happens at the sentencing speaks for itself and this in jackson and needed ambiguity. 0-- injects unneeded ambiguity. chairperson hur: that objection is overruled. the second objection. >> in terms of the mayor not telling sheriff mirkarimi why he suspended him, we think it is relevant. there was not a legally valid reason for the suspension but it was an improper reason. that could go to the mayor's bias. >> our objection on this was relevant. there is not a due process claim about whether there is an interest in getting paid or anything like that. this is not relevant. the communications with the mayor and the nature of them, and even if it may go to the bias, did the sheriff thing to the mayor was unfair? clearly he does. i do not think it undermines regarding the validity of the charges. the charges rise and fall on the facts not on what was going on in the mayor's head. >> what is the purpose of the mayor's declaration? >> it was requested. chairperson hur: the mayor basically said -- as seems there is some relevance and the basis of the decision. i think the share should be committed to examin