Mayor and Mirkarimi testify in Ethics probe before dramatic disruption

|
(261)
Mayor Ed Lee testifies under oath before the Ethics Commission.
Mike Koozmin

After Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi endured about four hours of questioning in his official misconduct proceedings, mostly from Deputy City Attorney Peter Keith, Mayor Ed Lee took the stand a little after 1pm. But just as Mirkarimi attorney Shepherd Kopp was beginning to pin Lee down on the selective manner in which he decided to launch these unprecedented proceedings, the commission suddenly announced the hearing was being suspended and the room would need to be cleared immediately.

There is speculation that there was a bomb threat or other security emergency, but officials have so far offered no explanation for the dramatic development or whether the hearing would reconvene today. Yet the room is still half-filled with journalists and audience members, some speculating that that the clearing of the room was simply an effort to get the unusually grim-faced Lee off the hot seat.

Kopp's questioning included pointed questions about whether he consulted any members of the Board of Supervisors before deciding to bring official misconduct charges against Mirkarimi in March. The city's objection was overruled after Kopp noted that the supervisors will ultimately decide Mirkarimi's fate. Forced to answer under oath, Lee said no, he didn't speak to any supervisors before filing charges.

But progressive activist Debra Walker says Sup. Christina Olague -- women who are close political allies and speak regularly -- has repeatedly told her that Mayor Lee asked her opinion before filing the charges. If true, that would mean Mayor Lee committed perjury, which is a felony. Yet as reporters confronted Olague outside her office, she denied ever speaking with Lee about the case and then barricaded herself in her office.

When the reporters lingered and persisted, she finally emerged, reiterated her denial, refused to speculate about why her friend Walker would make that claim, and said, "We're not allowed to discuss this matter with anyone before it comes to the board...I may have to recuse myself from voting on this."

It was unclear why she thought recusal might be necessary, but if she does that would hurt Lee's effort to get the nine votes on the board needed to remove Mirkarimi.

We'll have complete analysis of the testimony and other developments in next week's Guardian.

 

Comments

LOL

You have to give it to the Progressives - they're learning how to play scorched-earth politics at last. It's just unfortunate they've chosen the relatively powerless office of sheriff and an admitted wife beater on which to make their last stand.

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 4:07 pm

that Kopp had nailed it. Miss Olague should be called as a witness. Did mayor talk to her ? Did he commit perjury?

Miss Olague...under oath..not just recusal.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 5:18 pm

Mayor Lee is an experienced attorney who can think on his feet. If Kopp had nailed him about speaking to a Supervisor he would have done the quick mental math of perjury vs letting the Mirkarimi side score a point.

Possibly letting Mirkarimi off the hook vs ending his own career in shame.

Sorry, the guy is not a naive idiot.

Posted by Troll on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 5:45 pm

Jason Grant Garza here ... WOW, the feeling I got was that of a "PUPPET" ... you know like Pinocchio. Regardless, I am sure that it represented is "What we would expect form OUR officials" as far as CONDUCT that falls below the STANDARD of DECENCY, good faith and right action impliedly required of ALL PUBLIC OFFICERS.

However, if it is NOT ... then WHAT ???

What happened to the INNOCENT VINDICATED VICTIM in case C02-3485PJH where the city Testlyied to have my case dismissed in 2003 ONLY to sign a "CONFESSION/SETTLEMENT" agreement in 2007 with the Office of Inspector General admitting fault and guilt for BREAKING FEDERAL LAW. Was the INNOCENT VINDICATED VICTIM LEFT for DEAD .... go to http://www.myownprivatreguantanamo.com .... there you will see the paperwork.

I still await JUSTICE, ETHICS, GOOD CONDUCT ....

Nurse Ratch I am sure retired to live the GOOD LIFE ... I was only LEFT as the LIVING DEAD, DEAD RIGHT and LEFT for DEAD but I'm sure the quick mental math (calculation) scorched earth and take no prisoners WAS NEVER CONSIDERED and NATURALLY if proven INCORRECT ... CONTRITION and DAMAGES would be forthcoming .... ha,ha,ha.

Maybe we should ask the question in my case # 11081 where the city's EXPERT represented (a requirement under HIPAA) (listen to the tape Nov 2011 - Sunshine) and now has CONCEDED ... what is the penalty? My the MINISTRY won't even GRANT me due process and can't find a HIPAA expert ... how many months NOW?

Again, what is the PENALTY of PERJURY ... I can show you the PENALTY of telling the TRUTH to YOUR OFFICIALS.

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 9:32 am

The penalty for perjury is whatever those in power decide it should be. Who's going to charge Ed Lee if he commits a felony? Gascon? Be serious.

We need to get out of this mindset that this is a legal process.

This is a political coup backed by the theater of a kangaroo court.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

Walker's comments are hearsay and inadmissable in court anyway.

Moreover, Olague confirms that Walker is lying. End of.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 2:39 pm

Say what you would of Bill Clinton, but he's not a blithering idiot and got caught in a perjury trap.

Now it seems that Willie Brown is trying to channel Newt Gingrich circa 1998 and apparently his Special Prosecutor just got caught in a big fat lie under oath.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 4:59 pm
Posted by Guest on Jul. 02, 2012 @ 3:35 am
Posted by Troll II on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 6:08 pm

She is held to a much higher standard than Walker is regardless. As is Lee.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

conversation with Lee. Walker just made the whole thing up.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 7:42 am

and didn't say..Now she's saying she's going to recuse herself from the BOS vote..but not saying why.. use your noggins..

I wanna hear some cops here tell us about bomb threats at city hall. and why only one person was evacuated, right in the middle of getting drilled by a great lawyer, right after that one person told a big whopper?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 8:19 am

Which means that Walker is lying about what Olague said.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 9:07 am

The AP report:

"Lee's testimony was halted for about 90 minutes Friday after police received an apparent threat of car bombs near City Hall and another undisclosed building, authorities said. No devices were discovered."

I gotta admit that I had the best laugh of the day when I read Steven's article and he writes:

"some speculating that that the clearing of the room was simply an effort to get the unusually grim-faced Lee off the hot seat."

You gotta love it. Mind you...HE'S not saying that it was a conspiracy...just that others were speculating and then he offers no other possible explanation or assessment.

Sometimes people on this board ask why the Trolls read this stuff since we obviously disagree. One reason is because it's funny. Often it is downright hilarious, like today.

"Funny or Die" and "The Onion" are also pretty good.

Posted by Troll on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 6:09 pm

you think if there is a bomb threat to City Hall..as the City is saying...only the mayor should be evacuated??? really?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 9:20 pm

"Officer Troll". Sounds really great.

But to answer your question, no. I'm not saying that only the Mayor should be evacuated.

Can anyone remember San Francisco City Hall being evacuated in the past few years? You'd remember because it would be national news.

That doesn't mean that there weren't threats, there most likely were. But the Police Dept consults the Mayor and they decide what to do. Which is what happened today. The only difference is that the Mayor was on television at the time.

Both the AP and NBC are reporting the facts. Their journalists uncovered the truth while the SFBG writers were busy trying to start conspiracy theories that desperate Progressives are gullible enough to believe and run with.

Posted by Troll on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 9:38 pm

And under oath being cross-examined and could not have legally talked to his attorney or anyone else before being released from oath.

Mirkarimi should be recalled and Lee should spend some time in San Bruno.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 10:59 pm

don't do their job and bail Mirk out from the consequences of his violence, anger and abuse.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 7:46 am

punting as it were..lots of punting to be sure there is no BOS vote..all designed to keep the mayor's alleged perjury...quiet.

then when the powers that be stiffle a recall for political reasons..wanting to keep the mayor's misdeeds hidden...I wonder what you M haters will say?

that a felony by the Mayor ..was just a little wittle felony?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 2:45 pm

You mean the allegation by the hopelessly baised and useless Debra Walker, which has already been refuted by Olague herself.

Try again.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 2:51 pm

"Hopelessly Baised" by Troll and the Dimwits

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 8:57 am

The left in SF plumb new depths.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

You're an official idiot if you think "it would be national news" if SF City Hall were evacuated. I live across the street from the building, and it happens at least once a year. Here are some photos for your idiotic pleasure:

http://sfciviccenter.blogspot.com/search?q=bomb

Posted by sfmike on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 11:15 am

Lol...those are a series of posts about bomb scares near City Hall, the most recent of which was from 2009. And nowhere is there a mention of City Hall being evacuated. Which is what I said, there are bomb threats but they don't always evacuate, especially without consulting the Mayor first.

I mean really, if calling me an idiot makes you feel better then fine but it isn't going to help you in any way. Some reading comprehension lessons might be a better use of your energy...no offense but you don't seem particularly bright even by Progressive standards.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

Do not feed the Trolls. Jeesh, you'd think I'd know that by now.

Posted by sfmike on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 4:07 pm

as a substitute for coherent, credible argument.

The word" troll" here merely means anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 4:14 pm

The whole "some are speculating" or "some progressive activists say" is vintage Bay Guardian style. It's the way their editorial voice puts its stamp on matters while pretending to do reporting.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 6:54 am

I've noticed the same thing. They sometimes do it as a veiled threat, like when an Olague or a Chiu doen't vote the way they are supposed to. All of a sudden 'some' are talking about a Progressive candidate deciding to challenge them.

It gives them a bit of distance as if "Hey, it's not us who are saying this, just the powerful political powers that we are tied into".

Posted by Troll on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 4:28 pm

"some observers are saying . . . "

"the conversation in the room included . . ."

"it is increasingly widely thought that . . . "

"comments were overheard indicating . . ."

Anything rather than proof, evidence or logic, it seems.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 4:46 pm

faux bomb threat...that is just a fact.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 6:28 pm

I don't doubt that there was speculation. But the others (AP, NBC, ABC) actually reported on the bomb threat details. The SFBG didn't mention the threat specifics at all, they just talked about the speculation that it was something done to help Lee.

That's the difference. The journalists reported facts, the SFBG writer fell all over himself hurrying to start the conspiracy speculation against a politician that they dislike.

But, hey, I love the direction that the Progressive movement has taken in the past few years. I hope that the SFBG keeps going strong and only wish that Daly and Peskin could somehow be resurrected.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 7:15 pm

a single exception?

If you're going to lie, try and make it credible .

Posted by Guest on Jul. 02, 2012 @ 3:37 am

The abuser Ross may think he's getting off soon but the fact is elected progressives are sick of his fat ass and his abusive bullshit. He accomplished little as a Supervisor and would be a shitty Sheriff.

Debra Walker ran an incompetent campaign and is a first class loser. Notice how Ross didn't do SHIT to help her ass get elected and now expects people who wouldn't even vote him Board President to help him out of a mess HE created!

Progressives and the BG have lost their moral authority in politics. It's like when we found out the Catholic Church was run by boy-diddlers and authorized cover ups. Now the dead Progressives are trying to save the dying Smirk, and for what? NOTHING!

Ed Lee may be a butthead, but his legal team is aces above Ross's. And ROSS PLEADE GUILTY TO A CRIME. Deny it all you like but he is a criminal who lied about his guns, lied about his wife's status, and fed his precious theo gov't cheese because he's a cheap bastard. That's YOUR GUY, PROGRESSIVES!!

Posted by Inglorious Basterd Ross M. on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 7:08 pm

would you bet the farm on that assertion?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 8:21 am

Jason Grant Garza ... Yes, Ross plead and is paying the PRICE ... I still await the HUMANITY, DAMAGES, CIVILITY, CONTRITION, JUSTICE and the list goes on after the city SIGNED a "CONFESSION/SETTLEMENT" Agreement with the Office of Inspector General in 2007 admitting fault and guilt for having BROKEN FEDERAL LAW in case C02-3485PJH (2003) where the city TESTILIES to have my case dismissed and LEAVING its INNOCENT VINDICATED VICTIM for DEAD ... was I NOT BRUISED, HARMED, DAMAGED? What about the FALSE and INJURIOUS 5150 by the city attorney during the deposition for the above mentioned case (C02-3486PJH)?

So where is this NOT DOUBLE JEOPARDY (Ross) where I sit with an SIGNED CONFESSION and an arrest record (never having been arrested) for a CRIME that the city committed and ADMITTED to ... and I was NOT DAMAGED ???? The real question is how many times was I damaged and why is it continuing ... was I only damaged when I was denied EMERGENCY services, was I damaged when they TESTILIED in FEDERAL COURT, was I damaged during the false 5150 or am I still being damaged ??? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

As always the CITY LEADS by example ... WHAT A FARCE.

Oh, and the confession/settlement agreement was not because of the KINDNESS of the city attorney after the scorched earth and take no prisoners tactic in 2003 ... it was ME continuing against ALL ODDS.

Where's the character, morality, humanity, contrition .... fortunately, I am DEAD since that's how I was left ...

Don't believe me ... go to http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com to see the paperwork on THEIR OWN letterhead.

I still await payment from the city as opposed to the city extracting it's POUND of FLESH from ROSS but that would REQUIRE ETHICS.

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 11:14 am

Maybe you should get ChrisCraft on your case. She's an attorney you know - she knows what its like to be victimized. Look her up.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 7:54 pm

Jason Grant Garza here ... dear Troll II ... you missed the whole point here ... I have a signed "confession/settlement" agreement 2007 by CCSF to the Inspector General for BREAKING FEDERAL LAW against me in which the city admits fault and guilt and then LEAVES its INNOCENT VINDICATED VICTIM for DEAD after Testilying in court (C02-3485PJH) to have my case dismissed in 2003.

Where's the ETHICS, followup, CONTRITION, "made whole", etc? What about the False and INJURIOUS 5150 at the hands of the city attorney during my deposition for the case (C02-3485PJH) in 2003? What about the CONFESSION and the damages that points to (coverup, etc) ... not to mention WHY, HOW and NOW WHAT?

I know what it is liked to be VICTIMIZED, I know what it is LIKE to BE DEAD RIGHT and I know HOW to CONTINUE against ALL ODDS ... go to http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com to see the PAPERWORK on their (CITY) own letterhead ... come on ... I dare you.

Again Troll II thank you for your concern, compassion and humanity; however, my paperwork also proves the FARCE of court (JUSTICE for the RICH) and it's LACK of ETHICS (no followup to punish its own - didn't the city attorney research my opposition to dismissal ... it is in the paperwork - see http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com and remember it WAS my FEDERAL COURT papers that got the "CONFESSION/SETTLEMENT" Agreement at the OIG ... any more QUESTIONS?

Oh and if you look at my postings (blog comments) on this and the MINISTRY of SUNSHINE ... over the last few months here at SFBG and its articles ... if, I was lying ... I WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN ARRESTED ... unlike the other side who can BREAK the LAW, admit to it, LEAVE its INNOCENT VINDICATED VICTIM for DEAD while representing higher morals and standards (Ross double jeopardy FARCE) yet NOT do the "RIGHT THING" when BUSTED. Is this NOT "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" per the definition of what should be expected of our officials that the Mayor and City Attorney have charged Ross with? Double standards, False words, Hypocrites ... I'm NOT quite sure what others would call it ... however, apparently WHAT is good for the GOOSE is NOT good for the GANDER ... my "Official Misconduct" and ALL its IMPLICATIONS.

Sorry if the TRUTH seeks MORE ...

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Jul. 02, 2012 @ 7:40 am

Anyone who has lived in this city for any length (/) of time and has followed the shennanigans of local politics knows that Debra Walker has a long and distinguished record of service and fighting for civil rights for all. I have no insight into the apparent 'contradictions' between her recollection and that of Supervisor Olague. Time will tell.
However, if there was a a 'bomb/security threat' why weren't 'the people' advised and protected. Guess 'we' don't matter and, much like those killed in our 'targeted drone attacks', we are just 'unfortunate collateral damage'; AKA - Terrorists.
It was obvious watching the hearing on SFGTV that 'da mayor' was getting increasingly uncomfortable and evasive in his responses.
I acknowledge that many will dismiss the following as the wild and krazy konspiritational konjectures of a kook, but; the abrupt cessation of the mayor's 'testimony' came at a very 'opportune' moment. There is a photo in the Examiners's article depicting 'that moment'; if a balloon could be inserted it might read, "The Mayor is on the phone". Mr Ed's handlers, realising that things weren't going according to plan, needed an intervention to stop the bleeding. Couldn't help but recall this 'oldie' :-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpQWbvYbeZE
I'm not a fervent Ross Rooter, I'm just sick of the corruption that permeates SF politics.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 7:17 pm

>"However, if there was a a 'bomb/security threat' why weren't 'the people' advised and protected."

Because they don't evacuate City Hall as a reflex action on every bomb threat. At least not without consulting the Mayor.

You guys would be much better off if you worked to embrace reality rather than trying to escape to a make believe fantasy world whenever things go against you.

Posted by Troll on Jun. 29, 2012 @ 7:33 pm

whisk Ed Lee away at every city hall bomb threat..but no one else? unless he says so?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 8:20 am

situations. The safety of the chief executive is always considered to be the most urgent.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 9:08 am

If this ends up not being on the level, Ed Lee is guilty of Official Misconduct himself by both perjuring himself as well as staging an exit under cover of fake emergency.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 9:25 am
Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 10:31 am

misconduct in this case either. Phone records anyone?

Posted by lillipublicans on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 12:30 pm

And it was Ross who tried to suppress his text's, the video and almost everything else we have a right to see and know.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 4:47 pm

how to make him safe from the perils of chief executives committing perjury. The bomb threat..occured just subsequent to the question about talking to the supes..where the Mayor,clearly not confused,being such a great lawyer and everything, said,"NO"

Look at the KTVU video of Lee being told about the threat..do you think he looks like he already knew?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 2:48 pm

Your idea that Lee adopted a "my dog ate my homework" strategy is incredulous given that he knows that he must eventually answer all such questions.

These conspiracy theories are becoming ever more whacked as Ross's predicament becomes ever more hopeless.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 3:43 pm

...of why, exactly, the meeting was adjourned. I was there in room 400, and we weren't even given an explanation, let alone informed of any security threat.

Security policies and procedures are certainly matters of public importance. I look forward to hearing/reading about them.

I also wonder where, exactly, Ed Lee was after leaving the room? I didn't see him "whisked away," but given he was still under oath and legally barred from discussing the case, the public has a right to know where he went and with whom he may have spoken.

Perhaps next time Mayor Lee should be reading "My Pet Goat."

Posted by Erika McDonald on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 1:24 pm

asset to be protected in any risk scenario and it makes perfect sense to secure the main asset first and ask questions later. Since Lee knows the session would be resumed and the same questions asked, he would have nothing to gain by playing games like this, and it's unthinkable that he would.

Steven's remarks about "there was speculation in the room that" is really just journalist code for expressing your own personal view but making it sound like it was "reported" as authentic, as in "I have heard speculation that Erika is really a man". Cheap trick.

While reporting Walker's claim about a conversation she wasn't a party to when both of the parties that actually were there deny it is equally bad journalism. Why report such obvious lies? Why do you swallow this stuff up? Well, I already know the answer - political bias.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 3:25 pm
Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2012 @ 6:32 pm