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

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So her argument is that she didn't share the full results but did share who was polling first and who was polling second? So she ... shared the results?

In a race she was not involved with?

And used taxpayer money to finance it?

This is her defense, for real? She's either profoundly stupid or needs new lawyers.

This is exactly correct. Her defense is that she shared the results verbally but not in paper form, which somehow makes a difference. I don’t know how.

Her defense is that sharing the top line findings of the poll is perfectly legal. Goulet has made a similar argument about the DFER poll which was shared with him. Moreover, OCF did not rule on the issue of sharing the poll so it's not clear that Silverman even needs a defense for it.

Does she defend using public money to conduct a poll on a race she wasn't involved in and then using that poll to get ger desired result? Because that's shady as hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So her argument is that she didn't share the full results but did share who was polling first and who was polling second? So she ... shared the results?

In a race she was not involved with?

And used taxpayer money to finance it?

This is her defense, for real? She's either profoundly stupid or needs new lawyers.

This is exactly correct. Her defense is that she shared the results verbally but not in paper form, which somehow makes a difference. I don’t know how.

Her defense is that sharing the top line findings of the poll is perfectly legal. Goulet has made a similar argument about the DFER poll which was shared with him. Moreover, OCF did not rule on the issue of sharing the poll so it's not clear that Silverman even needs a defense for it.

Does she defend using public money to conduct a poll on a race she wasn't involved in and then using that poll to get ger desired result? Because that's shady as hell.

She used public money to thwart voters' will because she didnt want a mainstream Democrat to get elected.

[Anonymous]

DCBOE upholds the OCF finding. Silverman had been given due process to respond to the investigation:

https://twitter.com/tomsherwood/status/1588656921246306306?t=DKUyY5yYlH0E-KtcmRaDvg&s=19

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So her argument is that she didn't share the full results but did share who was polling first and who was polling second? So she ... shared the results?

In a race she was not involved with?

And used taxpayer money to finance it?

This is her defense, for real? She's either profoundly stupid or needs new lawyers.

This is exactly correct. Her defense is that she shared the results verbally but not in paper form, which somehow makes a difference. I don’t know how.

Her defense is that sharing the top line findings of the poll is perfectly legal. Goulet has made a similar argument about the DFER poll which was shared with him. Moreover, OCF did not rule on the issue of sharing the poll so it's not clear that Silverman even needs a defense for it.

Does she defend using public money to conduct a poll on a race she wasn't involved in and then using that poll to get ger desired result? Because that's shady as hell.

She polled the races for Mayor, Council Chairman, At-Large Council Member, and Ward 3 Council Member because Ward 3 had been one of her biggest areas of support and she wanted to know if Ward 3 voters were supporting candidates with platforms similar to hers. That would help inform her campaign. It is her position that it was a justifiable campaign expense.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So her argument is that she didn't share the full results but did share who was polling first and who was polling second? So she ... shared the results?

In a race she was not involved with?

And used taxpayer money to finance it?

This is her defense, for real? She's either profoundly stupid or needs new lawyers.

This is exactly correct. Her defense is that she shared the results verbally but not in paper form, which somehow makes a difference. I don’t know how.

Her defense is that sharing the top line findings of the poll is perfectly legal. Goulet has made a similar argument about the DFER poll which was shared with him. Moreover, OCF did not rule on the issue of sharing the poll so it's not clear that Silverman even needs a defense for it.

Does she defend using public money to conduct a poll on a race she wasn't involved in and then using that poll to get ger desired result? Because that's shady as hell.

She polled the races for Mayor, Council Chairman, At-Large Council Member, and Ward 3 Council Member because Ward 3 had been one of her biggest areas of support and she wanted to know if Ward 3 voters were supporting candidates with platforms similar to hers. That would help inform her campaign. It is her position that it was a justifiable campaign expense.

Did she share the results (or the general findings, or whatever euphemism she's using that day) of those other polls with the candidates in those races?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So her argument is that she didn't share the full results but did share who was polling first and who was polling second? So she ... shared the results?

In a race she was not involved with?

And used taxpayer money to finance it?

This is her defense, for real? She's either profoundly stupid or needs new lawyers.

This is exactly correct. Her defense is that she shared the results verbally but not in paper form, which somehow makes a difference. I don’t know how.

Her defense is that sharing the top line findings of the poll is perfectly legal. Goulet has made a similar argument about the DFER poll which was shared with him. Moreover, OCF did not rule on the issue of sharing the poll so it's not clear that Silverman even needs a defense for it.

Does she defend using public money to conduct a poll on a race she wasn't involved in and then using that poll to get ger desired result? Because that's shady as hell.

She polled the races for Mayor, Council Chairman, At-Large Council Member, and Ward 3 Council Member because Ward 3 had been one of her biggest areas of support and she wanted to know if Ward 3 voters were supporting candidates with platforms similar to hers. That would help inform her campaign. It is her position that it was a justifiable campaign expense.

Did she share the results (or the general findings, or whatever euphemism she's using that day) of those other polls with the candidates in those races?

Her story is that two of the candidates in the Ward 3 sought her endorsement, which she declined to give them.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So her argument is that she didn't share the full results but did share who was polling first and who was polling second? So she ... shared the results?

In a race she was not involved with?

And used taxpayer money to finance it?

This is her defense, for real? She's either profoundly stupid or needs new lawyers.

This is exactly correct. Her defense is that she shared the results verbally but not in paper form, which somehow makes a difference. I don’t know how.

Her defense is that sharing the top line findings of the poll is perfectly legal. Goulet has made a similar argument about the DFER poll which was shared with him. Moreover, OCF did not rule on the issue of sharing the poll so it's not clear that Silverman even needs a defense for it.

Does she defend using public money to conduct a poll on a race she wasn't involved in and then using that poll to get ger desired result? Because that's shady as hell.

She polled the races for Mayor, Council Chairman, At-Large Council Member, and Ward 3 Council Member because Ward 3 had been one of her biggest areas of support and she wanted to know if Ward 3 voters were supporting candidates with platforms similar to hers. That would help inform her campaign. It is her position that it was a justifiable campaign expense.

Did she share the results (or the general findings, or whatever euphemism she's using that day) of those other polls with the candidates in those races?

Not to my knowledge. According to Silverman, both Bergmann and Duncan asked for her endorsement. After seeing the poll results, she informed both that she would not endorse them. Duncan asked if her candidacy might affect the election outcome and Silverman said that vote splitting is a reality (so, yes, in other words). Bergmann asked Silverman what she thought Duncan would do and Silverman said she didn't know but they had discussed concerns about vote splitting.

Silverman insists that she did not ask either candidate to drop out. Also, just to emphasize, the OCF did not find that Silverman had engaged in illegal coordination. The only issue is the funds used for the poll. Not how the results were used.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So her argument is that she didn't share the full results but did share who was polling first and who was polling second? So she ... shared the results?

In a race she was not involved with?

And used taxpayer money to finance it?

This is her defense, for real? She's either profoundly stupid or needs new lawyers.

This is exactly correct. Her defense is that she shared the results verbally but not in paper form, which somehow makes a difference. I don’t know how.

Her defense is that sharing the top line findings of the poll is perfectly legal. Goulet has made a similar argument about the DFER poll which was shared with him. Moreover, OCF did not rule on the issue of sharing the poll so it's not clear that Silverman even needs a defense for it.

Does she defend using public money to conduct a poll on a race she wasn't involved in and then using that poll to get ger desired result? Because that's shady as hell.

She used public money to thwart voters' will because she didnt want a mainstream Democrat to get elected.

This is incorrect. Silverman endorsed Frumin who is a mainstream Democrat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone can watch tomorrow as OCF reaffirms their ruling, keeping in mind that Silverman requested the expedited review. She would have been better served acknowledging the mistake and moving on.

The hearing today is only about the 90 day window originally given (which hasn't expired yet) and will have nothing to do with the merits of the case.

I am no expert, but directly accusing your regulator of lying while you have been subject to sanction for unethical conduct does not seem like a winning strategy.

Silverman’s a bully. Sometimes it works for her, and sometimes not. It’s very possible that she’ll come in third after Bonds and McD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCBOE upholds the OCF finding. Silverman had been given due process to respond to the investigation:

https://twitter.com/tomsherwood/status/1588656921246306306?t=DKUyY5yYlH0E-KtcmRaDvg&s=19

Boom!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCBOE upholds the OCF finding. Silverman had been given due process to respond to the investigation:

https://twitter.com/tomsherwood/status/1588656921246306306?t=DKUyY5yYlH0E-KtcmRaDvg&s=19

Boom!

All this means is they are not budging from the 90 day window (for the case, not her response) - they haven't had the hearing yet on the actual case.

So not really a Boom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So her argument is that she didn't share the full results but did share who was polling first and who was polling second? So she ... shared the results?

In a race she was not involved with?

And used taxpayer money to finance it?

This is her defense, for real? She's either profoundly stupid or needs new lawyers.

This is exactly correct. Her defense is that she shared the results verbally but not in paper form, which somehow makes a difference. I don’t know how.

Her defense is that sharing the top line findings of the poll is perfectly legal. Goulet has made a similar argument about the DFER poll which was shared with him. Moreover, OCF did not rule on the issue of sharing the poll so it's not clear that Silverman even needs a defense for it.

Does she defend using public money to conduct a poll on a race she wasn't involved in and then using that poll to get ger desired result? Because that's shady as hell.

She used public money to thwart voters' will because she didnt want a mainstream Democrat to get elected.

A candidarte being backed by the Koch Brothers is not a "mainstream democrat" sorry, just stop trying to make Goulet happen. It is am embarrassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCBOE upholds the OCF finding. Silverman had been given due process to respond to the investigation:

https://twitter.com/tomsherwood/status/1588656921246306306?t=DKUyY5yYlH0E-KtcmRaDvg&s=19

Boom!

All this means is they are not budging from the 90 day window (for the case, not her response) - they haven't had the hearing yet on the actual case.

So not really a Boom.

She claimed that SanFord lied to her. The found that the email record was clear and that was not true. She has the opportunity to appeal the ruling in court, it’s telling that she will not.

So yeah, BOOM!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone can watch tomorrow as OCF reaffirms their ruling, keeping in mind that Silverman requested the expedited review. She would have been better served acknowledging the mistake and moving on.

The hearing today is only about the 90 day window originally given (which hasn't expired yet) and will have nothing to do with the merits of the case.

I am no expert, but directly accusing your regulator of lying while you have been subject to sanction for unethical conduct does not seem like a winning strategy.

Silverman’s a bully. Sometimes it works for her, and sometimes not. It’s very possible that she’ll come in third after Bonds and McD.

Absolutely. +1

[Anonymous]

Someone in the media needs to find out who is paying Silverman's (likely substantial) lawyer fees. Her campaign cannot accept in-kind contributions and cannot accept discounted billing rates.