• Scam Diego alerts

In early September, there were reports that then-Assemblyman Mike Duvall had earlier bragged about his sexual conquests -- unfortunately, captured on an open microphone. A San Diego Gas & Electric lobbyist was identified in the media, and in a complaint to the Fair Political Practices Commission, as one of the women Duvall was claiming he had enjoyed favors from. Duvall resigned, then claimed he had been engaging in "inappropriate storytelling." Now, the FPPC, attorney general's office, and U.S. attorney's office have declared that there was not sufficient evidence to investigate whether any laws were broken by actions described over the live mike, according to the Sacramento Bee. SDGE said it investigated, and has restored the lobbyist to her job.

  • Scam Diego alerts

Comments

Don Bauder Nov. 9, 2009 @ 9:03 p.m.

Response to post #177: I bow to your memory. It was "sexual relations" then. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 2, 2009 @ 5:49 p.m.

I feel for the lobbyist.

1) If she was innocent where can she go to get her reputation back? Her name has been plastered alll over the state and the internet.

2) Duvall is a big, fat, loud mouth loser who was acting like a HS punk. For him to be blabbering about such things tells many things about his character, including having the maturity level of a 15 year old kid. Cheating (alleged) your spouse is not a trait you want in a person, and this is womeone who is not to be trusted with any sort of serious information whatsoever. And last, it goes to the soul and character of a man who would cheat on his wife-that is NOT the type of person I want in my states legislature.

Gavin Newsome had to drop out of the governor's race for the same reason-he also cheated, except it was with his best friends wife. These are not the types of individuals I want representing ME, anywhere-and I think most people would line up with me than with Duvall or Newsome.

0

Visduh Nov. 2, 2009 @ 7:38 p.m.

Interesting comments, SurfPuppy. This is an era when we are often told that sex doesn't matter. I take it that sex still matters to you. So, how do you remember our 42nd president? (For the record, he wasn't just bragging on mike--he did it, and did it again, and again and . . .)

0

Don Bauder Nov. 2, 2009 @ 7:54 p.m.

Response to post #1: Duvall is a slob with a big mouth and, he claims, a wild imagination. And he was a favorite of the born again crowd. Beset, Don Bauder

0

Russ Lewis Nov. 2, 2009 @ 7:59 p.m.

"Beset, Don Bauder"

Sorry to hear it, Don.

0

Don Bauder Nov. 2, 2009 @ 8:02 p.m.

Response to post #4: I almost always type "Beset," but 95% of the time I catch it. This time I didn't. I must have been beset with something. Best, Don Bauder

0

xians421 Nov. 2, 2009 @ 8:03 p.m.

Yeah, she's innocent. And i just bought the Coronado bridge for $20.

0

xians421 Nov. 2, 2009 @ 8:08 p.m.

Response to post #5

Honestly I could care less about the sex life of elected officials, unless of course it involves incredible hypocrisy or lobbyists, and this story rings both bells!

0

Don Bauder Nov. 2, 2009 @ 8:01 p.m.

Response to post #2: We are supposedly in an era of sexual liberation, but voters seem to be more upset by sexual behavior of elected officials than ever before. Grover Cleveland lived in Victorian times. He fathered a child out of wedlock. His opponents used it against him in a campaign, ("Maw, Maw, where's my Paw? Gone to the White House, haw, haw haw.") He still got elected president. Thomas Jefferson and many other founders were deists. Abraham Lincoln belonged to no church. Maybe voters were more tolerant of human foibles back in those days. Best, Don Bauder

0

Visduh Nov. 2, 2009 @ 8:15 p.m.

Post #7 raises the issue that even if the various agencies have concluded that there is not sufficient evidence for prosecution, the lobbyist is emphatically not exonerated. She may be innocent, but let's remember that she was hired to lobby. Lobbying has always been an activity that had to do with enticement and payoff.

If SDGE hired her to "do whatever it takes" to influence legislation, they have no reason to fire her. She was doing just what they wanted. Under any circumstances, why would they want to get rid of her? SDGE has no shame--none whatsoever.

So, even if she is as innocent as the newly-fallen snow, something I doubt, Duvall got his inspiration and ideas somewhere. The whole process of lobbying is a tawdry one, and those who practice it must be prepared to get some (or a lot) of mud splattered on themselves from time to tome.

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 2, 2009 @ 9:53 p.m.

Interesting comments, SurfPuppy. This is an era when we are often told that sex doesn't matter. I take it that sex still matters to you.

It has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with character-doesn't matter who does it-the POTUS or Duvall, it is the sign of a cheat.

If a person's spouse his wife can't trust you, why should anyone else?

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 2, 2009 @ 9:58 p.m.

Yeah, she's innocent. And i just bought the Coronado bridge for $20.

By xians421

You don't know if she is guilty and neither do I, but there is a good possibility she did nothing wrong. In any event she denies it, Duvall said he was boasting.

I would take her word over his 10 times out of 10. The burden of proof is on those who make accusations-not the other way around. She does not have to prove herself innocent.

One thing for sure- Duvall is a confimed liar, so nothing that comes out of his mouth can be considered credible.

0

SDaniels Nov. 2, 2009 @ 11:04 p.m.

re: #1: "...And last, it goes to the soul and character of a man who would cheat on his wife-that is NOT the type of person I want in my states legislature."

I know this is an obvious point, but...SurfPuppy, I applaud your moral ideals and understand your point about character and trustworthiness, and not to sound too cynical, but if you decide that marital infidelity precludes one's ability to serve in government, who might be left to qualify? Were it not for a survival code of silence among Washington power brokers, we'd probably see just about everyone lose their job for some moral transgression or other.

Arguably, Clinton did some good things in office, and Gavin Newsome (about whose scandal I was not aware) used his power to made strides toward equality for LGBT folk. I lived in New Jersey long enough to be able to vote for Jim McGreavey for Governor; before his tawdry scandal, he was able to accomplish some things with stem cell research and domestic partnerships. (I realize that whether you consider these to be accomplishments or not is a matter of political and personal philosophy, but you get the point). And look at Eliot Spitzer pre-scandal--not fit to do the work of a D.A. or attorney (general or otherwise)?

Highly productive and driven individuals tend also to be rather complex individuals, with big egos and appetites--not to excuse their actions, but can we judge based on overall performance, not just marital infidelity? JFK was a notorious womanizer, and shadows of various kinds might be cast upon more than one Kennedy's character--but would you argue that JFK was not fit to serve as POTUS for the affairs alone?

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 6:10 a.m.

Response to post #7: She says it has been a personal and professional nightmare. Her lawyer calls Duvall a liar. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 6:12 a.m.

Response to post #8: The public, the media, and investigators certainly found President Clinton's extracurricular sex life of interest. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 6:15 a.m.

Response to post #9: Agreed: lobbying is a tawdry business. Getting splattered with mud is a hazard of taking these remunerative lobbying jobs. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 6:17 a.m.

Response to post #10: How many politicians do you trust? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 6:21 a.m.

Response to post #11: No one on this blog really knows what happened. Obviously, some people do. Will this be investigated like the Monica Lewinsky matter? I doubt it. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 6:26 a.m.

Response to post #12: John F. Kennedy had his affairs in the White House, with a moll provided by a Mafioso. His liaisons were known among the press corps, but they were hushed up. If Nixon had had such liaisons, would they have been hushed up? Interesting question. Best, Don Bauder

0

Anon92107 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:12 a.m.

Don, the #1 Fact of political life in America is, at least 95% of lobbyists are whores because at least 95% of all politicians at all levels of government are corrupt.

This is the only way we can explain:

Tens of thousands of American Heroes and Patriots dead in Iraq and Viet Nam due to unnecessary wars that even Bush, Clinton, Cheney and Rumsfeld said “Hell No We Won’t Go” to when it was their turn to supposedly protect American Democracy.

Wall Street is still stealing trillions from all Americans, including shareholders as fast as our politicians enable them to get away with it, even Madoff said he is amazed that he got away with so much for so long.

Millions of Americans are condemned to unacceptable health problems and premature death because of a deathcare system that politicians have turned into a holocaust, they even get away with claiming that “2%” is a trivial level of uninsured even though it amounts to about 6 million or so real children, women and men.

I could go on but it would do no good because too many Americans are watching and doing nothing while our politicians and their whores destroy one more Democracy.

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 10:40 a.m.

I applaud your moral ideals and understand your point about character and trustworthiness, and not to sound too cynical, but if you decide that marital infidelity precludes one's ability to serve in government, who might be left to qualify?

This may come as a BIG surprise to you SDaniels, but 90% of the population does nto cheat on their spouses. So your notion that there would be no one left to serve if we excluded all cheaters is erroneous.

0

SDaniels Nov. 3, 2009 @ 10:50 a.m.

Ah, but are you talking 90% of "the people," or 90% of politicians--who lead heightened existences?

And recall, in my next sentence, I said "for some moral transgression or another" but at any rate, SurfP, I think marital infidelity is purty banal. Best get on the bandwagon about dishonesty directly affecting the affairs of state? (Like using taxpayer money to fly to your mistress? :)

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 12:32 p.m.

Response to post #19: Wall Street and other banks continue to steal. Nothing will be done about it. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 12:35 p.m.

Response to post #20: It seems to me that the last I read, 50% of spouses admitted cheating. What's spice for the spouse is....well, you know. It certainly isn't 90% that are pure. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 12:37 p.m.

Response to post #21: But marital infidelity by politicians does so much to boost the bottom lines of the media companies. Best, Don Bauder

0

paul Nov. 3, 2009 @ 12:42 p.m.

SurfPup said: "I feel for the lobbyist.

1) If she was innocent where can she go to get her reputation back? Her name has been plastered alll over the state and the internet."


Where can she go? Did you miss the part where Sempra restored her job? She was just doing her job for them in the first place, after all. (FYI Don, she is reported to work for the parent Sempra, not for SDG&E)

If you parse the statement from her lawyer, she never says that she didn't do what was generally claimed. The press is reporting that she said Duvall's claims were untrue, but that is not what she said. She said: "What is shocking to me and my family is that anyone would have taken seriously the statements of someone boasting about his alleged exploits or even believed for a moment that they were true". Note that she didn't say the statements WEREN'T true, just that she was shocked anybody would believe Duvall (hard to argue with that).

Her lawyer said that Duvall's coment was "a plain, old-fashioned lie.". Which comment in particular? If Duvall exaggerated a single aspect of any of the lurid details, that could be the comment to which her lawyer technically referred.

Her lawyer goes on to say that she is investigating "all of her legal remedies". Do you want to make a bet on whether she ever files anything against Duvall?

She did not deny that she had sex with Duvall, but rather is reported to have "denied engaging in any kind of illegal or unethical behavior." That is pretty wide-open to interpretation.

The manner in which the statements from her and her lawyer have been crafted speak volumes as to what really happened.

The FBI didn't "clear" anybody, as is being widely reported. All they did is state that "no prosecutive action by the United States attorney's office is warranted." Does that mean that it happened, but doesn't technically violate a federal statute that they are politically willing to prosecute on? Does that mean they don't have jurisdiction and the state AG should prosecute instead? They didn't speak to any facts of the case, only that they weren't going to federally prosecute.

0

paul Nov. 3, 2009 @ 12:56 p.m.

Response to #5: "We are supposedly in an era of sexual liberation"

The problem is not with sexual liberation, but with (usually men) who claim they are one thing when really they are another. My problem with Clinton is not what he did, but the fact that he felt he needed to hide it, and failed in his duties as commander-in-chief with respect to Bin Laden due to political considerations relating to his dalliance and the cover-up. A politician who compromises himself in a manner that can lead to blackmail has no business in the White House.

My problem with Duvall is that he is a major league hypocrite who should be exposed to his base, and he should be held accountable just as any john would be under current prostitution laws. If they want to change the prostitution laws, then Duvall and Spitzer can do whatever they like, as long as they declare the "contribution" from the lobbyist and it doesn't exceed allowed value.

0

Visduh Nov. 3, 2009 @ 1:07 p.m.

In response to post #18, Don, you've already answered your own question. The press was most eager to find something "on" Nixon and it did. If it had been extramarital sex, why, they would have jumped on that.

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 2:10 p.m.

Ah, but are you talking 90% of "the people," or 90% of politicians--who lead heightened existences?

And recall, in my next sentence, I said "for some moral transgression or another" but at any rate, SurfP, I think marital infidelity is purty banal.

By SDaniels

Glad to hear you have no morals or ethics SD and try to rationalize lying and cheating (SurfPuppy shakes head violently back and forth while rolling eyes!)

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 2:12 p.m.

"I feel for the lobbyist.

1) If she was innocent where can she go to get her reputation back? Her name has been plastered alll over the state and the internet."


Where can she go? Did you miss the part where Sempra restored her job?

By paul 12

And your point is what???

Getting her job "restored" is NOT getting your reputation back after having it splattered all over millions of computers on the internet. So your post is way off the pojnt in that she had her job "restored". BFD.

Get serious.

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 2:20 p.m.

My problem with Clinton is not what he did, but the fact that he felt he needed to hide it,

By paul

So you have no problem with the POTUS committing perjury, lying under oath???? Funny thing though, the AK Bar had a problem with it and suspended Clinton's law license for 5 years. I would have permenantly revoked it. Not for having sex with Lewinsky, for committing perjury.

Hmmm.....I think me and you have a different value system.

(and for the record, it wa President GHW Bush that denied green light on the assasination of Osama Bin Laden because the hit on Bin Laden would have taken out one (just 1) member of the Saudi royal family also-had nothing to do with Clinton)

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 2:53 p.m.

Response to post #25: What you are saying is that she issued "non-denial denials." You are not the first to say that. Read posts on the Sacramento Bee. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 2:57 p.m.

Response to post #26: You are right: sexual dalliances can lead to blackmail. But politicians are power-hungry and get thrills from taking risks. Clinton had left a long trail in Arkansas before he ever got the White House. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 3:02 p.m.

Response to post #27: It wasn't just the press that got Nixon. The Democrats got him, too. I have often wondered about the Spitzer case. Yes, he was guilty as charged. But had he not gone after Wall Street aggressively, would anyone have pursued him? Bill Lerach is another case in point. Yes, he was guilty. But would the government have spent as much time to get him if he had not been getting to the corporations? (I am not defending Lerach's methods. I was always a critic of his m.o.) Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 3:07 p.m.

Response to post #28: Politicians are politicians. They are liars because that is a quality that is a prerequisite for achieving high office. Their other vices are inherent in their psyches, just as lying is. The sociopaths get to the highest offices. They seem so convincing. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 3:10 p.m.

Response to post #29: It took me forever to learn what LOL means. OMG I figured out on my own. BFD? Explicate, please. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 3:13 p.m.

Response to post #30: The Saudis sure got a free pass on 9-11, when Dubya was president. Because almost all the plotters were Saudis, the Saudi higher-ups were hustled out of the country the next day. Sigh. Best, Don Bauder

0

paul Nov. 3, 2009 @ 3:16 p.m.

SurfPup said: "So you have no problem with the POTUS committing perjury, lying under oath???? Funny thing though, the AK Bar had a problem with it and suspended Clinton's law license for 5 years"

Apparently I didn't make my point very clear.

I have a huge problem with POTUS committing perjury. My point was that presidents should never engage in activities for which they feel they need to perjure themselves, because it compromises them. I could not care less that Clinton had sex outside of his marriage, but I care greatly that he engaged in an activity that compromised him as POTUS. That was inexcusable. If Clinton did not feel the pressure to perjure himself for that act, then it would not have mattered much to anybody but his family. The fact that he DID feel the pressure and DID perjure himself, by definition means I have a huge problem with his actions. I thought he should have stepped down because he had compromised himself.

For the record, part deux: It was the Clinton administration that reportedly turned down at least 2 offers from the Sudanese government to turn over Bin Laden in early 1996, at the time he was heavily preoccupied with Lewinsky.

I don't recall ever registering as an apologist for Bush, so I am not sure why you threw that out.

0

SDaniels Nov. 3, 2009 @ 3:22 p.m.

"Glad to hear you have no morals or ethics SD and try to rationalize lying and cheating (SurfPuppy shakes head violently back and forth while rolling eyes!)"

Is SP having a seizure? Watch his tongue! Puppy, see post #34.

I have the same issue with acronyms, Mr. B. However, I just figured out BFD on my own! "Big F'in Deal." I'm proud--despite having no morals or ethics :)

0

paul Nov. 3, 2009 @ 3:25 p.m.

SurfPup said: "Getting her job "restored" is NOT getting your reputation back after having it splattered all over millions of computers on the internet. So your post is way off the pojnt in that she had her job "restored". BFD."

Again, you are way off my point. You seem to be taking her lawyer's statement at face value, when you should know better and should well know that he in no way denied that any affair took place. I see nothing in any statements that either she, her lawyer, the FBI or Duvall have issued to indicate in any way shape or form that she did not take part in a sexual relationship with Duvall.

Can you please find me any comments by Duvall or the lobbyist that indicate emphatically that no relationship of any kind at all sexual in nature took place between them? I thought you prided yourself on being able to spot this kind of legal BS.

0

paul Nov. 3, 2009 @ 3:28 p.m.

Bauder said: "BFD? Explicate, please. Best, Don Bauder"

Not in a family newspaper, please!

(It's just a slightly more emphatic way of saying "big deal")

0

PistolPete Nov. 3, 2009 @ 3:43 p.m.

Don,BFD=Big f***in' deal.

Clinton screwed around. BFD. Starr spent MILLIONS of tax-payer money to crucify Clinton for a blowjob yet the Republicans worship President Shrub and he started a highly illegal war and subsequently murdered 100,000+ American troops and Iraqi civilians. Where's the justice? Bush will NEVER be brought to trial for war crimes and atrocities because we're too busy watching American Idol and stuffing our faces. It makes me sick.

SP? If you honestly believe that 90% of spouses are faithful, I want what you're smokin'. The divorce rate is at 50%. Been that way for years. My GF is married. I'm not. If she cheats on me, why would I get pissed? If I cheat on her, how could she get pissed?

"Honestly I could care less about the sex life of elected officials, unless of course it involves incredible hypocrisy or lobbyists, and this story rings both bells!"

EXACTLY!!!! We ALL know and support the fact that politicians will cheat. It's like a new mafia. If America cared about sex & politics, we'd be better off but, unfortunetely, that's not going to happen anytime soon so we've grown complacent with it. It's par for the course. My big peeve is closeted Republican politicians who try their hardest to fight against any bills for the LGBT community and then get caught with their hand in the anal cookie jar.

You want to fook? FINE! Allow me to fook as well.

0

PistolPete Nov. 3, 2009 @ 3:46 p.m.

"Not in a family newspaper, please!"

HA! Don't make me laugh Paul. Last time I checked, school children weren't reading The Reader. And if you're an adult who is easily offended, too f***in' bad pal. It's called THE REAL WORLD.

0

paul Nov. 3, 2009 @ 3:57 p.m.

PP said: "HA! Don't make me laugh Paul. Last time I checked, school children weren't reading The Reader. And if you're an adult who is easily offended, too f***in' bad pal. It's called THE REAL WORLD."

I said that tongue in cheek and I am not particularly easy to offend, but you know, a little decorum is not a bad thing.

Do you also like to walk by schools, drop your pants and yell "hey kids, get a look at the real world. I've got your real world right here!"?

0

PistolPete Nov. 3, 2009 @ 4:01 p.m.

Now you're comparing apples and oranges,Paul. I also didn't know you typed that tongue-in-cheek. It's one thing to be offensive to prove a point. A totally different thing to be as offensive as you can because you want to. Somethings in life are black & white. Other things are grey. It all depends if you're wearing rose colored glasses. :-D

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 7:27 p.m.

I have a huge problem with POTUS committing perjury. My point was that presidents should never engage in activities for which they feel they need to perjure themselves, because it compromises them. I could not care less that Clinton had sex outside of his marriage, but I care greatly that he engaged in an activity that compromised him as POTUS.

Your post came across like you condoned his perjury actions, as well as the cheating.

I do not condone either- the perjury or the cheating on his wife-because a person who cheats on their spouse is not trust worthy IMO.

Like I said in an earlier post-if a person would cheat on the most important person in their life they would cheat on anyone for anything, for their own personal gain and satisfaction. They are not trust worthy and I would never put such a person in a position of confidence or authority.

I have a big problem with both.

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 7:36 p.m.

I see nothing in any statements that either she, her lawyer, the FBI or Duvall have issued to indicate in any way shape or form that she did not take part in a sexual relationship with Duvall.

Then you have not read her own statement-where she flat out, unequivocally DENIED she had a sexual relationship with Duvall;

Heidi DeJong Barsuglia Denies Mike Duvall Affair: Energy Lobbyist Reinstated After Recorded Sex Talk

In a statement released Monday, Sempra Energy lobbyist Heidi Barsuglia called the scandal surrounding former Assemblyman Mike Duvall's comments "a professional and personal nightmare."

She *denied engaging in any kind of illegal or unethical behavior**. (having sex with an elected official who you're lobbying is "unethical behavior")

"Just so there is no doubt left in anyone's mind, what Mr. Duvall later called 'inappropriate storytelling' was just a ****plain old-fashioned lie.****"

I think that pretty much blows your claim;

"she, her lawyer, the FBI or Duvall have issued to indicate in any way shape or form that she did not take part in a sexual relationship with Duvall"

out of the water.

She said it didn't happen and her lawyer said it is a flat out lie.

0

SDaniels Nov. 3, 2009 @ 7:38 p.m.

re: #40, 41: Was there a reason that my explanation of 'BFD' in #38 was not adequate to Mr. Bauder's edification? Or do you people just like repeating it a lot? :)

re: #45: SurfP, you'd better cover your eyes and ears, because, to pardon a very crude metaphor--but one you'll naturally understand:

In our political world, there are an awful lot of milk bones out of their proper packaging. I leave it to you to try and sort out which boxes they belong to, and just how many dawgs should be in the doghouse :)

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 7:45 p.m.

SP? If you honestly believe that 90% of spouses are faithful, I want what you're smokin'. The divorce rate is at 50%. Been that way for years. My GF is married. I'm not. If she cheats on me, why would I get pissed? If I cheat on her, how could she get pissed?

So the divorce rate is 50%-big deal, again, whatever the divorce rate is-it is not the the "cheating" rate, they are mutually exclusive. One does not make the other.

If you want to have a married woman as a GF-and vice versa-good for you two-I hope it works for you two, but you would not rate high on my list of close friends, in fact you would not even be on my list of friends. Basically it comes down to character and values. I'm no saint, but I am loyal, and when the chips are down I back my friends up and ask questions later. I wouldn't do that for you.

Here is an idea, why doesn't your GF get a divorce and why don't you find a mate who is free, and not jerking around some innocent dude by hitting on his wife??? ....is that too hard?

When I see spouses murdering each other-like Scott and Lacey Peterson, OJ and Nicole, I always ask myself why didn't they just get a divorce????

0

PistolPete Nov. 3, 2009 @ 8 p.m.

I hadn't seen your explanation yet,SD.

"So the divorce rate is 50%-big deal, again, whatever the divorce rate is-it is not the the "cheating" rate, they are mutually exclusive. One does not make the other."

So the divorce rate is at 50% because he keeps leaving the seat up? C'mon,SP. You're a lawyer. You're smart enough to know that 90% of spouses aren't faithful. That's 9 out of 10. Out of 5 couples,only one person is f***in' around? YEAH! And pigs might fly out my ass. This is SoCal,SP. People get married and divorced for the pure sport of it.

As for my GF,I stay out of that. If it wasn't me she was cheatin' on her hubby with,it would be someone else. As for her hubby being"innocent",he's not married to her,he's married to his wallet. ALL he cares about is the almighty dollar. They're both in their 50's,been married almost two decades and haven't had sex in almost a decade. Now,you tell me-is this a REAL marriage? Hell no.

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:12 p.m.

Response to post #37: Lawyers and politicians should not lie under oath. But they do it all the time. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:17 p.m.

Response to post #38: BFD: The only thing I could think of was Butterscotch for Dessert. It's my age. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:19 p.m.

Response to post #39: Parsed like a parson. Best, Don Bauder

0

paul Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:20 p.m.

SP said: "I think that pretty much blows your claim"

Uh, no.

You just repeated back the same quotes that I used, that say absolutely nothing.

You claim she said she did not engage in a sexual relationship with Duvall, but to make the claim you use the denial of "engaging in any kind of illegal or unethical behavior". That can mean whatever she wants it to mean. Again, notice she did NOT EVER come out and unequivocally state that she did not have sexual relations in any way shape or form with Duvall. If she didn't do anything with Duvall, then way the lawyerly dance around the topic using terms like "illegal or unethical behavior"?

SP, you don't normally seem nearly this naive. What gives?

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:22 p.m.

Response to post #40: Would Big Fornicating Deal ruin the meter? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:25 p.m.

Response to post #41: Just hope your GF's mate isn't armed. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:27 p.m.

Response to post #42: Do we have a new one? Namely, TFB? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:29 p.m.

Response to post #43: Instead of "School: No Passing Zone," we may need signs reading, "School: No Flashing Zone." Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:31 p.m.

Response to post #44: In London, things are grey. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:36 p.m.

Response to post #45: You want a president that doesn't cheat on his wife? Then you'll have to reject FDR, JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and possibly Ike and George HW Bush. And maybe W. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:39 p.m.

Response to post #46: SP's interpretation is one. Those words are being parsed all over the state. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:40 p.m.

Response to post #47: That metaphor is a real bitch to figure. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:44 p.m.

Response to post #48: Spouses murdering each other? Scott and Lacey? OJ and Nicole? Sorry, the male was doing the murdering in both those cases. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:47 p.m.

Response to post #49: You have hit on a great dilemma. So many women want a husband rich as Croesus and as good in bed as Porfirio Rubirosa. Sorry. You seldom get both. That's because men obsessed with money have to spend 24 hours a day plotting how to steal it from others. Best, Don Bauder

0

paul Nov. 3, 2009 @ 10 p.m.

SP said: "Your post came across like you condoned his perjury actions, as well as the cheating."

I'm pretty confident that you didn't actually read my post past maybe a quick skim, because it is hard to see where you would get that from:

"My problem with Clinton is not what he did, but the fact that he felt he needed to hide it (i.e., perjure himself) , and failed in his duties as commander-in-chief with respect to Bin Laden due to political considerations relating to his dalliance and the cover-up (i.e. he compromised the presidency)"

From that you concluded that I condoned his perjury???

Also, while I in no way condone cheating, I also don't think his cheating disqualified him from POTUS. It was the lying (perjury) and compromising the presidency that made him unfit for POTUS. Neither you nor I have any idea what arrangement Clinton really had with his wife and what bonds and trusts may or may not have been violated. For that reason, I don't think the affair itself is terribly relevant to his ability to carry out his duties. It was relevant and perfectly acceptable, however, for you to have withheld your vote in the first place due to your perceived lack of character in Clinton due in large part to his affairs. I did.

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 11:14 p.m.

I have the same issue with acronyms, Mr. B. However, I just figured out BFD on my own! "Big F'in Deal." I'm proud--despite having no morals or ethics :)

By SDaniels

You are a floozy!

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 11:16 p.m.

So the divorce rate is at 50% because he keeps leaving the seat up? C'mon,SP. You're a lawyer. You're smart enough to know that 90% of spouses aren't faithful. That's 9 out of 10.

I may have over exaggerated that, a tiny bit. Just for effect.

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 11:21 p.m.

SP said: "I think that pretty much blows your claim"

Uh, no.

You just repeated back the same quotes that I used, that say absolutely nothing.

You claim she said she did not engage in a sexual relationship with Duvall, but to make the claim you use the denial of "engaging in any kind of illegal or unethical behavior".

Having sex with an elected official you are lobbying is certainly unethical behavior, so there is no doubt in my mind, or a reasonable person, that she certainly means she did not have sex with Duvall.

Have you ever seen Duvall???? He is a fat old slob. She is a good looking woman, there is no way she would have sex with gramps.

http://followingtheleader.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/duvall.jpg

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 11:22 p.m.

Would Big Fornicating Deal ruin the meter? Best, Don Bauder

By dbauder

Now THAT is bringing the funny!

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 6:21 a.m.

Response to post #64: Whatever arrangement Clinton has with his wife, his behavior in both Arkansas and at the White House was so reckless that you have to wonder about his stability. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 6:25 a.m.

Response to post #65: It's sexist to call someone who boasts of amorality a "floozy." Why not call him/her a "whoremonger?" Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 6:27 a.m.

Response to post #66: The truth comes out: 90% may have been exaggerated. Everybody knew that already. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 6:31 a.m.

Response to post #67: Since some believe her statement was a non-denial denial, she should probably be more emphatic in a clarification. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 6:33 a.m.

Response to post #68: Mustn't ruin the rhythm. Best, Don Bauder

0

SDaniels Nov. 4, 2009 @ 7:11 a.m.

re: #64: Well said as always, Paul. I would say that the 'arrangement' between highly visible public figures like the Clintons is probably to stay out of each others' personal business. They probably fell out of love decades ago, and stay 'together' so as not to jeopardize their political careers, which in this hypocritical moral climate means that heterosexual marriage with children is somehow a prerequisite to the job of representing the people in any capacity.

re: #67: SurfPuppy, do you realize we are talking about a LOBBYIST? A LOBBYIST, SurfPuppy.

re: #69: Agreed, unstable behavior from a very creative and smart individual--unfortunately thinking below the belt and caught.

re: #70: I agree, "whoremonger" is cuter, and bonus: it implies one has some form of work. "Floozy" just sounds too trivial and lazy—a floozy cadges drinks, and might possibly be on welfare.

re: #65: A la the governator’s favorite linguistic game:

Frankly, your argument about the personal Lives of politicians is poorly structured, which leads One to conclude that it is of rather naïve philosophical Origins. Apparently, you are unable to ignore a common Zeitgeist of American politics, and ignore the social policy of Your public representatives.

0

SDaniels Nov. 4, 2009 @ 7:12 a.m.

re: #73: Is Don Bauder advocating the "rhythm" method? I thought we had better sex education in this country! ;)

0

paul Nov. 4, 2009 @ 7:31 a.m.

SP said: "Having sex with an elected official you are lobbying is certainly unethical behavior, so there is no doubt in my mind, or a reasonable person, that she certainly means she did not have sex with Duvall."

Unethical in what context, under whose rules and definitions?

It all depends on what your definition of "is" is, remember?

In her and her lawyers mind, by some narrow, self-chosen definition, they have decided that whatever she did was not "illegal" or "unethical". Nobody every admits to illegal, and she is falling back on the fact the FBI declined to press federal charges as their definition of not being "illegal".

Nancy Graham also says that she didn't do anything "unethical". Why is the city bothering with her?

Are you seriously a lawyer? This is really basic stuff, and you have some serious blinders on.

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 8:42 a.m.

re: #65: A la the governator’s favorite linguistic game:

Frankly, your argument about the personal Lives of politicians is poorly structured, which leads One to conclude that it is of rather naïve philosophical Origins. Apparently, you are unable to ignore a common Zeitgeist of American politics, and ignore the social policy of Your public representatives.

By SDaniels 7

STOp the "cut and paste" jobd.

Can you at least be original???????????

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 11:29 a.m.

I wrote that, SurfDummy :)

By SDaniels

Ouch, that made me cry.

0

SDaniels Nov. 4, 2009 @ 11:34 a.m.

Then stop calling me names and questioning my moral landscape, Puppy. And you'd better protect your tail from Paul, who is insinuating that you might not be a doggy lawyer after all. Sic, Puppy, sic!

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 11:56 a.m.

Response to post #74: The prerequisites are heterosexual marriage, children, and belonging and regularly attending a Christian church. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 11:59 a.m.

Response to post #75: Am I advocating the rhythm method? Or the pill? I'm not qualified to make recommendations on that subject. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 12:02 p.m.

Response to post #76: Few admit to illegalities. Not many admit to unethical behavior, either. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 12:04 p.m.

Response to poste #77: This is not the first cut and paste job seen on this blog. I post them regularly. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 12:05 p.m.

Then stop calling me names and questioning my moral landscape, Puppy.

By SDaniels

How can I question your morals, you don't have any!

Paul is mad because I spanked him and he knows it, so he has to divert attention elsewhere.

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 12:05 p.m.

Response to posts #s 78 and 79: So it wasn't a scissors and library paste job? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 12:08 p.m.

Response to post #80: Is a doggy lawyer one who defends dogs and other household pets in court? (That would be mainly paternity suits.) Or is a doggy lawyer simply a lousy lawyer? Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 12:09 p.m.

Nancy Graham also says that she didn't do anything "unethical". Why is the city bothering with her?

By paul

Are you for real????

Nancy Graham PLED GUILTY to conflict of interest charges.

Or have you have your head buried in the sand the last 2 years and don't have a clue as to what is going on?????(Don't answer, we already know your answer and I don't want to embarrass you anymore)

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 12:11 p.m.

Response to post #85: Are you certain that SDaniels has no morals? If so, how do you know? Best, Don Bauder

0

paul Nov. 4, 2009 @ 12:54 p.m.

SP said: "Nancy Graham PLED GUILTY to conflict of interest charges."

Actually, she pled no contest to a minor misdemeanor, and admitted nothing.

SP said: "Or have you have your head buried in the sand the last 2 years and don't have a clue as to what is going on?????(Don't answer, we already know your answer and I don't want to embarrass you anymore)"


Graham pled no contest to a minor misdemeanor in May, and admitted nothing. That is hardly two years ago.

She was in court last Friday and proclaimed she did nothing unethical. Are you living more than two years in the future? Where are the Chargers playing in your universe? Do they have a new stadium in LA yet?

Have you figured out yet that both women (currently) adamantly proclaim their innocence and that they did nothing unethical, yet you staunchly defend one and throw the other under the bus?

SP said: "Paul is mad because I spanked him and he knows it, so he has to divert attention elsewhere."

Careful with the spanking. I think that is how Duvall got into trouble.

0

SDaniels Nov. 4, 2009 @ 1:12 p.m.

re: # 81: "...and belonging and regularly attending a Christian church. Best, Don Bauder"

D'uoh! Forgot about that MAJOR lifestyle image requirement! The holy trinity of marriage, family "values," and church. [shiver]

re: #84: I cut and pasted from my OWN Word document. I wrote that for SurfPuppy, but I guess he can't appreciate the gift. For the denser among us, the line breaks are on purpose, as it spells out "Floozy" down the left margin. Sigh

re: #86: The only library paste around here is the stuff SurfPuppy has been sniffing (or eating), which creates that happy delusional haze, in which it becomes true that few politicians sleep around :)

re: #89: SurfPuppy can have no basis for such slander. I intend to sue the mangy fur coat off him for libel :)

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 3:45 p.m.

Response to post #90: At least according to Duvall's revised statement, it was BOASTING about spanking that got him in trouble, not necessarily spanking. He seems to be claiming that he didn't actually DO the spanking. What's the truth? It depends on your view of what goes on in Sacramento. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 4:06 p.m.

Response to post #91: In the Reader of Nov. 23, 2005, I had a column warning about Graham before she arrived in San Diego. I talked with a bunch of people in West Palm Beach, where she also had blatant conflicts of interest. The point is that had CCDC done any homework, it would have known that she had already gotten into trouble on conflict of interest charges. I concluded at that time that CCDC probably knew but didn't care, since San Diego doesn't worry about such conflicts -- in fact, thrives on them. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 4:08 p.m.

Response to post #92: If "floozy" was spelled out down the left hand side, I am ashamed to say that I missed it. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 4:13 p.m.

Actually, she pled no contest to a minor misdemeanor, and admitted nothing.

By paul 12:54 p.m., Nov 4, 2009

Wow, time for another public spanking.

A "no contest" plea in CA is EXACTLY the same as a GUILTY plea for purposes of culpability-EXACTLY.

A no contest does not allow a third party to use the guilty plea in a subsequent CIVIL trial.

It is hard for me to have an intelligent exchange with an unarmed opponent.

Listen, if you want to play lawyermaybe you should go to law school first

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 4:15 p.m.

Graham pled no contest to a minor misdemeanor in May, and admitted nothing.

By paul 12:54 p.m., Nov 4, 2009

Once again, this is for Johnny Cochrane the Third;

A "No Contest" plea in a CA criminal court is AN ADMISSION OF GUILT.

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 4:18 p.m.

re: #84: I cut and pasted from my OWN Word document. I wrote that for SurfPuppy, but I guess he can't appreciate the gift. For the denser among us, the line breaks are on purpose, as it spells out "Floozy" down the left margin. Sigh

By SDaniels

I didn't even catch that!!!

At least I didnt get the Arnold treatment!

I must say, SD, you have impressed me with your cleverness!

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 4:20 p.m.

re: #89: SurfPuppy can have no basis for such slander. I intend to sue the mangy fur coat off him for libel :)

By SDaniels

I hereby retract said comment.

I need that mangy fur coat for Winter.

0

SDaniels Nov. 4, 2009 @ 4:49 p.m.

re: #98: No, you got the "Floozy" treatment :)

99: You got it. I called off the dogs--err, I mean, lawyers. :)

0

gardenparty Nov. 4, 2009 @ 5:17 p.m.

Re # 97, surfpuppy, what about an Alford plea? I know that the system treats an Alford plea like a guilty plea so it goes on your criminal record and it can be used against you in future criminal cases. But since you are pleading to a charge without admitting guilt, can it be used against you in civil proceedings?

0

CuddleFish Nov. 4, 2009 @ 5:31 p.m.

I can't believe no one caught that FLOOZY deal, sheeeeeeesh!

Do none of you read the papers?????

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 5:55 p.m.

An Alford plea is different than a nolo contendre, aka the no contest plea. As far as I know an Alford plea is only allowed in the federal system- but I am sure most states have a similar plea.

In order for a federal judge to take a plea the person MUST admit they violated the law-this comes under Rule 11 of the FRCP. Rule 11 is an on the record waiver of all the rights, and an admission by the accused that they are indeed guilty. Well, when Alford came to court he refused to adimit he was guilty, but wanted to take the plea because if he went to trial and lost (aka rolled the dice) he would have served a very long prison sentence. So he decided not to roll the dice and take the plea-while insisting he was innoncent of the charges. So this obviously presented a problem under Rule 11.

The federal court allowed this, and this is how we now have the Alford plea in the federal system. It violates Rule 11 in technical terms, but the system would not function without a little grease-and that is what an Alford plea is.

I have no idea if an Alford plea stops the conviction from being used against a person in a civil case. I would guess it has no bearing on civil cases.

BTW- I looked up the CA law on no contest pleas, and the leading case is People vs West, 3 Cal 3d 595 (1970), and it is just like I said, in the eyes of the criminal court it is the same as a guilty plea.

"California law provides that the legal effect of a plea of "nolo contendere" is same as that of a plea of guilty, the plea can not be used against a defendant as an admission in any civil suit based upon or growing out of the act upon which the criminal prosecution is based. A **plea of nolo contendere has the same force and effect as a plea of guilty"

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 5:56 p.m.

I can't believe no one caught that FLOOZY deal, sheeeeeeesh!

Do none of you read the papers?????

By CuddleFish

As if you caught that Cuddles!

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 6:01 p.m.

I left out part of the no contest plea law.

Many states do not have the no contest plea-it is up to the state to offer it, most do not. CA does.

Once a state offers the no contest plea it is still not a right the accused is entitled to, but discretionary with the court to allow it.

Using a no contest plea and then claiming you're not guilty is at best wishful thinking, and at worst an outright lie.

0

paul Nov. 4, 2009 @ 7:01 p.m.

Don said: "At least according to Duvall's revised statement, it was BOASTING about spanking that got him in trouble, not necessarily spanking."

Full disclosure: I would like to make it clear that Surf Puppy was only boasting about spanking me, and that no actual spanking ever took place.

This ordeal has been a professional and personal nightmare. My reputation, my job, and my exemplary career have all been placed in jeopardy by Surf Puppy's disgusting remarks. I am considering my legal recourse.

0

PistolPete Nov. 4, 2009 @ 7:09 p.m.

I pled Nolo Contendre on my Armed Robbery charge...

0

Don Bauder Nov. 4, 2009 @ 9:05 p.m.

Response to posts #s 96 through 107: I am sitting on the sidelines in this contentiousness. Best, Don Bauder

0

CuddleFish Nov. 4, 2009 @ 9:16 p.m.

"I can't believe no one caught that FLOOZY deal, sheeeeeeesh!

Do none of you read the papers?????

By CuddleFish

As if you caught that Cuddles!

By SurfPuppy619 5:56 p.m., Nov 4, 2009"

I did more than catch it, actually. I originated it. If you will read SD's original message:

"re: #65: A la the governator’s favorite linguistic game:

Frankly, your argument about the personal Lives of politicians is poorly structured, which leads One to conclude that it is of rather naïve philosophical Origins. Apparently, you are unable to ignore a common Zeitgeist of American politics, and ignore the social policy of Your public representatives.

By SDaniels 7:11 a.m., Nov 4, 2009"

She is referring to this thread:

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/memorial-life/2009/oct/28/bonus-blog-and-the-same-to-you-guv/

Apology accepted. :)

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 10:38 p.m.

This ordeal has been a professional and personal nightmare. My reputation, my job, and my exemplary career have all been placed in jeopardy by Surf Puppy's disgusting remarks. I am considering my legal recourse.

By paul

First SD, now you, can't a pup catch a break here?

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 10:39 p.m.

I pled Nolo Contendre on my Armed Robbery charge...

By PistolPete

What were you "armed" with?

0

Don Bauder Nov. 5, 2009 @ 6:46 a.m.

Response to posts #s 109-113: OK, what does LMAO mean? Wait. Let me guess: Laughing My A** Off? Best, Don Bauder

0

SDaniels Nov. 5, 2009 @ 6:59 a.m.

re: #110: Actually nope--I was NOT referring to that thread.

You originated yours, Cuddle and I originated mine. I'm sure plenty of peeps have spoofed it by now :)

0

paul Nov. 5, 2009 @ 8:41 a.m.

Pistol Pete said: "I pled Nolo Contendre on my Armed Robbery charge..."

Dude, the first rule of robbery is to only use your legs, to avoid that charge.

0

paul Nov. 5, 2009 @ 8:50 a.m.

Surf Pup said "First SD, now you, can't a pup catch a break here?"

You've missed or ignored virtually every reference I have made so far, so it doesn't surprise me that you missed this one as well. I'll let somebody else explain the significance of what I wrote.

BTW, nobody really cares the technical difference between pleading guilty and no contest. My point (which you completely ignored) was that Graham was in San Diego LAST FRIDAY making her claim of no unethical actions on her part.

You like to go off on unrelated tangents that have nothing to do with the question at hand, and then shout Aha! Does your wife actually even listen to you anymore, or does she mostly just nod her head condescendingly and say "yes dear".

0

PistolPete Nov. 5, 2009 @ 8:52 a.m.

LULZ! That'll be a blog for the ages. My armed robbery was actually quite comical. I even made David Letterman's and Paul Harvey's "Stupid Criminals" segments.

0

paul Nov. 5, 2009 @ 8:59 a.m.

Surf Pup,

One more FYI re. Graham; You said "Nancy Graham PLED GUILTY to conflict of interest charges."

In fact, she plead no contest to failing to file a statement of economic interest. That is hardly the same thing, and is an extremely minor charge. Even that minor charge only resulted in a suspended sentence, so essentially not even that much really happened.

0

paul Nov. 5, 2009 @ 9:06 a.m.

Don said: "I concluded at that time that CCDC probably knew but didn't care, since San Diego doesn't worry about such conflicts -- in fact, thrives on them."

Don, Pat Flannery had some excellent articles on Graham that hinted strongly at the fact she was not hired after a nationwided search (as claimed), but rather the Related company had her put in place to do their work San Diego. There was also speculation on her relationships beyond Related, to include Manchester and Lennar.

0

or Nov. 5, 2009 @ 10:17 a.m.

response to # 119 not to stick up for surfpuppy but........ "As part of the plea agreement, the City Attorney's Office filed an amended complaint charging Graham with one count of failing to report economic interests that the city's conflict-of-interest code required she disclose. That replaced the previous complaint charging Graham with five counts." And........ "A no-contest plea is not an admission of guilt but is treated like a conviction." It was conflict of interest and even though she may not have said the word GUILTY at her sentencing, she has a conviction on her record. That could have been 6 months in the pokey. I don't know about you, but for me 6 months would not have been minor.

0

antigeekess Nov. 5, 2009 @ 10:31 a.m.

This...

Frankly, your argument about the personal Lives of politicians is poorly structured, which leads One to conclude that it is of rather naïve philosophical Origins. Apparently, you are unable to ignore a common Zeitgeist of American politics, and ignore the social policy of Your public representatives.

...is genius, Daniels. :) Arnold and the person/people who wrote his little note for him would be mightily impressed, I'm sure.

I'm thinking that this is a whole new linguistic art form that's been invented here. We need a name for this form, whether as simple as "Haiku" or as properly nerdy as "Iambic Pentameter."

:)

0

paul Nov. 5, 2009 @ 10:34 a.m.

OR,

SP started us down the ridiculous road of parsing the sentence of Graham because it is much easier for him to do that then to explain his strange yet steadfast defense of the lobbyist in the Duvall scandal.

Can we please remember what is the point of this thread?

The denials by the lobbyist and her attorney are clearly crafted to say absolutely nothing, a fact that SP blithely ignored in his charge to argue this (and other) meaningless tangents.

0

CuddleFish Nov. 5, 2009 @ 10:51 a.m.

Paul, you are smart enough to know it ain't worth busting your guts over what SurfPuppy writes. :)

Am enjoying reading your comments, by the way.

0

antigeekess Nov. 5, 2009 @ 11:11 a.m.

"Can we please remember what is the point of this thread?"

Can we not be such an anal-retentive control freak, and remember that we're on a rather silly public message board?

You can bark back at SurfPuppy all you like -- I don't bother talking to him -- but if you bark at 'me,' you're just as likely as he is to get the pepper spray.

shakes can Dammit, almost out.

Amusing that you actually think there's a "point," however. Thanks for the giggle.

Have a nice day.

:)

0

SDaniels Nov. 5, 2009 @ 12:02 p.m.

re: #122:

Why, thank you dear! Neither I nor Ahnold can take credit for inventing--it is a form of poetry called an acrostic--amusing to think that Ahnold (or staff) brought a rather esoteric poetic form to the attention of the general public. Though this story was ALL over the news for a few days, I don't think I heard anyone use the term "acrostic:"

0

CuddleFish Nov. 5, 2009 @ 12:11 p.m.

There was a lady on Poets.org that did them sometimes, we were always searching for those little buggers every time someone posted after one of hers. Imitation suuuuuuucks!

0

SDaniels Nov. 5, 2009 @ 12:16 p.m.

"Imitation suuuuuuucks!"

Well, in that case, at least you can be assured that I wasn't trying to imitate something you did, as stated earlier. Btw, I looked at that thread, and did not see that you had written an acrostic--you had posted Ahnold's, right?

0

paul Nov. 5, 2009 @ 12:18 p.m.

antigeekess said: "Can we not be such an anal-retentive control freak, and remember that we're on a rather silly public message board?"

Well, you felt compelled to interject yourself into a conversation in which you were not involved, so no, apparently "we" cannot.

This forum is actually not that silly, and tends to be pretty informative (Even SurfPup!).

0

SDaniels Nov. 5, 2009 @ 12:27 p.m.

Good one, russ! To help us avoid totally jacking this thread, I think it's about time paul writes an acrostic spelling out "Duvall Loves Lobbyists" :)

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 5, 2009 @ 12:39 p.m.

The denials by the lobbyist and her attorney are clearly crafted to say absolutely nothing, a fact that SP blithely ignored in his charge to argue this (and other) meaningless tangents.

By paul

They said everything they were supposed to ay-that Duvall is a big fat liar and the lobbyist did nothing wrong.

BTW-I am still waiting for your response to grahams GUILTY plea!

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 5, 2009 @ 12:41 p.m.

BTW, nobody really cares the technical difference between pleading guilty and no contest. My point (which you completely ignored) was that Graham was in San Diego LAST FRIDAY making her claim of no unethical actions on her part.

By paul

graham was under investigation for at LEAST the 2 years prior to her GUILTY plea.

I guess you had your head in the sand the last couple of years.

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 5, 2009 @ 12:43 p.m.

LULZ! That'll be a blog for the ages. My armed robbery was actually quite comical. I even made David Letterman's and Paul Harvey's "Stupid Criminals" segments.

By PistolPete

Oh man, that is too funny!

Do you have a link to the clip??

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 5, 2009 @ 12:50 p.m.

One more FYI re. Graham; You said "Nancy Graham PLED GUILTY to conflict of interest charges."

In fact, she plead no contest to failing to file a statement of economic interest. That is hardly the same thing, and is an extremely minor charge. Even that minor charge only resulted in a suspended sentence, so essentially not even that much really happened.

By paul

First of all, it is a criminal charge that involves "moral turpitude", so it is in no way a "minor charge".

A conviction of a crime that involves moral turpitude, including any misdemenaor conviction, will stay with you until the day you die. It causes a LOT of damage to you.

If Graham for instance were to apply for ANY type of professional license, such as teacher, lawyer, doctor, dentist, even a beautician or auto mechanics license, that charge would play a major role in determining if she would be eligible to hold such a license.

So once again you are caught in yet another distortion/misrepresentation.

Face it, you are wrong on Graham, you are wrong about the lobbyist.

You must be some sort of Duvall apologist to keep sliming the lobbyist.

0

paul Nov. 5, 2009 @ 12:55 p.m.

A general rule of courtesy for SDaniels and other posters here:

Don't use vague and lengthy language Leaving others vexing, especially since labeling others by basically yelling invectives stifles this symposium.

0

antigeekess Nov. 5, 2009 @ 12:58 p.m.

Daniels posted:

Ah! There 'is' a name for it already. I knew if there was, you'd be the one to know it.

:)

As for Pete... "I even made David Letterman's and Paul Harvey's "Stupid Criminals" segments."

Not exactly an "Ocean's Eleven" style operation, Peter?

0

antigeekess Nov. 5, 2009 @ 1:05 p.m.

Re #137:

See Post #125, Mr. Forum Nazi.

Your insecurities are showing. If Daniels' vocabulary is too much for you, perhaps you should spend some time over at dictionary.com.

Just a suggestion. Have a nice day.

:)

0

SDaniels Nov. 5, 2009 @ 1:09 p.m.

re: #137: Good job, Paul! (People, he did the acrostic, even with all the pesky repeated "Ls" of Duvall, etc.)

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 5, 2009 @ 1:10 p.m.

Hahahahah...."forum nazi".........

AG, I know why you are single, if you had a mate they would want to kill you on a daily basis.

Just an onservation. Have a nice day. :)

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 5, 2009 @ 1:14 p.m.

Good job, Paul! (People, he did the acrostic, even with all the pesky repeated "Ls" of Duvall, etc.)

By SDaniels

Sorry SD-it doesnt count UNLESS all the letter line up on the right side.

:)

0

SDaniels Nov. 5, 2009 @ 1:20 p.m.

Uh, that's not at all true, Puppy. Read the link on acrostics. The 'messages' are often buried within a prose-style text.

0

antigeekess Nov. 5, 2009 @ 1:20 p.m.

Re #140:
I saw it. I gave it an "F" because he screwed it up. You are too easily impressed with this one, Daniels. Did he bring you an apple, or something? ;)

Re #141:
a.) You can't kill pure evil. >:) b.) Even if you could, you kin only kill me once. I could live through that.

Sadly, I see that I have used the term "Forum Nazi" incorrectly, as it seems to refer to an administrator: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=forum+nazi

The individual in question is more accurately identified as a "Thread Nazi:" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thread+nazi

(I love how you can get it on a mug.)

Come and get us, Thread Nazi!!! We're off topic and out of control!!!

And don't forget to Have a Nice Day.

:)

0

CuddleFish Nov. 5, 2009 @ 1:34 p.m.

A general rule of courtesy for SDaniels and other posters here:

Don't use vague and lengthy language Leaving others vexing, especially since labeling others by basically yelling invectives stifles this symposium.

By paul 12:55 p.m., Nov 5, 2009

Loving it!!

0

paul Nov. 5, 2009 @ 1:35 p.m.

SP said: "You must be some sort of Duvall apologist to keep sliming the lobbyist."

??? That is just bizarre. If the lobbyist is implicated, that makes Duvall MORE culpable, not less.

========================================== SP said: "A conviction of a crime that involves moral turpitude, including any misdemeanor conviction, will stay with you until the day you die. It causes a LOT of damage to you."

Since when does failing to fill out a form rise to the level of moral turpitude? Most misdemeanors do NOT involve moral turpitude (even some felonies don't).

There are members of virtually EVERY profession that have suspended misdemeanor convictions, including defense contractors with Top Secret clearances (I know a few).

Are you just making this stuff up?

=========================================== SP said: "you are wrong about the lobbyist"

How does anything you said about Graham answer any questions about the lobbyist? Do you know her personally? Do you have some other info other than what I have read in statements from her or her lawyer?

========================================== SP said: "graham was under investigation for at LEAST the 2 years prior to her GUILTY plea."

Again with the "2 years" theme. Is that a magical time frame for you? Again, she emphatically stated she did nothing unethical LAST FRIDAY. Deal with it. She plead to the misdemeanor 6 months ago, not 2 years.

What actually DID happen 2 years ago (one and a half years before her plea), was that the CCDC gave Graham a $65,000 bonus because “Nancy did an outstanding job in a difficult year of transition with some extraordinary challenges,”, according to Fred Maas (Sept, 2007). It was just over a year ago that she resigned, and the investigations were in force.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that Graham is guilty as sin.

0

paul Nov. 5, 2009 @ 1:51 p.m.

"I saw it. I gave it an "F" because he screwed it up."

Sigh.... There is just no pleasing some people! ;)

0

Don Bauder Nov. 5, 2009 @ 1:57 p.m.

Response to posts #109-146: I think I am an outsider in this colloquy. I can add nothing. However, I will say this in response to #120: Pat Flannery is a very, very good blogger. I don't know how I missed those articles strongly implying that Graham was put in SD by Related. It makes sense. Best, Don Bauder

0

SDaniels Nov. 5, 2009 @ 3:21 p.m.

"Response to posts #109-146:"

C'mon, Mr. Bauder. That is such a cop out! At the least, write us an acrostic spelling out "Dominelli Loves Nancy." :)

0

SDaniels Nov. 5, 2009 @ 3:24 p.m.

re: #147: I liked it, Paul. And if it makes you feel better, I put indirect mention of you in my very second blog ever! Fourth sentence references an argument of a few months back, in which you kicked monaghan's hiney: :)

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 5, 2009 @ 3:29 p.m.

There are members of virtually EVERY profession that have suspended misdemeanor convictions, including defense contractors with Top Secret clearances (I know a few).

What is a "suspended misdemeanor convictions", never heard that before-you making that up (like the rest of your posts???)

Again, she emphatically stated she did nothing unethical LAST FRIDAY. Deal with it. She plead to the misdemeanor 6 months ago, not 2 years.

her case was being investigated for 2 years.

What actually DID happen 2 years ago (one and a half years before her plea), was that the CCDC gave Graham a $65,000 bonus because “Nancy did an outstanding job in a difficult year of transition with some extraordinary challenges,”, according to Fred Maas (Sept, 2007).

It was MUCH more than this, but I am sure you know this, or just ignorant of the facts, or just letting go with some more of your whoppers!

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 5, 2009 @ 3:31 p.m.

Uh, that's not at all true, Puppy. Read the link on acrostics. The 'messages' are often buried within a prose-style text.

By SDaniels

sar⋅casm  /ˈsɑrkæzəm/

–noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.

  1. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
0

Burwell Nov. 5, 2009 @ 6:52 p.m.

There are members of virtually EVERY profession that have suspended misdemeanor convictions, including defense contractors with Top Secret clearances (I know a few).

======================

The legal term for this is in California is expungement. Under certain circumstances those with misdemeanor convictions in California can expunge misdemeanors from their records merely by filing a court petition.

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 5, 2009 @ 6:54 p.m.

The legal term for this is in California is expungement. Under certain circumstances those with misdemeanor convictions in California can expunge misdemeanors from their records merely by filing a court petition.

By Burwell

Yes, it is 1203.4 of the Penal Code, BUT an expungement has NO bearing on a professional license at all. Only to the private sector-not gov.

And techincally you can do it to felony convictions by petitioning the court to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor and then filing the 1203.4 application.

0

PistolPete Nov. 5, 2009 @ 8:54 p.m.

"Oh man, that is too funny!

Do you have a link to the clip??"

SP-I've searched and searched with no avail.

AG-My crime was a comedy of errors. I'll have the blog up sometime before the 2st of the year(I hope). I'm moving on the 28th and have to look for work. I'm going nuts trying to be someone I'm not. It'll be humorous to say the least.

0

Don Bauder Nov. 5, 2009 @ 9:33 p.m.

Response to posts #149-155: This is an esoteric discussion, and I fear I have not been invited to the party. Best, Don Bauder

0

paul Nov. 5, 2009 @ 9:52 p.m.

Burwell,

Thanks for clarifying that. I was confusing the issue by mixing terms. A suspended sentence is a strong sign that you can have your record expunged, but it is not itself the expungement.

I have no idea what SP is referring to regarding govt sector, because you absolutely can in fact get a top secret security clearance with a misdemeanor. Drug offenses are frowned on as are court marshalls or other military disciplinary proceedings. A single misdemeanor (defined for government clearances as crimes where the maximum penalty is up to 1 year) is not disqualifying. It takes a serious felony or multiple lessor chargers (misdemeanors or infractions) to be disqualified for a government clearance. In fact a person with a single misdemeanor may be able to get a top secret clearance where a person with a high number of moving and parking infractions may not. A bankruptcy can also be more disqualifying than a misdemeanor for a high level clearance.

Police departments in various jurisdictions have rules that vary from the federal standards.

As far as attorneys go, I know of one local currently practicing defense attorney who spent a substantial number of years in jail for a fairly brutal assault.

SP, what exactly were you referring to?

0

paul Nov. 5, 2009 @ 9:55 p.m.

Don said: "This is an esoteric discussion, and I fear I have not been invited to the party."

But Don, it's your party in your house!

We are just the annoying party guests who weren't really invited in the first place, and who are now crashed on your couch and refuse to leave.

Hey Don, as long as you are up, do you mind grabbing me a beer from your fridge? ;)

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 6, 2009 @ 7:21 a.m.

I have no idea what SP is referring to regarding govt sector, because you absolutely can in fact get a top secret security clearance with a misdemeanor.

Once again your reading skills resemble that of a 1st greader.

What I said was an expungement of a misdemeanor does NOT apply to licenses, in any manner whatsoever, and does NOT affect the gov's ability to deny ANY license based on it.

It is DISCRETIONARY to the gov agency.

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 6, 2009 @ 7:24 a.m.

A bankruptcy can also be more disqualifying than a misdemeanor for a high level clearance.

I have no idea what a "high level clearance" involves-and I am not talking about that, but for licensing purposes a BK CANNOT be used to deny a license-professinal or otherwise. Take a look 11 USC 525 when you get some free time.

90% of ALL BK filings are the result of medical bills and job loss, and have nothing to do with credit worthyness.

0

SDaniels Nov. 6, 2009 @ 7:39 a.m.

Re: #158: Exactly what he said, Mr. Bauder. Also, don't trouble yourself, but if you have any juice? I like it with a little splash of sparkly--whatever sparkles, sure. :)

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 6, 2009 @ 11:25 a.m.

You don't need any juice or "Sparkly" SD, or we could be in BIIGGG trouble!

0

Don Bauder Nov. 6, 2009 @ 11:36 a.m.

Response to posts #s 157-161: I am sitting this one out, even though it is my party. Best, Don Bauder

0

Visduh Nov. 6, 2009 @ 3:13 p.m.

And what a party this has been! But I still think that had it not been for the sex angle, this blog would have been a sedate affair.

0

paul Nov. 6, 2009 @ 4:25 p.m.

Visduh,

Do you know what the sex angle was? 45 degrees? Perpendicular? Parallel?

SP doesn't believe any sex took place, so if you know the angle involved, that might help convince him. ;)

0

Visduh Nov. 6, 2009 @ 4:41 p.m.

The sex angle was either acute or obtuse, well, unless it was right. SP thinks that the sex was all oral, as in something that issued from Duvall's mouth only. If so, he missed his calling; Duvall should write screenplays for porn movies. What an imagination!

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 6, 2009 @ 5:53 p.m.

SP thinks that the sex was all oral,

That's not sex.

0

JF Nov. 6, 2009 @ 6:30 p.m.

The sex angle was either acute or obtuse, well, unless it was right.

Maybe there was no angle at all and it was all just a line...

0

Don Bauder Nov. 6, 2009 @ 8:16 p.m.

Response to posts 164-170: Somehow, I thought this would get to Monica Lewinsky. Best, Don Bauder

0

skennerl Nov. 8, 2009 @ 6:08 p.m.

169 - disagree - I thought it was Bill who didn't thnk oral was sex... "I have not had sexual relations with that woman."

Did I get the quote right?

I feel sorry for Monica - she was young and silly - and how exciting to be messing with the President!

A few years ago Bill was here in Perth Western Australia. There was a dinner somewhere and one of our "A listers" (probably about "G" on an international scale) - a total prat - the son of the biggest importer of luxury cars - presented Bill with a box of cigars.

Guffaws all round. Back patting. Shoulder rubbing.

0

CuddleFish Nov. 8, 2009 @ 6:51 p.m.

OMG, sken!!!

I argued the same thing on another forum, SP, that Clinton was telling the truth when he said he did not have sexual intercourse with Monica Lewinsky.

0

Don Bauder Nov. 8, 2009 @ 10:04 p.m.

Response to post #169: Jennifer Flowers was once asked if she had had as much fun with Bill Clinton as Monica Lewinsky had. Said Jennifer, "Close, but no cigar." Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Nov. 8, 2009 @ 10:08 p.m.

Response to post #173: As I recall it in a performance that was shown on national TV, Clinton averred, "I didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." Thereby ensued a national debate on what "have sex" meant. Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Nov. 9, 2009 @ 2:04 a.m.

Don,

I believe the complete term was: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

I woke up that morning and heard that on the clock-radio getting up for work and I laughed. My wife then woke up and asked me what was wrong. I told her that never in my life did I ever imagine a U.S. President putting himself in a position to say those words. That, and I wondered about his definition of "foreign" relations...

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close