Gascon comments on Lee perjury allegations

Photo by Luke Thomas/Fog City Journal

Luke Thomas from Fog City Journal showed up at a press conference District Attorney George Gascon was holding on another topic, and threw in a question about the allegations that Mayor Ed Lee lied under oath before the Ethics Commission. Gascon's comments were, as I would expect, pretty well couched in political-DA language, but the man who initially filed the domestic violence charges that set off this legal episode came down clearly on the side of having Ethics investigate further:

Luke sent me a transcript of Gascon's full remarks, to wit:

“I think that the first thing that we have to do is we have to allow the Ethics Commission to continue what they’re doing. This is an ongoing hearing by the Ethics Commission. The voters of San Francisco, through the Charter, gave the Ethics Commission a tremendous amount of power -- they wanted a very robust process. The Ethics Commission has the ability to call witnesses and put witnesses under sworn testimony and I think it is appropriate for the Ethics Commission to continue to inquire into this. Once they have completed the process, we will evaluate and, if appropriate, we will move accordingly. If the evidence surfaces that we have sworn testimony to indicate that perjury has taken place then we will certainly evaluate whether that will be appropriate to prosecute. At this point, we need to let the Ethics Commission do its work.”

I got in touch with Gascon's press person, Stephanie Ong Stillman, and she confirmed that the DA thinks right now Ethics ought to be handling this:

"We don't want to interfere with the Ethics Commission's ongoing process.
All we know is what's being reported in the newspapers.  These allegations
arose in the context of an ongoing Ethics Commission hearing, therefore the
Ethics Commission is the most appropriate body to look into this matter."

Doesn't sound like Gascon is eager to launch his own inquiry. But he's at least interested in hearing what the key witnesess have to say -- and he seems to agree that they should be placed under oath.

In fact, Gascon seems to be saying that he will look to Ethics to conduct the initial investigation -- which just puts more pressure on the commissioners to allow Mirkarimi's lawyers to put Walter Wong and Christina Olague on the stand.

I wonder if Lee is starting to regret setting off this whole spectacle. If he'd just demurred and allowed the voters to weigh in with a recall election, he could have avoided what may be a costly political mistake.

Oh, and by the way: Since the Chron made a huge deal out of Ivory Madison's sworn statement -- much of which was tossed out as inadmissible -- it's worth reading the entire statement of Eliana Lopez, which is posted here.


Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 6:47 pm

>"after a fifteen second pause..."

Exactly my point. Could not think of a better example. To a Progressive the fact that she gave it some thought proves that she lied. The fact that she paused before answering means something.

Walker saying that Olaque and Lee spoke HAS to be true. The fact that both Lee and Olaque denied it HAS to mean that they both lied.

Polls that say that the voters don't like Mirkarimi HAVE to be bogus.

I really think this is one reason why the Progressive movement is on its deathbed. Its followers make up a fantasy world and think it is reality.

But hey, it is working out great for the city overall.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 7:05 pm

ever met. I'm guessing 40's, low-paid job or unemployed, renting a grubby rent-controlled studio, and spend all his remaining hours posting to left-wing blogs.

Beyond sad.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 7:14 pm

You evidently don't have a problem not thinking before you speak

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

Watch it closely O' Keeper of the Banner. We all depend on you to do so.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 5:43 pm

Some of us have been forced to stop using our names by trolls coopting our identities. Just saying.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 6:07 pm

people focus on the message, not the messenger.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 6:27 pm

Let me tell you a little story about a biiiiig flag...

Posted by MPetrelis on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 8:48 pm

Walker's allegations are hearsay and denied by the all actual witnesses.

There is no case here and, in fact, no story here. Anyone can make a politically-motivated allegation. So what?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 6:42 pm

will now, like a cat trying to hide a tootsie roll, will do everything they can to protect Ed Lee. They'll claim it isn't relevant that the mayor likely perjured himself twice, What analysis he used to come up with the official charges against Mirkarimi is relevant however to a determination of whether the sheriff committed official misconduct. They will say they don't need to issue subpoenas. The tootsie rolls will still smell, however.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 6:43 pm

Because there is no admissable evidence.

In fact, no evidence at all except for the whining of a pro-Ross apologist which is denied by all the actual witnesses.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 7:12 pm

>They'll claim it isn't relevant that the mayor likely perjured himself twice, "

See, that's the thing. Back on planet earth he didn't "likely perjured himself twice".

Aaron Peskin saying that he got the impression that Wong had gotten approval from Lee doesn't mean Lee approved anything.

Walker saying that a conversation existed between between Olaque and Lee when both of them say otherwise doesn't constitute likely perjury.

Look, I realize that in your heart of hearts you believe that if a Progressive says something damaging to a moderate it HAS to be true, but that is only in your head. The rest of the world just doesn't work like that. Sorry.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 7:12 pm
Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 7:42 am

if all four of these individuals were subpoenaed to testify under oath as to what was said and by whom.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 7:46 am

wife-abuser to be sheriff.

And we already know what they're going to say, which is 100% hearsay.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 9:39 am

grabbing an arm does not an abuser make.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 9:50 am

already falsely imprisoned them and denied them food most definitely is, however.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 10:12 am

from Ivory Madison's inadmissable imaginings.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 8:39 pm

turned the car around while they were on their way to eat.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 6:19 am

they ate lunch at home instead.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 8:46 am

Then came the bruise.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 7:35 am

supposedly based on solid evidence. If his "evidence" is what he has determined arethe politics of the situation , then the charges are illegitimate.For example, there is no evidence that Ross Mirkarimi dissuaded or attempted to dissuade any witness(even hearsay witnesses) In fact, the exact opposite is the case. When asked by his desperate wife to make it all stop, he told her that "I cannot".

The Ethics Commission and those who control it will now try to figure out how to say that the alleged perjuries of the person who brought the charges are somehow not relevant to this determination.

God forbid that perjury would be the concern, and within the purview of an ETHICS investigation!

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 9:56 am

and indeed that was probably the most damning of the 4 counts against him. A big part of why Ross copped a plea was because he was terrified of going down for that, which would absolutely have ruled him unsuitable for the job.

Even the regular DV count would have damned him, as it takes away his firearms permit.

Ross pled because he knew there was evidence against him that could elad to a more serious conviction. Makes sense. But that doesn't mean those other charges weren't valid. They were.

Who Lee talked to long before the EC was convened isn't a material factor in determining whether a wife-abuser should be sheriff.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 10:15 am

Ross did not phone in the bomb threat to intimidate Ed Lie into not perjuring himself, what are you talking about?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 11:32 am

Obviously. I've no idea how you read that into my post.

There is no perjury. There is just hearsay from a Ross supporter.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 11:58 am

so we can get this sordid, vulgar episode over with.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 7:15 pm

I said from the start that the remedy here is recall. If the people who elected Ross want to remove him, they can -- it's right in the state Constitution. This kangaroo court system in the City Charter is a circus.

Posted by tim on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

just what about this process makes it a kangaroo system?
Isn't M getting a fair chance to defend himself? call witnesses? tell his side of the story? grill his accusors?

I think Gascon's answer to the question was 100% correct, lets see how this plays out. What happens if the Ethics Commission does come to the conclusion that Lee perjured himself. Is their determination invalid because it is a kangaroo court? Or is it only kangaroo when things don't go the way you want them to?

Posted by DanO on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 8:54 am

it's a kangeroo court. If they reinstate him, he'll say it's an august body reaching a sound decision.

If the EC "rule" that Lee lied, that's justice. If they find there was no lies, it's a kangeroo court again, and of course a right-wing conspiracy.

It must be so easy being Tim. Reality need never intrude.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 9:26 am

>"It must be so easy being Tim. Reality need never intrude."

Yup. And anyone who points out the problems with this 'journalism' is obviously a paid troll.

His writing that the Walker and Peskin statements present 'clear evidence' of perjury is a new low. I posted a complaint about accepting clear hearsay from people with axes to grind and he came back with something like "I didn't say that there was clear evidence of a crime, just that there was clear evidence that a crime MAY have been committed".

Which is a meaningless oxymoron in this situation. But he did succeed in getting 'clear evidence' and 'crime has been committed' in the same sentence which I guess was misleading enough for his purposes.

Honest journalists were using words like 'allegation' and 'accusation'. I just think it is wrong that the Examiner and SFBG don't label this Colbert level stuff as opinion or satire. Trying to pass it off as honest journalism doesn't help anyone.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 9:52 am


Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 9:57 am

I love how Aaron Peskin came out from his cave to offer up his opinion as cold hard fact. Talk about a loser! He probably doesn't even care about flags!

I mean it's not like a few months ago he publicly editorialized that Ross should go

Posted by MPetrelis on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

Here is what happened. I know because I used to work for Rose Pak:

Ed Lee: Walter, we've got to do something. The people just love Mirkarimi more every day. His support is unbelievable. We're getting fried. We've got to figure a way out of this mess. Maybe if we offered him a job.

Walter Wong: I could sound his side out, I've known Mirkarimi for years and obviously they would take my meeting. I'll do it for you Ed. But we have to be careful how we handle this because it could sink us.

Ed Lee: But wait. I don't want you to go directly to your friend Mirkarimi. I prefer that you go through Aaron Peskin.

Walter Wong: Aaron Peskin? The guy who went around saying 'Anyone But Lee' last November? The guy who filed pages of complaints against your campaign with Ethics? He hates your guts and he loves to make trouble.

Ed Lee: Well, he is right to hate me, given my dispicable manner. Peskin is someone of the highest, impeccable morals and deserves our respect. He is the only one that we can trust with this sensitive information.

Walter Wong: Well OK Ed. I'll rent a private conference room so that I can meet him in private, away from prying eyes.

Ed Lee: No! There is only one place for a meeting this sensitive. Cafe Trieste!

Posted by Troll on Jul. 09, 2012 @ 9:44 pm

Well, I guess everyone deserves one, especially if you're Rose Pak

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 4:15 pm

Jason Grant Garza here ... maybe the MAYOR should speak with Barry Bonds over his situation regarding PERJURY. Are the "OFFICIALS" going to be sooo diligent as they were with Barry? Are they also going to INVESTIGATE the BOMB SCARE with the same diligence? I know they prepared their case against (Ross) with such DUE DILIGENCE (investigated before charging, ha,ha,ha), provided SOUND LEGAL FOOTING (prior cases) and provide the same STANDARD?

Yes, Virginia ... in a PERFECT world ... where JUSTICE, HONOR and TRUTH apply, however, that is NOT here. Don't believe me ... go to to see HOW the GAME is PLAYED.

There you will find a signed "Confession/Settlement Agreement" signed by the city dated 2007 for BREAKING FEDERAL LAW against me then leaving their INNOCENT VINDICATED VICTIM for DEAD. This was after TESTILYING in 2003 to have my case thrown out (C02-3485PJH) and applying scorched earth tactics and taking no prisoners (same as they are doing with ROSS.)

This confession was not out of the "KINDNESS" of the city attorney who left me for DEAD rather my continuing against ALL ODDS. I did not have an attorney like ROSS however, the difference will be the LARGE $$$$ CASH settlement that the city will offer ROSS naturally with the escape clause of admitting NOTHING ....

Yes JUSTICE for the RICH and JUST THIS for US. Go to


Preliminary perfunctory investigations, no appeals, case closed.
Settle with ROSS no admission. Go after MAYOR (not) no reason ...
the case was settled no admission.

Investigate the BOMB SCARE ... repeat above.

Shall we wait to see if the same zeal and vigor at arriving at the TRUTH will be used against the MAYOR and the BOMB SCARE. I can show the approach USED after signing a "CONFESSION" admitting BREAKING the LAW and leaving its INNOCENT VINDICATED VICTIM for DEAD ... ha,ha,ha.

"Telling the TRUTH during times of UNIVERSAL DECEIT is a REVOLUTIONARY Act." George Orwell

So has all the COMMOTION, FALSE CONCERN, and DIRE CONSEQUENCE now ended over the MINISTRY of SUNSHINE (not working, providing harm, damages and delay ... see case # 11081 (How long does it take to get a HIPAA expert?) ... what about the "RULES and STANDARDS" changes at ETHICS to EXTRACT a POUND of FLESH from ROSS ...yes, another CRISIS and the MAYOR's problems will too pass ....


I mean the MAYOR did take the OATH for the "WHOLE TRUTH" or did he hear the "HOLE" truth when he took the OATH?

Again, go to to see the city provide EXPERT "TESTILYING" testimony ... what was the consequence of PERJURY?


Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 7:38 am
Posted by Greg on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 8:59 am

I listened to the testimony Lee gave about discussing the matter with the board of supervisors. He was asked whether he consulted with any member of the board about whether to file charges. From what I can tell from the press stories, this Debra Walker person has not said that Olague told Walker that Lee asked for Olague's view about whether to file charges -- it was a general discussion about RM in which Olague suggested Lee ask for RM's resignation and if he wouldn't resign, then Lee should drop the matter.

So, putting aside the hearsay problem, even if Lee spoke with Olague, the perjury allegation sounds overblown.

Posted by The Commish on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 9:57 am

random bomb threat phone call, nobody would have thought anything of it. It would not have been unreasonable for Olague to offer an opinion or advice to Lee, and that clearly isn't criminal or prejudicial.

Tim is clinging to any thread of a distraction or "get back in jail" card for Ross, and the extremity of this allegation is a testament to how damned Ross's political career looks to even his supporters.

And that is nobody's fault but Ross's, which over 3/4 of SF'ers see very clearly. But I guess you can't blame Tim for trying.

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

from the beginning of Lee's testimony..up to the speedy faux bomb departure. Lee was getting clobbered.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 8:37 pm

I saw nothing wrong with Lee's statements and anyway, there is no way he could have made a bomb threat while on the stand

Posted by Guest on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 6:20 am

have you thought about a "vision" checkup?
perhaps you hadn't known..but the testimony was being broadcast LIVE
ergo: someone smart enough to understand that Lee had just lied under oath and was headed for further shoals of destruction.

made a see the security details have communication abilities.

there was a very easy way to accomplish exactly what happened.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 7:26 am

Lee's underlings wouldn't risk doing something like that without his say-so.

And of course there isn't a scintilla of evidence that the call was faked. Not that facts will ever stop a left-wing conspiracy theory.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 8:00 am

But of course, you will continue to blather on in a feeble attempt to obfuscate these bombshell developments. The wheels! Ooh wee! Watch them as they bounce and weave down the hill farther and farther away from the Brown/Pak/Lee political machine's anti-Mirkarimi wagon!

Gee, I don't think that thing is rolling so good any more!

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 8:31 am

No doubt he could have had someone call in a threat. It's just that there is no evidence that he did - just the usual same ol' about right-wing conspiracies.

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

that it doesn't matter what the puppet mayor "wants". It's what his handlers want. Always has been.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 8:45 am

What else would you want? An ideological despot?

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

it's the lying under oath part

Posted by Guest on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 7:27 am

(and I can't see how it could be) then there is no motive for lying about it. And as much as all politicians lie, they do it for a reason. Lying about something perfectly innocent makes no sense.

So for Lee to have lied, there must be the idea that the thing he is lying about is bad or wrong. And it isn't.


Posted by Guest on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 8:02 am

The mayor is the one bringing the charges, supposedly based on "evidence" of official misconduct. If in fact, the charges are based on purely political determination that an elected official (whom you can't control) can be removed because the votes are there..then determining that in advance indicates that the arm grab was not, and is not the reason for the attempted political lynching.
LYING UNDER OATH about getting those political ducks in order before crafting charges based on something you think you might find in the process.(and actually don't find as the hearing is revealing).LYING under oath..

is felony perjury.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 8:43 am

Supes to see if there is support for any action he is considering. Nothing worth lying about there. For a criminal count, you need motive and intent. You have neither.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 11:02 am

Related articles

  • Mirkarimi case -- the aftermath

  • Perspective and proportion

    As the Ethics Commission finishes taking testimony in Mirkarimi inquiry, the evidence on most charges seems increasingly thin

  • Thunder from West Portal: Quentin Kopp savages the Warriors' Embarcadero Wall and its $220 million taxpayer subsidy