Perjury allegations against Lee gain more support

Aaron Peskin confirms conveying a job offer to Mirkarimi, allegedly from the Mayor's Office.
Luke Thomas/Fog City Journal

San Francisco Democratic Party Chair Aaron Peskin has confirmed his role in extending a city job offer from Mayor Ed Lee to Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi if Mirkarimi had been willing to resign in March, bolstering allegations that Lee may have committed perjury when testifying under oath before the Ethics Commission on Friday.

But even as more media outlets report the possible perjury (a story we broke first here), which is further complicating the already complicated official misconduct proceedings that Lee brought against Mirkarimi, the Mayor's Office and key Lee allies have refused to comment on the perjury allegations or the strange circumstances surrounding the alleged bomb threat that temporarily got Lee off the hot seat.

As we reported in this week's Guardian, Building Inspection Commissioner Debra Walker said Lee was lying when he said that he hadn't spoken with any members of the Board of Supervisors before charging Mirkarimi with official misconduct. Walker said Sup. Christina Olague told her she had spoken with Lee about the matter, which Olague now denies.

Lee also responded “absolutely not” when asked by Mirkarimi attorney Shephard Kopp whether he authorized Peskin or development consultant Walter Wong, a close Lee ally, “to convey to Sheriff Mirkarimi if he would stop down, you'd get him another job.”

At press time for this week's article, Peskin was backpacking in the Sierras and couldn't be reached, but he has now confirmed to the Guardian that he met with Wong at 11:30am on March 19 – just hours before Lee met with Mirkarimi to say he would be removed from office unless he resigned – at Cafe Trieste.

In that meeting, Peskin said Wong asked him to convey to Mirkarimi an offer from the mayor of a job with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission or the Airport Commission if Mirkarimi would voluntarily resign. Asked whether Wong indicated that he had discussed the offer with the mayor, Peskin told us, “He certainly left me with that impression.”

Mirkarimi refused to accept the offer, insisting on fighting to keep his job, which was one factor in Peskin's subsequent public statement calling for Mirkarimi to resign. “There were a lot of things that factored into that,” Peskin said of his call for Mirkarimi to step down, although he wouldn't discuss other factors on the record.

Efforts by both the Guardian and the Examiner to reach Wong have been unsuccessful, and messages to the Mayor's Press Office on this and related issues also haven't been answered. But just as Walker has offered to do, Peskin said he's willing to testify under oath if asked.

“I am prepared, if subpoenaed, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” Peskin told us.

Lee hasn't had any public events or made any public comments on the matter since the scandal broke on Friday. The other unanswered mystery is why Lee was whisked from the hearing room just 15 minutes into his testimony, shortly after making the statements that Walker alleges amounted to perjury.

As we reported, neither the SFPD nor the Sheriff's Department ordered the room evacuated, meaning that decision must have been made by someone within the Mayor's Office. Press Secretary Christine Falvey's last statement to the Guardian, on July 2, said, “Again, the mayor's office did not recess the meeting. I still have to refer you to the Police Department which maintains Mayor Lee's security or the Ethics Commission about the decision to recess the meeting for (I believe) about 90 minutes.”

Yet neither body seems to know who made the call, and follow-up questions asking the Mayor's Office to disclose any information they have about that decision have gone unanswered. District Attorney George Gascon -- whose office would need to pursue the perjury allegations considering the city's official misconduct rules don't apply to the mayor -- also didn't return our call asking generally how allegations of this fashion should be handled.

The official misconduct proceeding continue in front of the Ethics Commission on July 18 and 19 when Mirkarimi's wife, Eliana Lopez, is scheduled to testify. But that has also been complicated by the Mayor's Office's refusal to authorize payment for a plane ticket for Lopez to return from her native Venezuela to testify. Mirkarimi and his legal team say they can't afford to pay for that plane ticket after Lee suspended Mirkarimi without pay.


There would be nothing wrong with Lee consulting with various other colleagues when he was considering removing Ross from office. In fact, I'd be stunned if he had not sought advice on such a risky step.

Given that, what on earth would be Lee's motivation for lying about something which is not in any way controversial or inadvisable? The idea makes no sense. Lee probably asked some people and didn't ask others. So what? Moreover, he may or may not be able to recall everyone he spoke to - he speaks to dozens of people each day about dozens of topics.

So you need to come up with a motive here. Why would Lee lie when the thing you claim he is lying about is completely innocent and normal and understandable?

There are only really two possibilitites here:

1) Lee did talk to Olague but doesn't remember that conversation
2) Walker is mistaken or lying.

Given Walker's agenda and bias, (2) is far more likely, especially since Olague backs up Lee's account, and Walker admits she wasn't there and it's only hearsay anyway.

You're trying to drum something up here out of nothing to deflect the attention from Ross. Cant blame you for that but at least think it through first.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 2:59 pm

The point is that supervisors have been warned by the City Attorney's Office not to discuss this with anyone, particularly the man who leveled the charges that they will rule on. If they do discuss it, then they must recuse themselves from voting, even though it still takes nine votes to remove an officials. Olague has said she may recuse herself now, and if two more supervisors also have to then this case is over and Mirkarimi keeps his job. So, Lee and his appointee both have an incentive to deny that conversation took place. But beyond that practical impact, perjury is a serious crime, moreso than the single misdemeanor Mirkarimi pled guilty to.

Posted by steven on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

Well maybe they had a security threat on their hands and they felt that the Mayor needed to be involved. So maybe there was no evacuation, just a need for an emergency consultation with the Mayor.

And Peskin saying 'He certainly left me with that impression' was my laugh of the day.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 4:34 pm

Jason Grant Garza here ... Regardless, I am sure that it will be represented as "What we would expect form OUR officials" as far as CONDUCT that DOES NOT fall below the STANDARD of DECENCY, good faith and right action impliedly required of ALL PUBLIC OFFICERS.

However, if it is NOT ... then WHAT ??? (Follow and connect the dots ... )

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 .... there you will see the paperwork.


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) of 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? The MINISTRY won't even GRANT me due process and can't find a HIPAA expert ... how many months NOW?

So a “POUND of FLESH” from ROSS but NO DECENCY, GOOD FAITH and RIGHT ACTION for me ??? Go to ... there you will see the signed confession/settlement agreement and ....

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 Jul. 05, 2012 @ 4:39 pm

On what legal basis can the City Attorney try to prevent supervisors from talking about this case? Like to see a specific law cited.

Posted by Rob Anderson on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

will diminish Mayor Lee/Willie Brown/Don Conway/Michael Breyer/Rose Pak/Phil Bronstein/George Gascon/Dennis Herrera/Ivory Madison/etc's chances of ousting this duly elected official.

He will not win the day. Mark our words.

Posted by MistOfTheCity on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 11:12 pm

Aha! You left out Madoff and Sandusky.

You are obviously paid by Pak with money supplied to her by Chinese Communists and Klingon agents..

Posted by Troll on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 11:54 pm

No, this person is missing a crucial point. None of the members of the jury (i.e, the Board of Supervisors) are permitted to discuss their position with either party in the Ethics commission investigation, and Mayor Lee is one of the two parties, the other being the Sheriff. The Mayor opened himself up to jury tampering, a serious violation in the proceedings, thus he was caught either way, either perjury or tampering with the jurors, and now he's committed both. I'll place bets that the City Attorney in liaison with the Mayor's handlers pulled Lee off the hot seat with the concocted bomb threat. What a bunch of weasels. These crooks need to cut the Sheriff loose to return to work. No reasonable official gives an ultimatum like Lee did to a fellow elected official. Lee's a stooge with no guts.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 6:22 pm

If he consulted with the people who are ultimately going to be the judges in the matter, giving them incentives to vote his way..that's one problem

Lying about it under oath is perjury, a felony.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 6:40 pm

Everything contained in the City Charter is law.
Everything the Ethics Commission is basing its process on is on judicial law and procedure. Certainly, they must then uphold not just perjury but tampering with the decisionmakers over the outcome.

Also, under public information disclosure laws, discussions between the Mayor and Supervisors are public information. Someone needs to request all email, calendars, phone records, cell phone records, staff communications, etc., between the Office of the Mayor and all Supervisors including the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

Posted by MistOfTheCity on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 11:19 pm

While Mayor Lee should be able to talk with nearly anyone to formulate decisions, Supervisors should be off limits for him in situations like this one, where he occupies the position of "plaintiff" and Supervisors will occupy the position of "judge and jury." It's flatly improper for one side in a lawsuit to talk with the judge or a member of the jury, other than in court with a lawyer for the other side present.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 9:01 pm

So you're saying Ed Lee can lie about discussing deals with Wong and Peskin while under oath?

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 5:45 am

call about a bomb threat. So either you think the Chron or the Sheriff's office is lying, or you should retract your allegation that the callc ame from the Mayor's office which, in any event, is quite ridiculous and unknowable.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 3:03 pm

I've already reported the details on the bomb threat (which was outside the building, not inside) and the statement from Undersheriff Paul Miyamoto to me that there was no evacuation order. Today's Chronicle story is confusing in that it quotes Building Manager Rob Reiter as saying he "made the call not to clear everyone from the building," but it doesn't say who decided to evacuate the mayor or why? Remember, that was no threat inside the building, and nobody has explained why Lee would have been safer in his second floor office than this fourh floor hearing room. That's the very simple question that I'm trying to get the Mayor's Office to answer, and it's a question that the Chron story also doesn't answer.

Posted by steven on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 4:03 pm

Simplest answer? Try this. Lee was testifying. There was a phoned in bomb threat to City Hall. Lee's security detail took Lee into his office to consult with the Sheriff's department as to whether or not the threat was credible enough to justify evacuate everyone from the building.

Lee would also be much safer in his office rather than the hearing room due to the simple fact that the hearing room is open to the general public, while his office is not.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 7:57 pm

Hey, that sounds pretty plausible to me? Nobody wants to shoot any holes in it?

I notice some people are saying that 'nobody else in the room was evacuated'. Well evacuating the room made no sense. It was either evacuate City Hall or nothing.

And you think that decision should have been made without the Mayor's input, even though he was in the building?

Posted by Troll on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 9:25 pm

Executive Director John Saint Croix took a call from Acting Appointed Sheriff Vicky Hennessy, as he stated to the reporter from KCBS Radio and me in front of the Deputy Sheirff, after everyone else but the Deputy, the KCBS Reporter and I left.

The three of us did not leave Room 400 and others started returning as soon as people in the hall realized the doors were open and we were allowed in Room 400.

After Saint Croix took the call from Lee's Acting Appointed Sheriff, he calmly walked around the front of the room to the back of the bench where all the members of the Ethics Commission seat. Saint Croix leaned over and whispered into Ben Hur's ear (Mr. Hur is the Chair of the Commission). Ben Hur then leaned forward and stated that the hearing was immediately adjourned and hit his gavel on the bench. He ordered everyone to clear the room. A moment or so later, as people were trying to figure out what was going on, Ben Hur stated again that he could make no further comment and everyone had to clear the room.

The Mayor basically ran out the back door.

I wondered who gets to excuse them self from the witness stand in any court of law while they are under oath? I have never seen anything like that ever, nor ever heard of anyone else ever seeing such a odd occurrence. Both City Attorney's Keith and Keiser looked very uncomfortable in the 5 to 10 minutes leading up to the Mayors dash for the door. Their objections were being overruled and they were progressively more and more nervous to the eyes of all present. Remember there are the large screens that monitor SFGOV TV in that room, and if you are in the room you see more than what is on screen. The Mayor was also progressively looking worse and worse, and taking longer and longer to answer. It looked like he was thinking too hard. He looked guilty to me.

I never left the room at that point. Maybe 10 minutes after more people came back in, I then went to the hall for the first time, and that was when I talked with Debra Walker. She told me of the Mayor's perjury at that time. I know Debra to be honest and upfront, direct and carries her self with integrity.

90 minutes after the event began, the first "players" to return were City Attorney's Keith and Keiser. This time they seemed jovial and up beat, not like they were when they left the room. Then a few Commissioners returned, and then the Court Reporter and more Officials. The Sheriff's team came back first, then Ross entered. We picked back up with half the room gone. The tension was broken, but I remember the Perry Mason moment well, as Mayor Lee denied talking with his Appointed Supervisor Christine Olague.

Posted by Paul Currier on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 10:25 pm

Simplest answer: Why did it take 90 minutes to make that determination?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 10:35 pm

Mayor Lee's Press Secretary Christine Falvey's quote:
“Again, the mayor's office did not recess the meeting. I still have to refer you to the Police Department which maintains Mayor Lee's security or the Ethics Commission about the decision to recess the meeting for (I believe) about 90 minutes.”

The meeting was NOT in "recess." The meeting was "adjourned," which is different from a recess. Go back and look at the video for proof. Commissioner Hur specifically said "adjourn" and gave no explanation. I was there, and we were not told anything about a security threat. Nor were we informed when or even IF the Mayor would take the stand again that day or at any time in the future.

Given the Mayor was still under oath, the question of his whereabouts at the time is an important one.

Posted by Erika McDonald on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 3:29 pm

Without a doubt mayor Ed Lee committed perjury and that is very serious. There is no doubt that he should resign and face charges on this matter.

Posted by Guest Del on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 3:30 pm

The conspiracy theory doesn't make much sense to me. Is the theory that someone on the security detail believed Lee had lied, so he or she snapped into action, claimed their was a bomb threat, and whisked Lee away? That would require the security detail guy to have known whom Lee had spoken with (as the theory applies to Olague) or what job offers had been floated (as the theory applies to this Peskin/Wong issue). Or is the theory that someone else believed Lee had lied, that person had authority to command the security detail what to do, and ordered the one-man Mayoral evacuation?

The whole thing is weird, but the conspiracy theory doesn't hold much water.

The funny thing to me is that they whisked Lee away like they are the secret service and Lee is the President. The situation would have been more entertaining if they pulled a Cheney and said Lee had been taken to an "undisclosed location." Instead, they took him to the ostensible safety of his office.

Posted by The Commish on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 4:46 pm

1) If Lee orchestrated the evacuation, how did he signal that while being questioned? Was it a secret code or signal? It defies credibility.

2) Why would Lee lie about talking to other city officials about sacking Ross when it's obvious that he would consult with a wide range of people on such a decision. That makes no sense either

3) Why would Walker claim Olague made statements when she wasn't present and Olague herself says there was no conversation? Why doesn't Walker's obvious bias discount her allegations?

4) Even if Lee has forgotten some conversation, that isn't lying or perjury - it's forgetfulness.

This is the left in full attack mode because their guy is losing. If the situation were reversed, they'd be arguing the exact opposite.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 5:07 pm

For everyone else, it's perjury. How convenient.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 5:17 pm

and hot seat hearing rooms inside and out..He or She is watching the LIVE BROADCAST of the hearing just as Shep Kopp clobbers Ed Lee again and again..Imagine that person has a direct line to Ed Lee through his security detail..One call...batta bing!

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 6:45 pm

" If Lee orchestrated the evacuation"

If you think Lee orchestrates anything in his administration you haven't been paying attention.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 8:26 pm

2) He ain't supposed to be talking with the ultimate jurors—the Board of Supes—about this case. That, my friend, is a no-no. Which is why he said he didn't.

3) Walker had conversations with Olague about the discussions between her and Lee. Olague told Walker about those discussions. Bias has nothing to do with it. You could argue that everyone is biased.

4) I don't think "forgetfulness" is gonna cut it.

"This is the left in full attack mode because their guy is losing. If the situation were reversed, they'd be arguing the exact opposite".
You know, can we stop with the left-right perspective for a minute, the "our guy" is winning vs "your guy" is losing. Some of us just want a little decency in the form of truthfulness and also, dare i say, peace love and understanding.

Posted by Daniele E. on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 8:45 pm

saying we should ignore bias is a stretch.

If Lee was guilty of DV and Ross was accused of perjury, you and Walker would be arguing the exact opposite.

And that's why there's no credibility here. This is a storm in a teacup designed to try and deflect the heat off Ross.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 2:59 am

I heartily disagree with you. And I'm not here to convince you, either.
I want honesty in people. Lee already was a red flag for me in that dept as soon as he went against his pledge not to run for Mayor. Then, when he uses the word "beating" for "grabbing", well, I couldn't help but notice. This is easy. No bias involved: I don't like people who betray. End of story. I cannot make this clearer for you.

As far as Walker not being able to contain a conversation she had with Olague, I have no reason to disbelieve her. I was right by her side when said utterance occurred. You were not. The person Walker in turn confided in about those conversations was there too. I heard what she had to say, too. Now believe what you want to believe.

Maybe I wouldn't be as disturbed about this if Lee hadn't already committed those 2 preceding "acts". But he has, and I took notice. Are you still reading "bias" here? Then that is your problem.

I have a right to prefer honesty (and integrity) in ANYBODY. This fails the smell test for me, but you are free to feel and believe anything you like.

Now, you have a very nice day. Bye Bye.

Posted by Daniele E. on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 6:39 am

Walker wasn't even present at the alleged convo and is engaged in hearsay.

And of course Walker is pro-Ross and anti-Lee, as are you. It all stinks and you know it.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 9:10 am

walker had a phone conversation w/ olague. enough said. i get that you don't/won't/can't believe that it occurred. i got it. really, i got it.

why don't we try to find out things we can agree on?

do you like honesty in people/politicians?
do you like it when people relay things truthfully, no matter who?

Those things matter to me. I also would like to find those things that you and I can agree on. So I await your answer.

Posted by Daniele E. on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 9:24 am

>"walker had a phone conversation w/ olague. enough said."

Olaque had a phone call with Walker, so to you that proves that Lee lied. 'Enough said' There is nothing else that they could have spoken about.

Do you realize how impossibly weak that is? Well, I guess you don't.

I'm sorry...but for your own good...that is just absolutely pathetic.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 9:45 am

Not going to waste anymore time here.
I see this is going nowhere. When you leave out half the information, as previously stated in my posts, then that makes this "discussion" useless. I don't like wasting my time. Maybe that is one area we totally disagree on.
I wish you well, and everybody else on these blogs.

Posted by Daniele E. on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 10:11 am

A felonious storm in a criminal teacup.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 6:52 am

not my cuppa tea, but i'll take it.

Posted by Daniele E. on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 8:05 am

Please. The concept that one of the Mayor's handlers heard him lie and decided to fake a bomb scare to give him a 90 minute time out is kindergarten silly. How far in advance did the aide know about these problems and why didn't they come up with a strategy BEFORE Lee took the stand.

They gave out details of the bomb scare, involving the Sheriff and Police department. All they had to say was that it was an 'urgent security matter' that required the Mayor's immediate attention.

But logistically, even assuming that he did lie, the stupidest thing that they could do was draw attention to it with a sudden bomb scare.

Look at all the fun that the Progressives are having diverting attention away from Mirkarimi and to the Mayor.

The same people who just said that Ivory Madison's testimony was hearsay want us to unflinchingly accept what Aaron Peskin and Debra Walker say that they heard from someone else about what the Mayor said

Every time I read this stuff I realize how weak and feeble the San Francisco Progressive movement has become. And morally bankrupt as well.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

This affair is fishy as hell, so we want some answers. Who made the call to whisk Lee out of EC chambers at a crucial moment in his testimony? Since it was not the sheriff's dept., SFPD, or EC who made the decision, who was it? If there was ever any danger, why weren't others evacuated as well? How is it that Lee's second floor office was any more safe than the fourth floor when the explosive device was supposedly outside the building? Who did Ed Lee meet with while he was in his office and what was discussed (since Lee was still under oath not to discuss his testimony)? Did Ed Lee lie about his convos with Olague? Did he, in fact, offer Mirkarimi a job in exchange for his resignation? Is this perhaps the real reason he was hustled out of the room...because it was pretty obvious that he was floundering under Kopp's examination. And we demand an investigation and phone records to see where the call was placed.
Just a lot of questions, that's all. We don't pretend to have the answers.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 5:15 pm

"Asked if she had ever talked with the mayor about the situation, Olague simply didn’t answer for 10 to 15 seconds."

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 5:21 pm

And instead just blurt out the first thing that comes into their head?


Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 3:00 am

Unexcited unutterance.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 5:47 am

>" If there was ever any danger, why weren't others evacuated as well?"

Is it really that hard to believe that they wanted to CONSULT with the Mayor about the security situation? He is the Mayor, you know.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 5:49 pm

So the mayor drives his security detail, not the other way around? Is the mayor now an expert at matters of public facility security as well as perjury?

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 5:48 am

No video, no transcript of what Lee said when he returned to testify following the bomb scare. Strange indeed. Who made the call? And who is attempting shield Ed Lee from public scrutiny regarding his testimony, and why? The public deserves some answers.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 4:57 pm

The reaction to this case defines both Progressives and Rightists.

All along, the majority of progressives have taken a range of views from thinking that the case was overblown and a political vendetta, to believing that while it might have merit and should be properly considered, did not agree with the manner in which DV jurisprudence was having further negative effect on the family.

Rightists have been like a bloc assuming the worst at every turn in this case. They claimed as factual an imputed history of abusive behavior involving multiple women and multiple events by the sheriff, and they claimed that everyone who might ever commit a limited act as did happen was destined to ultimately cause murder. Murder!

All sorts of murder and mayhem and potential for more were attributed to the sheriff in a calculated effort to smear him and bolster the seeming of justification for the Lee camp behavior.

Now that this apparent perjury by Lee has struck them like a thunderclap -- completely unexpected -- progressives are rightly aghast and can hardly help but to think that Ed Lee and his own political career will certainly end up taking a bigger hit than Ross Mirkarimi.

On the other side, the Righties make excuses by mouthing false equivalencies and spinning rhetorical fluff. Righties, that stuff is like cotton candy with pink rat poison on it. You may like it but nobody else is going to buy it now.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

Thanks for telling us what us 'rightists' have been thinking, Lilli, although I don't know where you qualifications to do so exist outside of your own head.

FWIW, I don't even recognize your analysis. I watched the legalities unfold and when Mirkarimi took the plea bargain I felt that resigning his post as a top law enforcement officer would be a quid pro quo. It should have been. Then when he started his 'The system convicted me but I didn't really do anything' I felt even stronger that he had no place enforcing the decisions of that system on others.

I really have to laugh at 'apparent perjury'. Two people, both strongly anti Lee, come out with hearsay. And that constitutes 'apparent perjury'.

Doesn't that level of hypocrisy tell you something?

And don't forget...polls show that 76% of the voters want Mirkarimi gone.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 7:47 pm

Commendable simplicity in your perspective, in a way. Mention of the discredited poll is a nice touch. No doubt you fancied that you'd thus gore my ox.

Not a chance. I'm with too much anticipation awaiting the results of the next poll -- one that determines whether Mayor Lee ought to be recalled.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 10:20 pm

Lee Lies.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 9:01 am

The Sheriff is charged with enforcing the law and arresting people who commit crimes. For the Sheriff to have any credibility or moral authority than he or she cannot commit a crime while in office. This applies to any sheriff, not just Mr. Mirkarimi.

Mr. Mirkarimi admitted to committing a crime that rises above a mere traffice offense; therefore, he is precluded from continuing to serve. It really should just be that simple. There is no need for the drama or the self-righteous statements about "righties" or "lefties" or any of that crap.

If Mr. Mirkarimi had any honor, not just as elected official, but as human being, then he would simply say, "I plead guilty to committing a crime; therefore, I can no longer continue to serve as Sheriff. Thank you to those who supported me during the election. I am now honoring your faith in me by resigning from public office to focus on my family and my private life." What an act of integrity that would be. Unfortunately, Ross has proven that it is all about Ross and that he does not care one ounce for his family. He continues to drag out this media circus rather than focusing his energies on his child and wife who need his love and support right now. It is pretty shameful behavior. But, shameful or not, the issue remains that he cannot remain in a law enforcement position when he has committed a crime more serious than a traffic offense. It shows a lack of judgment and lack of suitability to be the chief law enforcement officer for San Francisco.

It really is that simple. And frankly, if Ed Lee committed perjury, then I whole-heartedly support having him being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and removed from office, too. But, that does not in the least undercut the need to remove Ross Mirkarimi from office. He needs to go, and he needs to go now.

Posted by Chris on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 10:04 pm


(And no, I didn't read past your incompetent opening statement.)

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 10:13 pm

The Sheriff does not arrest anyone who commits crimes, rather s/he runs the jails and provides security for select public facilities.

The SFPD arrests people unless the crime is committed in a public facility in which case a deputy sheriff performs the arrest.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 1:21 pm

What would you do without your self appointed genius and a strange straw man arguments?

This is all overblown, the person and persons who added to the overblown status is Ross and his wife.

Progressives have put the bight in these laws, and now a golden progressive is ensnared and it's all so unfair? You are a child, intellectually and emotionally. Your rationalisations, excuses, and conspiracy theories are so very very good.

No "right wingers" care about this, that is just a product of the fevered mind of the progressives. Sheriff is a who cares job, Mirkirimi is a second rater in a podunk single party city. The conspiracy could give two shits about Ross and his BS job.

The tin foil hat idiots like you thrive on being persecuted, that is the controversy here. How bizarre can you spin all of this?

Posted by the "community" on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 10:38 pm