Gordon speaks about the Cusumano donation

If the Cusumanos didn’t make a similar donation to all of the council candidates then this was indeed a pretty silly and transparent campaign stunt on their part. Imagine Rogers falling for it then.

Either that, or he was one of the ones behind it. So is Rogers just dumb and hasty, or positively sneaky?

Here’s Gordon’s statement:

“On February 14, 2017 an unsolicited online contribution in the amount of $400.00 was made via PayPal by Michael Cusumano to my campaign. My campaign’s PayPal account requires the account holder to individually transfer any contributions received online to the campaign’s bank account in order to access and utilize the contributed funds. Since I was aware of one or more Cusumano development projects in the pipeline for discretionary review by the City Council I decided not to transfer any of this contribution to my campaign bank account and have not done so. Further, to avoid even the appearance of any conflict of interest related this campaign contribution, I decided to return the entire contribution to Mr. Cusumano and am in the process of doing so.

However, candidates are required to declare by report contributions and expenditures received and incurred during various periods of the election cycle. Since the contribution was received during the most recent reporting period, February 12 through February 22, it was necessary to report receipt of this contribution regardless of the funds’ ultimate disposition. Once this contribution is returned to Mr. Cusumano it will be reported as being refunded in the appropriate form.

Unfortunately, certain members of the community, including Vice Mayor Will Rogers and Council Candidate Sharon Springer, have pounced upon the reporting out of this entirely legal contribution by Mr. Cusumano with an aggressive smear campaign suggesting that somehow my integrity and commitment to protect Burbank residents and their neighborhoods has been compromised by this contribution.

I do not ascribe any particular motives behind Mr. Cusumano’s contribution and trust he will fully understand my reasoning for not accepting it. At the same time, I want to assure all my supporters that I will not be, and encourage them not to be, distracted by the childish and misguided antics of Mr. Rogers, Ms. Springer or their cohorts and will continue to focus on the important issues of this election.”

Whenever you see Rogers immediately jumping into some kind of scorn fest with both feet flying you can be damned sure that he’s either been tipped off about the underlying situation or he’s part and parcel of it.

And just from the above citation alone, isn’t Gordon a much better writer than Will “I have no idea how many college credits I have” Rogers? As we said elsewhere today, imagine how many paragraphs, interjections, personal historical asides, and semicolons it would take for Rogers to utter the same points.

UCLA and Berkeley, yeah! When Rogers was scheming about how to import cheap pot from the Midwest to sell for big profits in California, Gordon was finishing graduate school. Take your pick.

Prediction: watch Rogers now take credit for exposing Gordon’s “hypocrisy” in accepting a Cusumano donation, and then watch him ridicule his subsequent “reversal.” The guy’s a classic.



Filed under Uncategorized

63 responses to “Gordon speaks about the Cusumano donation

  1. Al in SoCal

    What a load of CRAP. None other than Juan G. who Gordon FULLY supported and ran as a slate also got one. Are all of you really going to say that Dr. Gordon didn’t know about the donation? If your hated Dave Golonski did the same thing – you would be ALL over it – right? Of course …

    • semichorus

      He knew about it when it came in and — apparently — rejected it.

      Actually, if everyone else besides Golonski got one too I wouldn’t make any big deal about it.

      I doubt it’s a setup, but it’s not hypocritical of Gordon either. It’s a desperate attempt on Rogers’ part to make “Can you imagine if…!” come true.

      • Anonymous

        It took Gordon eleven days to return the money, and not until after it was revealed on CoB. Why is that, do you suppose?

        • semichorus

          If you keep saying that it might make it come true.

          • Anonymous

            Two facts: it took Gordon 11 days to return the money and he did not do so until it was publicized on CoB. You may come to whatever conclusions comfort you about that, but to deny it is just to create alternate facts.

            • semichorus

              All that dough. What a fiend if true.

              (He in reality never accepted it. It was only on the PayPal rolls.)

              Who btw is complaining about Cusumano donations now anyway? Not the critics. Not me. After IKEA they’re small potatoes these days.

              • Anonymous

                He received it eight days before the reporting deadline. He had plenty of time to return it and declare the return on the same form.

                Why didn’t he?

                • semichorus

                  Maybe he wasn’t that worried about it. And he never had it to begin with.

                  No one’s making an issue about Cusumano donations these days but the Roger-ites. No one’s singled out some other candidate for receiving money from the Cusumanos while leaving Gordon alone. And the idea that this contribution would somehow compromise Gordon is laughable. Even more perverse, if Gordon had immediately rejected the money as part of some big-deal public statement, Rogers would be the FIRST ONE to accuse him of sanctimoniously grandstanding to the flock over some silly donation.

                  He’s that much of a transparent phony and chickenshit.

                  The more I think about it, maybe it WAS a setup!

        • Anonymous

          I smell Kevin Harrop with is classic what do you say to that. Harrop needs to get a life.

    • Ray

      Shame on Rogers. Rogers is so deep in the mud he is unable to even throw it with any credibility.

      • semichorus

        Well, I think he’s just an arrogant little trickster. And quite proud of it.

        Besides trying to get the BPD to install cameras — a lofty goal, and which he’s bailed out on, apparently — can anyone think of anything else he’s taken a leadership role on?

        I can’t.

        • 91505

          Not a single thing Semichorus can I think of that Rogers has done or accomplished except that he is very accomplished at insults and attacking people. Should we call him Saint Rogers ?

  2. It’s humorous to me that Sharon’s supporters talk about kindness and civility on her FB page and yet they don’t realize Sharon went negative on Gordon and Sousa very early on. And they never returned fire. She made a joke on FB about jogging 5 miles without a syncopal episode. (a jab at either Rogers or Talamantes recent fainting spells – or both of them) Those posts were deleted, or I no longer have access to them. But that’s pretty cold to joke about someone’s health.

    • semichorus

      Even I never joked about that.

    • Anonymous

      Imagine going negative on that crazy Sousa. He is utterly not qualified to be on Council or any other body that makes decisions for the city.

      • semichorus

        Imagine only being allowed to go negative on Sousa on that “City of Burbank” Facebook page — and not Talamantes.

        • Anonymous

          Gordon can start his own FB group. Or does not SON have a web page?

        • Amelia

          Because I am on the City of Burbank facebook page the writing style of anonymous is very identifiable. Same words and same tired repetition of 8 days 8 days 8 days. YAWN. This person is so filled with hatred and bigotry I have him blocked so I don’t need to see or read his hate filled and dillusional posts.

      • Will

        Imagine someone who is as off kilter as Sharon Springer making decisions for our lives. That is scary.

    • Al in SoCal

      Gordon has never … ever … dealt in civility or kindness. Pot meet kettle – enjoy the lair you helped develop. He’s sleazy and this just reiterates that.

      • semichorus

        Gordon’s a good guy. He’s been personally kind to me as well.

        Rogers by contrast is a shit. He gets a perverse kick out of fucking with people. And he’s underhanded.

        For instance, next time you see him, ask him why he never informed the LA Times in his “letter to the editor” that he was working for Andre Previn.

        Bet he shit himself when he heard that I discovered that old thing. He knows that there’s nobody else in Burbank who realizes what that little perfidy was about. He’s lucky for that that he lives and governs in Dim-Ville.

        What a wonderfully early indication of his style that letter was. It was perfect Rogers then and now. Talk about “sleazy.”

      • Anonymous

        Al you are full of crap. Gordon is one of the kindest people in Burbank. He obviously told you nay about something and you need to grow up and get over it. You are acting like that vicious Shelly Rizzotti.

        • Al in SoCal

          Well … I could list the Trump-esque likes and dislikes of Dr. Gordon so in that regard you are right on target.

          Dr. Gordon is gracious and kind to the right kind of people and not so nice to anyone else.

          • semichorus

            Locally, there’s nobody more Trump-like than Will Rogers. He’s not as bad as he used to be in the innuendo and false charge/attack mode department, but it’s still there.

            He has his own crowd of rubes to please and play as well.

      • Anonymous

        did you say Pot Al due to the fact Rogers used to sell and import it ?

        • Al in SoCal

          Anonymous – let me guess – birth year of 1918? Fan of the lie-based movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness

          1. Rogers isn’t on the ballot – you probably forgot … it’s the NEXT one dear.

          2. Marijuana will be … wait for it .. wait for it … LEGAL next year. If you don’t like – CA won’t miss you should you decide to move.

          • semichorus

            Pot was the least of Will’s problems on that one.

            I can only imagine the critical response if Gordon had made such a ridiculously flip comment about his own lack of schooling. Or if he was going around and making character judgments and lampoons with the same personal background.

  3. CornFused

    $400? What a cheap fuck. That’s really insulting.

    After watching Rogers on some of the council meetings, I just can’t understand how he was ever elected to begin with. Seems like he’s on a 10 second delay from what’s being discussed. It has to be some kind of name recognition. It’s the only thing that makes sense because he has that “nobody’s home” look.

  4. Correction!!! 100 ballots were disqualified. 2600 voters abstained from voting for City CLerk and City Treasurer.

    • semichorus

      I wonder why they were disqualified. That’s quite a big number.

      Burbank’s all mail ballot scheme is unreliable as hell. The ballots aren’t cast in secret — as in a booth — and they aren’t collected anonymously. They have names and return addresses on each wrapping.

      So much opportunity to play around with them before the count. And, with outside companies handling the actual counting.

    • Irwin Fletcher

      So if you run unopposed, and people abstain, does it matter?

  5. Another anonymous

    To answer your question – both dumb and sneaky. Rogers proves the two are not mutually exclusive.

  6. John G.

    To me this whole issue is a non issue. It really is funny that some people are so shallow, hate filled and desperate that they try to make such a silly thing into something when it is not. This is classic Rogers, or Rogers at his best. For Rogers when you have no substance you try to grasp at nothing and act all proud of yourself.

    Honestly is Roger’s point that Gordon should control what Cusumano decides to do in his life ? Be honest here Cusumano decides to make a campaign contribution and that somehow is something Gordon should have told him No YOU CAN NOT DO THAT ? What’s next from Rogers and Springer ? Maybe they can find out what type of car Cusamano owns and complain that it is not the most fuel efficient model and blame Gordon for allowing Cusumano to buy that model car.

    Rogers and Springer are just desperate and pathetic people and this shows me who they are. Rogers should get busy and help pave some of our streets and stay off whatever he is on in his la la land

    • semichorus

      It’s the classic Rogers script. The council critics are inconsistent, hypocritical little nutballs. They condemn in others what they allow in themselves

      On this one he’s grasping at straws. No one’s made an issue of Cusumano donations in years; I’m not aware of Gordon ever having done so (the bundled out-of-state contributions to Golonski were a much different matter); and accepting the same measly 400 bucks that goes to everyone else ain’t gonna compromise anyone. And he never did.

      Character assassination on its own is always a sleazy way to go. And keep in mind that Rogers is the same guy who once pled out on stealing tagged merchandise from his department store employer so that he and his friends could return it for cash. He had quite a racket going for a while until he got caught.

      That doesn’t disqualify one from making critical judgments about others, just the ability to take the moral high ground over them. You’ve lost that right.

    • Al in SoCal

      How about this – rather than feigning ignorance at the donation – why not disallow web donations and take checks only. Let’s think who does that …

      OH – Sharon Springer. She looks to see if she should accept the funds before they are deposited. If you are unable to maintain your own campaign funds why on EARTH should we allow you to meddle with city funds.

      Please spare the “I didn’t know who, what, where, when” a la Donald Trump re: Jeff Sessions somewhat treasonous and Sessions illicit Russian visits. I’m sick of all this apologist crap-ola. Gordon KNEW about the donation and if he didn’t know – he SHOULD have!

      ** Also – *not* on the ballot is Will Rogers. Save all your Golonski-hate for next election when Rogers is actually on the ballot because it’s just a straw-man argument this time around.

      • semichorus

        Rogers is the one making a phony issue out of this, that’s why he’s being talked about here.

        So Gordon shouldn’t take PayPal — only checks — because you can’t control the contributors with PayPal? And when he’s not the one doing the complaining about who’s contributing?

        If he did do that, Rogers & Company would have instantly accused him of being:

        1. A ridiculous dinosaur who needs to enter the digital age, and,

        2. A paranoid, grandstanding nutcase who has to make a big issue out of absolutely everything, even his campaign mechanics.

        I can hear it now. And they would have been correct.

        Apparently, obtuseness is a prime feature of the Rogers fans.

        Why btw doesn’t Springer take PayPal, if you say so? Not sophisticated enough?

  7. Burbanker

    Rogers at his best, incoherent

    • semichorus

      He’s better behind a keyboard, yes.

      I don’t know much about his early background, but I suspect that he didn’t have a whole lot of Jewish friends. They would have straightened him up and kept him in line in the lucidity department. You have to learn to talk fast and make clear sense immediately. And be witty about it.

      Or else.

      • 91505

        I also suspect he was rather poorly educated

        • semichorus

          Well he said in his old city clerk application that he has no idea now how much college he had.

          How can such things be? Nobody around me ever raised me like that.

          Look, I said it yesterday, and I’ll say it again:

          When Rogers was scheming about how to bring cheap pot into California to make a killing, Gordon was finishing up graduate school.

          Take your pick.

  8. CL

    Rogers has spent his time on the council insulting people and acting incoherent. I swear watching meetings something is wrong with that man.

  9. Doug

    I want to know why Rogers doesn’t ride a bike when he talks about how the rest of us should.

  10. Sue

    That video shows what a moron Councilman Rogers is.

    • semichorus

      Well, he needs an editor.

      To be fair, I’m not sure what the context is there. Maybe they were just calling for observations. But yeah, I’d write it down first.

  11. Anonymous

    There is w hole lot that Will Rogers doesn’t know. He would do well to stop acting like he does know anything.

    • semichorus

      He was just challenging Mike on the specifics. And then being a smartass about it.

      By the way…

      It’s FA-LEEP-AYS

      Not Fa-Leeps.

  12. Anonymous

    Rogers is just a turd

  13. Anonymous

    Rogers = smart ass over substance that is the way he always has been. Rogers = a circus

    • semichorus

      You know, if Gordon or Gordon supporters started lashing out at — say — Talamantes for receiving a Cusumano campaign contribution, Rogers and his crowd would immediately lampoon them for being conspiratorial-minded nutcases and paranoids who think that a measly 400 bucks is going to corrupt the council into selling out Burbank on the cheap.

      And Rogers would be absolutely correct.

      So if Gordon accepts $400 from the Cusumanos — which he didn’t — why is that an entirely different matter? If it doesn’t mean one for the other, why would it mean something fundamental for Gordon?

      The Rogers crowd can’t have it both ways. A Cusumano contribution is either corrupting on its face, or it’s not.

      That’s what makes this whole “Cusumano” $400 thing so inconsistent … for the Rogers crowd. It’s such an obviously desperate attempt to pin a phony target on Gordon. And fundamentally they don’t even make any consistent sense. If it’s bad money, it’s bad for everyone.

      So does Rogers think it’s bad? In order for him to criticize Gordon for supposedly taking it and being a hypocrite, he’d have to. But what then what about the others whom he supports? Like Golonski in the past?

      If Rogers thinks it’s OK money, and that Gordon was a sanctimonious jerk to be so conspiratorially condemning of it and the Cusumanos in the past– and anyone else who got it — what’s the problem then of now taking it?

      Which again, Gordon hasn’t even done.

      • Anonymous

        Cusumano money is bad if you are the guy who has made a career of saying that development is bad. Talemantes never said that all development is bad, but Gordon has.

        Was that hard for you to figure out?

        • semichorus

          Gordon has never said that development is bad. No one has.

          • ZAPPER

            Please provide the proof of your statement that Gordon has ever said all development is bad. He has never said that and you can’t provide the proof.

            • semichorus

              Of course they can’t. Gordon’s also never said that everything Cusumano is bad. He questions the people in the city who make things too easy for development.

  14. Eileen

    I seriously take what I keep reading Kevin Harrop and Will Rogers saying as a hatred for the Cusamanos. You are right I think Semichorus what they are really saying is that Cusamano money is bad and the Cusamanos are bad.

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s