Mayor and Mirkarimi testify in Ethics probe before dramatic disruption

06.29.12 - 12:52 pm | Steven T. Jones |

(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

Where did she "testify" under oath and lie

and how specifically? You may begin.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 02, 2012 @ 8:13 pm

ChrisCraft/Dootise/JCCourt/Coppersmom/Guest - you tell us

You're the attorney/AM talk radio host on a crusade to prove your man's innocence against this vast conspiracy.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 02, 2012 @ 8:51 pm

Creating a phony bomb threat is also a felony

Crimes Considered as Class D Felonies
(1) Filing a false claim that a crime as been committed. This includes calling 911 as a practical joke and falsely accusing someone of a crime.
(2) Violation of weapons laws on county, state, or federal level. Included with the violation are carrying a firearm without a permit or bringing firearms or other weapons into a federal building.
(3) Reporting or placing a fake bomb threat. This also includes placing equipment in a location that is constructed to appear to be a bomb.

. . .

Punishment of Class D Felony
Typical punishment of a Class D Felony is 2 to 7 years. This means that the sentence cannot be lower than 2 years and the maximum sentence is not over 7 years. Fines are generally no more than $5000 or two times the amount of profit made by the defendent.

http://felonyguide.com/Felony-Class-D.php

Posted by Guest Ann Garrison on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 6:49 am

You have no evidence for that, AnnG/Craft.Daniele/Erika

None whatsoever.

You're just like Walker, making stuff up.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 9:17 am

Phony bomb threats are domestic terrorism!

Which makes Ed Lee, Willie Brown and Rose Pak domestic terrorists. Ben Hur risks complicity in domestic terrorism unless he does the right thing and gets to the bottom of this dark pool of felonies.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 7:19 am

18 USC § 844

(e) Whoever, through the use of the mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of interstate or foreign commerce, or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, willfully makes any threat, or maliciously conveys false information knowing the same to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made, or to be made, to kill, injure, or intimidate any individual or unlawfully to damage or destroy any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property by means of fire or an explosive shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined under this title, or both.

...

Now who made the call on the fake bomb threat? Was it Willie Brown? Hopefully, Brown will finally expire in prison due to natural causes or his inability to see it coming from behind.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 8:06 am

When will Barack Obama drone attack Willie Brown and Ed Lee?

Given that they are domestic terrorists who have phoned in fictitious bomb threats to cover for perjury and obstruction of justice?

Posted by marcos on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 8:10 am

Marcos, how did the caller with the threat know EXACTLY

when to make it? Was it a coded signal from the Mayor? A micro-radio activated when Lee tugged on his elbow? Empathetic communication through the ether?

I'm fascinated to hear your very special conspiracy theory about this.

And isn't it odd that it's the same people who think Ross should not be dismissed for beating his wife, who are quick to want Lee dismissed for "perjury" and "terrorism" even when there is zero evidence that either happened.?

You and the other Ross apologists must be getting pretty desparate by now if that's the best you've got.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 9:20 am

Thanks for confirming that there was a phone call.

Thanks for confirming that there was a phone call. I'd imagine that Willie Brown was watching the proceedings live like so many others and made a phone call and made things (un)happen.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 9:58 am

I've no idea whether a phone call was made or not.

My comment was more about how you can credibly claim that Lee orchestrated a phone call while he was testifying?

Secret code or message? Ouija? Thought projection?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 10:35 am

So you admit that you just

So you admit that you just lied? When did you stop beating your wife too?

Posted by marcos on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 10:54 am

No, I was inviting you to substantiate your

baseless allegation in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 12:55 pm

"Overwhelming evidence?" My god. You raise talking out of one's

ass to a whole new and unexplored level. Amazing.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

Lilli, do you have "any" evidence that Lee conspired or

perjured himself? Because you've presented none so far, and nor haa Marcos or the various incarnations of ChrisCraft/AnnG ec.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

It was just a coincidence that the phone threat bailed the mayor

out when he was finally facing sharp questions about his conduct in the Mirkarimi matter. Yes. Just a coincidence. Why think anything else?

I have no evidence to the contrary and -- of course -- no honest person can suggest that I ever claimed to have such.

(Now, I seem to remember reading claims that evidence to the contrary, positively proving Mayor Lee's innocence -- lots of it -- we available. Perhaps that person will come through with some of that evidence... but probably they'll "forget" all about their promises and go off on some non-sequitur tangent.)

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 3:28 pm

Aha, Lilli, so not only do you admit you "have no evidence" that

Lee fabricated the alleged phone call, but you can't even come up with a conspiracy theory as to how Lee could conceivably have engineered such a call while in full view of at least 100 people?

Well, gee.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 3:53 pm

I admit that I never claimed to have evidence, and I admit to

feeling pretty confident that I'd have to try really hard to risk looking as much a fool and an ass clown as you seem to do so naturally.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 4:12 pm

So, other than no evidence and not even a theory, it seems that

you're otherwise 100% correct?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 4:28 pm

How on earth would Lee's handlers have known when to

create a bomb threat distraction??? uh, perhaps, unlike you, they were watching the live testimony on www.sfgovtv.org.. the bomb threat disruption which affected only Ed Lee(paragon of truth and virtue)...came just a couple of questions subsequent to Shep Kopp cornering Lee about talking to any supes(the subject matter of the perjury allegation)

just long enough...to make what happened, happen. The bomb threat was bullshit. Lee was getting clobbered.

A well-placed phone call by a certain someone with connections to Lee's security detail...hmmmmm

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 11:16 am

And how would Lee have made that bomb threat call when

he was being watched by dozens of people?

Riddle me that, Einstein.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 12:03 pm

Lee didn't make the bomb threat call

His security fellow came in and told him he had to move..just him..apparently it was like an ed lee neutron bomb that would have only harmed Lee(tongue firmly planted). Watch the very available video.

The call to call for a distraction play was made by the minion of a very powerful person who watched Lee getting into enormous trouble under the questioning of Shepard Kopp.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

Heads Up

Just to clarify. Mr Ed doesn't need to 'give signals' - he gets them. He does not 'give orders' - he takes them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpQWbvYbeZE
Kudos to Ben Hur for the way he conducted the proceedings.
Now that Ethics seems to be growing a pair, here are a few examples of other issues that could/should have been thoroughly investigated:-
1) Fire Chief beaning spouse with a bottle
2) City Attorney disenfranchising 30,000 voters on basis of obscure 'technicality'
only used once before, and never since.
3) Former Mayor engaging in 'inappropriate' sexual relations with a subordinate;
admitted drug and alcohol abuse; etc, etc.
4) Alleged irregularities in conduct of current Mayor's election campaign.
All these, and a slew of other such events, occurring while holding Public Office.
This is not a defense of Mirkarimi's behavior, I abhor all violence, foreign or
domestic, but double standards in play here.
GO GIANTS.
Lotsa singles and doubles, but no double plays.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 11:28 am

Don't forget Peskin's house

5) Young Supervisor Aaron Peskin pays $750K for a Telegraph Hill house from a local financier while nearby, smaller condos are selling for over $2 million. Peskin never explains.

Oh..wait...Peskin is a Progressive. Never mind, it's OK then.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 11:37 am

So, Monk, in other words, you have no idea how Lee

allegedly communicated a message to some outside party to make a phone call that made a bomb threat?

Hmm, let's see here.

Mirk admits a crime of violence and we should retain him?

A few bogus unfounded allegations against Lee, and he should resign?

Hmm again.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 12:58 pm

Please keep up. Read comments

Please keep up. Read comments before responding.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 2:19 pm

LOL, Monk, do you really think anyone will fall for that?

Evidence?

Got any?

Thought not.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

You really do have a problem

You really do have a problem understanding what you read don't you. Such a shame. 10-4.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 4:22 pm

So again, Monk, no proof, evidence or rational basis for your

spurious, slanderous allegations.

Got it.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 4:53 pm

A mind is a terrible thing to waste

Reams of documentation available on-line in the public domain for anyone truly interested in exploring the malfeasances of this and prior administrations, the vast majority of which have gone uninvestigated. I'm not doing your research for you, suggest you consider putting your lazy mind in gear before opening your mouth. It's better to remain silent and have people think you are ignorant than opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 11:24 am

Reams, Monk? And yet when asked for specifics you

come up with nothing.

QED.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 12:03 pm

Ed Lee grabs arm of Goddess if Justice, leaves bruise.

yes he did.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 2:07 pm

Ha!

She was real San Francisco belle, no doubt ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49VgDNrC5ig&feature=relmfu

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 4:40 pm

City spends tens of thousands on witnesses

like Ms. Sour Lemon whose report has been severely gutted before admission into the commission hearing record..but can't find $1,500. to hear and cross examine the woman at the center of this whole thing? Time for a fundraiser to get Eliana here safely so she can be heard, even if Ed Lee and Beverly Upton want to shut her up.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 5:20 pm

Eliana demanding cash in return for supporting Ross is her way

of giving a big FU to Ross, the city and everyone else. Her little scheme to collect alimony has been blown sky high because she didn't plan it properly and now she's bitter and twisted, losing most of the sympathy we'd normally have for an abused wife.

Eliana doesn't want to come here and, given that her testimony will be 100% scripted by her lawyers, and self-serving, her words will be worthless anyway.

Next!

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 5:34 pm

Every prog woman is bitter and twisted, according to the trolls

Every prog woman is bitter and twisted, according to the trolls. And every prog woman is just after a man for his alimony, even if he doesn't have a bloody cent to his name. Oh yes...and every progressive woman who posts comments is the one and the same woman. Because the trolls say so. And as everyone knows, all these trolls have impecable integrity and moral fiber...every one of them.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 6:07 pm

Progressive women do not defend wife beaters

Plain and simple. No one defending Mirkarimi is a progressive - defense of women from domestic violence is progressive. Defending abusers is not.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 7:57 pm

"Plain and simple"?

may I recommend to you Ralph Waldo Emerson,
" A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

One arm grab does not an abuser make, as any woman, progressive, regressive, aggressive or impressive, understands. That is, if she uses her critical thinking skills.
Life is not plain and simple, usually.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 8:56 pm

There was more than one arm grab according to the video

and according to their neighbors.

It's a pattern, not an isolated incident, although of course even one act of DV is one too many.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

once again...no neighbor saw

any abuse.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 12:28 pm

Eliana admits it on video and Ivory restified to that

No counter-evidence,

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 12:52 pm

Ivory Madison and Abraham Mertens and Phil Bronstein

the three musketeers NEVER saw Ross Mirkarimi abuse his wife, hit his wife, smack his wife, bloody his wife, break his wife or even the arm grab which he admits to, which they both admit to. I think Ivory Madison SHOULD be called to "restify" under oath. Bring it on, Bronstein and Mertens too. They should want to testify, don't you think? Their motives in managing this whole convenient situation couldn't possibly be called into question, right?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 3:08 pm

So you think she's coming

back to testify? She can't see Mirkarimi, there is still an order in place. If she goes back to their house, he has to leave, leaving her right next door to the Madison-Mertenses.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 8:45 pm

Eliana has a right to return but elects not to.

Apparently she isn't interested in standing by or supporting Ross. Don't blame her either, but it's weird to hear people claiming that Eliana's testimony will somehow help Ross. She left to get away from him.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 8:02 am

so if Eliana does return to testify

will you admit you were utterly wrong? If you find it "weird" as you say you do, that her testimony will help her husband, I don't think you've been paying much attention.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 8:33 am

Since Eliana hasn't come back, your hypo is moot.

And since she has already contradicted herself, it's not clear how credible anything she says will be either way. She's not that smart and could easily harm Ross even if she was trying to help him.

She's better off staying away and so are we. And since she has shown no interest in playing the dutiful wife supoorting a political husband in trouble, why whould we care either way?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 12:01 pm

She's coming back and it's going to make you

feel very, very green. I'm absolutely sure that you don't want to hear her testify under oath about the neighbor who told her she had to make a videotape for legal reasons, and then conned her into sitting in front of the neighbor's convenient camera. This neighbor then told her she had to and MUST call the police any time Ross said a cross word. Then the neighbor did some remarkable things between the time she conned Eliana into making the :45 tape and the time she called the police. Do you know what those things were?

Do you know much about Ivory Madison's past ? I"m not talking about just her female vengeance superhero comicbook. I'm talking about her long term real life efforts to promote and lead the throngs of bisexual domestic violence avengers, and not just in San Francisco.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 12:27 pm

This is about Ross, and his lies, abuse and violence.

It's not about his neighbor who, as far as anyone knows, was merely trying to help at at-risk woman who subsequently fled as far away as she could and shows little sign of returning.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 12:51 pm

Re: Heads Up

Patrick, interesting comment when you wrote:

"Just to clarify. Mr Ed doesn't need to 'give signals' - he gets them. He does not 'give orders' - he takes them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpQWbvYbeZE
Kudos to Ben Hur for the way he conducted the proceedings. Now that Ethics seems to be growing a pair, here are a few examples of other issues that could/should have been thoroughly investigated:-
1) Fire Chief beaning spouse with a bottle
2) City Attorney disenfranchising 30,000 voters on basis of obscure 'technicality' only used once before, and never since.
3) Former Mayor engaging in 'inappropriate' sexual relations with a subordinate; admitted drug and alcohol abuse; etc, etc.
4) Alleged irregularities in conduct of current Mayor's election campaign. All these, and a slew of other such events, occurring while holding Public Office. This is not a defense of Mirkarimi's behavior, I abhor all violence, foreign or domestic, but double standards in play here. GO GIANTS. Lotsa singles and doubles, but no double plays."

I'm not familiar with the voter disenfranchisment story, but the others you mention are certainly germaine to this subject. Absolutely germane. That's why the above troglodytic obfuscations have been so plentiful, I'd say.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 03, 2012 @ 6:31 pm

Offence is the best form of attack, huh?

Why not bring up the war in Iraq too? I think it's the only issue you haven't tried to distract us with,

Too bad Ross is still gulity of a violent crime and deemed unfit for duty by over 3/4 of SF voters, huh? Hell, even his wife can't bear to be in the same continent as him.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 12:07 pm

"Offence [sic] is the best form of attack" -- *Huh?*

Black is the best form of the darkest color too, I guess. And stupidity is a best form of dumbness, something which you appear expert in.

Well, the constant harping on a completely bogus poll is offensive, I'll agree with that. You can't prove your claim about any poll because no evidence exists, and except for repeated references to it mostly by trolls.

Every other poll which has ever been debated in the internet age has a URL associated with it along with information regarding it's population sample, methodology, and margin of error.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 04, 2012 @ 1:43 pm