Breaking: DOJ clears Mayor Adams
This morning, the Attorney General released a 17-page report outlining the various accusations leveled against Mayor Sam Adams. In all five cases, the Department of Justice found no credible evidence to substantiate a criminal charge.
Here's the concluding paragraph:
We have obtained no evidence that Adams engaged in illegal sexual intercourse with a minor, committed official misconduct, or engaged in theft by deception. With respect to illegal sexual contact with a minor, Breedlove has asserted that such contact took place. However, Adams denies this, and we have obtained no evidence to corroborate Breedlove's claim. At times, a responsible prosecutor may seek to charge an individual with a crime based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. However, a responsible prosecutor will do so only when there are no serious questions about the credibility of the witness's account. Here, there are serious questions about the credibility of Breedlove's account, due to his prior inconsistent statements, the lack of corroborating witnesses or evidence, his attempt to gain personally from matters related to his involvement with Adams and his prior criminal record. Accordingly, we have concluded there is insufficient evidence to charge, let alone convict, Adams with illegal sexual contact with a minor.
Read the full report here (pdf).
|
June 22, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (118 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jägermeister | Jun 22, 2009 10:13:00 AM
Something tells me this isn't going to make all of the "Sam Adams is a pedo" people go away.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 22, 2009 10:16:31 AM
Yeah, Karol - we posted simultaneously. No reason to have two posts about the same topic at the same time. Just talked to Carla.
Posted by: rw | Jun 22, 2009 10:27:33 AM
That pedo stuff is tiresome to hear. There is so much else troubling about him in office that is of substance. This was just dust being kicked up.
Posted by: Richard | Jun 22, 2009 10:31:37 AM
", there are serious questions about the credibility of Breedlove's account"
And Adams is so credible.
Posted by: ex-democrat | Jun 22, 2009 10:45:19 AM
I do not care what Adams does with his private time. Its what Adams is doing with his public time that concerns me. I would prefer a mayor who cares more about social justice and less about developers/monied interests. I know, I kno...in PDX this type of thinking is pure fantasy.
Posted by: Careful Reader | Jun 22, 2009 10:56:53 AM
The report doesn't clear Adams of anything. Rather, it says there is not sufficent evidence to warrant prosecution. That is quite different than reporting that the evidence exonerates him.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 22, 2009 11:07:33 AM
No matter how you slice it, you can pretty much wave goodbye to any serious recall effort, kids.
Adams stays put.
Posted by: doretta | Jun 22, 2009 11:15:18 AM
Careful Reader,
Not sure what your definition of "careful" is but the quote from the Attorney General's report is "no evidence" not "not sufficient" evidence.
Posted by: Roy McAvoy | Jun 22, 2009 11:19:22 AM
That's right Richard. The AG is saying he believes the mayor to be more credible than Breedlove. The AG has not been paying attention. It was Sam Adams who described Breedlove as a credible young man with an exemplary character. It sounds from the release that Breedlove now asserts something did occur. Since when does the AG get to decide credibility? I thought that was the job of juries or the court. Would an admitted long passionate kiss and admitted sexual attraction not lead a "responsible" prosecutor to believe something more could have occurred?
Posted by: Buckman Res | Jun 22, 2009 11:30:54 AM
"I'm really happy about this, not just for Sam but for the people of Portland," said Leonard,
who was originally angry at Adams for lying to him about his relationship with Breedlove.
Randy Leonard is the winner today. Sam has been wounded with his admitted lying, corrupt behavior and resulting diminished political clout. He may still have to face a recall election.
Having a politically crippled Sam in the Mayor’s chair leaves Randy the most powerful force on the council.
Posted by: LT | Jun 22, 2009 11:39:58 AM
"I do not care what Adams does with his private time. Its what Adams is doing with his public time that concerns me."
My sense is that after the AG report, that would be a stronger leg for the recall to stand on.
Esp. if the whole "put everything else on the back burner, we MUST have major league soccer in Portland" effort blows up.
Posted by: rob nosse | Jun 22, 2009 11:59:09 AM
While waiting for someone to turn 17 appears a little unseemly, it would seem that he did wait. Mr. Breedloves's expose in Unzipped does not make him sympathetic. It is time to move on. Hopefully this gives the Mayor a chance to regain his footing. The city of Portland will be better served for it.
Got go the AG is coming on.
Posted by: Richard | Jun 22, 2009 12:12:40 PM
"No matter how you slice it, you can pretty much wave goodbye to any serious recall effort, kids."
Gee mom, does this mean you support Adams staying and think he is a good mayor?
Posted by: Careful Reader | Jun 22, 2009 12:14:17 PM
doretta,
By careful reading, I mean actually reading. Refer to the conclusory paragraph wherein it is reported that there is no evidence of sexual intercourse with a minor, theft by deception, or official misconduct but that there is evidence of sexual contact with a minor (in the form of Breedlove's statement). That evidence, in the AG's view, is insufficiently credible to support a prosecution. The lack of corroboration may make for a bad case, but it doesn't necessarily mean the evidence is false.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jun 22, 2009 12:17:02 PM
This decision will only serve as another beacon to encourage others of Sam's ilk to continue their culture without accountability of the resulting behaviors from that culture.
Sam has still got to go.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Jun 22, 2009 12:32:48 PM
School districts have been avoiding the once self-proclaimed "education mayor" like the plague. This report won't change that. This report also won't mean other leaders will be photographed standing next to him, let alone shaking his hand or cooperating. Mayor Adams' performance in office has been less than exemplary at this point, as others have noted. I suspect the recall effort will go forward, and though it will probably fail, we can expect another six months without leadership in city hall.
Adams needs to seize the reigns, start leading immediately, or resign.
Posted by: rw | Jun 22, 2009 12:54:30 PM
Hey hetero men, next time you leer at a girl who looks twenty but is only seventeen, I want you to repeat after me, "I am a pedo".
Got it?
Jesus christ.
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Jun 22, 2009 12:57:43 PM
Eric Parker wrote: "This decision will only serve as another beacon to encourage others of Sam's ilk to continue their culture without accountability of the resulting behaviors from that culture."
Eric, thank you for so clearly illustrating the prime motivator behind much of the Anti-Sam recall effort: antipathy for gay people.
I hope those who've been on the fence about this are paying attention to who's going to be on their team if they join the recall effort.
Posted by: Dilly | Jun 22, 2009 1:01:13 PM
"No evidence", except for 17 year old's sworn statements.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 22, 2009 1:06:49 PM
" The AG is saying he believes the mayor to be more credible than Breedlove."
This is quite false. What he's saying is that the only evidence of sexual contact comes from a single witness, who cannot be considered credible. If his statement is not credible, and there is no other evidence, there is no way to move forward on the allegations because they are unsubstantiated.
Jamais, actually the Mayor's been pretty effective given everything. Read the analysis in the Merc from a few weeks ago--it even surprised them.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 22, 2009 1:13:28 PM
"No evidence", except for 17 year old's sworn statements."
...which could not be described as credible, given his financial interest and prior criminal history of deception.
Posted by: haha | Jun 22, 2009 1:31:10 PM
"No evidence", except for 17 year old's sworn statements."
In the AG's press conference he said that neither Adams nor Breedlove were asked questions under oath
Posted by: JerryB | Jun 22, 2009 1:40:55 PM
I agree with what LT said above that this puts the recall effort on a stronger leg now that it will not be about sex. Plenty of Democrats, who are the one's who would choose a replacement, don't like the handouts to the wealthy and paving of our parks that Adams, Leonard and Saltzman have made on Portlanders behalf. The recall effort is the only venue available for public input that they would be unable to ignore.
The one's calling for the recall effort to end are, for the most part, the same people who want the taxpayers to pay for sports stadiums.
Posted by: Boats | Jun 22, 2009 1:42:37 PM
Yes because Sam has no financial interests in Breedlove being 18 during their tryst nor prior inconsistent statements made to the entire city. ROTFLMAO.
The AG has chickened out. Sex abuse case of the less famous have long been credibility contests because neither "consenting underage minors" nor their "mentors," tend to bring witnesses or video cameras to their clandestine hook-ups.
Leering and lecherous behavior isn't the issue here, going all the way with the underaged is. No one can credibly defend that Sam didn't know how old, or not, his paramour was, as he was an intern, not a street hustler.
Posted by: DJ | Jun 22, 2009 1:47:40 PM
Adams only cares about Adams.
The long-ago meetings became a public matter because Pearl District developer Bob Ball, who, like Adams, was considering a mayoral run, raised questions about whether the relationship between Adams and Breedlove was sexual.
Because Breedlove was 17 years old and a minor when he first met Adams, then 42, the corollary question was not just if it happened, but when.
Ball—who, like Adams, is gay—spoke to his then-close friend, City Commissioner Randy Leonard, in August 2007.
In WW’s story (“Mayor’s Race Off to Brutal Beginning,” WWire, Sept. 17, 2007), Adams acknowledged meeting Beau Breedlove during a trip to Salem.
They met again in the spring and early summer of 2005, including a lunch at the downtown Macaroni Grill and a dinner on June 9, 2005, at the Lotus Cafe near City Hall.
Adams had also said that he and a friend drove down to Salem for Breedlove’s 18th birthday party on June 25, 2005.
Adams, now 45, also acknowledged then that his encounters with Breedlove distressed his staff, because they looked inappropriate.
“We made it clear that Sam should be careful,” Adams’ chief of staff Tom Miller told WW in 2007.
At the time, Adams said he was mentoring Breedlove, and both men said their relationship was just platonic. And Adams claimed Ball was engaged in a dirty tricks campaign.
“I have been the target of a nasty smear by a would-be political opponent,” wrote Adams in a Sept. 18, 2007, email released to the public. “I didn’t get into public life to allow my instinct to help others to be snuffed out by fear of sleazy misrepresentations or political manipulation.”
“In fact, when Claimant resigned, and Adams stated that stress was a reason, Claimant made it clear to Adams that ’stress’ was not an issue,” according to the notice of tort claim. “Rather it was Adams’ lying as a public official (with ethical obligations to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and a duty to treat the office of mayor as a public trust) that created intolerable working conditions. Adams’ continued issuance of false statements to the electorate made it impossible to continue in good conscience as his spokesperson. As Claimant informed Adams: ‘The reason I am resigning is because of the lies.”
Posted by: Steve R. | Jun 22, 2009 1:48:58 PM
Thank god that's over... it was such a distraction from the real city business of forking over our civic credit cards to Merritt Paulson and tearing up the last PGE Park remodel before we're done paying for it.
Where's my damn baseball stadium, Sam?
Posted by: Marc Abrams | Jun 22, 2009 1:52:14 PM
I agree that, with this report, the recall effort is unlikely to succeed. However, I hope that, in all this, we aspire to a higher standard for public office than "not subject to indictment." I hold to the belief that Sam need not have responded to the reporters' questions about his private life but that, in choosing to respond, he had an obligation to be truthful. The saw that "it's ok to lie if the question was inappropriate" doesn't work for me. Therefore, Sam denied the electorate a chance to fairly judge (among other things) his character and, perhaps, Bob Ball's. On that basis, regardless of today's report, I believe the recall should proceed so that voters may get to express their beleif as to whether Sam should be Mayor now that they know all the facts.
And, to Leo: many of us supported Sam and now support the idea of recall. Not all who oppose a mayor who happens to be gay are homophobes...
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Jun 22, 2009 2:14:33 PM
Marc Abrams wrote: "And, to Leo: many of us supported Sam and now support the idea of recall. Not all who oppose a mayor who happens to be gay are homophobes..."
I'm well aware of that, Marc. But, do you believe homophobia has nothing to do with this recall campaign?
Posted by: Marc Abrams | Jun 22, 2009 2:18:23 PM
Leo--
Fair point. Yes, I would presume there are conservative elements that would do this for the sole reason Sam is gay. I think that's one reasons the recall will fail -- the organization, as I currently see it -- is narrowly based largely on the right end of the spectrum, and recalls should never be about political disagreement (see Gray Davis' improper one), but about an inherent breach of the relationship between leaders and voters that by definition should be apart from ideology.
And I absolutely agree that Eric's comment seems to be of that inappropriate type.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Jun 22, 2009 2:22:37 PM
I listened to excerpts of the Report from Kroger as well as Q&A on the radio. Apparently the investigation was not conducted by a Grand Jury and in OR, lying to a law enforcement officer is not a crime. Therefor none of those interviewed had anything at risk if they chose to lie or answer with less than truthful answers.
Kroger said that the investigation did not turn up sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute. that is good enough for me on the criminal accusations. However, the voters of Portland still should have an opportunity to weigh in on how their mayor acted and his lying during the campaign.
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Jun 22, 2009 2:39:55 PM
Marc Abrams wrote: "Yes, I would presume there are conservative elements that would do this for the sole reason Sam is gay."
I agree, and am just trying to highlight the, uh ... range of viewpoints ... finding common cause in this recall campaign. Homophobia is a serious issue, which should not be ignored simply for being temporarily in alignment with broader concerns.
Posted by: Tim Bovee | Jun 22, 2009 2:43:09 PM
"... the voters of Portland still should have an opportunity to weigh in on how their mayor acted and his lying during the campaign"
They will have an opportunity, at the next election.
With the criminal allegations disposed of in Adams' favor, any further recall efforts are nothing more than sour grapes.
Sam won. Get over it. Move on.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Jun 22, 2009 2:44:25 PM
”I hope those who've been on the fence about this are paying attention to who's going to be on their team if they join the recall effort.”
Sad to see there are elements out there who would seek to divide our fair city using identity politics. I’m shocked!
Unethical behavior by a politician effects us all, regardless of political philosophy or personal
self-interest.
Portland’s gay community owes no allegiance to Sam. He’s an admitted liar who played the gay card in disgraceful attempts to lie his way out of self-inflected problems.
Sadly, he has let us all down, gay, straight, bi, bi-curious, trans, trans-fat, GLBT, BLT... is that everyone?
Posted by: Boats | Jun 22, 2009 2:52:47 PM
So folks in the GLBT acronym clique are willing to further dilute what little remaining power is in a charge of "homophobia" to protect a shithead like Sam Adams?
I guess picking one's battles is only for straights.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 22, 2009 3:21:46 PM
Gee mom, does this mean you support Adams staying and think he is a good mayor?
It means what I said: no serious recall effort can be mounted against Adams after this.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 22, 2009 3:29:58 PM
"the voters of Portland still should have an opportunity to weigh in on how their mayor acted and his lying during the campaign."
Absolutely--and it appears Wurster will give them that chance, although I seriously doubt the chance will extend beyond the opportunity to sign a recall petition.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 22, 2009 3:38:03 PM
I agree with what LT said above that this puts the recall effort on a stronger leg now that it will not be about sex. Plenty of Democrats, who are the one's who would choose a replacement, don't like the handouts to the wealthy and paving of our parks that Adams, Leonard and Saltzman have made on Portlanders behalf.
Certainly, there are plenty of people who are cranky about various policy decisions that the Mayor has made.
But disagreements over policy are hardly the stuff that recalls are made of. That's what elections are for. We elect our officials for fixed terms precisely so that they get a chance to explore options, adjust plans, react to events, etc.
People like Marc Abrams who continue to state their ethical concerns should move ahead with the recall effort.
But I'm not interested in setting a precedent that we're going to recall an elected official because we don't like some policy choice they've made along the way. I'd hope that the recall advocates would avoid making this about silliness like the baseball stadium, the bridge to Vancouver, etc.
Full disclosure: My firm built Sam's campaign website in 2008, but I speak only for myself.
Posted by: paul g. | Jun 22, 2009 3:42:05 PM
I agree with Carla, this takes the wind out of any recall sails. The effort will probably still proceed, but the energy is gone.
I don't know what to make of Leo's comments. Of course, homophobia played a role in the reaction to the Mayor's actions. But it can't be denied that the Mayor played the identity card himself in an attempt to distract attention from his pursuit of an underage lover.
I only hope that this means the frenetic pace in City Hall as the Mayor attempted to have some sort of accomplishment prior to July will slow down. From all I hear, tremendous energy has been wasted in the last six months pursuing his pet projects.
Adams is still pretty badly wounded after this. I wonder if he'll ever be able to rebuild credibility with his political allies. He was pretty nakedly self-interested in the past year, friends, employees, and allies be damned.
Posted by: Leo Schuman | Jun 22, 2009 4:21:58 PM
paul g. wrote: "I don't know what to make of Leo's comments. Of course, homophobia played a role in the reaction to the Mayor's actions."
It's been pretty embarrassing, as a gay man, to have the first openly gay mayor of a major American city fumble so badly. That being said, it's as important for those who claim the recall effort is about nothing but high-minded principle to be reminded of their uglier side, as it is for Sam's supporters (myself included) to remember that he lied. More than once.
For me, the question is whether lies about one's private life are grounds for removal from elected office. Throughout much of the United States, you can be fired without recourse (or worse) just for admitting that you're gay. So, I'm sympathetic towards any gay man who is asked highly public questions about his sex life. It's a very loaded question for any sexual minority.
Does that excuse lying? No. But is it cause for destroying the career of a man overwhelmingly elected based on relevant skills and experience? I say "no" to that one too.
If Sam were a hypocrite, like Senators John Ensign or Larry Craig, I'd feel very differently. But, unlike Ensign and Craig (and others), Sam has never claimed to represent moral purity. He's claimed to have highly relevant job experience, and was overwhelmingly elected for it, so a lot of people must agree. I still do. That's why I still support Sam.
Posted by: Miles | Jun 22, 2009 4:42:13 PM
But I'm not interested in setting a precedent that we're going to recall an elected official because we don't like some policy choice they've made along the way. I'd hope that the recall advocates would avoid making this about silliness like the baseball stadium,
Without hijacking the thread, recall should be a valid option for removing elected officials for both ethical AND policy reasons. Just because someone is elected does not mean they can pursue any policy issue with impunity. Recall is specifically designed to be difficult but not impossible, so that if a large majority disagree with the elected official, he can be removed.
I personally support bringing MLS to Portland and building a new baseball stadium, and I think there is a level of public subsidy that is appropriate for that kind of thing. But thousands of my fellow Portlanders do not. I can imagine a situation where, absent any other scandal, three commissioners push through a massive, $100 million general fund subsidy, taking money from Police and Parks and giving it to sports. That kind of decision should absolutely be subject to recall. There is nothing wrong with citizens banding together to remove an elected official who pushes something through that they disagree with. And I think the Portland process is sufficiently difficult enough to dissuade frivolous recall attempts.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jun 22, 2009 4:54:51 PM
Posted by: 9 incher | Jun 22, 2009 4:39:49 PM
I think this homo sam should get tested for AIDS.....
This is inexcusable. When the hell does BlueO 2.0 come online? Cowardly halfwits like Nine really destroy sensible analysis of a serious public policy issue.
Posted by: 9 INCHER | Jun 22, 2009 6:31:54 PM
Hey jeff.....SHUT YOUR MOUTH. PERHAPS YOU NEED AN AIDS TEST TOO.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Jun 22, 2009 6:54:20 PM
But, unlike Ensign and Craig (and others), Sam has never claimed to represent moral purity.
Leo: I appreciate your back & forth with Paul here, and you both make excellent points. On this one, though, I do think Adams did actually claim moral purity; at a minimum he donned the mantle of moral outrage at the suggestion that a public official playing an important mentorship role would be suspected of baser motives just because he way gay. This led many LGBTQ leaders and allies to feel a real sense of betrayal. Right?
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Jun 22, 2009 6:56:05 PM
I think this town should chill out. There's lots of disappointment and anger mixed with smug gloating. I think we need to accept what has happened and relax.
We don't need to be referred to as "kids" by Carla - no matter how pleased she is about the result today. This is a time to act like adults and keep it together.
Forget the anti-gay stuff.
Think Marvin Gaye: "We don't need to escalate."
Posted by: Richard | Jun 22, 2009 7:07:13 PM
Carla,
Yeah, so you said twice now that "no serious recall effort can be mounted against Adams after this."
Is there some reason you haven't revealed your preference?
You're obviously trying to discourage recall participation by casting it as impossible.
Do you want him recalled?
He's obviously a scumbag. Homosexual or not Adams has shown himself to be without any ethics, dignity or standards in either his personal, business or
political conduct.
He has an affair with an 18 ot 17 yeard old,
He smashes into a car and gets out with his "fly down and pants unbuttponed."
He repeatedly lied to get elected,
Lied about it later,
Call others liars,
Falls well behind on financial obligations,
and now he'll allow Kroger to cast Breedlove as the liar to avoid procesution and recall?
Carla, you of all people, having so much experience detecting scumbags, should be joining Marc Abrams in supporting the recall.
Not because Adams is a gay scumbag. Just a scumbag.
And it's amazing that Kroger is calling Breedlove a liar.
Sam must have laughed his ass off when reading the opinion.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Karol | Jun 22, 2009 10:10:48 AM
Did you take down Carla's post?