Saturday, April 30, 2016

Two Words of Truth: She Lied!

Given how truth-averse the Peninsula Daily News is, it's very gratifying to see some actual truth-telling in print in Clallam County. With that in mind, here's a quick word to say "Well done!" to the Port O Call for their May cover. It shows a picture of Cherie Kidd, hand raised to be sworn in, to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help her...Only then she lied. The headline for the piece makes that clear. It says: SHE LIED!

Extra points are given for the use of the exclamation point. And I am sure I'm not the only one who loves the idea of that picture and that headline going in to homes all over Port Angeles. (Lee Whetham, for one, is probably going to be smiling for a week over this.)

Lying under oath isn't just illegal; it isn't just shameful. It's also petty, foolish and totally counterproductive. Kind of like Cherie Kidd's entire "body of work" as a City Council member. She's a hypocrite and a moron, and while she lies, the town dies. It's that simple. She aids and abets the goons and crooks who are sucking the very life out of Port Angeles, but she's more concerned with protecting her "good name."

Cherie, your reputation is a joke. You have no good name. But the Port O Call has done some good work. So good for them, and (continued) shame on you.


  1. The Port O Call could really take off I believe. Maybe a joint effort with the geniuses behind this blog. Throw in local sports would be one suggestion. Everyone likes to see Johnny's name in the paper. :D

  2. Might be getting through her thick, empty skull. She's been very quiet at the council meetings. None of that "I'm so fantastic, and you are all so lucky to have me" bullshit she usually spouts.

    However, lets face it. She will never say she is sorry. She isn't. So, at least, she is truthful in that way.

    To quote the Munro -- we call "pound sand".

    What's the true etymology of "pound sand"? ( says)

    There are conflicting answers from around the web - the best one suggests it comes from the menial 20th century job of pounding sand down rat-holes, but explanations online vary fairly widely including "go punch a bag (full of sand)" and "go shove sand up your ass".


  3. Except, as you will shortly see, the question of perjury rests on whether Cherie believed her testimony was true, not on how well it matches the video. The video is no proof of what she perceived or thought. Misperceptions, mistakes, and even screwy judgment are not perjury. This thing was DOA, and you all are still in over your heads.

    1. And how, please do explain, will we "shortly see" this truth?

      And how, please do explain, can a false statement not be considered lying? Lee Whetham was in no way, shape or form "inciting" or even "exciting" those in attendance on the night in question. He was sitting there, looking embarrassed.

      But Cherie's statement had him up, up, up, and "inciting" the crowd. In other words, her statement SO contradicts the reality of what happened, as to make any sort of belief in her "mental fudging" of the facts impossible to swallow. She didn't perceive things a little differently from others; SHE LIED.

      But do, please do, feel free to explain how so many of us are wrong about this, and how we "will shortly see." Please. The floor is yours.

    2. I find this comment both interesting, and revealing: "... and you all are still in over your heads."

      It reveals how the "powers that be" view the situation. It isn't Democracy" we are working with. It isn't representational governance, where civic minded members of our community offer their help to run local government.

      The way they see it (and it is VERY clear they see it this way) is the democratic system is a way to lie, manipulate and do pretty much anything to get things the way you want. To "game the system".

      See, it isn't "one person, one vote" in Port Angeles. You have to know the right people, who have been gaming the system for years. Elections are just window dressing, and people who are not part of that special "in crowd", don't have a clue how they're being played.

      These folks are so smug, being honorable, or out-right lying while under oath means nothing.

      Because: "... you all are still in over your heads."

    3. Hate to agree, but it's too easy for a dumbed-down town to be in over their heads.

      Go on. Name but 3 local powerbrokers who tell Bloor what they want lately from the council. See?

    4. Seen a ball game? Of course you have.

      Seen instant replay? Of course you have.

      Seen a referee overruled? Of course you have.

      Seen him proved a liar? Nope, never. Because instant replay can't prove it. Instant replay can't show his thought processes, his perceptions, his state of mind. At best, it can only show he's right, or he's wrong. He might be blind, he might be stupid, he might be looking the wrong way, but you cannot prove he's lying.

      It's not enough to show that someone is completely and utterly wrong about what happened. Kidd's actions after the fact are consistent with what a person would do if they felt threatened or unsafe - her state of mind at the time - so there will always be reasonable doubt. A prosecutor will get that in short order.

    5. @Anon 1:05

      Not so fast. You say:"Kidd's actions after the fact are consistent with what a person would do if they felt threatened or unsafe - her state of mind at the time - so there will always be reasonable doubt."

      Except, the decison to shut down the City Council meeting did not just happen all of a sudden. "Premeditation" is obvious and clear throughout the event, starting with Cherie Kidds' orders to have city staff make up signs in advance of ANY of the public even showing up. From the onset of the meeting, anyone watching the video can clearly see Cherie Kidd was "loaded for bear", was rude and antagonistic towards the public without ANY provocation, and clearly was trying to provoke a response from anyone she could get to, from the public.

      I was there. I saw. I remember. I won't forget. I won't stop. I won't go away.

    6. contact Detective Gebo and let him know your observations.
      Everyone who has information/evidence on this issue needs to contact Gebo lest he think we uninterested.

  4. It seems that most websites on the law regarding perjury conclude the same thing-it is hard to prosecute and rarely happens.

    1. Wont be hard to prosecute in this town, the jury pool is pissed too. All they have to do is charge the woman and the jury will do the rest.

    2. In Washington State there is a little known law that allows private citizens to prosecute wrongdoing if the county prosecutor will not. The private citizen can prosecute misdemeanors but not felonies. Perjury is both a misdemeanor and a felony. A private citizen could prosecute the lesser.

    3. She can waive a jury trial.

  5. I just wish more people would come to the city council meetings. I only started coming because of the fluoride issue, but since then I have become amazed at the control a small voting bloc can have on city matters. The fluoride issue is still an issue with me, but it is just the result of deeper entanglements. Before attending the meetings I wasn't aware of that fact.

    As much as I encourage others to attend I haven't seen anyone I spoke with attend. I don't know what it can be done to change the apathy on their part. Only when more become involved and have their eyes opened will positive change come.

    Does anyone have any suggestions on how to draw more people there? I don't know what to do. Although most with whom I speak agree with me I never see them at those meetings.

    1. +1. Apathy here seems to be much more than the usual. Working class folks aren't supposed to question anything.

  6. It is hard to prosecute, however, worth a try.

    How much fun can that be? Certainly more fun than trying to catch a greased pig at the county fair.

    Cherie has done so much wrong. She votes for the EDC even though her snagged hubby owns a business and he received help from the EDC. She rarely discloses her connections, if ever (I can't remember when she has ever recused herself). She has been involved in shady dealings since the day she accepted $11k for her campaign in 2007. (It's been zero campaign finance numbers ever since.)

    She says she worked for fortune 500 companies, which gives the illusion that she was some kind of executive. (nope). She claims to have been a nationwide motivational speaker, of which there is no record, anywhere (and there should be, if she were. Not even a youtube).

    She's all chewing gum and string. Nothing substantial.
    And, although she has always been a bit too bubbly and silly for my tastes, I'm becoming alarmed.

    She has voted on things which are so ethically challenged it cannot be laughed at for being THAT STUPID. Her "I'm a 'tard" approach to speaking (i.e. fluoride rationale) makes me wonder if it is a ploy, or is she really that brain-muddled?

    I do wonder, seriously, if she is mentally capable, or if her faculties are slipping. What do we do about a dementia candidate? Is that ethics, or must we suffer her out until the end of her term?

    Heck the woman just lies and lies. Google dementia and lying. Specifically, the lying I'm talking about is called confabulation – unconsciously replacing lost memories with fabrications.

    web md: "Our brains are always trying to make sense of things, to impose order on the information we take in. But when a person has dementia, whole experiences are constantly being lost, which makes it difficult for the brain to get its bearings. So the unconscious mind fills in the gaps, swapping in an old memory or coming up with a plausible alternative."

    The woman cannot tell the truth. So, the question is....IS IT all about what sounds best to her, now, to fit her whims and demand. OR, is it a much bigger picture?

    Look how many times she has "lost" what people are saying during a council meeting. She has, more than a few times, said she was "confused" by the discussion. She votes with the pack, because, instead of careful thought, it is possible she is unable to formulate her own decision.

    The girl caries herself like a soiled brat, no matter how old she gets. However, I am alarmed by the things she says, and by the lack of any real understanding of what is going on, or the depth of it. Just like that council meeting, she seems to have no comprehension of any wrongdoing. She filled in the blanks, regarding that meeting, and made Whetham the bad guy. Was this intentional, or was this because she really has lost it. Fibbing like this is, most certainly, an early warning sign of Alzheimers.

  7. She claims to be third generation in Port Angeles (or fourth, as she has said several times). Find-a-Grave has both her parents listed --- and, you can see that her mother's family were BOTH born in Norway. Her father was born in B.C. His parents were born in Texas, and Missouri.

    They might all be buried here, but it matters where you are BORN, not buried.

    Seems Cherie is first generation Port Angeleno, if she were born here.

    Liar, liar pants on fire?

  8. I agree, Cheri Kidd's tenuous grip on reality is slipping. I have seen evidence of the slip over the past 5 years of council watching. Still, that is no reason to give her a 'pass' on her hurtful and misguided actions. Maybe she cannot see or believe how her vote on fluoride affects thousands of residents. However, she can see how her underhanded manipulations of the Lodging Tax Committee awards are going to her friends and freezing out her no-so-good friends. Even if she is suffering dementia, which I believe she is, the city's business trumps whatever sympathy we might offer. Anyone who loves her, and really cares for the future of the city needs to take her aside, tell her what a great job she has done, and how her efforts can be best spent elsewhere--like on local television. There she can get the attention she needs, roll out her wardrobe on a daily basis, invite all her friends in for a chat, and keep herself in the public eye. Not a bad idea for all.

    1. If you have been watching this slip for several years, then her behavior is going to start getting more nutty, and less rational.

      Welcome to the wide, wacky, wonderful world of Alzheimer's. It's not pretty to watch. And, it's up to those who care for her to get her to realize that holding public office might not be the best for her health, or for the city (she claims to love so much).

      If she is losing her grip then she is not being a representative, but a pawn. Who's pawn is she? That's the real question.

      I know the words that flowed out of her lipstick decorated mouth for the rationale of her fluoride vote sounded like the words had been placed there, and tumbled out. (Go watch the YouTube, it sounds like a young child trying to remember to say something well-rehearsed.) Look at the recent "She" comments regarding a building. Do you think she even realized how crazy that sounded? (Boats might be "she" but we gender neutralize buildings as "it", and "the".)

      I am sure there are MANY more examples. I just don't like thinking about HER that much, because SHE gives me the creeps.

    2. I agree..There is no need to be mean-spirited against anyone-- Cheri your time is done and you need to step down...let the city move ahead with "all the people" and end the "old boy's/girls club"