Last login: Monday, June 2, 2014
It's an astonishing story, with Nixon-esque overtones. The sitting District Attorney claimed no knowledge of the $200,000 donation -- despite a CityBeat story on the issue two weeks before the Mayoral primary. That's absurd (see, http://www.publicceo.com/2014/03/comm...).
Then, she proclaims "No promises were asked for, nothing was asked for, adn if it had been asked for I would have kicked him [Azano-the illegal Mexican National donor] to the curb." Now we learn, there was something substantial asked for: Azano asked Dumanis to write him a letter of recommendation to the local law school.
I'm a prosecutor. I went to law school. Letters of recommendation are fretted over by every law school applicant. Your learn in this process to seek those who know you personally, and those who can speak from personal experience about your character. Moreover, I've written recommendation letters for law clerks that have worked for me. This is not some perfunctory letter without substance. You are vouching for the applicant's character, and placing your character on the line in doing so.
This applicant -- the son of a tycoon billionaire -- magically got the sitting district attorney, the chief law enforcement officer of the county to vouch for his bona fides. That's an incredibly important endorsement of a law school candidate. That letter has incredible value. Moreover, when the law school committee sees that endorsement, they will stand up and take notice as they should.
So, Dumanis only has two potential explanations, both of which are painful: 1) She didn't know the candidate at all, but wrote him a letter -- on official stationary no less, an act that violates ethics, because you're now using a public office's authority and power, to further a personal recommendation -- that assisted in him getting into law school. That's intolerable. or 2) She knew him well, and knew the family well, but simply lied about the relationship (which, in turn, furthered a cover-up of an illegal campaign finance scheme).
The primary vote is tomorrow. I simply don't see how Dumanis survives this one. . . but, every vote will count. Please go vote; enough is enough.
June 2, 2014 at 9:25 p.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Here's what you need to know: Dumanis raised about $500,000 for her mayoral campaign on the books. She got $100,000 from the Mexican national. That is, with one contribution, she got >15% of all her money. Indeed, the money paid for ALL of her facebook, twitter, and social media campaigning. So, is she a horrible leader or a liar? Those are the only two real choices. Here's why:
She's the candidate. She's the leader not only of her campaign, but of the most sensitive law enforcement position in the county. She has to avoid not only impropriety, but the _mere appearance_ of impropriety. So, she should have communicated to all in her campaign how incredibly important her integrity was. And, whoever she chose to handle this aspect of her campaign, ultimately, she's responsible for the transgressions (and legal problems) of the campaign. This is law 101 -- and her prattle that she wants to get to the bottom of this is such a sham -- she was the leader, she should be able to get to the bottom of it by reviewing who was in charge of the social media campaign, and ask how they paid for it.
The alternative is far worse: She's not a horrible leader, but she knew. And, of course she knew. There is simply no way you can run a $600,000 campaign and forget to report a $100,000 (and illegal) contribution. How did she think the online campaign ran? Didn't she ask? Of course she did.
Incidentally - I have some experience with her issues with integrity. You can watch and read my story and interaction with Dumanis here:
and the video:
March 10, 2014 at 8:45 p.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
© 2016 KPBS Public Broadcasting