Davis needs to drop out


EDITORIAL Kay Vasilyeva, a member of the San Francisco Women's Political Caucus, has come forward with the allegation that District Five candidate Julian Davis grabbed her and put his hand down her pants at a political bar crawl in 2006. That was six years ago, but it's still important — and more than the incident itself, the response we've seen from Davis is highly disturbing. He's utterly denying that it ever happened, and retained a lawyer to send Vasilyeva a letter threatening her with legal action if she continues to talk.

While we endorsed Davis for supervisor, we take these charges very, very seriously — particularly coming at a time when relations between men and women in the progressive movement are badly strained.

Since the SF Weekly, which broke the story, suggested that we knew something about Davis's behavior, we need to state, for the record: When we endorsed Davis, we had heard nothing even remotely close to this type of allegation. Yes, we knew that in his 20s he was a bit of an arrogant ass. We knew that at one point, he actually got into a tugging match with another person over the ridiculous question of who got to hold a campaign sign. We'd heard that, in the past, at somewhat debauched parties, he'd made advances toward women who weren't interested in his affections.

Those could be the acts of an immature man who has since grown up. And since, on a level of policy, knowledge, and positions, he was by far the best and strongest progressive in the race in District 5, we — along with much of the local progressive leadership — thought he was demonstrating enough maturity that he was worthy of our support.

But this new information, and his response to it, is alarming.

We don't take last-minute allegations about a front-running candidate lightly; people have been known to dump all sorts of charges into heated races. When we learned about Vasilyeva's allegations on Oct. 13, we did our own research. We spent two hours with Davis and his supporter and advisor, former D5 Supervisor Matt Gonzalez. We realized that allegations without corroboration are just charges, so we tracked down everyone we could find who might know anything about this incident — and, as we discovered, other similar events. And we have to say: Vasilyeva's account rings true. Davis's categorical denial does not.

More than that, we were offended that he in effect threatened with a lawsuit a woman who, at some peril to herself, came forward to tell the public information about someone who is running for elected office. What was the point of that, if not to intimidate her? It's highly unlikely he's going to sue (and drag this whole mess into court). He says he was just trying to send a message that he has a legal right to respond to defamation, but this is a political campaign; if he didn't want to deal publicly with what he must have known were these sorts of potential allegations, he shouldn't have run for office.

This is a bad time for progressives in San Francisco. The Mirkarimi case has brought to the fore some deep and painful rifts; a lot of women feel that (mostly male) progressive leaders have pushed their issues to the side. For the future of the movement and the city, the left has to come together and try to heal. This situation isn't helping a bit.

Davis needs to face facts: Supervisors John Avalos and David Campos have withdrawn their endorsements. Assembly member Tom Ammiano is almost certain to do the same. With his inability to handle the very credible charge that he not only groped a woman but lied about it, Davis no longer has a viable campaign in the most progressive district in the city, and we can't continue to support him.

We have said it many times before: People on the left need to be able to put their own ambitions aside sometimes and do what's right for the cause. Davis can't win. He's embarrassing his former allies. He needs to focus on coming to terms with his past and rebuilding his life. And for the good of the progressive movement, he needs to announce that he's ending his campaign, withdrawing from the race, and urging his supporters to vote for another candidate.


"If Ross techncially got off because the bruising was done a few days before he took office..."

I thought the supes who voted to reinstate said it didn't rise to the level of official misconduct because it wasn't serious enough and it wasn't in the course of his duties, not because of the timing. Politically motivated rationalization sure can be confusing!

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 1:06 pm

I'm not going to defend bad behavior, especially male vs. female, powerful vs. weak, white vs. POC, or any other situations where one side has more economic, social, or physial power over another person. If Julian crossed some line of accepted human behavior then he deserves to be called out on it. Fair enough.

But the courts are the places we extract punishment - whether it be civil or criminal courts. When allegations surface years after the fact when memories are duller and most people have moved on to bigger and better things, AND WHEN THE ACCUSER HAS A SIMULTANEOUS POLITICAL AGENDA SUPPORTING ANOTHER CANDIDIATE OR CANDIDATES, then I think we're entitled to view these allegations with a much more suspicious nature.

Larry is right. Kay is a political insider with at least one horse in the D5 race. Her organization is backing a candidate - London Breed - who handed Lennar and other developers hundreds of millions of profit from redevelopment dollars and favorable contracts during her time on Redevelopment. From a progressive viewpoint that supposedly cares about balanced development that maximizes benefits to the community, London Breed was a failure on every level, always voting in favor of profits over people.

Ms. Vasilyeva might also have conenctions to the Olague campaign. Christina Olague spent key years on the Planning Commission during a time when SF clearly turned into an exclusive city to where SF is now - millionaires only need apply. Commissioners Antonini, Sue Lee and others played Olague so well that she often joined their majority votes, but more importantly, she couldn't muster any majorities on her own or help develop the local progressive community to help fight back against the onslaught of one gentrifying project after another. She adopted the classic politician refrains, "I'll take care of it. Leave me alone. I don't wnat to hear any different points of view. I don't have time for you if you."

Ms. Olague was once a key player in Mission Anti-Displacement, the local Green Party, Community Housing Consortium, and many other "progressive" housing and development groups during the late 1990's, early 2000's, along with Ross Mirkarimi and London Breed. But as the political stars of Ross and Christina have soared to great heights, the city's demographic has completely changed, and the progressive organizations they once belonged to that helped launch their political careers are now withering shells. Instead of helping build a movement they have helped smother it into oblivion.

Kay's recent actions - the whisper campaign and now the very public disclosure 6 YEARS after the fact - shows she is playing hard ball at the highest levels of local government to bring down a candidate who would best be able to fight back against the Lennar's of the world, and Mayor Lee, and Redevelopment v.2, and the thousands of other developers and landlords salivating at the chance to extract more rent income and more capital gains from the rich vein of SF real estate.

If this were merely a personal rather than political smear, Kay would have penned an Op-Ed piece when Julian first announced his candidacy, "Why I'm not Supporting Julian Davis," laying out the details of what happened and why she didn't think either his apology or subsequent actions were enough to quell her concern about him as a political leader.

Instead of being open and honest, she played the game to extract the maximum punishment and humiliation by using a stealth smear campaign, thinking that anyone who would listen to her would of course follow her opinion, "Don't suppoprt Julian." The problem with this advice is that she MIGHT also be simultaneously implying, "Support Breed and/or Olague," which is not good advice for progressives since both candidates have proven they are terrible leaders when it comes to development issues, one of the most important issues for progressives.

Great job, Kay. You did really well. You and your family, friends, and political allies should be quite proud of the way you went for the juggular, or should I say scrotum. Another SF male castrated. Cheers all around.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 9:39 am

Might need to lighten up a little there. It's much simpler than that. Jules copped a feel and hell hath no fury like an average-looking woman groped unless the guy really meant it. Over and out, captain conspiracy.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 10:11 am

"hell hath no fury like an average-looking woman groped unless the guy really meant it"

Oops, your misogyny is showing!

Posted by ohdear on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 11:00 am

Yes, poor, poor Julian Davis. It's really a travesty the way he's been victimized! It's not as if Ms. Vasilyeva tried to take any other course of action to make him accountable for his pattern of bad behavior and beholden to change it before going public to the press! It was all planned out! I bet she just couldn't wait for all the positive attention and lovely things people would say about her when this came out! And also she has so much to gain by willfully derailing the campaign of a candidate who didn't have much of a chance to win anyway! The fact that an organization she belongs to endorsed another candidate clearly means she has a high personal stake and would do WHATEVER it took for that candidate to win. Unless she also is secretly rabidly campaigning for another one of Julian's opponents! I don't know why I'd think that but it's highly possible!

Seriously? "Ms. Vasilyeva might also have conenctions to the Olague campaign." Based on what? The fact is Kay Vasilyeva has absolutely no "ties" to any D5 candidate aside from the fact that a women's organization she is a member happened to endorse London Breed (a woman). But keep on grasping at straws.

Posted by lw on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 10:38 am

Lol, veto power? Who exactly is saying this person is trying to be God or has veto power over who will be Supervisor? Being a little overdramatic, are we? All she did was speak out about a personal experience that speaks to the character of this candidate. The publications and politicians are free to bestow or take back their endorsement as they will. The voters are free to decide how they will. I know how I'm deciding.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 4:38 pm

I'm sorry, I missed the part where she was portrayed as "a fainting, poor, downtrodden, uneducated, young woman". She was a staffer on Chris Daly's campaign (which certainly wouldn't make her rich, but I digress), Davis was a volunteer. I believe we can infer her education based on her position on the campaign at the time of the incident, as well as her current employment. She also sounded like a quite strong, well spoken individual from her quotes. Downtrodden? Fainting? What are you reading? Stop making things up.

It's also utterly ridiculous and ignorant to infer that only a "fainting, poor, downtrodden, uneducated, young woman" could possibly be a victim of sexual harassment. The fact is, any young (or not so young) woman feels confused, humiliated and intimidating when sexually harassed or assaulted by a co-worker or colleague. It is a confusing, humiliating and intimidating experience for a woman of any background, any race, any age. Period. I would imagine even more so for a woman of what, 22? on her first job out of college. It takes years for many women to even acknowledge this type of incident and realize what a violation it is and talk about it to people close to them, let alone go public about it. Why don't you leave your nice comfy spot in the 1950's and join us here in the modern (more) enlightened age.

Posted by lw on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 10:58 am

Join you in the enlightened age? Where one person's accusation is taken for fact? Where someone doesn't have to produce any evidence? Or join you when that was all that was needed? Say back to Salem. You have no proof that any of this happened. Joining up in the political hysteria of the moment is not being in a member of an enlighten age.

Posted by Jeff on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

Yes, as I said, a MORE enlightened age (we still have quite a ways to go), where the voice of a woman is actually listened to (at least by some) and she is not automatically dismissed as a liar, a tramp, or some sort of sinister Delilah figure, out to get some poor innocent man (again, by some). Seems like several of you out there still a time machine. Produce evidence? How exactly would you like this woman to produce evidence that she was sexually harassed? Do you think she would have taken a photograph of Mr. Davis's hand as it forced it's way under her clothing? Funny you would bring up Salem, as all this backlash against a brave young woman willing to put her reputation on the line do do what's right certainly reminds me of the good old days when if a woman got uppity you could just call her a witch and burn her at the stake. Political hysteria? Davis signed his campaign's own death warrant by sending a cease and desist letter meant to silence and intimidate. This is why the Guardian and others chose to rescind endorsement, not the allegations alone. No, the allegations have not been proven and people are going to believe what they will based on the information they have. It is more than the accusation of one person. It's a pattern of behavior that's been well known (and until now tolerated by too many) in the community and a continued refusal to hold himself accountable for past actions and change his behavior. Otherwise one person's testimony would not have made all the difference.

Posted by lw on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

When you wrote that "while we endorsed Davis for supervisor, we take these charges very, very seriously — particularly coming at a time when relations between men and women in the progressive movement are badly strained" did you mean to allow that even if the charges are false that they'd control your opinion of Davis?

And from what exactly do you derive the opinion about these relations? Do you take the vitriolic invective of the six-figure DV professionals to represent women of the progressive movement? Or is it the push poll they commissioned?

Check out the push poll:

Look at the question of page 4, "should Ross Mirkarimi be removed?" Even the DV push poll results show a lower percentage of women than men seeking his removal.

Tim, I honestly think you've completely flubbed this one. Pretty much every time you think the reactionaries have beated you, you *must* jerk yourself back upright and consider *severely* the liklihood that you are being duped. Feeling beaten is the first step to being beaten; whether or not the victor has any right to that result.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 6:37 am

As is always the case - it's not the incident, it's the coverup, that sinks politicians who err.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 7:49 am

Your vague suppositions concerning the putative guilt of Davis in this matter are now being taken as gospel by the reactionaries. Congratulations to you.

I'm sure you must love all the respect and adulation you've garnered for yourself.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 7:57 am

up? I thought that was a matter of public record now.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 8:04 am

Indeed, that is a push poll, Lilli. Thanks for posting.

This is all a ploy to divide progressive men and women during our time of healing.

Divide and conquer: The right-winger strategy since Dick Nixon lured southern working-class white Democrats into the Republican Party.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 7:33 am

Oh wait, bruises, slaps, election defeats. Yeah, I get it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 7:50 am

He lied to our community and civic leaders about getting into Yale Law School and even had a party to celebrate it, knowing it was all a lie. When in fact, he did not get in, due to a violent and criminal past from his days at Brown University. The link below has more info including that "he was arrested for assault on a police officer at Brown university. And, that arrest caused him to be blocked from being admitted to Yale Law school."

Here is the link to the article:


Posted by nancy on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 10:50 am

OK... this is where I really draw the line. I think we all know what a bullshit charge that usually is. True assault on an armed police officer who can kill you with total impunity, is extremely rare, and attempted mainly by deranged people who don't live to tell about it. Not that it doesn't happen, but *much* more often the case is when the cops beat the crap out of *you* and then charge *you* with assault on a police officer. If you're a woman, you probably don't get to experience this treatment too often; if you're a black man, it's a very different world for you.

Incidentally, if you're being arrested at a protest, and you so much as loudly scream, "What are you arresting me for?" you can be charged with "assault on a police officer" for that. Bet you didn't know that.

We live in a police state, nancy. It's not an accident our incarceration rate is 7 times higher than most of the civilized world -the *highest* in the world, as a matter of fact. But the sharp edges of that police state are felt by some a lot more than others. Men are 90% of the prison population. And men do NOT commit 90% of the crimes. Sorry it's not PC, but you know what? It needs to be said. And black men? Black men have a several times higher incarceration rate than they did in Apartheid South Africa.

So please, spare me the "assault on a police officer" stuff.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 11:56 pm

I agree. We need "equity" in the prison population.

Half of all prisoners should be women. 73% should be white.

Posted by Julie on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 6:12 am

Of course in laying out such a stark assessment of fact, you must expect to be met by vapid responses as that posted by Julie here.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 7:24 am

Well, the "assault on a police officer" stuff was apparently enough to keep him out of Yale Law School.

Of course, everyone knows that Yale Law School is controlled by rich, white, Republicans.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 4:52 pm

If Julian Davis is a genuine, stand up guy, and not a liar, then why does he still have people who have un-endorsed him listed as official endorsements on his home page?

Posted by sheila on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 1:52 pm

White man convicted of domestic violence = "he's ok ,give him his job back, he's not so bad he's our guy"

Black man gets allegations , not proven or unproven, of an incident 6 years ago by a Lee paid for staffer and is the only progressive in teh race = "Fuck him, let him rot."

Congratulations, Timmy. You've ensured that the progressives lose district 5 and have joyfully done your master's bidding at corporate headquarters. Of course if you'd done any real reporting or studying on the matter, instead of maintaining that pathetic ponytail of yours at home, things might have been different. Now you're an easily manipulated puppet and you're just hired help at a chain. Go work at Starbucks, you can ensure that your foolishness doesn't harm others.

Posted by TIm Redmond- liberal hypocrite on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 2:43 pm

Julian is half Jewish and half African American. Pulling the race card in 2012? Good luck Bro, you sound so angry and uninformed

Posted by sheila on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

If you'd done "any real reporting or studying on the matter" you'd be aware that the person bringing the allegations is not a "Lee paid for staffer". Maybe you should check your facts before hurling about incorrect statements in defense of your golden boy.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 3:41 pm

I've had to delete quite a few comments that were horribly racist or sexist. This is a tense time for San Francisco, and I'd appreciate it if everyone would just ramp it down a notch. Yes, be passionate, be strong in your opinions, rant all you want, but keep to the point and back off the unacceptable personal attacks, ok?

Posted by tim on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 3:42 pm

The SF progressive leadership over the past 10 years has all been alpha-male:

Matt Gonzalez: The rumors abound, and I don't want to get into his dealings with women.

Chris Daly: He sent his family packing to Fairfield, while he continues to use San Francisco as a bacherlor's playground.

Ross Mirkarimi: The domestic violence case was bogus, surely, but here is a man known for screaming at subordinates and colleagues, both male and female. Not abusing his wife, but clearly treating her as another pawn in his game.

And where is the female leadership?

Who are the leading female progressives? Jane Kim? Debra Walker? Capable, very capable, but powerless within the progressive community.

All the alpha-male screaming at the anti- domestic voilence advocates during the Mirkarimi hearings make this clear: It is a male progressive world. Wommen not allowed.

Posted by Julie on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 5:13 pm

All true.

Posted by Steam Hoster on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 3:52 am

I just read with alarm SFBG's withdrawal of its endorsement of Julian Davis for District 5 supervisor. How you could throw Mr. Davis under the bus based on accusations that vaguely "ring true" is mind boggling given your support of Sheriff Mirkirimi during the recent witch hunt. This is clearly dirty politics at its worst and SFBG is being used as a willing dupe of the anti-Progressive agenda.

If Ms. Vasilyeva had filed a police report at the time and Mr. Davis had been found guilty of a crime there would be merit to your position. Does it not raise your bullshit meter that this unsubstantiated accusation is coming 3 weeks before election day, just in time to smear the candidate whether he is innocent or not?

Why is it not legitimate to ask what Ms. Vasilyeva will gain by bringing these charges now, 6 years after the alleged fact? Why should she be excused from the very real crime of libel if she has committed it? Why does Mr. Davis, an American citizen, not have the right to consult an attorney if he is being slandered to promote his political opponent's agenda?

Your conflation of women's issues and progressivism is also wildly overstated. One can promote women's issues and not be remotely progressive. You need look no further than Sen. Feinstein or Rep. Pelosi to see that.

Your suggestion that the Progressive cause in San Francisco is served by bowing to every suggestion of "improper conduct" would do Orwell's Thought Police proud. What kind of 'dickless' progressivism is it that shrinks at any whiff of scandal without subjecting the accuser to the same scrutiny as the accused simply because she is female and the public is squeamish about sexual issues?

Ms. Vasilyeva risks nothing because she doesn't have to back up her accusations in court or explain why it took her 6 years to express her outrage over this alleged incident. Mr. Davis gets his progressive political career killed in its infancy whether he is innocent or not. And SF gets another downtown friendly supervisor like Christina Oligarch.

If that's what passes for 'Progressive' in SF these days then I want no part of it.

P. Cafaro
District 5

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 5:31 pm

Things you (and all other conspiracy minded Julian defenders) fail to realize:

1) Kay has a lot more credibility with progressives than you think (she's not some downtown hack, she worked on Daly's 06 campaign for example)

2) She didn't just bring this up 6 years later, she brought it up behind the scenes with progressive leaders to encourage them not to endorse and when they did anyway she decided to go public (and subject herself to all this abuse, facebook stalking, misogynistic shaming, etc that I'm sure she is enjoying the hell out of right now).

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 11:50 pm

"Ms. Vasilyeva risks nothing"

Seriously? Have you not seen the vicious victim blaming and misogynist vitriol that have been directed at this person in the commentary here and at SFweekly over the past few days? How about the risk of reputation? Risk of being shunned by the progressive community she's been a part of for years? Risk of harassment by over-zelous Davis supporters? Risk of bogus legal recourse by Julian Davis? I think you're asking the wrong question, the question is what would she possibly have to gain? Leaving aside bogus political conspiracy speculation, the answer is nothing. Nothing but knowing she did the right thing and spoke the truth. And hopefully shed some more light on the hypocrisy of the "good old boy" progressives who lately have been throwing women's issues under the bus for the sake of their own. If THAT is what passes as progressive in San Francisco these days, I want no part of IT.

Posted by lw on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 10:16 am

Ten years ago I was a reliable SFBG style voter. Not anymore.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 10:39 am

Throwing women's (queer, race) issues under the bus for the sake of economic issues? Count me in.

A million deaths/injuries/gropes are as tragic as one.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 11:27 am

Well, I have to admit, Julien made me uncomfortable at parties, too. And I am definitely not one who hangs out with a prudish crowd. He never grabbed my ass or anything like that, but he touched me in ways I would only be comfortable with a good friend or sweetie touching me, and I barely knew him. He just didn't quite seem to understand where appropriate boundaries with strangers and acquaintances were. I guess he's learning the hard way. I would have voted for him anyway because I like his politics, but the fact that he threatened a woman with a lawsuit changes my mind.

I think the Guardian is right to withdraw the endorsement. It would be one thing if he admitted his mistakes and worked it out with the woman in question, but to deny it and threaten her is just not ok. I very much agree, we still have quite a ways to go as a society regarding gender issues, and situations like this must be handled in a way that changes the historical patterns of disrespect and oppression, not reinforces them.

I'm sad that it has played out this way, and I do still hope that Julien handles the remainder of this situation in a way that makes me want to vote for him next time I see his name on a ballot. He does have good politics in most ways.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 6:24 pm

"It would be one thing if he admitted his mistakes and worked it out with the woman in question". Guest, he has:

"When I was first asked by reporters if I had any history of sexual impropriety, I candidly acknowledged that I had been overly flirtatious with some women in my past and that I may have crossed boundaries. To those women with whom this was an issue, I apologized and made amends many years ago. However, I have never sexually assaulted anyone."

For more go here: http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/5140/davis-releases-statement-se...

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 7:55 pm

So...a cease and desist letter is your idea of 'working things out'?

Mind you, YOUR the one telling someone else to get their facts straight.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 9:50 pm

Um, no. The "working out" happened a lot closer to the incident, apparently, when most "working out" is usually, ideally, done.

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 12:05 am

And personally I find that very troubling. As Tim said these are tense times in San Francisco and we really need to search for healing and togetherness.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 9:18 pm

You can apologize to Patrick Monk R.N. for stalking him and threatening to post the pics online. Then say you're sorry to Erika for calling her a "skank". And you should certainly apologize to Tim Redmond for accusing him of being a stalker when he was calling on celebrities to pay their fair share of taxes. Oh, and everyone else you have accused of stalking. Admit that you're the real stalker, and you have the photos to prove it.
While you're at it, please apologize for imping anyone who had the courage to post here and use their real name. Sadly, the list goes on...and on. You'll just have have to spend the next few months, if not years, apologizing for all your despicable deeds. Glad to hear that you're "big enough" to start the process by confessing the egregiousness, viciousnes and criminality behind all your little depravities. Let the healing begin with you, Troll II/ Lucretia Snapples/ Esther Rabinowitz, or whatever the hell your name is.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 11:18 am

And it sounds like you're pretty angry and you need to heal as well. When we point the finger we miss what we can heal inside ourselves, so rather than cast aspersions lets all turn the microscope inwards and really break down some barriers, within, before we lash out?

In healing brothers and sisters.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 11:31 am

Guest, I missed this post previously, but I thank you for making this point.

On this same topic, Ross Mirkarimi recently penned a letter to Mayor Ed Lee expressing a desire to have a meeting and commence mending of fences -- but was rebuffed.


Truly decent people act towards healing. Nasty mean critters talk up a storm or clam up and get sullen.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 3:54 am

Here's his comment to FCJ:

"Luke, I would like to take the opportunity to provide a little bit of context to my quotes recorded here. While I don't remember Kay specifically mentioning sexual assault to me back in 2006, that does not mean it didn't happen. Bill Barnes and I both think that our comments here were pieced together to make a point that is not really there.

"As a progressive with a long history with both Kay and Julian, this is an incredibly difficult situation. While I can empathize with a candidate who is under severe attack, I agree with John Avalos in thinking that the issuing of the cease and desist letter was a problem. Kay Vasilyeva is not a political opponent or saboteur -- she is one of us, and her voice should not be silenced."


Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 11:21 am

occasions acknowledge the salient point. In a year when one leading "progressive" is already in deep doo-doo over disrespecting women, it is more than a tad unfortunate that Jules got caught with his mitts all over a female aide's ass.

Time to go away for a while, Juley baby. You're not fit for prime time.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

Matt Gonzalez is still on board:

“I don’t think we’ll ever know exactly what happened six years ago, but the timing of these allegations is highly suspicious to me” said Gonzalez. “I represented District 5 from 2001 to 2005, and I think the voters in this district will give these allegations the weight that they deserve. I do not intend to change my endorsement.”

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 11:57 am

Nonlawyers, Daly, the cease-and-desist is legally customary and the legal system has a fairer process to address such accusations, denials, and possible defamations than you or the papers. Elected lawyers who take positions otherwise are in error.

Posted by Bobby on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 12:21 pm

It is still intimidation of a witness, however "customary" you deem it to be. Campos and Avalos made the right call.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 12:40 pm

What is the statute of limitations on groping, two years?

How can there be witness intimidation if there is no possibility of a live legal case?

Posted by marcos on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 12:47 pm

"Prosecution for 'normal' sexual assault has a statute of limitations of six years."


Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 1:26 pm

"California does technically have statutes of limitations (SOL) on some of its sexual abuse crimes that require lawsuits to be brought within a certain time period. However, there are huge loopholes that usually allow most anyone to bring up a sexual abuse lawsuit even after the statute of limitations has expired."

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 1:28 pm

Americans have a long history of believing baseless accusations against black men when levied by white women about sexual misconduct. The woman who made this accusation says about herself, "my special talents include parallel parking, telling identical twins apart, and being wholly inappropriate," and the Guardian believes her.

The depiction of Julian Davis as sexually out of control and dangerous is old and shameful to see here.

The Guardian, Redmond, and others, ought to be ashamed of themselves for this.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 4:26 pm

through the progressive flow chart? A white progressive, a Chris Daly flunky, she accuses a high yellow of groping and it's about racism? It's 2012 in San Francisco, you may have noticed that at some point?

The "progressives" flow chart is working over time with all these wild accusations and defence mechanisms. It's funny, don't get me wrong, but pathetic.

Why don't one of you supplicating apologists just come out and say "this has nothing to do with dudes ability to hold office?" At least there would be some sense of honesty around this issue, for once, instead all of you commenter nuts spinning your bat shit crazy non sense.

At least the Guardian (and Avalos and Campos) is taking this sorta seriously around progressive dogma. Maybe forced to do so because of being Mirkirimi apologist stooges?

The commenters are wigging out.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 8:32 pm

Related articles

  • Sorting out a strange election

    What the Nov. 6 results mean -- and don't mean

  • District surprises

    Big-money efforts could unseat Olague -- but not Mar

  • Is the tax revolt over?