Read the eight-minute call in full: the recalls of mayor Sheng Thao and Pamela Price, a call with the mayor about buying modular housing units, an invitation to a yacht party, and more.
Indefensible. It is unfathomable that some of these folks continue to have supporters today.
Because Oakland is currently at a critical juncture, this is one of the most important documents in Oakland history for it reveals how policies and actions are dictated.
Also, a reminder that Barbara Lee requested Oakland to not recall Sheng.
Oakland voters live in a delusional bubble, where they CON themselves into believing that multicultural festivals and creative cuisines create some wonderful experience - as their city drowns in debt, crime, graffiti, homelessness, incompetence, and retail closures.
I keep coming back to whether there are enough clues in this transcript to narrow the unidentified councilmember, even though there is not enough to identify that person as a fact.
The conversation makes me think the speaker was probably male. Duong and the councilmember repeatedly use “bro” and “brother,” the councilmember refers to “my girlfriend,” and there is the “bring bitches to Oakland” exchange. None of those clues proves gender. Taken together, though, I think a male speaker is a reasonable working hypothesis.
If that hypothesis is right, the male councilmembers serving at the time were Noel Gallo, Dan Kalb and Kevin Jenkins. Gallo stands out to me because the unidentified speaker talks specifically about an RV policy, getting RVs “out of the way,” expected opposition from activists, and finding business owners willing to speak about the impact. Gallo had previously sponsored Oakland measures dealing specifically with RV and oversized-vehicle parking. That is a circumstantial match, not an identification.
There is another piece that I think deserves scrutiny. None of those three men is named in the article or transcript, while other Oakland council figures are discussed by name or are readily identifiable from context. The participant in this call is instead labeled only as “OAKLAND CITY COUNCILMEMBER.”
That does not tell us why the identity was withheld. But given that this was an uncharged local official participating directly in a recorded conversation introduced in a federal criminal case, I think it is reasonable to ask whether the government had an investigative or evidentiary reason for keeping the name out of the public exhibit. That is only a hypothesis. I have not seen anything establishing that this councilmember was a target or subject of an investigation.
Have you checked January 2024 calendars, Sacramento travel or meetings, contemporaneous RV-policy drafts, or other filings that describe this unidentified official? Those records seem much more likely to resolve the question than trying to identify someone from the tone of the conversation alone.
For now, Gallo is simply the strongest circumstantial fit I see. I would not treat that as evidence that he was the speaker, and certainly not as evidence that he was under investigation or committed wrongdoing.
Outstanding journalism….. anyone smell a Pulitzer here?
For 60 years Oakland voters have elected corrupt and incompetent idiots to govern them. I guess that makes the citizens themselves - the idiots.
Indefensible. It is unfathomable that some of these folks continue to have supporters today.
Because Oakland is currently at a critical juncture, this is one of the most important documents in Oakland history for it reveals how policies and actions are dictated.
Also, a reminder that Barbara Lee requested Oakland to not recall Sheng.
Oakland voters live in a delusional bubble, where they CON themselves into believing that multicultural festivals and creative cuisines create some wonderful experience - as their city drowns in debt, crime, graffiti, homelessness, incompetence, and retail closures.
I keep coming back to whether there are enough clues in this transcript to narrow the unidentified councilmember, even though there is not enough to identify that person as a fact.
The conversation makes me think the speaker was probably male. Duong and the councilmember repeatedly use “bro” and “brother,” the councilmember refers to “my girlfriend,” and there is the “bring bitches to Oakland” exchange. None of those clues proves gender. Taken together, though, I think a male speaker is a reasonable working hypothesis.
If that hypothesis is right, the male councilmembers serving at the time were Noel Gallo, Dan Kalb and Kevin Jenkins. Gallo stands out to me because the unidentified speaker talks specifically about an RV policy, getting RVs “out of the way,” expected opposition from activists, and finding business owners willing to speak about the impact. Gallo had previously sponsored Oakland measures dealing specifically with RV and oversized-vehicle parking. That is a circumstantial match, not an identification.
There is another piece that I think deserves scrutiny. None of those three men is named in the article or transcript, while other Oakland council figures are discussed by name or are readily identifiable from context. The participant in this call is instead labeled only as “OAKLAND CITY COUNCILMEMBER.”
That does not tell us why the identity was withheld. But given that this was an uncharged local official participating directly in a recorded conversation introduced in a federal criminal case, I think it is reasonable to ask whether the government had an investigative or evidentiary reason for keeping the name out of the public exhibit. That is only a hypothesis. I have not seen anything establishing that this councilmember was a target or subject of an investigation.
Have you checked January 2024 calendars, Sacramento travel or meetings, contemporaneous RV-policy drafts, or other filings that describe this unidentified official? Those records seem much more likely to resolve the question than trying to identify someone from the tone of the conversation alone.
For now, Gallo is simply the strongest circumstantial fit I see. I would not treat that as evidence that he was the speaker, and certainly not as evidence that he was under investigation or committed wrongdoing.