Perjury allegations against Lee gain more support

|
(126)
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.

Comments

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 @ 10:44 pm

Just another spew hole for retarded-wing conventional wisdom.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 11:42 pm

Yes, ever since they banned me back in March -- in a rather snarky way at that -- I haven't given them more than a handful of "clicks," but just now I did verify that those tools have not covered the Aaron Peskin revelation even though they've had over 24 hours to research it.

I suppose Rachel Gordon was so busy knitting words together for an account of the case based on information more than 24 hours old that she was prevented from talking with Peskin today.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 7:27 pm

I'm not surprised that you were banned.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 9:12 am

Jews are terrorists; I was reacting with frustration to my inability to have a comment which claimed quite unfacetiously that all Arabs are terrorists removed from the site. (Perhaps that *is* the editorial viewpoint at the Chronicle?)

I'd also made a series of uncontroversial comments which were removed after being reported by the nazis who frequent that site, as many of the trolls who piously condemn ad hominem attacks and "biased speculation" are themselves masters at manipulating the system to get innocent comments removed while also making personal attacks which go un-policed.

I think I know what you mean when you speculate that I was banned for only dealing in biased speculation and not "news." You mean to lie and I have little doubt that you are guilty of every bit of the despicable behavior I've described above. Righties are afraid of ideas and they seek to censor that which they perceive as threats.

SFGate/The Chronicle is a empty shell of what it used to be, peopled mostly by trolls, staffed mostly by those who are too desperate to retain their jobs to excercise the proper level of circumspection for good journalism. I hope other thoughtful people join me in abandoning the site as it has become a destructive force to our community owing to its incessant bias and misinformation.

I guess I wouldn't have quite such a sharp feeling of animosity towards the paper, except that when I was banned by SFGate, there was no message or notification about it, but rather my posts were masked from others as though everyone had put me on their ignore list; which I took to be particularly insulting due to the fact that it was so obvious right away. They had to have meant to be insulting, I figure.

So SFGate tools and your bosses: screw you all. No more clicks for you. Don't know how much that costs you, but I was pretty damn prolific in that regard and my comments were generally well-informed and well-written; not just trite Rightist pablum which characterizes so much of what goes on there.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 5:15 pm

It doesn't surprise me that you are antisemetic.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 5:25 pm

perhaps you mean "antisemitic"

Palestinians and Jews are both semitic peoples.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 7:01 am

He is the first person to be banned from SFGate and it is all a conspiracy against him.

Unlike other people who just create a new login or let it go, it is all a huge conspiracy and the right wingers are out to get him.

Get over your sorry self, your love of your created revealed world view is pathetic.

So comical.

Posted by matlock on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 6:53 pm

But racism might do it. Nice one, Lilli

Posted by Guest on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 6:41 am

It was that I just had too many complaints for whatever, the algorithm just gives you the boot when you have to many posts blocked by users who are offended by you. It happens to people left, right and centre.

No one is reading the posts and removing them or deciding to block you.

Lilli is just so self absorbed that he thinks there is some conspiracy against him and his comical self righteous ravings.

Posted by matlock on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 2:26 pm

But having heard it, I will now be sure to go to SF Gate every Sunday and click EVERY ad on Willie Brown's page.

Nevius too.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 6:59 am
LOL

Wanna buy a bridge.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 9:30 am

but it suddenly occurs to me that this phrase could soon lose its meaning (a reference to scammers "selling the Brooklyn Bridge, I believe) if states are compelled to sell off such assets to private interests in order to pay expenses.

All the humor in it is based on the idea that only a complete fool would expect to be able to buy such an obviously public asset, but it is already happening in parks and with private highways.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 9:56 am

public = good
private = bad

yawn

Posted by Guest on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 2:54 pm

Fund-Raising effort to pay Eliana's ticket from Venezuela to testify [Mirkarimi's case]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/05/1106589/-Fund-Raising-effort-to...

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 8:41 pm

that she'll take your money, just like she took Ross's, when he had any.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 3:01 am

She is coming back. She is going to testify and be cross-examined. The money she needs is for transit. The city spent many thousands on expert witnesses who have met neither Eliana nor Ross. These experts then opined on things that have been rejected by the commission, so the expert opinion was worth zilch. Ed Lee was not willing to expend any resources to bring an actual, non-hearsay witness at the center of this matter back to San Francisco to testify.

How exactly did you form the opinion that Eliana stripped Ross of all his money? I thought it was the Mayor who cut off the salary.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 11:50 am

went awry because she never antipicipated that Ross's abuse of her would cost him his job, his salary, and therefore the source of her settlement.

So now she has to try and skew her testimony to try and get him his salary back so she can divorce him while he's worth something.

This is a tawdry tale and this pair almost deserve each other.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

...the issue is whether anyone is a position of authority is going to do anything about it.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 11:13 pm

half-baked ethics law doesn't cover the mayor... for what D*** F*** reason I can only speculate.

Why not abolish the "good character" aspect of our ethics law *and* go back to being able to recall elected official from *day* *one*?

(I know that recurring obnoxious recall drives were being run seemingly every single cycle, but maybe there's a fix for that which doesn't involve letting the mayor override popular elections for city and county offices?

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 11:48 pm

should lose his job because he can't recall exactly who he spoke to months ago? And because Walker is a lying troublemaker?

My guess is that Ross put Walker up to this; good thing nobody believes her.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 3:03 am

didn't beat his wife or hit her..etc. Saying so doesn't make it so.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 8:17 am
Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 9:12 am

Dude. Grabbing your spouse by the arm and yanking her around so hard that it leaves a bruise, IS WIFE BEATING. It's not all about beating someone to a pulp, although it often escalates to that over time. Get a clue.

Posted by Guest22 on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 8:37 am

that.

"Yanking her around so hard that it leaves a bruise" is your own assumption and not a matter of fact. Likewise your idea that the arm grab had to have been vicious in nature for it to have caused a bruise.

Read Eliana Lopez's statement:

http://www.citireport.com/2012/07/the-untold-eliana-lopez-story-what-the...

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 6:09 am

Grabbing a partner's arms is not necessarily wrong, if it were a crime, then we'd need to be increasing the number of jail and prison cells by a factor of ten.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 6:22 am

I was once buying lettuce at the Farmer's Market near City Hall and started talking to this guy at the food truck. He said that Mirkarimi told him that he beats Eliana every Monday morning, 'whether she needs it or not'.

Exactly the same situation as the Walker and Peskin stories, except that I do not have a documented history as a Mirkarimi supporter, Lee basher.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 11:37 pm

we now have one hearsay allegation (walker) and one double hearsay allegation (Peskin/Wong). Aren't the people who are ready to hang Lee from the nearest tree the same people who were screaming "unfair" regarding hearsay at the Ethics Committee? (The answer is yes.)

I think that if Lee did consult with a member of the BoS, that they should recuse themselves if this matter comes before them. And if that person happened to be a vote for removing M, than that's just tough shit for the Mayor, you created this burden yourself.

I also think nailing Lee for perjury would be increadibly tough. Olague has already said they didn't talk, and I suspect Wong would say the same thing.

I don't know wtf to make of the whole bomb-scare thing. Somebody needs to adequately explain what happened, because if they don't, conspiracy theories are going to be spewed by both sides of the M fight, as is evidenced here.

Posted by DanO on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 8:44 am

means that that would be highly disadvantageous to the prosecution. so obviously the hopeless lefties want that as a tactic but, for those of who are more interested in justice, that's not helpful.

Jurors are often asked if they can put aside any personal feelings and Supes surely can too. Given that this isn't a simple majority verdict and that Lee can't veto, this needs to be seen to be fair.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 9:15 am

Except for the fact that all forms ex-parte communication and ex-parte communication with jurors, jury tampering, are not permitted under US concepts of justice.

The admonishment at voir dire is not whether you can put aside your own prejudices AND WHATEVER ONE PARTY TO THE CASE HAS COMMUNICATED TO YOU IN SECRET.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 10:03 am

But this is not a judicial proceeding. And the Supervisors are not jurors. Nobody is talking about stripping Ross Mirkarimi of life, liberty, or property--so due process considerations don't factor like they would in court. Hearsay should be broadly allowed in the search for what has happened.
Supervisors are broadly free to decide what should happen next. Yes, they should try to be fair. But they don't need to put aside their personal feelings or beliefs. The proceeding is--as it should be--essentially political.
The Ed Lee angle is interesting. Doesn't seem like the mayor has been a straight shooter--as he has been presenting himself. The conversation with Olague seems plausible and I see Olague's behavior (flustered and confused) as basically a confirmation. The Peskin-Wong scenario also seems pretty believable. Walter Wong has a long history with Mirkarimi and I do think the mayor would have been satisfied to give Mirkarimi a meaningless paid gig in order to put the Sheriff's Dept in his camp.
Nobody looks very good. But that doesn't mean we're not getting at the truth.

Posted by gust on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 12:04 pm

Yes, due process is required to undo the results of an election. That is why they have standards of evidence, subpoenas and swearing in of witnesses under oath.

The City Attorney disagrees with you whether ex-parte communication between the plaintiffs in this case and the supervisors, finders of fact and of law in this case is permissible.

If you suggest that it is okay for the Mayor to discuss this with supervisors, then would it be okay for Ross to discuss this with Ben Hur?

Clearly ex-parte communication is never allowed in court, and Herrera is simply following legal precedent.

What Herrera says, for better and for worse, is the law in this case until someone challenges him in court.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 12:22 pm

It is not ex parte communication if it occurred long before there was ever any kind of hearing in the works. Are you suggesting that way back in January, the Supervisors were barred from discussing the Mirkarimi situation with the mayor -- because he *might* want to force him out of office? Was everyone a mind reader, knowing how this would play out months before the situation played out?

Posted by Guest22 on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 8:33 am

that would have been entirely reasonable given what was known at the time.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 11:09 am

...even the criminal case. The only purported "evidence" was the videotape, and even the tape doesn't prove anything about what Ross did or did not do.

As for conspiracy theories - please do quote such theories if you see them. I have only seen questions asked about the June 29 adjournment of the hearing - and inquiring minds do not conspiracies make.

If someone out there has a theory about what really happened (conspiracy or otherwise), please do tell!

Posted by Erika McDonald on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 2:28 pm

A bruised arm is not hearsay, and regardless, RM plead guilty to a crime before a court could determine what was admissable.

But again, you're making my point. People who were treating hearsay evidence as invalid against RM are now dancing in the streets based on hearsay evidence against Lee. A little consistancy would be nice.

and feel free to read all the posts in this thread, seems like there are a ton of conspiracy theories floating out there (e.g. someone on Lee's team pulled the alarm bc his testimony wasn't going well).

Posted by DanO on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 3:47 pm

...coming from a neighbor who witnessed nothing.

Meanwhile, Walker witnessed Mayor Lee making statements contradicting what she knows to be true.

Eliana's neighbor, in contrast, witnessed nothing. She was only told about it later.

You are the one who claimed there were conspiracies, so it is therefore your responsibility to specifically point out such posts. I find it telling that you have failed to do so.

Posted by Erika McDonald on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 6:04 pm

>"Meanwhile, Walker witnessed Mayor Lee making statements contradicting what she knows to be true.

Eliana's neighbor, in contrast, witnessed nothing. She was only told about it later."

Erika, how did she know that what Lee was saying was not true? Did she WITNESS a conversation between Lee and a Supervisor? Or did she hear about it from someone else, much in the same way that Madison heard about the abuse from someone else.

Because you seem to be relying on a whopper of a double standard.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 6:34 pm

If there is no conviction then it's hearsay?

Posted by matlock on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 2:29 pm

Moreover it's not hearsay if Madison describes what she personally saw and heard.

It's only hearsay if she reports second hand a conversation to which she was not a party, like Walker is trying to get away with doing.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 2:58 pm

when Olague, Walker, Peskin et al are put under oath ?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 7:05 am

unsubstantiated claim under oath, then the EC hearings will continue forever. Which is fine with me because it means we don't have a violent criminal running the sheriff's office while that happens.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 8:11 am

Ed Lee should step down without pay until an investigation gets to the bottom of this. And if it turns out that he perjured himself, that is a crime of moral turpitude and he should be removed from office and lose his pension.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 10:26 am

In fact, no allegation has been made. All that has happened is that Walker has decided that she doesn't believe her "friend" Olague when Olague states that she had no conversation with Lee.

The allegation that she did comes from a woman who wasn't under oath, who is pro-Ross, who wasn't present at the conversation and who has so little credibility that she even lost an election when endorsed by the DCCC.

So on what possible basis should Lee stand down? It's not like he, er, beat his wife or something. This is simply a cat-fight between Walker and Olague.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 4:36 pm

rick haumpton

Posted by Guest rick on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 11:42 am

I don't think so. While a supervisor he was called before the Ethics Commission several times and totally ignored them.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 12:23 pm

trump up hearsay evidence. I'd be much more impressed if anyone who is not in the dwindling Ross camp put an ounce of credibility in any of these deflectionary cheap tactics.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

So Debra Walker is sitting in room 400 and hears Lee say something that contradicts something that her friend told her.

So the first thing she does is start blabbing to reporters.

How about contacting your FRIEND to discuss this apparent contradiction. Perhaps she had misunderstood Olague. Perhaps Olague was embellishing or left out a key detail. How about checking with your FRIEND before you accuse the Mayor of perjury in the press.

But no.

At least we have Peskin in the mix now. Frankly we needed the comic relief and buffoons of that nature don't come along often. In this episode Lee went out of his way to give Aaron Peskin damaging info about him. The same Aaron Peskin who camped out at the Ethic Commision's door during the last election with volumes of complaints against Lee.

How much do you want to bet that the Peskin-Wong meeting was in a bar?

Posted by Troll on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 4:26 pm

This is about Ed Lee and his misconduct unbecoming an elected official, not Debra Walker.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

>"Ed Lee committed perjury, not Debra Walker"

And you know that.....how?

Just saying.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 5:52 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.