D5, Mirkarimi, and 8 Washington


Everybody knows that the timing of the Board of Supervisors vote on ousting the sheriff for official misconduct is bad for Ross Mirkarimi. We're talking about a huge, high-profile decision just weeks before some of the key board members are up for re-election, two of them in hotly contested races. For Sups. Eric Mar and Christina Olague, it's going to particularly difficult: Mar's in a moderate district, and he'll be attacked from the more conservative David Lee if he supports Mirkarimi. Olague's in a progressive district where Mirkarimi was a popular supervisor, so no matter what she does, she'll take heat.

But I was a little surprised by Randy Shaw's analysis, which suggests that Olague will be motivated entirely by political spite:

D5 Supervisor Christina Olague once faced a tough decision on Ross, but since Mirkarimi allies have attacked her on a number of issues it would be very unlikely for her to support him.

That's pretty insulting. Shaw, who has supported her in the past, is saying that Olague won't make up her own mind based on the actual issue and case in front of her. She was pretty clear when I called her: "I will vote on the merits of this issue," she said. "If I was motivated to vote based on who had pissed me off I'd have a hard time voting on anything."

I've disagreed with Olague quite a few times, and one could easily argue that she'll be under immense pressure from the mayor. ("The mayor doesn't want a lot from Christina, but he does want this," one insider told me.) But is it impossible for Shaw to imagine that, in one of the toughest matters she will ever have to handle, the supervisor might actually listen to the testimony, consider the merits of the case, and vote to do what she thinks is right?

Meanwhile, Joe Eskenazi at the Weekly has already announced the Guardian's endorsement in D5 -- which is interesting, since we're barely started interviewing the candidates. Eskenazi calls Julian Davis "the Guardian's fair-haired boy" (which, speaking of insults, is not a terribly appropriate way to refer to an African American man), indicating that he's already our candidate.

For the record: We have not made an endorsement in District Five. We plan to endorse a slate of three candidates for the ranked-choice ballot, and we'll publish that endorsement the last week in September or the first week in October.




Show me the proof that Lee's approval ratings are in the dumps compared to when he was elected.

Posted by D. native on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 1:24 pm

I did not make the original claim as to Lee's popularity, so I do not have to show proof of my assessment which is contrary to that oft-repeated and completely unsubstantiated claim.

I think my assessment is in fact supported on an "a priori" basis: the reactionary troglodytes wouldn't be trying so hard to suggest *without* substantiation that Lee is still popular if it wasn't a falsehood.

I give you repeated opportunities to provide some citation to prove the claim because each time you fail in that and instead come back with some ad hominem or other non-sequitur, you prove the a priori case all the more.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 2:14 pm

Here are YOUR exact words:

"Lee's approval ratings are in the dumps compared to when he
got elected and if you can prove otherwise, please feel free to do so. Just to be clear, when I write "prove," I mean honest polls done in the recent past -- say, subsequent to his Ethics Commission theatrics and waffling on nazi policing policies."

So when someone else claims that Lee is doing well, it is perfectly acceptable for you to demand links to polls and proof that such pools are not push pools, but you can make claims to the contrary and anyone who calls you out on that is a "tool"

Please Lilli-admit it, you have no proof and that you just got played. You love to demand proof of polls etc, but now that you have made a claim about Lee going down in popularity you got nothing. Tool.

Posted by D.native on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 3:03 pm

How else to describe your behavior in prevaricating about who made the original claim with regard to Lee's popularity? Look about on the page, I think you might spot it: "Lee is more popular than ever"

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 3:51 pm

it sucks to get nailed with your by your own devices. Better luck next time. Perhaps you should avoid making claims that you can't back up with hard proof.

Posted by D.native on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 6:53 pm


On SFGate, trogs can make false claims about your position and what you've said in the past, and -- I suppose this is possibly true only if your are a reactionary -- that passes muster just fine with the censor.

On the other hand, if you correctly describe the character of the person who has habitually engaged in such scurrilous behavior (i.e. "liar!") *that* is censored as a personal attack.

Is it not a personal attack to mischaracterize the position of that person in such a way as to put the quality of their character or intellect into question?

Sometimes I use personal invective or colorful language as a decision or "tint" to my reasoned comments. It is just as a seasoning to a hearty stew that is made of up of nourishing ingredients -- not as the type of toxic gruel these fucking troglodytes cook up and try to feed you: lies, deceit, non-sequitur, straw man, innuendo bound together with a roux of snot and shit.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 7:28 pm

How else to describe your behavior in prevaricating about who made the original claim with regard to Lee's popularity? Look about on the page, I think you might spot it: "Lee is more popular than ever"

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 3:51 pm

But YOU were the one that made the claim that Lee's approval ratings are in the dumps and lower after the election. YOUR claim is now the one that can not be supported by hard fact. You can dance around it all you want, but it is YOUR claim that is hanging out there right now, flapping away in the wind like a 90 year old granny with no bra. Sucks to have your own game thrown in your face huh? Just admit that you lost this round and move on.

Posted by D.native on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 8:51 pm

them correctly.

"A priori" means a claim to knowledge made "prior to experience".

You're using it to describe what is an inference from your experience. so the correct term is "a posteriori".

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 3:07 pm

*A* *priori,* we can know that the story about Lee's ever-increasing popularity is a lie; we need not resort to actually polling people or researching supposed polls which have been so often alleged but never produced, because THE VERY FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED IS IN EFFECT EVIDENCE THAT THEY DO NOT EXIST: a priori.

This may be a different use of the term than you have just barely been able to understand from the study of modern philosophy but such scant awareness does not in any case justify your self-inflated aire of superiority. Look it up in the fucking dictionary.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 4:00 pm

use obscenities to try and cover that up.

Hardly surprising it didn't work.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 4:32 pm

Polls which show results with which I disagree are suspect and in all cases - to be dismissed.

So don't bother with any explanations in the future. If I agree with the poll's results then I'll accept it, otherwise it's bunk. That's how I roll.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 4:52 pm

I know that wasn't easy for you.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 6:03 pm

*a* *priori* because I don't need a poll; rather the lack of proof for repeated claims to the contrary indicates that no such proof exists. Its a matter of deduction: ergo "a priori."

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 5:09 pm

that Lee's approval ratings are int he dump. I know that is wrong because of the lack of proof. Touche

Posted by D.native on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 8:56 pm

bait someone from your troglodytic cohort to provide proof to the contrary; i.e. proof of the repeatedly made claim that Lee's approval numbers remain sky-high -- which seems to be highly unlikely given his performance in the Mirkarimi matter and policing practices.

Such proof has never been forthcoming, so I confindently deduce that his popularity has indeed fallen.

Again: prove your claim with regard to Lee's continuing popularity or STFU.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 2:54 pm

And therefore you are in no position to refute any claims thereto by others.

You use hundreds of words here just to say that you don't know. Amazing.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

The lack of facts either way is no reason to draw a conclusion. Logically, any official's approval ratings are going to be lower than they were months after an election, when after winning, they should be pretty high. Is that what you meant? If so, it doesn't mean much.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 8:30 am

The reasoning is that similar -- and thoroughly discredited -- claims with regard to popular sentiment have been made for Lee's actions in this matter. (see push polls)

Ergo, claims about Lee's popularity, lacking supporting evidence, carry the stench of protective bluster: they are false.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 3:57 am

I oppose and totally reject zero tolerance. No pretenses; I don't believe in simple minded solutions. Real problems require solutions not mindless automaton responses.

Posted by Avkanediv on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 3:54 am

"Zero tolerance" is in-and-of-itself a highly suspect catch phrase; has it not quite frequently been applied in cases of victimless crimes? Does the phrase not -- in the simple mindedness you correctly identify -- reflect the simple minded and martial attitude expressed by domestic violence criminals themselves... not to mention thuggish cops?

Zero tolerance is a childish slogan which helps the simple-minded avoid making truly adult decisions; making decisions according to nuance.

Making deciscion based on which slogan fits always works out poorly for them who fall into such behavior. The world *is* nuanced.

"If the slogan don't fit..."

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 3:02 pm

The Guardian commentary on behalf of the troubled Sheriff can be distilled into two basic camps: A) devotees, folks who are into the troubled Sheriff; B) folks who think American life is about the 2nd or even an18th chance.

Camp B deserves a lot of respect.

Unfortunately, this Board vote unlike a jury of 12 peers vote involves calculations different than guilt or innocence. For progressive supervisors and their own futures its survival. Politicians can make one bad bet and be "done." Under term limits they are "done" anyway unless they can move up.

The Sheriff's supporters have not done a good job of explaining how a vote for Mirkarimi works on this level. The realpolitik dimension of this vote has been avoided at all cost. New theories of DV contextualism, affirmations of 32 year old caselaw that may or may not apply in 2012 and moral parallelism are intellectually valid exercises but none help explain how an Avalos, Campos or Mar walks the plank here. A vote for the Sheriff after the press, guilty plea and Ethics Commission 4-1 vote is a high risk vote. This fact has never been given proper weight by this newspaper. Instead of being mocked, the political realities of this vote are so dire, that proposal from a frequent progressive fundraising heavyweight over the last 20 years, which involved a distinguished progressive intermediary, may well have been the most sensible outcome of this highly personal tragedy.

Group A has slammed all of the polling data as push. If memory serves there have been at 4 published polls on this case. SurveyUSA did 2 for KPIX; Fairbanks/Maslin and PPP did one each. These are all credible polling firms with national reputations. Waiving away the bad numbers is denial. All the polls came back with terrible numbers for all the obvious reasons. It's deluded to think those numbers won't exert a claim at the Board of Supervisors.

It's not realistic to ask any politician to vote for a cause if they know it could end their careers or amputate their ambition. Tens of thousands of words have been published here about this case but no one has a plausible answer to this question. Just how does a vote on behalf of the embattled Sheriff work? How does a left-liberal politician answer the charge that they are not a retro-chauvinist creature straight out of the 1950s, psychologically equipped with the same baggage as the most sexist elements of what remains a backward society.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 12:36 am

I suppose you think your "adult" and wonkish pretense might lend some aire of respectability to your slant, but don't you suppose the intended audience might see through it to the rancid heart of your argument?

I mean, falsely pigeonholing "Guardian commentary" critical of the Lee/Pak machine behavior as emanating from those who are "into the troubled sheriff" comes off as horribly sexist and demeaning, isn't it? Kinda looks like the footprint of a *real* DV perp, no?

Ironic indeed.

As for the polls, I don't suppose push polls would have ever been commissioned except to use them as you do; a cudgel to work the putatively malleable progressive supes. But can you prove the polls you cite *aren't* push polls by vouching for the "national reputation" of the public relation firms which conducted them?

Those of us who have expressed doubt about some of the polls mentioned, might refer to the second-tier nature of the outfits which have generated them only after identifying the push poll qualities by analyzing their character -- not their pedigree.

And at least one of the polls you cite was a *secret* poll which defies such analysis by remaining *secret.*

Oh, you like that. Listen up children. We just had an election, but the method under which it was taken is a *secret*. But no worries, we have an "adult" SFGate commentator here visiting to tell us what the results were.

Thanks Flim Flam man.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 2:01 am

When called out to offer a real answer, to a real question, you throw up a lot of distraction, and criticism, and no substance.

Posted by D.native on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 4:36 am

you boldly lie when unable to cook up some rational comment.

It's all too obvious, but I'll break it down for anybody who might be partially taken-in by your vacant bluster:

Mr FlimFlam posits that due to the poll numbers, progressive supervisors have no choice but to amputate one of their number in city government.

Mr FlimFlam further posits that those who are incredulous regarding said poll numbers are "into" the sheriff and that there is no basis for questioning the "four polls."

The *real* answer to the *bogus* question is really pretty simple.

It consists of an interrogation as to the asker's presupposition regarding the "four polls."

As a matter of fact, we've only really seen *one* poll, not four.

*That* poll was conducted immediately after the disposition of the court case against the sheriff and before he had a chance to get his side of the story out. It was a push poll; indentifiable as such because the question as to support for Lee's action was prefaced with the statement that Mirkarimi had gotten off lightly in the plea deal.

Also, the methodology of that poll was such that those who answered "no" to the question as to whether they were "following" the news stories about Mirkarimi's prosecution had all their other answers *eliminated* from the pool of respondants. (Might there have been a large number of such who answered "no" simply because they objected to the incessant smear campaign in the pages of the San Francsico Chronicle around that time? Yes. Of course.)

The next poll was a "secret poll" in which no information has ever been released, only the identity of the public relations firm which conducted it -- a firm which specializes in getting "results" and modifying public perception. A push poll? Obviously -- if the poll exists at all, that is. The only thing we can't say is exactly how eggregious it might have been, because every bit of it is *secret.* (One might expect it to have been *highly* eggregious.)

The latest poll has a similarly clandestine quality as the second poll, though we have had reports as to who funded the poll in addition to the identity of the East Coast political outfit which conducted it, and we have seen a PDF file purporting to show the questions asked and give some (possibly misleading) clues as to the poll's methodology.

That poll does not appear on that firm's website, suggesting that whether or not they are "top-shelf" themselves, that the poll certainly isn't. If the PDF file is accurate, it certainly was a push poll and -- as previously mentioned -- the methodology is suspect in other regards.

And the "fourth poll?" I'd like to see any suggestion that such exists. I can't comment on that which is not in evidence.

So that is my substantive answer, D'naive.

Mr. FlimFlam has it that my objection to the polls derives from me being "into the sheriff," which is obviously intended to be abusive and seems to reveal a sexist and demeaning attitude. That is ironic.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 9:45 am

Lots of words with no substance, all to completely avoid a very valid question:

"Just how does a vote on behalf of the embattled Sheriff work? How does a left-liberal politician answer the charge that they are not a retro-chauvinist creature straight out of the 1950s, psychologically equipped with the same baggage as the most sexist elements of what remains a backward society."

Posted by D.native on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 4:23 pm

Again - I apologize for my last statement. This has been a difficult week for me as I look at the wreckage of my life and begin to try to make some plan to start anew. As you know I am jobless and have been for some time now, I have no friends and in addition remain a virgin - something which is causing me more and more angst and which I can't see to resolve. What you read here are the bitter, angry ravings of a frightened 53-year old who is trying to exert some control over his immediate environs - and as you know I fail most of the time at doing even that.

I realize I keep swinging back and forth with these apologies and then going on another ill-advised attack against a fellow commenter but it's really a symptom of my deteriorating mental state, something I'm attempting to deal with through reliance on state medical services. The best I can do is apologize for my behavior and try to control myself better here. But remember when reading what I write that I loath myself and hence - I loath others too.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 4:45 pm
Posted by D.native on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

I never *quite* made you out to be such a dogs-off-chains psychopath before.

Troll II, on the other hand, I can see it. Especially in view of the obvious self-projection in that last sentence of the last paragraph.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 4:57 pm

I swing from abject apologies to trashing other commenters within minutes - I'm barely able to maintain lucidity at this point.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 5:13 pm

I got polled about the state and local ballot measures. Lots of questions about each of the measures. Then they ask "if these elected official where the spokesperson for one of the measures would you be more or less likely to believe the argument". They asked about Chiu, Campos a few others. Then they asked about Lee. I answered that I would be way less likely to believe the argument if Lee was the spokesperson, the pollster (from las vegas by the way) said, "wow, that guy must be awful, everyone is saying that". Very interesting. I also notice that Ed Lee was removed from the Channel 5 news trailer this week.
Looks like the thrill is gone, Ed.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 7:48 pm

I'm an expert on polling methodology and those given the questions are scrupulously trained to NEVER offer their opinions on either the questions nor the responses to the questions - doing so clearly contaminates the results of the poll.

Therefore this poll is most definitely a "push poll" whose results we should consider invalid.

I'm a supporter of Sheriff Mirkarimi's - I've been vocal in my denunciations of the witch hunt against our sheriff. But I also stand for righteousness and I cannot and will not condone the results of any poll which seeks to sway the bias of its participants in a quest to perpetuate downtown's power. Ignore this poll and ignore those who post here seeking its approval.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 9:16 pm

Doesn't that mean that my comments have been particularly cogent and vexing to the anti-Mirkarimi haters?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 9:32 pm

I'm lillipublicans. My words are righteous. I stand against downtown and the filth of entrenched power in San Francisco.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 9:49 pm

Just like in Sparticus

Posted by Lillipublicans on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 7:58 am

I heard the District 5 candidates debate.
I'm voting for Julian.

Posted by District 5 Voter on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 12:44 pm

We already have a black on the Board of Supervisors.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 1:02 pm

My rights as a registered voter

My family has resided in San Francisco’s Excelsior district 11 since 1945. Politics has never been something that interested me, but as of late I am beginning to understand the importance of speaking on things that you feel violates your civic and constitutional rights as a registered voter.

I have been registered to vote in SF since I was 18 years old. My family thought it was important to support candidates and issues you believed in. I on the other hand was not connected to the political process as a young man, like I am now.

I really respect the work that DV groups provide to battered spouses and I would be totally supportive of their campaign if they would have taken the time to listen to the one person who they should have consulted before going off and bashing her and doing everything possible to tear this family apart. I witnessed them stand on the front steps of City Hall and bash the woman who is the center of this whole drama while she stood in the background to see what this press conference was all about!! Low and behold it was about her being a battered woman. The protestors had NO IDEA she was standing behind them in total disbelief that this was taking place.

As a registered voter I believe my vote should count and I don’t think any process other than the ballot box should be considered to remove an elected official from office. Ross Mirkarimi received 86,592 votes which is more than a tight race. The Mayor received 84,457 votes so this adds to the confusion over the prosecution of the Duly Elected Sheriff. Do the math and the Sheriff actually received 2,135 more votes than the elected Mayor. He won handily and that means there are people all over the city that will agree the 11 members on the BOS should not be able to remove an elected official with their majority vote. I respect our Mayor, City and District Attorney and many of the members on the BOS.

With that being said I don’t agree with the decision to suspend the Sheriff without pay. I hope and respectfully ask that this process taking place with the SFBOS will respect the voter’s choice and my personal vote by reinstating our duly elected Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, with full back pay and immediately put him back to work as our Sheriff. Sheriff Mirkarimi knows the reentry world better than most because he was instrumental in developing the Safe Communities Reentry Council here in SF over 7 years ago, which is now known as SF Reentry Council.

The people I know that voted for Sheriff Mirkarimi will definitely make it known that they disagree with your choice to remove and elected official in the next election cycle.

I believe that Sheriff Mirkarimi will work with the other elected officials because this city needs healing not more problems. We look terrible around the world as everyone is beginning to understand that this looks political. No one agrees with violence of any kind but who among us has never had a heated agreement with their spouse?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 03, 2012 @ 5:18 pm

"As a registered voter I believe my vote should count and I don’t think any process other than the ballot box should be considered to remove an elected official from office."

It is not like this is coming out of nowhere. SF voters placed this process into place in fair elections. Suck it up. Pretty much every government system in the US has some sort of mechanism to remove elected officials from office. Just look at the US Constitution and the relatively recent impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. Nothing new here.

Trying to compare votes between Ross and Lee is BS. Both were legitimately elected and equally entitled to their respective offices. The difference being that Ross was subsequently convicted of a crime and now is subject to possible removal. Trying to look at who got more votes just muddies the waters.

Further, Based on various polls taken, I would guess that Ross would have a VERY difficult time winning office were the election held today, while Lee would again breeze into office. Had people known that Ross has apparent anger issues and would be convicted of a DV related crime, most probably would not have voted for him.

Posted by D.native on Sep. 03, 2012 @ 10:25 pm

No worries, Guest, that you've become the target of another of D'naive's ignorant diatribes full of insolent bluster -- i.e. "get over yourself" -- and full-throated mendacity.

Relax in the awareness that D'naive can't name a single other state or district where an election has been overturned by such fiat or even one in which such flimsy mechanism exists.

Prop E's digest in the ballot pamphlet in '95 said that it made *no* substantive changes in ethics law -- though I imagine that many voters who read the text hoped it might have ensnared Willie Brown whose predilection for self-dealing was legendary.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 3:50 am

A simple Google search shows the following officials who have been removed by impeachment- which is the same basic process that Ross is going through now:

Evan Mecham- Governor of Arizona- Removed in 1988
Rolf Larsen- Associate Justice Penn State. Supreme Court- removed in 1994
Judith Moriarty - Missouri Secretary of State- removed in 1994
Rod Blagojevich- Governor of Illinois- removed in 2009.

Sucks to be wrong huh Lilli? Though, I would figure that by now you are used to it.

And again, it is hard for me to understand the logic of someone whining about their "rights" as a voter be trampled on, when we have had a tradition of a method of removing sitting officials from office since the Constitution was signed in 1787.

Posted by D.native on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 8:06 am

Thanks for trying D'naive, but *every* *one* of your examples relates to an official committing criminal acts while in office and *directly* *related* to the *duties* of that office; abuse of power.

Unlike the process under which Ross Mirkarimi has been tarred, and put out of the office to which he was elected, the U.S. Constitution's provision for impeachment -- and all other analogous processes on the state level -- requires a *body* of men (and women) to agree to investigate and vote in favor of a finding of wrongdoing, with *another* body required to pass judgment on their work.

Most priceless, though, your citing the impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob. I'm sure many will be won over to your side with such comparisons.

Dnative =
deceptive nonsense and tenuously inteligent vicious excrement.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 8:52 am

I played your game and provided you with examples of officials impeached and duly voted out of office.

Not really seeing your point that SF's system of impeachment is any different than any other system. One body is investigating the alleged wrong doing- the EC, they are making a recommendation and the BoS will "pass judgment on their work". How is that fundamentally different?

As to the Clinton reference, simply was pointing to that as an example of a recent attempted impeachment, I did not make any comment as to it's merits or lack there of.

Posted by D.native on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 9:19 am

Yes. I'm amassing quite a record of having you fall mute after a few interchanges. "You can't see my point."

It won't make any difference if I put it in all caps, will it?


Not expecting any other outcome here, of course.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 9:53 am

D.Native...you're arguing with a complete moron. Even if you came up with a case where an elected official was charged with exactly the same crime as Mirkarimi he would still just be all false bluster and call you a bold mendacious liar and never admit that he is wrong.

His big argument is that his hero committed the offensive acts a few hours before he took office. So there!

What an idiot.

Tell him to look at the US Constitution, Section II, Article 4 which says that: "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

On second thought, why even bother. Go to a botanical garden and argue with a plant if you enjoy debating an opponent with almost no functional cognitive ability.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 11:00 am

Especially if he doesn't get any help.

Notice that in the example of impeachment under the U.S. Constitution -- which was grossly misused in recent memory to prosecute a lie about a blowjob -- it is not up to

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

the position to which he was elected; the flimsy process which I originally dared Dnaive to provide an alternate example of.

In any case, a momentary arm grab and turning the van around is tantamount to lying about a blowjob for the purpose of removing an elected official from their position, so no wonder it hasn't gone over very well with the general public.

And if the idea that the crime doesn't have to occur while a person is in office, then why did Dnaive provide only examples of officials being removed for crimes committed while in office? And why did Mayor Lee strive so hard to try and prove that Ross Mirkarimi had committed crimes subsequent to New Years Eve?

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 12:19 pm

Who cares what Randy Shaw thinks? his head is so far Ed Lee's ass he can taste the turds as they are created. He is nothing more than a pig lapping up at the public trough for money for his stupid nonprofit that pays him enough to live like a prince. Hope he dies when Ed Lee poots.

Posted by Beyond Beyond Chron on Sep. 03, 2012 @ 6:26 pm

This is a travesty. Where were the DV pitbullswhen Joanne Hayes White attacted her husband? Disgusting poliltical railroad job.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 11:20 am