remove Mirkarimi from office without pay pending his official misconduct hearings, that Mirkarimi could have either remained in the job or been suspended with pay. Why did Lee feel a need to place this additional financial pressure on Mirkarimi to abandon the office that voters elected him to? Is he concerned about the impact of his decision on Eliana Lopez and Theo?
- Mayor Lee has prided himself on being someone focused on "getting things done" without creating unnecessary political distractions. So why does he want to drag out this distracting political drama for another few months? Why does he believe that it's a good use of the city's time and resources to be a forum for airing details of a sordid conflict that has proven to be a divisive issue? Is he worried about exposing the city to liability in a civil lawsuit if his charges against Mirkarimi are later found to be without merit?
- Does Lee intend for Vicki Hennessy to be the permanent replacement for Mirkarimi if the official misconduct charges are upheld? Will he take into account the will of the voters in electing Mirkarimi, someone who had pledged to uphold and continue the legacy of progressive leadership of the Sheriff's Department as embodied by the long career of Michael Hennessey? Given that the DSA consistently opposed Hennessey at election time, and that in this election voters rejected the DSA's choices, why is Lee substituting his own judgment and political preferences for those of San Francisco's voters? Why did Lee feel a need to take preemptive action against Mirkarimi rather than simply allowing voters to launch a recall campaign, which is the typical remedy for removing politicians who have gone through some kind of public scandal?

UPDATE 3/26: Mayoral Press Secretary Christine Falvey told the Guardian that we would have answers to these questions by Friday, but then sent the following message as a response late Friday afternoon: "Steve, After looking at your questions, it seems Mayor Lee addressed much of this in his comments on Tuesday. After Sheriff Mirkarimi pleaded guilty to a crime of false imprisonment, Mayor Lee made a thorough review of the facts, reviewed his duties under the Charter and gave the Sheriff an opportunity to resign. When that did not happen, he moved to suspend the Sheriff. For any information regarding what is in the charges, I will refer you to the City Attorney's office and their website that has all of the public documents posted."

For the record, Lee has not addressed these questions nor made any public statements on whether he will release the advice memo (as even Willie Brown publicly urged him to do) or explained why he's keeping that document secret. And we haven't even had the opportunity to ask the mayor these questions directly because he hasn't held any public events since announcing his decision to remove Mirkarimi.

Comments

>the "evidence" on that video was a bruise, not bruises, and the actress who tearfully told the tale....

How many stupid and offensive statements can you fit into one sentence?

First you put quotes around the word evidence, the stuff that was strong enough to get Mirkarimi to cop a plea once he saw that the judge was going to allow it and resulted in his apologies

The statement 'bruise, not bruises' speaks for itself in terms of idiocracy.

And then you have to throw in the word actress to imply that the woman was lying.

Wow. I only wish that more people could read your stuff so that they could see the COMPLETE bankruptcy of the Progressive movement in moral, ethical, logic and political terms.

Posted by Troll on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 6:57 pm

I think this was all overblown, but then these are the laws that progressives wanted...

I don't see why the reason for the video is important if it was the result of Ross going ape shit, yet it seems many progressives here seem to think the reason is important, and that reason makes Ross look less idiotic...

We all get a laugh when a right winger gets busted toe tapping under airport stalls, when they proclaim some conspiracy we all laugh louder, when a progressive gets busted the conspiracy is real...

It is all about getting over, there is no ethics or morals to the movement but that.

Posted by Matlock on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 8:43 pm

"that we keep the interests of the victim (which Eliana, remember her?)"

"Progressive values" are as fluid as the wind in just one paragraph.

Posted by Jorge Carolinos on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 8:09 pm

They certainly don't apply when one of your own is accused.

Look, when Aaron Peskin is taking a higher road than you are it means that you have some work to do.

Posted by Troll on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 9:18 pm

It worked for Slick Willie and Gavin the Greaser. Maybe there is a Mayor Mirkarimi on the horizon!!!.
GO GIANTS.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 10:51 am

I agree
There has never been a case where a victim of DV has recanted their story due to fear or intimidation or threats of further violence.

It is misogynistic to not take an abused womans word. Its also never the case that an abused woman returns to her abuser and continues to suffer continued violence or death after recanting her original allegations.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 11:10 am

The Mirkarimi case is now in its third month and no one knows for sure other than Mirkarimi and his wife Eliana Lopez what took place during that fight that resulted in Eliana Lopez ending up with a bruise on her inner right arm.

In the absence of that, we've read volumes about Mirkarimi that was rehash. People who follow San Francisco politics know Mirkarimi is a difficult boss, and that he is not liked by his colleagues. Nor is it surprising in the absence of any explanation from Mirkarimi or Lopez that over 70% of the San Francisco electorate wants Mirkarimi to resign, and support Ed Lee's decision to remove him from the Sheriff's office.

In the absence of hearing anything specific from Mirkarimi or Eliana Lopez it is impossible to do much more than speculate on this case. Is this outcome just or is the punishment grossly disproportionate to what actually happened? I don't know.

Posted by Naanbread on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 12:09 pm

So you want to reward Ross and his wife for their obstruction of justice tactics? All these comments about Lee not asking, blah, blah. Ross and Eliana will not cooperate and answer questions. However, Ross did plead guilty and apologized for his actions so he admits them. That does;t give him a free pass.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 1:10 pm

Then the fat lady has sung. A recent poll of Sf residents, not just the narrow slice calling themselves "progressives, "(whatever that means), said 72 percent think Ross should resign and 67% said Lee is correct in trying to remove him. The Guardian is pushing for that 28% of so-called progressives who think it's Ok for "their guy" to do whatever he wants, break whatever laws. Sounds like the far right-wing to me.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 1:07 pm

because we are interested in finding out what happened -- you know, the facts of the case -- before calling for Mirkarimi's head, we are "far right wing"? who needs to hear more than one side of a story? I guess if you are ever called for jury duty, before you've even heard all the facts of the case, you will simply conclude that the accused must be guilty. right?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 4:00 pm

1. not a good boss
2. not liked by his colleagues
3. 70% want him to resign
4. Progressive leaders (ie Peskin) want him to resign

But he says he's fighting to the bitter end!

....And, so, the show will go on

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 1:21 pm

What a joke! Voting stencil wielding kiosk Ed Lee sending Ross Mirkarimi to the Ethics Commission. I would laugh harder, but it hurts too much.

But Gavin Newsom could have sex with his best friend 's wife and he was still "capable" of governing an entire city. (Didn't he give us Gascon, after all?)

And Fire chief Joanna Hayes-White could throw a glass at her husband, twice I believe, that prompted a 91 call, and she still was allowed to lead the firefighters.

All you haters out there, can't you see how political this is? Open your damned eyes!

Posted by Terrrie Frye on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 9:42 am

That simple distinction makes all the difference in the world.

If Ross had merely slept around, it would not have mattered. and in fact he is widely known as being a womanizer. But that isn't the issue - only his violence, abuse and criminal record.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 9:47 am

Because like you, I'm also laughing my ass off.

I'm watching progressive SF fall apart right in front of me and I love it. You guys were pretty much on life support already, but this has been brutal, lol. The most shamed SF politician of the past quarter century and he's YOUR guy!

Talk about taking a bad situation and making it absolutely catastrophic. Ross - and his supporters - really couldn't have played this any worse.

High fives!

Posted by Sambo on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 10:02 am

That does it, Terrrie! I'm turning this car around. You don't deserve to eat! Now get in the house, and don't let me catch you trying to escape while I'm in the shower. I'm a very powerful man in this town!

Posted by RamRod on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 4:06 pm

While the Smirkster now has to pay his own money on lawyers, rather than ours.

Karma is a bitch.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 4:28 pm

That was supposed to say a 911 call.

Posted by Terrrie Frye on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 9:44 am

But one thing I will agree on:

"In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story."
—Walter Cronkite

Posted by Daniele E. on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 10:53 am

the spin is off the chart

Posted by Guest on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 4:29 pm

Check this video out. Willie Brown rubbing salt in Mirk's wounds. Ouch!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2012/03/25/MN3K1NO7S...

Posted by RamRod on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

At least we're not paying him 200K p.a. any more.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 4:21 pm

Really amazing how Ross is being thrown under the bus. I expect him to fight and I am not sure his crime rises to the standard the mayor has crafted for his dismissal. What a circus. I watched the link referenced above and though long and hard about Ivory Madison insisting on videotaping Eliana 'just in case'. There is too much weird behavior by the 'authorities' who routinely let egregious violators run amok in town, some who carry badges and guns - for me to really believe RM should be removed from office in this way. No one called for Joanne Hayes-White to step down. The SFPD has their little messes cleaned up all the time. RM should fight for his job and justice - stripping him of his job - which he has performed well enough to win a city wide election- is way outside the box as far 'punishment' goes. Destroy his family - great. As for his friends and allies abandoning him- well any wonder people aren't voting anymore-self interest seems to be the only interest. That goes for the domestic violence advocates who just now fund a billboard? - makes me gag.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 4:28 pm

her into not going to see her sick parents, who tells her "he's a powerful man", who admits to a crime while denying he really did it and who has abused his ex's while maintaining a panty collection do you NOT think disqualifies him from public office?

Posted by Greg on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 4:48 pm

is meaningless - we have law and the punishment should fit the crime - misdemeanor false imprisonment - firing him - is that justice - why not burn him at the stake while we are at it

Posted by Guest on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 5:13 pm

entirely reasonable that he should also lose that job because of public opinion.

Without credibility, he cannot function.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 6:00 am

Matier and Ross have pieced the story together based on interviews and court documents. Ross did indeed grab his wife's arm. No one disputes that. However, the bruise was a result of Eliana yanking her arm away after Ross took hold of her arm. Eliana said so herself. She said, "He wasn't attacking me, he was restraining me." Following their argument, Eliana got out of the car and hurriedly started to unbuckle their son. Ross was still buckled in his seat, and he was disturbed by her behavior, so he reached out to restrain her. Perhaps he was concerned for his son. At any rate, they were all a little emotional. Eliana told Ross, "Don't touch me!" and yanked her arm away. So, she was partly responsible for the bruise. This is her story as well as her husbands. Eliana maintains that he has never abused her, that he is, in fact, a good father and husband.

Were they experiencing difficulties in their marriage? Yes. It is clear that Eliana made the videotape in anticipation of a possible custody battle. She says so right on the tape. Ask yourself, do people ever exaggerate or make shit up in custody cases? Ask any divorce lawyer or family court judge. So how can you be sure that he actually said the things attributed to him on the tape (about what a powerful man he is, etc.)? Eliana said that she and Ivory Madison were laughing before they made the tape. If that's true, how can you take anything that was said on the tape seriously?

Originally, the argument was over Eliana's desire to visit her mother in Venezuela, not her father (who just recently took a turn for the worse). Her mother lives in Santa Ines where Washington National's catcher father was kidnapped less than two months before the incident between Ross and his wife broke out. Ross was understandably concerned that his son could be kidnapped and held for ransom.

With a few exceptions, none of you have demanded to know all the facts in this case before condemning Ross Mirkarimi. You preferred that he be "tried" and crucified in the press before you knew the full story. And the cries of this frenzied mob have led, predictably, to the political railroading of an innocent man.

Posted by Guest 99 on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 5:38 pm

that's Washington Nationals catcher Wilson Ramos, not "Washington Nationals father".

Posted by Guest 99 on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

after Ross had grabbed and imprisoned her?

On what planet do you think any court would accept that excuse? Even Ross hasn't dared try and blame his wife for her injuries.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 6:02 am

Which is a very poor basis on which to build a political career. Gray Davis learned that the hard way back in 2003 and now Ross is learning it too. If you give your so-called friends and supporters no reason to support you other than your election appears inevitable, and you're full of yourself on top of it, then you'll find out quickly that their backing, when you really need it, is as ephemeral as San Francisco fog on a warm, fall day.

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Ross is being served an extra-large, super-iced bowl of that revenge by a few of the people he pissed off the most and he really has no one but himself to blame for it.

Posted by Troll II on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 4:51 pm

The lady has flown, back to Venezuela with child

And she will not return to this whacko country

laden with whacko PC

A little child

A little child named Theo

suffers the consequences

-Rod McKuen

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 5:45 am

The lady has flown, back to Venezuela with child

And she will not return to this whacko country

laden with whacko PC

A little child

A little child named Theo

suffers the consequences

-Rod McKuen

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 5:45 am

Can someone explain how an elected official can be removed for official misconduct from an office he did not officially hold when the alleged official misconduct officially occurred?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 11:21 am

Just because you raped your mother and daughter a few hours before you took office doesn't somehow magically immunize you against all the obvious implications of committing such a heinous act.

What matters is credibility and authority. Ross no longer has either, so how can he command the respect and compliance of those who supposedly should follow his lead?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 12:07 pm

This is a political lynchmob SF style, and it’s very ugly to watch.
I’ve never seen anything like it the way they are just shutting down this man’s life---taking his privilige to go to his own home , see his son, then take away his job , based on a third party’s “allegations” , that were never proven . Now suspension
with no pay. It’s an attack that goes beyond anything I’ve heard of when all they
have is some neighbors story about a fight next door, the lady was not a witness or anything. She was NOT there.

But Lee has not listened to ANYTHING Ross was saying when he apologized for
this , and Ross agreed to all this education and community service , so we could all move on.
No Lee just ignored all the penalties and punishment RM already had taken for this incident, and decided to make it a political lynching. (or personal vendetta?)
No there could be no healing for Lee.(and the city) He apparently needed to try to pre-empt his potential opponent and mess up RM’s reputation further when “they” cooked this remove him from office plan up with the City attorney weeks in advance .-----, So Lee was already prejudiced, and decided to nullify the voters of SF based on a neighbors hearsay , NOT Ross own explanation . And of course Lee could display no empathy or or grace for this hard working young family In San Francisco.

As far as I know Elena and Ross are good citizens, and they have not had any
Infractions before this so why this heavy handedness…something is definitely amiss
@ S.F. city hall.

Posted by Guest -- Cal on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

Ross because he has fully admitted to and apologized for the crimes.

But if you want to talk about a "lynch mob", why not cite the case being drummed up in Florida over the neighborhood watch captain who killed another guy in self-defense and now finds himself being mercilessly condemned for no reason other than the color of his skin?

But somehow I doubt that you see the similarity.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 12:38 pm

The reason this has become political is not that Ross was caught up in a scuffle and subsequent infraction of a misdepmeanor.
The mayor unjustifiably is now attempting to undo Ross’s new hard fought and won 4 year term to office of Sherriff. This is really where the ‘system’ has gone off the rails.The mayor clearly has a conflict of interest here . This is the part of the city charter that should be challenged and overturned.

Posted by Guest -- Cal on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 1:19 pm

He pleaded guilty to false imprisonment and he is in charge of imprisoning others. On what planet does that make any sense?

The simple fact is that the voters did not know who or what they were voting for. This was mis-representation on a grand scale. Democracy has not been served and Ross has been rightly stripped of his duties.

If public opinion appointed him, then public opinion must also banish him.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

I'm sure he could admirably do his duties as SF Sherriff. This flap is just
overblown.
Someone at walgreens in front of me pushed her kid into me the other day and it was like a battery. But I just moved on , didn’t try to make a big legal case out of it. My goodness this Ross Mirkairmi case has been is SO completely overblown , and some of the DV folks and Ross opponents act like Eliana was beaten up and or punched in the face needing a hospital room. Nothing of the sort.

Posted by Guest -- Cal on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

wanting Ross to go. Clearly he could not win an election to be a janitor now.

He's done - do you really want to be the last person in town to get that?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 2:32 pm

Randy Shaw is calling out the Guardian again, and now claiming that Mirkarimi has never done anything for progressives.

Which is refuted by his own website with probably less than five seconds of google.

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=3354

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 1:07 pm

Plus Shaw is calling you racists again, I believe referring to the Guardian questioning Olague about her vote to eliminate ranked choice voting?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

Ironic that Randy Shaw is calling the Guardian racist against oppointed supervisors of color, considering his biggest supporter is Ron Conway, Republican taker awayer of every civil and women's rights ever created.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 1:25 pm

I try not to belabor the right wing angle of Ed Lee's election, but Ivory Madison called Phil Bronstein twice before she decided to call police, and the Chronicle under Bronstein refused to hire progressive commentators, but stacked his editorial pages with right wing writers, which is how Randy Shaw's website got it's name to begin with.

So for Randy Shaw to be calling anyone racist while he is in bed with the likes of the Chronicle and Ron Conway is reprehensible.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

I admit to being obsessed by Ivory Madison's phone calls to Phil Bronstein, exposed after her phone records were subpoena'd, because under the leadership of Phil Bronstein...

"Chronicle reportage was as fair and balanced as Fox News."

"Its subsequent coverage of Newsom's first term was largely fawning"

" prior to Beyond Chron the Chronicle's daily bias went largely unscrutinized."

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/About_Us_1299.html

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

that you make. It indicates that you are probing for a conspiracy here regardless of whether there was one.

Fail.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 1:48 pm

I'm not probing for a conspiracy. I'm saying Ivory Madison had Phil Bronstein's phone number and he answered her phone calls at least twice. When was the last time YOU tried to call Phil Bronstein?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 2:48 pm

Ross abusing his wife - a crime he has now fully admitted to and apologized for?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 3:50 pm

Also, Shaw says that because Mirkarimi did not run for sheriff is evidence that he has done nothing for progressives, without mentioning that Chris Daly didn't run for mayor, either.

And that Mirkarimi is under attack for running for sheriff instead of challenging Shaw's candidate, Ed Lee, should be evidence to Progressives how important it is to fight now, because NOT fighting is how you get attacked later.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 1:53 pm

Because everyone knows that if Mirkarimi had run for mayor against Shaw's candidate, he would be in a cush lucrative city job right now, like for instance Bevan Dufty.

These pigs never cease to amaze me.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 1:57 pm

Bevan Dufty, advocate for the homeless. When did THAT happen??????

Posted by Guest on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 2:02 pm