Eliana Lopez is a victim, but of whom?

|
(236)
Lopez expresses an understandable, if inadvertent, sentiment on the witness stand.
Mike Koozmin

It's been an eventful visit to San Francisco this week for Venezuelan actress Eliana Lopez, who spent the last two evenings on the witness stand testifying before the Ethics Commission as it considers removing her husband, Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, from office for official misconduct for grabbing her arm on Dec. 31. And then today in court, she helped persuade Judge Garrett Wong to lift the stay-away order that has barred the couple from having any contact with each other since January, allowing this battle-weary couple to finally share an much-needed embrace.

Lopez didn't want any of this – not the police and prosecutors going after her husband and getting an order to keep her family apart, not Mayor Ed Lee suspending Mirkarimi and taking away the salary the family needed now more than ever (compounding his failure to ask Lopez what really happened by refusing to allow the city to pay for her plane fare back from Venezuela, where she's been staying with family and looking for acting jobs, to testify in his proceedings), not the hypocritical statements of concern that she's been victimized, made by people who she considers to be the real abusers of her and her family.

Her perspective on this whole sordid affair became crystal clear while spending more than three hours on the stand being grilled by Deputy City Attorney Peter Keith and the commissioners, where she said that she's never been scared of Mirkarimi but that San Francisco has become a scary place to her after being betrayed and victimized by the people entrusted to help her.

“At this point, I think he's safer in Venezuela than San Francisco,” Lopez said of her three-year-old son when Keith condescendingly asked about how he's doing in her home country. Keith's belittling tone toward this supposed crime victim prompted Mirkarimi attorney Shepherd Kopp to tell reporters, “The questioning of Ms. Lopez, so far, I think is just offensive.”

Clearly, some of Lopez's decisions helped create this mess. She said on the stand that she regrets telling her neighbors Callie Williams and Ivory Madison what happened on Dec. 31, even if she believes they should have kept her confidence as they promised. And there are good legal reasons why domestic violence victims shouldn't be able to stop the prosecutions of their abusers, who they may still be scared to offend.

But none of that excuses the complete disregard for Lopez, her perspective, and her interests that has been shown by San Francisco's law enforcement, political, and domestic violence advocacy communities – a point that Mirkarimi supporters have repeatedly made throughout the proceedings, emphasizing that they believe and support Lopez.

“I didn't expect that my lawyer could call the police on her own,” Lopez said of Madison, whom she said had represented herself as a legal adviser who was helping her create evidence for a child custody case if her marital problems ended in divorce. “I thought that was my decision.”

Once Madison took a more aggressive posture in urging Lopez to go the police, including “calling Ross's political enemies” to help her bring him down, Lopez testified, “I realized that I couldn't trust her.” But it was too late. As soon as Lopez clearly said that she didn't want police involvement, that was when Madison called them.

“I told her, 'you don't have my permission to do this. I trusted you,'” Lopez said she told Madison after being told the police were on the way, sending Lopez into a panic. “When I left Ivory Madison's house, I was so shaking I couldn't find my car...I was feeling betrayed and I was so angry.”

Toward the end of her testimony, she said, “After Ivory Madison called the police, I felt betrayed, I felt like I had betrayed Ross.”

Anyone who knows Lopez or watched her on the stand understands that this is a strong woman who is used to taking care of herself, not a shattered domestic violence victim incapable of acting on her own behalf.

“I said we have to think, Ross, we have to do something,” Lopez testified, explaining her reaction to the police involvement and her text message to “use your power” to do something, which Mirkarimi replied to by saying there was nothing he could do at that point, despite unproven accusations that he tried to dissuade witnesses and thwart the investigation. “It was me who was pushing him.”

Even after the controversy went public and threatened his career, Lopez said it her who told him not to resign and to fight for his job. “I told him, 'you won the election, stay strong, we can win this,” she testified.

Nobody wants to minimize domestic violence, but let's keep some perspective on what happened here. Lee may or may not really believe that Mirkarimi “beats his wife,” as he told reporters in justifying his overreaction, but the evidence that has emerged doesn't dispute the consistent contention by Mirkarimi and Lopez that he grabbed her arm one time, for one moment, and that was the full extend of the abuse.

“I bruise really easily,” Lopez testified. “Just Theo playing with me, I get bruised.”

Some people do. And while that doesn't excuse what Mirkarimi did – getting physical with a partner is never okay, as he said on the stand, accepting his fate – it does indicate that perhaps Mirkarimi's critics have lost their perspective, sense of proportion, and realization that domestic violence laws are supposed to be about helping and protecting the victim.

Does anyone even want to try to make an argument that's what's happened in this case?

Comments

MegaMan, no one is saying the election was somehow invalid. What they are saying is that Ross Mirkarimi either needs to voluntarily resign or be removed from office. There is nothing incompatible with that position and acknowledging that elections matter.

So, move along.

Posted by Chris on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 11:20 am
Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 11:52 am

Lil, I am not a police officer. But, I guess if that is your best retort, it is very revealing about the lack of substance to your position.

I will tell you what else I am not: I am not hiding behind cutsey screen names or the anonymous "Guest," while accusing others of supposedly being afraid to stand by their opinions. Also, I am not a zealous adherent to political dogma who blindly supports an individual simply because he happens to agree with my ideology when if he had been someone of a different political persuasion I would be calling for his head. (For example, I don't care for Gavin Newsom, but I know that all the people rallying around Ross Mirkarimi would be the same people demanding Gavin Newsom be removed from office if he did the same exact thing that Ross Mirkarimi had done. And really, when your politics are that transparent and morally bankrupt, why should anyone take you seriously?)

Posted by Chris Brown on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

So we "move along," nothing to see here when Gavin Newsom bones his underling in a coke and alcohol fueled affair, exposes the City to sexual harassment litigation, breaks up a family and skates onto higher office.

When it comes to Ross Mirkarimi, on the other hand, it is "move along," nothing to see here as the full force of political opponents are brought to bear based on a bruise?

Uh, huh.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 1:28 pm

On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily sound very genuine.

In any case, I've already associated it with authoritarian thinking, so definitely *not* cute:

"Move along!"
Mirkarimi "needs to"
"I'm not hiding"

Actually Chris, I'm pretty sure if we'd meet and discuss this in person, we wouldn't end up being fast freinds.

Your argument style seems to leave much to be desired, since I don't like your manner or your predilection for imputing certain disrespectable behaviors on others with no basis whatsoever.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 1:32 pm

San Francisco is just "different" so we should celebrate the ignominy of having a sheriff who's on parole and can't carry a weapon. Being troubled by this situation means you're a Republican and that you refuse to celebrate diversity.

And I'm not joking.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 11:55 am

and whose family was nearly destroyed in an attempt at a political lynching, he's doing exactly the right thing, seeking due process. And in that process, we discover that all the "evidence" pimped as true, turned out to be imaginary and utterly contrived.

You thought he and Eliana would just whimper away with tails between legs. You were wrong. When all is said and done, Ross didn't crumble, and you won't be able to keep this family apart. It'll give you ulcers, as it should.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 4:00 pm

>"As an elected official who received more votes than the mayor"

Buster Posey got more votes than either one of them in the All Star voting.

What's your point? Lee was running against 14 people, Ross was running against, what, 3? Avalos was the closest thing to a Mirkarimi in the Mayor's race and Lee clobbered him 60-40.

You gotta up your game a bit.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 7:08 pm

He had his due process in court. And he admitted to committing a crime, which is admissible in the ethics proceeding. That really should be the only issue considered. Whether he did or did not tamper with witnesses is certainly an additional serious matter to consider, but it is irrelevant to the issue of whether he is fit to continue to serve in office.

If you are the chief law enforcer in a jurisdiction and you admit to committing a crime, any crime, then that in and of itself should be enough to establish you are unfit for office.

Also, if he really cared about his family, then he would have done what any dignified person would have done and that is resign and focus on his family and his private life.

No one cares about keeping his family apart. It is standard procedure in domestic violence matters to grant a protective order, once the matter is settled, then these are often lifted, unless there is some evidence of continuing harm to the victim. It is quite normal for it to be lifted, as it was in this case, once it is established there is no longer any harm.

I am not sure who you think is getting ulcers, other than perhaps yourself, but the issues are really quite simple, and you and your grand conspiracy theorist friends seem to be the only one getting aneurysms over the matter.

Posted by Chris on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 1:22 pm

The only issue? Who is this joker? To dismiss the political assassination that has been going on for the last six months is naive at best. Hiding b ehind legalese b.s. is just rationalizing the City Hall circus.
Ross committed domestic violence? And more than once? Who the hell do you think you are, poster, to say such a thing? You know nothing. You don't know this couple or what has gone on between the. So, STFU!

Posted by Guest on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 9:47 am

Guest, I am Chris Brown and I live at 7th and Mission. That is who I am.

Just because you live in denial and disagree with me does not mean I am not stating the truth. And, yes, the single issue is that he admitted to committing a crime and is not fit for his office.

I am not going to "STFU" --and by the way, it is time you left elementary school. I am going to state what I believe.

Ross Mirkarimi does not belong in office. If he had integrity, then would simply resign and focus on his family and his private life. Unfortunately, he does not seem to have much integrity. So, he should be removed from office. That is it.

Posted by Chris Brown on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 11:24 am

she speaks broken English, getting better all the time. She had just returned from making one movie in Venezuela , accompanied by her young son. She wanted to take him out of the country yet again to make another movie in Venezuela. Ross did not want his son to be out of the country for several months yet again. They had a prior argument about this that was very heated. This was the second heated argument about a topic anyone with a sense of logic could understand. Ross grabbed her arm.period. The neighbor, who promotes herself as a legal wizard on her website, and in her publications is a self-described radical feminist who believes strongly in vengeance for acts of DV, perceived or otherwise. She claims to have been victimized herself and sees a therapist for her own "anger" issues. She is politically well-connected to Ross Mirkarimi's political enemies. POison Ivory waited four days and lots of correspondence to influential people before being told by Phil Bronstein to spring the trap..to make the police phone call, without honoring the confidentiality she had promised to Eliana. She coached Eliana into making a video, bragged to her friends that she had convinced Eliana "to let me tape her".

use your noggin.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 8:13 am

And let that be a lesson to anyone else out there who might be thinking of reporting a suspected case of DV to the police!

Posted by Troll on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 10:17 am

when you aren't. Don't promise confidentiality when you con someone into making a video for custody "insurance" Don't wait four days in order to get the publisher of the local newspaper and his powerful attorney general ex-girlfriend and all the bored trust fund housewives of Marin involved in setting someone up. Get some more help for your own anger management "therapy" issues ,before you construct a vengeance plot against someone you barely know.
Perhaps Poison Ivory has been abused again and again by people in her life(why? is she particularly annoying?) and can't see that her circumstance isn't someone else's. Perhaps Poison Ivory is used to being perceived as a business expert or lawyer without portfolio, able to get jobs and convince folks of her expertise without having to play by the rules everyone else does. Did she graduate from high school? from college? take the bar? or just pretend to do all of the above, enmeshed in the fantasy that being self-educated is somehow better?
As far as domestic violence analysis and the people who make money off of it, If you want to believe the psychobabble bullshit that women can't possibly know their own minds, feel free. It's a crock.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 4:13 pm

"Don't wait four days in order to get the publisher of the local newspaper and his powerful attorney general ex-girlfriend and all the bored trust fund housewives of Marin involved in setting someone up."

No matter how much this made-up chain of events is put forward, it still remains pure fantasy.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

What do her English speaking skills have to do with anything?

More importantly, my point was that Eliana is really irrelevant to the whole matter. Ross Mirkarimi is charged with enforcing the law, he admitted to breaking it, and that alone should disqualify him from staying in office. It really is that simple.

The issue of DV is sort of a side matter. Except I reiterate that a normal person does not run in fear to a neighbor and ask to video tape an injury if it was all supposedly just a typical couple argument. This was someone who was truly scared and that comes from a pattern of abuse, not a one-time argument in a van.

But, again, it does not matter what the crime was, it matters that Ross admitted to breaking the law, and it is incompatible to have the chief law enforcer stay in office when he violates the law.

Posted by Chris on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 11:23 am

Eliana made it quite clear that she was not afraid of her husband and has never felt in the least danger around him. She went to the neighbor because she was afraid of losing Theo in the event of a custody battle. That was her real fear.

So, enough with the spin about Eliana. You trolls owe Ms. Lopez an apology. She came back and stood up for her husband. (If you recall, you claimed that she wouldn't come back to SF for Ross. Well, she did.) She said in the Chron that her home is with Ross, wherever they end up, whether in Venezuela or here. It is quite obvious that she is committed to her family and to her marriage. It is disgusting how you are victimizing her further with your malicious slander. Shame on you!

Posted by Ana on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

Lopez lies. A lot.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

Ana, shame on you for being so stupid and ridiculous.

No one is doing anything to Eliana. She and her husband created this whole mess and they are the ones who could have ended it by simply returning to private life and focusing on their family and their relationship.

What "malicious slander" are you talking about? You must realize on some level that you sound mentally ill. Also, who claimed she could not come back? No one claimed it, she was having trouble getting the money to afford to come back, until her friends or her husband's friend's helped pay for the ticket. But, what does that have to do with anything?

Also, a "troll" is someone who just posts something to get people worked up. You seem to be using the term against anyone who you simply disagree with. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Grow up. Educate yourself. And, drop the melodrama--it is pathetic for a grown woman such as yourself to act so foolish.

Posted by Chris on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 1:26 pm
PS

Even if they can't fully recapture this for themselves. I hope they can hold onto the feelings for Theo's sake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RaF-iq-_Is

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 6:08 pm

I agree with Chris (and I believe the social fabric of the United States as well) in that DV is a crime against society and not against an individual.

Also, if the politics were reversed I think that Steven would be quick to point out that Lopez has every motivation in the world to see Mirkarimi reinstated and for this to go away. And, based on her remarks, it is tough to think that she feels any obligation to respect our legal system.

If I were her I would say whatever is convenient, even if I said the exact opposite on a video, and get back to my son in Venezuela.

What are we going to do? Deport her?

Posted by Troll on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 6:31 pm

she was an actress so she was used to being dramatic - therefore her video couldn't be taken seriously?

Now we're supposed to believe that her testimony was free of drama - the "real Eliana" as it were. Of course The Guardian long ago dropped all pretense of neutrality on this issue - the marching orders went out in January and they were that all progressives were to fight this battle as if it were their last. That enough had been lost and they were not going to lose the sheriff's office under any circumstances - whatever had to be done would be done.

They may have pulled it off. But this is a Pyrrhic victory if they do. Mirkarimi will be incredibly damaged as a result and will not run for reelection and if he does he'll be defeated if he's not recalled before, the sheriff's office will be totally demoralized working under a sheriff on probation and the progressive movement split - perhaps fatally. The women's movement is already furious about how they've been smeared in this and are starting to realize that progressives talk a good game when it comes to female equality - but when it comes down to it the general feeling amongst the men is that sometimes your bitch needs to be yanked or grabbed or slapped. Zero tolerance and all that shit was just a facade for the same old crap.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 6:48 pm

"Remember how Steven kept pointing our that she was an actress so she was used to being dramatic - therefore her video couldn't be taken seriously?"

Umm... no. I don't remember anything of the sort.

Remember how certain trolls make shit up and use the phrase "remember how" to make them sound more believable when they're pulling shit out of their asses?

Oh, yeah. That, I remember.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 7:34 pm

Steven's earlier pieces. He said on more than one occasion that Eliana was an actress so you should take her video appearance as an acting job.

I know the truth is hard for you to accept - it always is for progressives. Poor dear.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

I've read pretty much all of them. I don't recall Steven ever saying "she was an actress so she was used to being dramatic - therefore her video couldn't be taken seriously." But if this isn't your typical pulling-shit-out-of-the-ass spew, then link to it and I will apologize and stand corrected.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 8:28 pm

It was Mar 21. If you look at the comments I wasn't the only one who pasted the line about "the actress who tearfully told the tale". Amazingly, the text in the article is no longer there for some reason:

"http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/03/21/lees-charges-against-mirkarimi-leave-questions-unaddressed?page=2

Posted by Troll on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 10:24 pm

Either it's a vast conspiracy to undermine you, Troll II... or it's yet another manifestation of your tendency to twist people's words and meaning making it appear that they said something they really did not. I'll chalk it up to the latter, because I've seen it many times.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 6:48 am

Greg, if you read the comments you'll see that I wasn't the only one who pasted that exact phrase into a comment. I also wasn't the only one who remembered it.

I'm not saying that it was a vast conspiracy, just that the phrase was obviously used in the article. It's gone for whatever reason now but the point is Steven's inconsistency. When he doesn't like what she says on a video she's an actress. Other times she's a hero.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 7:02 am

Because if Steven doctored his earlier piece to remove that language he'll delete the comments referencing it too.

I, for one, find it shocking that a writer at The Guardian would doctor his earlier pieces to remove language he now finds regrettable.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 11:58 am

Look at the above chain of responses. It looks like "Troll"/"Troll II" forgot which screen name he was supposed to be using for this exchange, and then decided to go all out and just answer himself. You're pathetic.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 6:10 pm

Um, no. Sorry. It was your mistake Greg.

Look at the chain yourself. I made the post 'He wrote "The actress who tearfully told the tale"' on .Jul. 20, 2012 @ 10:24 pm.

You responded to Troll II about it.

I ignored it because it didn't seem worth it to correct you.

But since you used it to rant about us being 'pathetic' I'll point out that it was your mistake.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 8:33 pm

shed over your failed attempt at schooling me on the meaning of "temporary," that you must still be smarting and in need of lashing out elsewhere like a petulant child, but really.

The fact is that all of you trolls are nearly indistinguishable from each other; Greg can hardly be faulted for confusing you two... if such was in fact the case.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 9:02 pm

Actually, make that a long, permanent, departure

Posted by Guest on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 10:50 pm

@lilli - remind me what it is that you are talking about and what thread it is. I remember that you said something really stupid because you were trying to use as many syllables as possible. Like Mirkarimi was 'temporarily on hiatus'. As opposed to permanently on hiatus. Then I started making fun of you but someone made me feel like that was cruel. Because you are like a dancing bear.

But since you are such an asshole also just remind me of what it is and I'll be cruel in the morning. Sometimes it is deserved.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 11:29 pm

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/07/20/eliana-lopez-victim-whom?page=1

... two thirds the way down the page, where you cite Merriam Webster in your eminently incompetent attempt at criticizing my use of language. Keep it up Troll, I had fun.

Greg, I'm afraid there must in fact be several "Trolls" because no one of such could be "smart" enough to come up with all the stupidity that is produced by the group; they must copy and feed off from each other to be so prolific. If it were not so, then given the completely asinine anti-social nature of their speech, a single hypothetical Troll "smart enough" to be so prolific would no doubt be directing their energy towards something which seemed far more grand (to them) such as shooting up a movie theater full of innocents.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 6:38 am

You know what, @lilli, I was going to have fun making you dance again for awhile, even though I'm beginning to think that it is cruel.

But then you liken our activity here to the tragedy in Aurora. A six year old going to the movies was murdered, along with eleven other young people. And to you that is just something to use as an insult against your adversaries posting on an internet board.

What a soulless, brainless waste of protoplasm. And to think that I used to feel sorry for you because of your dim wittedness. Now I'm amazed that such a low level creature can event type. I guess what they say about an infinite number of monkeys is true.

But monkeys just hurl excrement. Even they don't hurl tragedies around like you did.

I don't feel sorry for you. It's not your fault that you are stupid, but your disgusting outlook on life doesn't come naturally. It takes some work. It explains why you are sitting around on a Saturday night, all alone and hunched over your computer.

No, I don't feel sorry for you. I'm going to ignore anything you post from now on and just be glad that I can live my entire life without having to meet a person as low as you.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 7:13 am

So by my suggesting that you have a psychopathic tendency not unlike the perpetrator of the theater shooting, I insulted the memory of the victims; giving you a chance to demostrate your righteous anger. Sure.

Actually your blather perfectly jibes with the rest of your forumlaic trollery; such as the vacuous indignation that anyone's critical analysis of the mayors attack on Mirkarimi is tantamount to applauding spousal abuse.

And you still haven't copped to the error in your lame attempt at schooling me on the meaning of temporary. "Dim witted" indeed.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 9:09 pm

First of all, I have not gone back to change anything I've written about Ross or Eliana, both because I only change published stories to correct factual inaccuracies and because I stand by everything I've written about this case, much of which has proven prescient, if I do say so myself.

Second, it is true that I have suggested that this actress might have tended toward the dramatic in that video, which makes perfect sense. By all accounts, it was created for use only if the marriage deteriorated and they ended up in a tough custody battle, so she (or any of us) would want it to be as powerful and convincing as possible. Which it was, even if it ended up being used against her family in ways that she never intended.

Posted by steven on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 10:21 am

So if she tended towards the dramatic in the video, shouldn't you also have a critical eye for her tending towards the dramatic during last week's testimony? She has a zillion reasons to wish that the proceedings against Mirkarimi go away, and not much reason to see him further destroyed.

And, given her comments about San Francisco and its politicians it is hard to imagine her thinking that she has an overriding obligation to provide neutral, unbiased and clear testimony about the events.

Also, FWIW, it's also hard to imagine that two people posted the phrase '"the actress who tearfully told the tale" in Mar 21 comments and nobody on this board pointed out that the phrase wasn't even in the article. I don't think that you would deliberately remove the phrase but it is more likely that something moved around over the past 4 months, given your admission that you were indeed concerned about her ability to be dramatic.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 10:41 am

that Eliana would never come back to San Francisco. You must be soooo annoyed that she doesn't take orders from you.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 8:17 am

ticket, and not because she wanted to stand by Ross's side like a dutiful wife of a fallen politico is supposed to do.

Oh, and she's taken the first available flight back. A real keeper.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 9:01 am

her. Shock , she doesn't take her orders from you.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 8:15 am

That is what this case is about. And why the character of the two people responsible for bringing this argument/ bruise to light play into it. They both (Mayor Lee and Ivory Madison) have "qualities" that raise eyebrows. These qualities, relating to credibility, have already been brought up in the media, albeit some more under the radar than others.

Coupled together, one has to wonder. I'm not in the mood to write an expose on it now. But if you've been paying attention, you already know. *Their* actions helped to create a climate of panic and exaggeration.

If "false imprisonment" amounts to turning the car around in the heat of an argument, then is that deserving of what Ross is getting? If the "DV" consists of bruising an arm while grabbing it in the heat of an argument, does that mean Ross should step down? And if Theo happened to be present during this unfortunate altercation, does that mean Ross isn't fit to serve?

I would have rather the EC decided to hear the testimony regarding the Mayor's truthfulness. Maybe a stronger case could have been made if Ivory Madison's character could have been part of the mix—but she is not testifying. I understand the EC's ruling on not hearing testimony about Lee. But what would seal the deal for me is that *both* of these individuals raise some disturbing red flags in terms of character. Both. Can we turn a blind eye to that? Should we?

Posted by Daniele E. on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 6:39 pm

Well of course, Danielle, to you this is all about Ed Lee and Ivory Madison.

Note how you tried to divert attention away from Mirkarimi.

BTW, if the 'perjury' hearsay allegations were made about Progressives then everyone here would be citing chapter and verse about how legally silly they are.

Oh, BTW, I had lunch with a David Campos staffer who gave me the impression that Campos was planning an act of treason. So go arrest Campos.

Sound familiar???

Posted by Troll on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 7:13 pm

Oh, Troll...
I love ya (don't know why), but...you say: "to you this is all about Ed Lee and Ivory Madison". Not really...but I don't want to exclude them.

You say: "Note how you tried to divert attention away from Mirkarimi." Well, again, love ya, but...please refer to I believe the third paragraph in my comment...you know the one where I go through all the allegations pertaining to Mirkarimi...you get my point. But then again, maybe you don't.

I hope that clears things up. Oh, and about your third paragraph: nice try, but I don't operate that way.

Have a good night. Sweet trolling dreams.

Posted by Daniele E. on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 11:27 pm

making sense. A lot of folks don't appreciate that, you know.

Troll: no one is saying arrest Ed Lee... yet. I'm all about innocent until proven guilty, but I think *if* the mayor perjured himself, he needs to be removed for misconduct... and arrested and tried. At the very least, a full investigation is in order so that we can find out.

Oh, and while the investigation is going on, perhaps it's best he step down temporarily pending the results. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 7:45 pm

while Ross is convicted of a violent crime.

See the difference?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 11:00 pm

I honestly don't think there is even any basis to begin a perjury investigation.

In California (and probably elsewhere) the word of just one witness can not be the basis for perjury. And that makes sense. So unless there is some corroboration for what Debra Walker and Peskin say then there is no way to start an investigation.

And Peskin is even saying that 'he got the impression' that Wong was talking for Lee. Do you have any idea just how weak that is?

Sorry! I know that you really want to see a Lee perjury trial. Maybe next time.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 11:21 pm

The whole procedure was a political witchunt from day one.

The only reason Ed Lee isn't convicted of anything, is because it's up to the same dirty scoundrels like Gascon to do the prosecuting. They're not going to go after their own machine.

Frankly, this probably isn't Ed Lee's first felony by a long shot. City Hall under Brown-Newsom was a cesspool of putrid corruption, and Ed Lee was in the thick of it. The guy's as dirty as they come. He and most of the sycophantic flunkies who surround him (many left over from the Brown-Newsom years) should have been in jail long ago. But again, who's going to investigate and prosecute? The wolves are guarding the henhouse.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 11:30 pm

Post new comment

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