Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
SDGE Lobbyist Said to be Innocent, Reinstated
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.— November 4, 2009 12:54 p.m.
SDGE Lobbyist Said to be Innocent, Reinstated
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.— November 4, 2009 7:31 a.m.
SDGE Lobbyist Said to be Innocent, Reinstated
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.— November 3, 2009 10 p.m.
SDGE Lobbyist Said to be Innocent, Reinstated
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?— November 3, 2009 9:20 p.m.
SDGE Lobbyist Said to be Innocent, Reinstated
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!"?— November 3, 2009 3:57 p.m.
SDGE Lobbyist Said to be Innocent, Reinstated
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")— November 3, 2009 3:28 p.m.
SDGE Lobbyist Said to be Innocent, Reinstated
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.— November 3, 2009 3:25 p.m.
SDGE Lobbyist Said to be Innocent, Reinstated
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.— November 3, 2009 3:16 p.m.
SDGE Lobbyist Said to be Innocent, Reinstated
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.— November 3, 2009 12:56 p.m.
SDGE Lobbyist Said to be Innocent, Reinstated
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.— November 3, 2009 12:42 p.m.