Elisa Silverman found guilty of violating campaign finance rules with Ward 3 poll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she broke the law, then so did Goulet.

They already ruled on Goulet complaint. Not guilty.

Has anyone read the Goulet ruling? I’m told it was astonishingly lazy on the part of OCF. They found Goulet says upon questioning that no one called him with poll results despite saying exactly that on the recording, and so they find he didn’t have poll results.

It makes you wonder if there is something corrupt going on at OCF.

Maybe someone can post the order here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she broke the law, then so did Goulet.

They already ruled on Goulet complaint. Not guilty.

Has anyone read the Goulet ruling? I’m told it was astonishingly lazy on the part of OCF. They found Goulet says upon questioning that no one called him with poll results despite saying exactly that on the recording, and so they find he didn’t have poll results.

It makes you wonder if there is something corrupt going on at OCF.

Maybe someone can post the order here.

This is a post that takes the reader for an extraordinary ride.

First, we have someone who has not read the Goulet ruling.

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone read the Goulet ruling? I’m told it was astonishingly lazy on the part of OCF.

Then we have, from someone who admits to not having bothered to read the main source, this gem of an allegation (just wondering, of course!!!) that a District agency is somehow corrupt.

Anonymous wrote:It makes you wonder if there is something corrupt going on at OCF.

Thanks. This has been an amazing tour through Fox News work brain. But the piece de resistance is the end. Behold!

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe someone can post the order here

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:So, no fine? She just has to reimburse? That's not much of a violation. Essentially a bookkeeping error.

It’s a fine of $6,000+, pegged to the amount of what was spent. a fine is something paid as a result of violating the law. That’s what she did and why she must pay, absent a motion for reconsideration and/or an appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she broke the law, then so did Goulet.

They already ruled on Goulet complaint. Not guilty.

Has anyone read the Goulet ruling? I’m told it was astonishingly lazy on the part of OCF. They found Goulet says upon questioning that no one called him with poll results despite saying exactly that on the recording, and so they find he didn’t have poll results.

It makes you wonder if there is something corrupt going on at OCF.

Maybe someone can post the order here.

This is a post that takes the reader for an extraordinary ride.

First, we have someone who has not read the Goulet ruling.

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone read the Goulet ruling? I’m told it was astonishingly lazy on the part of OCF.

Then we have, from someone who admits to not having bothered to read the main source, this gem of an allegation (just wondering, of course!!!) that a District agency is somehow corrupt.

Anonymous wrote:It makes you wonder if there is something corrupt going on at OCF.

Thanks. This has been an amazing tour through Fox News work brain. But the piece de resistance is the end. Behold!

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe someone can post the order here

+1000000000000000000000

[Anonymous]

Another reason to let her go

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:So, no fine? She just has to reimburse? That's not much of a violation. Essentially a bookkeeping error.

I agree. Woah, she paid for a poll in a ward. Whooptie damn doo.

If it’s “just a bookkeeping error” then why is Silverman pushing back so strongly?

Because this is an integrity issue for her.

Absolutely. Her response is clear that best intentions for the right causes means that she doesn’t think she needs to follow ethics rules. It is a dangerous mindset.

[Anonymous]

I agree. (And I see that a more critical post has been removed.) “The ends justify the means” is a problem at both ends of the political spectrum, and this is a clear example. We need more integrity and humility on the city council, not to mention some more-divergent views.

[jsteele]

All of you who are so concerned about a rules violations should remember that McDuffie attempted to run for an office for which he wasn't even eligible. He pursued his legal rights of appeal just as Silverman is doing. Those are rights we all have. What's strange about McDuffie is that he used to be on the Council and apparently didn't want to stay there. That's why he ran for AG. I'm not sure why he wants to get back on the Council after having just quit it, other than he needs a job.

[Anonymous]

Apples meet oranges.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:All of you who are so concerned about a rules violations should remember that McDuffie attempted to run for an office for which he wasn't even eligible. He pursued his legal rights of appeal just as Silverman is doing. Those are rights we all have. What's strange about McDuffie is that he used to be on the Council and apparently didn't want to stay there. That's why he ran for AG. I'm not sure why he wants to get back on the Council after having just quit it, other than he needs a job.

Hey sucks too!

[Anonymous]

This is what happens when people are in office too long. Time to clean house.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:All of you who are so concerned about a rules violations should remember that McDuffie attempted to run for an office for which he wasn't even eligible. He pursued his legal rights of appeal just as Silverman is doing. Those are rights we all have. What's strange about McDuffie is that he used to be on the Council and apparently didn't want to stay there. That's why he ran for AG. I'm not sure why he wants to get back on the Council after having just quit it, other than he needs a job.

Is anyone taking the side of IDGAF about rules violations from a supposed public servant? Weird position to hold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:All of you who are so concerned about a rules violations should remember that McDuffie attempted to run for an office for which he wasn't even eligible. He pursued his legal rights of appeal just as Silverman is doing. Those are rights we all have. What's strange about McDuffie is that he used to be on the Council and apparently didn't want to stay there. That's why he ran for AG. I'm not sure why he wants to get back on the Council after having just quit it, other than he needs a job.

Is anyone taking the side of IDGAF about rules violations from a supposed public servant? Weird position to hold.

It is also a bizarre comparison to make.

One person filed to run for an office, was determined ineligible and not allowed to run.

Another person was found to have breached campaign finance rule, and by extension was engaged in unethical conduct, in their campaign’s use of public money.

These two things are not even remotely similar.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:All of you who are so concerned about a rules violations should remember that McDuffie attempted to run for an office for which he wasn't even eligible. He pursued his legal rights of appeal just as Silverman is doing. Those are rights we all have. What's strange about McDuffie is that he used to be on the Council and apparently didn't want to stay there. That's why he ran for AG. I'm not sure why he wants to get back on the Council after having just quit it, other than he needs a job.

Is anyone taking the side of IDGAF about rules violations from a supposed public servant? Weird position to hold.

It is also a bizarre comparison to make.

One person filed to run for an office, was determined ineligible and not allowed to run.

Another person was found to have breached campaign finance rule, and by extension was engaged in unethical conduct, in their campaign’s use of public money.

These two things are not even remotely similar.

Actually, both are very similar. Both of them took actions that they believed were consistent with the rules. Both were found to be in violation of the rules. Both appealed the decisions. Let's see how Silverman's appeal turns out.

Do you really think that Silverman would knowingly take an unethical action but and not only tell everyone about it, but report it to OCF?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:All of you who are so concerned about a rules violations should remember that McDuffie attempted to run for an office for which he wasn't even eligible. He pursued his legal rights of appeal just as Silverman is doing. Those are rights we all have. What's strange about McDuffie is that he used to be on the Council and apparently didn't want to stay there. That's why he ran for AG. I'm not sure why he wants to get back on the Council after having just quit it, other than he needs a job.

Is anyone taking the side of IDGAF about rules violations from a supposed public servant? Weird position to hold.

It is also a bizarre comparison to make.

One person filed to run for an office, was determined ineligible and not allowed to run.

Another person was found to have breached campaign finance rule, and by extension was engaged in unethical conduct, in their campaign’s use of public money.

These two things are not even remotely similar.

Actually, both are very similar. Both of them took actions that they believed were consistent with the rules. Both were found to be in violation of the rules. Both appealed the decisions. Let's see how Silverman's appeal turns out.

Do you really think that Silverman would knowingly take an unethical action but and not only tell everyone about it, but report it to OCF?

Let the record show your honor that when I murdered that man in cold blood I thought I was allowed to do so and acting within the rules.

Let the record show your honor that when I misappropriated and embezzled hundreds of millions of dollars from the city budget I only did so under the belief that it was okay.

But not to digress nor defend McDuffie, but one was legally sanctioned and the other was not.