that he caused the bruising on her body. >> do you have an understanding, mr. mayor, or an expectation of the relationship between a guilty plea and a factual guilt? >> [inaudible] >> overruled. coaxed a guilty plea is the admission -- >> a guilty plea is the admission. >> you have been criticized for not calling eliana lopez. it has been noted in the declaration that you did not complete a full investigation before you brought charges. is there a reason why you were prepared to bring charges when you did? >> overruled. >> i waited for the whole criminal prosecution to complete itself. as i said earlier, out of respect for mr. mirkarimi and the judicial process, i waited for the full conclusion. and then asked to make sure that i had the complete record and reviewed what i could in order to make that determination. >> was there any reason why you did not also conduct your own full investigation? >> i believe the court process established that was sufficient to confirm the ron paul behavior. -- wrongful behavior. >> why didn't you suspend sheriff mirkarimi with p

chairperson hur: and same for the interpreter, you understand you are still under oath? >> yes, i understand. chairperson hur: mr. keith, you may proceed. >> good evening, ms. lopez. have you communicated with your husband's attorneys, mr. kopp or mr. wagner at any time before tonight? >> i just give him a little back and say hello and i bring a present for him from venezuela because i think they are doing a great job, both of you. i have one for you, too. >> have you had any conversations with them about the events of december 31 or anything that happened after that with regard to the police investigation of that incident? >> no. >> did you share a draft of your declaration with your husband's attorneys? >> no. >> and you recall being directed by the chair of the commission not to discuss your testimony with anyone after leaving the witness chair last night? >> yes. >> have you discussed your testimony with anyone since leaving the witness chair last night? >> no. >> ms. lopez, last night when we left off, i asked you about whether you made a statement to your husband on

lopez, did you understand that the email to include ivory madison advising you that your situation was serious? >> yes, she sent me this email on january 2, yes. so -- but that was not our conversation on january 1. >> i understand. >> ok. >> now, in this email, ivory madison advised you to call the police every time that -- that there was improper behavior by your husband toward you. >> if she advised me that? >> yes, how did you interpret this email? what advice did she give to you regarding calling the police in response to your husband's behavior? >> yes, i think on january 2, after she talk with so many people about this case, she change to now start to telling me, i think she start the plan to convince me to call the police in this email is the first step. >> so in this email, ivory madison is advising you to call the police in response to your husband's behavior? >> in this email, january 2, after she talk with so many people, yes. >> ok. >> that was not our conversation on january 1. >> there's no question pending. >> i was think finishing my ans. >> as of january 2, you realiz

meant about that when you said professional experience? did she understand, and did you make it very clear you were seeking official who legal counsel? did you say those words? >> i said its, and she responde, of course, i will help you. i have been in court so many times. i know how it works. >> i will stop you right there. it is one thing to say, i will help you. it is another thing to say, i will act as your attorney. did she ever say she would act as your lawyer? >> she said, i will take care of you. this is confidential. we need to make evidence. we have our office. i have been in court so many times. she has been telling me so many times she is a lawyer and using those words, i am all lawyer -- a lawyer. >> is it possible that at that point there could have been either language issues or some kind of cultural misunderstanding in terms of what she heard from you and what you heard from her? is that a possibility? >> it is. >> you have any understanding of why she might have been so upset or concerned about your situation after you described this inciden

did you not understand that? that there was the potential for this information to get out of your hands and you relayed to the police? >> i never thought. i was so naive. >> you did participate in that video. >> when she told me, you need evidence to protect yourself, because ross just got elected share of -- sheriff. if he does not want to give you any money, how are you going to call lawyers? this is an old boys' network. >> i understand your feedear. would you say that you exaggerated the extent of this incident when you were describing it to these individuals so they may have gotten the impression it was a far more serious incident then perhaps you have said since then? >> i remember i told not ivory and kelly in my heart i did not want to divorce. i said, i think he is a victim of circumstances. he was a little boy. >> we do not need to hear that. >> i understand that, and i understand his rational fear, and as his wife, i should support him, so my first step is to support him. good >> to protect your husband

you understand? he driver that he plans to arrest the paramedic. >> he's going to jail. yes. you don't jump out and talk to a state trooper like that. you understand me? i don't care who you are. you're not running code. you're not running emergency, okay? all right? i didn't just get up behind you and turn on my red lights and siren. i've been going hot over here, you understand? >> yes, sir, i do. >> the video shows the ambulance wasn't running lights and sirens.ç white says that's because he didn't want to excite the patient. but now, that's a moot point. as a second officer arrives, the trooper goes to check on the patient. still having little idea about her condition. >> ma'am, we're going to get you on to the hospital here just directly, okay? you're going to jail, you understand me? you're under arrest. you are under arrest. >> once again, the situation gets heated. gets heated. a family member's cell phone camera captured trooper martin attempting to restrain the paramedic. the paramedic shov

do you understand that? are you sure? >> yeah. >> take the spit mask off. >> all right. you're all right. >> don't spit. don't spit. don't spit. don't spit. >> he is finally allowed to shower but it doesn't seem to help. >> why isn't the water so hot? is it supposed to be a cold shower? >> all right. your time's up. >> though grahf was initially hostile, he eventually agreed to speak with us. >> what bothered me was that you were interviewing ch-mos. sex offenders, punks, rats, dudes that -- dudes that society won't deal with correctly. people think innocent people run around prison and get raped and get beat up and stabbed. you think that's how it works in here? you really [ bleep ] like that happens? you think innocent people are just getting smashed for no reason? these dudes are getting beat up for no reason? that's naive. that's what american society wants to believe. that we're monsters. that there's no cause for any of this stuff. the dudes that get beat up and the dudes that get stabbed are dudes tha

we did not -- you understand what i'm saying. i can tell you what our understanding was and what we believe were gutted by. we did not understand it was the case that there is a separate pleading standard that we needed to meet. it was not clear at that time. that is understandable given the vagaries of the charter that we're struggling with and the novelty of this procedure. i want to put again my asterisk there that it is possible there are key issues you might want to address that you will not find already. >> which is why i am recommending we give you five additional facts. i am also not moved if you have not studied -- that the share of identified because you were included on this. your lack of preparation is not particularly moving. so, is that acceptable, five additional facts? >> i would add that each of the counts has one paragraph that basically summarizes, here's what you should draw from these other factors. i certainly would not want to lose the opportunity to have those paragraphs be part of our proposed findings. th

you know how sometimes you see a story and it seems so silly you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom harpur welcome to the big picture. me if you if. you feel. it just seems. such. a. download the official anti application to your i phone or i pod touch from the i choose our store. watch on t.v. life on the go. video on demand parties mine broadcasts and r.s.s. feeds now in the palm of your. question on the ati dot com.

are going to have a very strict rule about any noises or outbursts from the crowd, so we hope you understandhat. if you hear somebody, please remove them. >> i think he would like to address the commission prior to her taking the stand. >> very well. >> my name is eric safire, and we received subpoenas from both parties, and it was our understanding that the purpose was to be cross-examined for issues that were raised, but it has become clear the issue has to do with the conviction and whether or not that rises to the level of contact doug requires determination, and in that regard she has no relevant testimony, so unless there is some specific she has no testimony to be cross-examined on. >> i am not sure you are familiar with the amended o but in ths in acts to intimidate witnesses. as a result, she was on the o there is going to be some examination, and i would not comment on the relevance. i think there was a enough to be a question. >> she will be examined about issues regarding conversations on january 4, and it is not just limited. >> i will not comment on what is in the paper, but sh

. >> do you understand the question? >> it could be interpreted in different ways. >> i am going to sustain the objection. why don't you ask another question? >> i am talking about the incident on december 31. when i refer to that incident, do you understand what i am referring to? >> i understand that incident occurred before he took the oath of office. >> you have asserted in your written charges that sheriff mirkarimi's conduct fell below the standards of decency that is expected of public officials, correct? >> yes. >> we expect certain things of our elected officials, right? >> that is generally true, yes. >> when the charter speaks of official misconduct, it does not expect -- it does not say, we expect a different -- a standard for the sheriff, a different one for the mayor, a separate one for the assessor. it just speaks in general terms about official misconduct for an elected official, right? >> objection, argumentative. >> requires a legal conclusion. >> legal conclusion is sustained. >> do believe there is a s

you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so for like sleep you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry welcome to the big picture . all right so it's thursday and that means that it's time for our team web producer andrew blue. to talk tech to me now we've got some really fun and some kind of creepy wife i stories for you today new york is going to be making good use of their old broken down pay phones all this one other guy he wants to let cockroaches run all over the place with a wife i think not the are smith is being shady trying to cram so bill like provisions down everyone's throat and andrew is taking a little trip to a hacker conference so he's going to give us some details on what we can look forward to so joining me now is our two web producer andrea they use both creepy and weird in that intro before describing me. you know if you pointed it out. i wasn't going to say it myself. ok so this is kind of creepy thought if i may be cool things

. >> you understand the question?do not understand the question. >> try it again. iswg -- didgain. he ever approach you about trying to make clear either privately to the witnesses or publicly why you as his campaign manager were involved in the events of january 4? >> objection, relevance. >> are you aware of any time he has ever spoke out about your role for his understanding of why you were enmeshed in these events on january 4? >> no. >> that is all i have. >> any rebuttal? there i asked how long? >> 5 minutes. i am one of the lawyers representing chirac's -- sheriff mirkarimi. have you and i ever met? >> no. >> it is nice to meet you. >> nice to meet you. >> you were ask questions about not speaking to an investigator or other representatives of the city attorney's office. do you remember that? >> yes. >> the you remember someone trying to contact you? >> yes. >> why did you not speak to that person? >> from the beginning, because all this started when it was in the d.a.'s hahands, i told the investigators are wa

do you understand my question? >> i am trying to understand it for you. >> commissioner? it may be easier for this expert, given the nature of his expertise, not to try to answer the legal question about what is official misconduct,

you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so sleep you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm charging the big picture.