Supervisors set Oct. 9 to decide Mirkarimi's fate

Mirkarimi served on the Board of Supervisors with 10 of the 11 jurors who will decide his fate.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors officially received the official misconduct case against suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi yesterday, starting the clock on the 30-day deadline that the City Charter provides for that body to take action. Board President David Chiu announced a special meeting to consider the case on Oct. 9 at 2pm.

“The last day the Board of Supervisors can act on this is Oct. 17,” Chiu told his colleagues yesterday, reiterating the schedule the board had previous agreed to: a 10-minute presentation by the Ethics Commission, 20 minutes by representatives of Mayor Ed Lee (who brought the case), 20 minutes by Mirkarimi's side, a five-minute rebuttal by Lee, public comment (which could last for hours), and then deliberation by supervisors.

In addition, attorneys for both sides have until Sept. 25 to submit any legal briefs they want the supervisors to consider, and Mirkarimi's attorneys are expected to raise objections to an Ethics Commission summary they considered “one-sided,” as well as getting into the issue of whether Lee committed perjury during his sworn testimony in June.

It takes at least nine of the 11 supervisors to remove Mirkarimi, and there is an open question about whether some supervisors should recuse themselves from voting because of conflicts-of-interest, which would essentially count the same as a vote in Mirkarimi's favor.

Lee was asked on the witness stand whether he spoke with any supervisors about removing Mirkarimi, which he denied. But Building Inspection Commissioner Debra Walker said her longtime friend and political ally Sup. Christina Olague told her Lee had sought her input on the decision. Confronted by journalists, Olague denied the charge but said, “I may have to recuse myself from voting on this.”

Lee was also asked whether he tried to get Mirkarimi a city job in exchange for his resignation, which Lee denied, but former Sup. Aaron Peskin has said that permit expediter and Lee ally Walter Wong (who has refused to answer questions from the media) extended that offer through him, which Mirkarimi didn't accept. The Ethics Commission refused to consider the perjury allegations, calling them beyond its purview, but Mirkarimi attorney David Waggoner said he plans to submit sworn declarations by Peskin and Walker to the supervisors.

Another possible recusal from the vote would be Sup. Eric Mar, who just happened to be called as a juror in Mirkarimi's criminal case before it was settled with a plea bargain. There have also been rumors that Board President David Chiu spoke with Lee about Mirkarimi at some point. Last month, Waggoner told the board that he wanted each supervisor to declare whether they have spoken with anyone about Mirkarimi, but their team is proceeding cautiously and wary of offending the supervisors who will now decide the fate of their former colleague.

“We're going to respectfully ask each member of the board to state under oath who they've talked to about the case,” Waggoner told us.

Normally, jurors would be extensively questioned during the voir dire process, and those who had served on an elected body with a defendant for years would almost certainly be removed from the jury pool, which seems to have been the case with Mar's disqualification on the criminal case. But that's just one more example of how this unprecedented process is anything but normal, with city officials basically making up the rules as they go along.

Mirkarimi's wife and alleged victim, Eliana Lopez, has consistently maintained that she was never abused, except by city officials who have sabotaged and humiliated her family and taken away its livelihood. She told the Guardian that the thin charges in this case shouldn't warrant the removal of an elected official: “You can have different opinions about Ross's behavior, and people can have different opinions about that, but the people of San Francisco should decide who represents them.”

Lopez said she's been dismissed and mistreated by Lee, the Ethics Commission, and domestic violence advocates: “These self-appointed white women that are part of the Domestic Violence Consortium are doing everything they can to attack me and insult me while claiming to help me, and never once reaching out to me.”

But she said that she's hopeful the supervisors will resist political pressure during an emotionally charged election season and do the right thing: “What we need from the supervisors is brave and honest supervisors. The people of San Francisco need that.”


What absolutely MATTERS is reality this is a "power grab" and its being committed right now and attempting to overturn the will of the voters ....what matters is USING the entire "arm grab"issue by the Willie Brown Ed Lee policical machine for its own purpose. The timing issue for the legal matter is important because preserving the integrity of that prevents the law from being highjacked to serve these illegitimate interests (Ed Lee/ Brown)

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 12:27 pm

Doesn't matter. If he'd committed murder a few days before he was sworn in and we only found out about it after, would that make him unfit?

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 12:09 pm

you would fail a logic course. an arm grab does not equal murder..except in your confused brain.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 3:17 pm

The issue isn't the degree of the crime, but when it was committed. There seems to be some belief that because Mirkarimi battered his wife before he was sworn it that it shouldn't count. So I'm asking if that extends to any crime.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 3:47 pm

When you talk about " the degree of the crime" and "when it was committed" are you talking about Ed Lee's ballot fraud filmed in Chinatown and witnessed by "very reliable witnesses" or the Go Lorrie money laundering for Ed Lee's campaign arranged through John L Martin of the Airport Commission using a Willie Brown fixer. or are you talking about the money laundering of Archway Mgmt /Veritas Inv. apartment holding company for Ed Lee . Despite some of these crimes were filmed with very reliable witnesses and another has a Whistleblower the DA G. Gascon found "insufficient evidence" Gascon appointed Paul Renne to the Ethics Commission and Renne receives MONEY from his wife's law firm that DEFENDED Ed Lee in the Go Lorrie money laundering case.

WHEN crimes occur? these crimes occurred before the election and helped Ed Lee get elected we dont know the full extent of this fraud yet. We know that Ron Conway the investor in Twitter gave Ed Lee $600,000 for his Independent Election Committee and Ed Lee gave Twitter a tax holiday. We do know pay for play goes back and Ed Lee worked with Willie Brown as his bag man in city hall for 2 decades as far as the "time" is concerned. You said that RM grabbed Eliana'a arm and left a black and blue that has been resolved Ross has accepted his wrongful act and accepted treatment prescribed. That is over. The ongoing election fraud and corruption of SF far as when RM grabbed his wife's arm IS significant because the "Official Misconduct" amendment can be used for political reasons as is clear in this case.and ONLY by applying the Charter amendment as approved by the voters can tyranny be prevented that is the will of the voters overturned by a corrupt mayor. RM can only be removed by the Mayor IF he comm\itted \ an offense related to the duties of office and if he held that office at the time. The Justice system is in operation to arrest criminals and punish them this has NOTHING to do with RM situation that has been RESOLVED over the crime syndicate that rules SF continues.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

Please try to come up with a better argument. Essentially you are saying Ed Lee is corrupt and therefore Ross, who has admitted he broke the law, should be allowed to retain his office. Two very different things. Not saying Ed Lee is guilty of a thing, but two wrongs never make a right.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 4:40 pm

No you got that wrong I am saying that allowing a powerful syndicate that attempts to control the government to serve Willie Brown's clients is involved in this effort to remove the elected Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi our Democracy is not a given it can be eroded and the choice of the voter can be overturned by this corrupt regime. Ed Lee is connected to 4 MAJOR election frauds and corruptions 1) the Go Lorrie money laundering pay for play connected to John L Martin of the Airport commission 2) the $600,000 slush fund of Ron Conway a billioinaire investor including in Twiitter which later received a Tax holiday steered throught the BOS by Ed Lee 3)the Archway /Veritas Inv. money laundering case with a whislteblower 4) Chinatown eleciton fraud where a crew from the SF Neighborhood alliance a Lee organization were filling out ballots with stencils and the crew was taking possession of the ballots. The Sheriff controls the Ballots on election day the thought of this corrupt mayor controlling the ballots after any reasonable person can see ...places our democracy and our votes and the will of the people in danger....ED LEE's corruption is intimately involved in trying to gain control of the office of Sheriff. The syndicate uses each office they control to protect their organization EXAMPLE Gavin Newsom appoints DA George Gascon who has a law degree but no real legal experience he is there to protect the syndicate >incumbent advantage + funding from the syndicate> gets elected > now the syndicate has protection from prosecution . So do you think Gascon will prosecute the cases above 2 of them he already stated "insufficient evidence" when it was on film with reliable witnesses and the other has a whistleblower

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 5:33 pm

Word salad. Might be better with a nice lemony vinaigrette, but maybe not.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 8:13 am

And can I just say how nice it is that the pro-Mirkarimi crowd are so nice to create such a charming nickname for me. The "progressives" are ever so kind and gentle to people who disagree with them.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 4:01 pm

In case people havent caught on a Public Relations trick that is used when the client has a weak position is to debase dialogue ...try to entice stupid responses to invite inanity talk about idiotic red herrings.... to cheapen dialogue and prevent discussion and the truth from coming out.... If anyone has information facts that bear on this issue bring that and my advice is dont respond when not necessary to those type of posting exhibiting these PR tricks.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 4:59 pm

Lee this and Lee that.

The only issue here is whether someone proven guilty of abusing his wife should be sheriff. Most voters think not but a few hard left types are sos cared of losing their one elected official that they're happy to turn a blind eye to domestic violence.

The rest is just fluff.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 4:47 am

The tide has turned people are waking up.....the issues betwee RM and his wife were HIGH JACKED by a sydicate the people are waking up.The power grab is using the issue of DV to blunt examination of what is REALLY happening Ross has taken responsibility for his action that is over and this inquisition is a power grab by Willie Brown/Ed Lee/Gavin Newsom/Rose Pak to gain further control. A good example is the SF DA they control the office and he fails to investigate the election fraud of another member of the syndicate Ed Lee ....if they control the Sheriff even our ballot box will not be safe as the Sheriff takes custody of the voter results on election day. This is a fight for the integrity of our democracy and propaganda and PR wont blind us to what is really at stake.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 5:22 am

Stop hiding behind words. Look at the "abuse" in question and decide if you want a public official removed from his job, his work, his avocation just because of a very human mistake.

"Most voters"..."a few hard left types" = more of the same nonsense. Please don't use easy soundbites that don't have much meaning in this story.

The only "fear" I see here is the fear-mongering variety from anti-domestic abuse advocates, who don't seem to know the first thing about love. When I say love, I mean the kind of love that takes the time to "look" and to "see". The kind of love that knows how to distinguish between a low-level offense and a pattern of malicious intent/abuse.

The only "fluff" going on here are the sensationalist headlines that don't delve deeply into this story so that perhaps the readers can become more informed. Or the malevolent "fluff" that goes from a Mayor's lips (as in "wife-beater") directly to the media. That is the true crime.

I hope you'll reconsider your stance. The next person to be unjustly accused (out of fear) and thrown out of a job because of it could be you.

Posted by Daniele Erville on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 8:33 am

It is a very legitimate question- frankly in most counties across the nation it would not even be a debate.

It is a simple question- Should the sitting Sheriff of the County, who just prior to taking the oath of office, committed a misdemeanor crime for which he eventually plead guilty and is now on probation, be allowed to continue as the Sheriff? I think in most counties across the country and in this state- it would be a forgone conclusion that the Sheriff needs to go. Heck, as was mentioned earlier, most people in this sort of situation, just pack up their bags and go home, realizing that they have lost all credibility.

I have said this several times before, if this was Chris Cunnie or even Greg Suhr in this exact position, the SFBG would be screaming for his head, but because it is Ross, the one time darling of the progressive movement in SF, he seems to be getting a pass from many on the far left.

Frankly, I don't care who it is, Ross, Cunnie, or Suhr, etc., get convicted of a misdemeanor crime like Ross, did, get sentenced to Probation and DV counseling- I don't think you deserve to stay in office.

Posted by D.native on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 9:57 am

Well said, D.native. The thing about the "progressives" is they only think in terms of "progressives" vs. "machine." It doesn't what the messy nuances of a particular situation might be; it's all about who, not the what.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 10:11 am

Well, if you bothered to read my post, you'd see why your last sentence, Hortensia, makes no sense.

Posted by Daniele E. on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 10:22 am

and friendly tone in refuting outrageous statements made by Mirkarimi attackers, but based on my recent experience, I don't believe many of the commenters here espousing such vitriolic perspectives have the least bit of capacity or interest for listening or responding intelligently.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 10:53 am

It makes even more sense, Daniele, if you believe as I do that Lee made the right move, based on what Mirkarimi did, to suspend and put this process in motion. From a political point of view, it's entirely possible that Lee will be happy to see Mirkarimi go, but I don't think this distracting circus is something any mayor hoping to make his actual governing agenda his calling card would wish for. But even if his motive was largely political, it was still the thing that should have been done.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 10:55 am

which allows you to write the same nonsense over and over again.

First of all, Ross Mirkarimi was cornered into pleading guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment through a mechanism which is highly suspicious, involving a breach of attorney-client priviledge and -- yes, Hortencia! -- a political machine aligned against him; spreading politically damaging hearsay from a bitter former girlfriend, etc.

This misdemeanor false imprisonment charge is the exact same charge that Mason Mayer was allowed to plea for a greivous attack on his girlfriend involving multiple blows to the head and torso, banging her head against a marble floor, and threatening her with death -- an attack which ended not when she drew back her arm and said "no!" but when Mason was surprised by a visitor at his door; so it is entirely justifiable to question whether the charge against Mirkarimi was fair or rather, as is painfully obvious, motivated by a political calculus which no right-thinking American should countenance.

(Yes, and you continue your falsified characterization of Mirkarimi supporters as hypocrites WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE to back your lying claims.)

As for your central premise, that "most people in this sort of situation, just pack up their bags and go home, realizing that they have lost all credibility," I have on numerous occasions posted links to examples which DIRECTLY AND COMPLETELY contradict your statment. Examples pertaining, by the way, to ACTS TAKING PLACE WHILE A SHERIFF IS IN OFFICE.

But, here now. Your turn. You provide an example where an arm grab resulted in an opportunistic misuse and corruption of a city's charter to overturn an election -- or a case where a sheriff resigned because of an arm grab.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 10:25 am

You actually managed to really crack me up- You of all posters accused me of repeating the same argument over and over- "unmitigated gall"- awesome!

your challenge: "But, here now. Your turn. You provide an example where an arm grab resulted in an opportunistic misuse and corruption of a city's charter to overturn an election -- or a case where a sheriff resigned because of an arm grab."

First- I object to the idea that the Charter is being misused. So apparently does the Ethics Commission. Secondly, I admit I cannot find a single Sheriff who resigned due to "an arm grab". however, I do know one who should have resigned :=).

Now my challenge to you. Please find me an elected law enforcement officer, i.e Sheriff or DA, or even Attorney General, who has remained in office after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor domestic violence related crime, and was placed on probation.

Posted by D.native on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 10:56 am

There was no breach of attorney-client privilege. Ivory Madison isn't an attorney, never acted as one, and Eliana Lopez and Paula Canny have lied over and over about that. I assume you're going to say he was railroaded into apologizing to Madison, too, and didn't mean it, even though he said he meant it at the EC hearings.

What his ex-girlfriend presented wasn't hearsay. She testified about what she experienced.

What Mirkarimi did to his wife was just as serious if not more so than the false imprisonment charge to which he eventually pled guilty, and the terror evident in her face, voice, and manner show it. But even if it was just the false imprisonment plea, conforming to the version of events he and Lopez are most recently putting out there, it's still not a "mere" arm grab. It's a serious crime for which he's paying serious legal consequences.

Those facts ought to be ample to prove him unfit, and any man of honor would pack his bags, even if you're having trouble finding examples of honorable pols who have done so.

I believe, based on the paranoid conspiracy theories and devotion to "progressive" political alliances over all else demonstrated by the Guardian's editorial staff and commenters here, that, if it had been a "machine" politician with the same fact pattern, you all would be calling for the perpetrator's head.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 11:07 am

a lawyer on their commercial website, someone reading it would rely(as in this case to their detriment) on that representation when the lawyer(who actually never could pass the bar exam) promises confidentiality...please google "detrimental reliance" learn something.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

"Someone" maybe, but not Eliana Lopez, a friend who knew very well that Ivory Madison isn't a lawyer. Even if she wasn't sure what kind of advice Madison could give her, anyone who's taken legal ethics knows it's a big no-no to give legal advice even if you are a lawyer if you haven't agreed to be their lawyer. Since Madison has a J.D. and is married to a practicing attorney, you can be sure she gave that little speech to Eliana.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 5:49 pm

conversations that other people hypothetically have, while you're awake?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 6:53 pm


Did @lilli actually say:

"D.native, I'm not sure how you can contain the unmitigated gall
which allows you to write the same nonsense over and over again."

If that was really him and he wasn't being imped then we need to do some type of intervention. Really. The individual writes the same drivel over and over again and he doesn't even realize it? Somebody needs to do a case study on this.

How many times have we read about the 'push polls' that are only reported by gossip columnists?

But I don't think that he was being imped because he brought up Mason Mayer (for the one hundredth time). This was a case in a different jurisdiction of DV that was WORSE than Mirkarimi's. In this individual's mind that then exonerates his hero.

It's easy just to laugh at @lilli, but at a certain point you also have be be just a bit concerned. I personally don't care because he seems to be a real sc*mbag also, but somebody else should probably do something.

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 11:09 am

because they momentarily grab an arm in a marital spat... a beating..they should lose their arm grab...obviously not.
This is not about an arm grab.. the arm grab all puffed up as domestic just the pretext.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 1:39 pm

politics so that, when he needed a friend, he found he didn't have any.

The arm grab wasn't "isolated" - it was symptomatic of his arrogant, stubborn, self-centered and conceited disposition. If he hadn't self-destructed that way, it would have been some other way. He was a walking timebomb.

He needs to go away.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

He's a criminal convicted of a violent crime. Of course he's not fit to be Sheriff.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 5:50 pm

Mirkarimi was not convicted of a violent crime. Damn un-American of Hortencia to brand a man convicted of a crime he was only *charged* of, with the charge later being dropped.

Shame on your Hortencia. Have you no shame?

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 6:22 pm

um...his wife displayed a bruise that she got the night that he committed his 'non violent crime'.

Just sayin, since you took it upon yourself to call someone else a liar.

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 6:39 pm

Perhaps if you went on a low animal fat and vitamin rich diet, you could improve your mental function?

But, in the matter at hand, please try to understand: Hortencia claimed Ross Mirkarimi is "a criminal convicted of a violent crime."

Not sure you're going to get it, but other people will.


Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 7:01 pm

Another Guest is correct: The crime for which was convicted occurred as part of an incident during he bruised his wife, which is a violent act.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 9:11 pm

Perhaps if you went on a low animal fat and vitamin rich diet, you could improve your mental function?

But, in the matter at hand, please try to understand: Hortencia claimed Ross Mirkarimi is "a criminal convicted of a violent crime."

Not sure you're going to get it, but other people will.


Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 7:01 pm

""Ross Mirkarimi was cornered into pleading guilty""

That's for sure. Cornered like a rat. Like a starved rat shoveled and shelved into a dank corner for a crime that was not his doing.

Eliana is the culprit here. It's all part of a grand scheme to get her divorce and eat her cake too.

But it'll all be over soon. She'll go back to Venezuela for more soap opera roles. Ross'll get his job back. We will all move on.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 11:23 am

Unfinished Business:
RM accepted responsibility for his action and that is over.

The Willie Brown Ed Lee Rose Pak stranglehold on the city of San Francisco remains ….stronger more corrupt and willing to overturn the will of the voters. The truth is that the problems that RM and his wife had resulting in his wrongful action HAS been RESOLVED it has run its course....the corrupt regime using election fraud influence peddling, ballot fraud, money laundering, selling the city and government of SF to the highest bidder at Willie Browns' office goes on.

Only a FBI investigation and a Federal Grand Jury using subpoena power and starting with the election fraud and working backward investigating the way that Willie Brown operates as a lobbyist without being registered as the law requires and fixes elections in pay for play schemes it will only get worse. Contracts have been fixed and illegitimate interests have been served while the average San Franciscan is not served and alls they see is the homeless and think that is the problem because they are so poorly served by the big Media in SF worse of all the TV stations news programs
Courtesy of the Wash. Monthly
“So San Francisco serves its average citizens less well each passing year, and no one seems to mind—about that, or about the fact that the city is run to an unknown degree by a former mayor who openly holds sway in the public sphere yet answers to no one. “There is no way to hold Willie Brown accountable. He doesn’t serve in any capacity. That’s why machines are worrisome,” says Jessica Trounstine, a political science professor specializing in city government at University of California, Merced.”
At the root of the geologic pace of change is the scarcity of credible news coverage of local government, which is a problem almost everywhere, and certainly in San Francisco. “Machines exist by telling people what is going on,” Trounstine continues. “Local politics is a very low-information environment. The lower the information environment, the less information the voters have, and the more likely it is that incumbents will stay in power. ‘Incumbents,’ broadly speaking, are the [not necessarily elected] power brokers” like Willie Brown.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 12:55 pm

read latest article ..sept 24 in SFPublicpress

county of sf way behind other counties in prosecuting real dv crimes.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

Most DV cases aren't as well documented as this one was.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 3:50 pm

The reason for that, Hortencia -- to the extent to which it is true, which is pretty marginal -- is that most DV cases don't have the full force of the city's political machine behind them.

Hortencia, what do you make of the recent report that DV prosecutions have *fallen* by 1.5% under DA Gason -- and that S.F. already lags behind most of California in that regard?

Another question: how do you account for Mason Mayer getting the same three years probation and one year DV counseling after pleading to the exact same charge Ross Mirkarimi plead to -- with the difference being that Mayer was originall charged with the *far* *worse* charges of FELONY DV, FELONY ASSAULT, and FELONY FALSE IMPRISONMENT?

I hate to presuppose your answer, but is is your skewed sense of balance due to your notion that Ross Mirkarimi's minor and momentary transgression of turning the family van around and briefly grabbing Eliana's arm should be punished the same as Mayer's two-fisted beating of his girlfriend, spitting in her face, and threatening her with DEATH because Ross needed to be punished more severely because he makes a better example? -- or is your thinking that since his misdemeanor false imprisonment conviction is being used to justify his ouster from office just a little bit sooner than he might have been recalled, it's all okay?

And do you care that the ethics process is being used to settle a political vendetta against the former supervisor?

I know you've claimed to have been a former Mirkarimi supporter, but I very much believe you lied. The amount of imbalanced vitriol you demonstrate against Mirkarimi has all the hallmarks of being reactionary in nature, but by your response to these questions, I'm willing to be convinced.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 4:59 pm

What do I make of a 1.5% decrease? It seems like a small number to me. But then, I'm not a Gascon supporter; I voted for Sharmin Bock, and think it's not generally a good idea for a chief of police to become D.A.

I don't have an opinion about Mason Mayer because I'm not familiar with the case and don't particularly care. This isn't about Mason Mayer, it's not about Ed Lee, it's not about George Gascon, it's not about Ivory Madison, it's not about the city's anti-DV community. It's about Ross Mirkarimi. And in my opinion, while it's true that some of the city's officials will be glad to see him go for political reasons, that doesn't mean "the machine" is allied against him to get him out of office. What he did makes him unfit, and that's quite enough for me.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 9:18 pm