“NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE”

    After a six month investigation Portland Mayor Sam Adams was given the benefit of the doubt by Oregon’s new Attorney General John Kroger today who announced in a Salem press conference that there was not “sufficient evidence” to warrant criminal charges against the embattled Mayor caught in the cross hairs of a sex scandal involving Adams and Beau Breedlove.   But while Adams was given the benefit of the doubt by the AG he is now subject to the court of public opinion.  
    In a carefully crafted report the AG looked at 5 potential criminal charges against Adams – did the mayor have “sexual intercourse” with a minor; did the mayor have “sexual contact” with a minor; did Adams commit “official misconduct” by hiring a reporter to stop a story about the scandal; and/or did the mayor commit “theft or theft by deception” by making false statements about his relationship the Breedlove?  
    The AG was not able to find evidence that corroborated these allegations.  However, Adams has admitted that he did have a brief sexual relationship with Breedlove after the latter turned 18.  So while Adams has passed the AG test, the question is now will the mayor pass the public’s test regarding the mayor’s credibility since he lied about the relationship at first?
    The debate over Adams is really not about sex per se or rules of evidence, it’s about can Portlander’s trust Adams to tell the truth?  And does his admitted relationship with a 17 year old, then 18 year old qualify as a proper relationship by Adams given his 40ish age and his job as mayor – let alone how he comports himself in his private life which has become very public?  As in national sex scandals going back to Senator Bob Packwood or Bill Clinton it isn't the legalities that either end or compromise a career it is the initial lying that does.  
    So while the AG has found is no "sufficient evidence” to take to a Grand Jury as a prelude to charging the mayor with criminal offenses – the decision today will not put questions of Adams' judgment to rest, cause people to believe him nor lift the cloud over his tenure as mayor.   In politics “trust” is the coin of the realm for politicians and lobbyists – once that trust has been broken it’s hard to reclaim it.  And the AG report was so narrowly cast, as it had to be, that issues of Adams’ personal ethics and judgment will not go away.  
    So while the mayor has won a narrow legal victory now the question becomes can he win in the court of public opinion?  The upcoming recall petition process which begins July 1 requiring 50 thousand signatures to be collected in 90 days will be the first test of Adams' legitimacy in the eyes of the public.  If the recall petition process succeeds then the vote of the people of Portland will settle the issue next November.  Or will it?  Can Sam Adams really put the doubts about him away?  I doubt it no matter how this ends.  
    Minus any polling I suspect a third of Portlanders believe in Adams, another third clearly do not and the “undecided” third have not made up their minds.  The recall process will hinge upon that ubiquitous "undecided" voter.  The recall process is like an impeachment process – it’s not based on strict rules of evidence.  It’s all about how people “feel” about the mayor who has admitted lying, admitted to a sexual relationship with Breedlove and who has other legal issues including the possible foreclosure of several properties.  
    With a bad economy and debates over ML soccer is Mayor Adams really able to shoulder the burdens of being mayor or has this political circus become too much a distraction?  We’ll find out down the road.   One final question – why is it that politicians always seem to get the benefit of the doubt for acting stupidly when if you and I did we’d be fired?  Does power confer special rules for those in power?  Breedlove was questioned 6 times by the AG staff between February 23 and June 10, Adams only once on May 28 (yes, for 3 ½ hours) but is RAD alone in thinking there’s a double standard here?  
    Yes, Mr. AG you did your “due diligence” but will that be “sufficient” in the courtroom of public opinion?   And how about that missing memory card noted in your report?  Anyone old enough to remember Watergate remembers Rose Mary Woods' famous 16 minute hum!  And does City Hall have any type of security cameras which tape the comings and goings of people?  Do “security records” per se include such tapes?   Maybe I’ve watched too many episodes of Law & Order.  Questions, more questions.