Former Republican State Assemblyman Mike Duvall was forced out of office this year when his conversation with a fellow legislator, about supposed sex with two lobbyists, got out. Now a blog post has surfaced accusing Democratic Congresswoman of having relations with two lobbyists in D.C. But Sanchez appears to be getting a free pass.
The man allegedly pictured above is John Saylor, the Director of Federal Programs, Maritime Sector for Halcrow, Inc. Reportedly, Saylor has become romantically involved with Congresswoman Sanchez in recent months. Saylor chaired a conference on “Global Competitiveness and the Impact on US Exports” last month at the Department of Commerce in DC, and the Congresswoman was a scheduled speaker for this same conference,” according to the Latino Politics blog.
The Latino Politics blog post also indicated that Saylor has allegedly “been going around claiming to have slept with Loretta Sanchez and that he vacationed with her in Italy earlier in the year.”
The photo above was supposedly taken in Italy. According to the Latino Politics blog, that “should come as no surprise, as she was just there with the Semester at Sea program during the summer. Another source close to Sanchez had also revealed to me in the past that the Congresswoman had hopes of becoming the ambassador to Italy had Hillary Clinton won the presidential election last year.”
You can see Sanchez talking about her time in the Semester at Sea program in the YouTube video below:
Remember that there were also allegations in the past year about another lobbyist named Jack Einwechter, who also was rumored to have had a relationship with Sanchez. He too ad business before the Congresswoman’s committees.
“John Saylor has aldo, like Jack (John) Einwechter did in the past, contributed to Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez’s re-election campaign fund, dropping $300 back in July of this year,” according to the Latino Politics blog.
Is this the ghost of Loretta Sanchez’ Christmas future?
All of this is happening even as Sanchez is being opposed by two Vietnamese Repbulicans and an independent Latina candidate named Ceci Iglesias. One of the two Republicans, businessman Quang X. Pham, is a moderate who served in the U.S. Marines. The other is the corrupt Mexican hater Van Tran. Predictably, Sanchez’ allies at the Liberal OC blogs are ignoring Tran and attacking Pham.
If Pham wins the primary he will give Sanchez a real run for her money. And Iglesisas will definitely have an affect on this race.
Sanchez may be digging herself quite a hole. She is also holding a fundraiser in Santa Ana today, where she is asking the working families in town to give her at least $240. To do this just before Christmas, in a city beset by foreclosures, is heartless at best…
Vern: “I’m saying it won’t endanger her chances to back the DREAM Act…”
She said she would vote for it. Why isn’t that enough?
Just in Time: “who told you Adriana plays journalist- she obviously does her job well- she says the truth…”
The truth is based on facts. She hasn’t presented any facts that prove any of her allegations. All she does is throw BS against the wall to see what sticks.
To Art: There is no evidence that she has done anything unethical. You can make up charges all you want, but there is no evidence that what you are saying is true.
And why do you and Gus keep saying that Sanchez does not support the Dream Act? She said that she would vote for it. Why does she have to be the poster woman for it?
And why do you make it seem like this is the #1 issue for Latinos? It’s not. Do you think I’m basing my votes on the Dream Act? I hope it passes and I hope immigration reform passes, but in this economy, I doubt it. Plus the immigrants have not really made their case. They keep using arguments that are based on pity. In this economy nobody has any pity, so they need to come up with a new argument. They need to show how they add value.
Sunny Anna’s Bubbles,
Why isn’t Sanchez refuting the allegations?
Re: “when they can show her some luvin and then get the $$$ they want through her votes.”
There is no evidence that any of that is going on. If there were she would be investigated. DUH!
These are lies from Republican operatives who want her seat. Oh, I’m sorry, I mean
Independents. Notice how Republicans are so hated that they have to lie about who they are by calling themselves Independents, Libertarians, moderates, mavericks, etc.
All those words are code for Republican.
Re: “Why isn’t Sanchez refuting the allegations?”
Why would she waste her time responding to lies from obscure bloggers? Get real.
“Why would she waste her time responding to lies from obscure bloggers? Get real.”
Sunny,
You sure seem to spend a lot of time doing that. If they are so “obscure” why have you spent day after day attempting to refute what they say?
For the record before you call me a “sexist hater” let me say that I have always been a supporter of Loretta’s. My point is that you seem to be hell bent on attacking everyone that is critical of her. Why do this if they are so “obscure”?
Loretta’s district contains a huge number of immigrants that would benefit from the “Dream Act” and that is why she should sign on as a sponsor. If we can’t count on our “friends” like Loretta to get behind it how will ever get others to back it? Just askin’?
Re: “You sure seem to spend a lot of time doing that.”
I’m not a Congresswoman.
She should NOT sign on as a co-sponsor if it might endanger her seat. I know you guys don’t care about the long term effect of any of these immigration bills. You don’t care if people lose their seats, or if the Republicans win. Yeah, I get it.
Well, the rest of us do care. Our ancestors worked for decades to get these seats, and we don’t want to see them lost over this issue.
She said she would vote for the bill and that should be enough. Honestly, if this is going to be the attitude then maybe I will have to rethink my position on immigration. I feel that immigration has already cost this state so much, and now it might eat into our political representation.
“She should NOT sign on as a co-sponsor if it might endanger her seat.”
That is a total cop out. It will not endanger her seat. The folks that would not vote for her because she chose to sponsor the “Dream Act” already aren’t voting for her. Her seat is as safe as it gets. Who can the Republicans run that could beat her? Van Tran? Thats a joke! The only person that can beat Loretta is Loretta herself.
“You don’t care if people lose their seats, or if the Republicans win.”
Really? I am stuck with Dana Rohrabacher representing my section of Santa Ana. I only wish I had a Democrat representing me. However if we can’t find Democrats with the courage to stand up for their beliefs and not only look out for self-preservation we might as well have Republicans representing us. At least then we know we are gonna get screwed.
Re: “It will not endanger her seat.”
How do you know? Don’t you think she knows more about winning elections than those of us on this board? She said that she would vote for the Dream Act and immigration reform. Why isn’t that enough?!
If she loses, I guarantee that whoever replaces her won’t vote for any of it.
And yes she could lose her seat if the Latino vote splits. It has already happened in Hilda Solis’s old district.
“And yes she could lose her seat if the Latino vote splits.”
Sunny,
If she signs on as a co-sponsor she probably would not have to worry about Latino voters getting behind another Latino and thus splitting the vote.
Again, people who are going to vote against her for sponsoring the “Dream Act” already oppose her and would never vote for her anyway. Perhaps Loretta could share that polling info that shows it will cost her the seat with those of us calling on her to co-sponsor the legislation. I just don’t think that is the case.
Loretta is well liked in her district and has built a strong base. She WOULD NOT lose by co-sponsoring the “Dream Act”. If there is data showing otherwise I would love to see it.
You stil,l haven’t answered why agreeing to vote for The Dream Act and CIR isn’t enough.
Sunny,
It isn’t enough because she represents a district that probably has the highest percentage of Mexican and Latin American immigrants per capita in the nation. Santa Ana has a huge immigrant population. She needs to send a message that she fully supports them by co-sponsoring the bill. Sometimes simply voting for it isn’t enough.
If she were representing a district in South Dakota maybe it would be different, but she doesn’t. She represents a district that is at “ground zero” of this fight. She is a leader and perhaps her co-sponsorship could leads towards others in congress getting behind the bill.
“However if we can’t find Democrats with the courage to stand up for their beliefs and not only look out for self-preservation we might as well have Republicans representing us. At least then we know we are gonna get screwed.”
THANK YOU!!! FINALLY SOMEONE SETS IT STRAIGHT!
PLEASE make a post with HUGE font and in red.
Her district might have a huge number of Mexican and Latin American immigrants, but those aren’t the only people in the district. Furthermore, they cannot vote. You don’t think sponsoring this bill could come back to get her in the election, but why chance it? There are many other people sponsoring this bill, and yersterday Gutierrez introduced CIR.
We have already lost a US Senator and Hilda Solis’s seat. I don’t want to add a third loss.
Sunny,
Hilda Solis’ seat was won by Judy Chu because the Democratic establishment did not get behind Gil Cedillo. Gil is a true representative of the people who is not afraid to put his ass on the line to support bills that help his community. He is a man of principle who puts the good of the people ahead of self-preservation. What a breath of fresh air that is. However that seat is still held by a Democrat.
Who is the U.S. Senator that was lost?
Sunny,
When you refer to “we” do you mean Latinos?
If that is the case, are you saying that you would rather have someone of Latino ethnicity that does not support the Latino community in office than a person of another race that does?
Hell even Joe Lieberman has co-sponsored the “Dream Act”.
Who is the US Senator that was lost?
I’m guessing she’s referring to Colorado’s Salazar, named Interior Secretary by Obama, hardly a progressive champion.
One of us should do a DREAM ACT / Loretta post Sean, move this away from the romance quasi-scandal story. You wanna?
Re: “Hilda Solis’ seat was won by Judy Chu because the Democratic establishment did not get behind Gil Cedillo.”
Not only that, they ran a Latino candidate and gave him media coverage on the liberal blogs. That was enough to split the vote.
The US Senator was Ken Salazar.
And no, I don’t want a Latino in office who doesn’t support my issues instead of a Democrat of a different ethnicity who does.
But Loretta Sanchez DOES support my issues, so that doesn’t apply here.
Vern,
I would love to move away from this whole “bedroom” angle. I don’t really care who or who she does not sleep with. If they can prove some sort of ethics violation or criminal act on her part than it is an issue. They have not.
The difference between Loretta and Duvall’s personal life is that Duvall portrayed himself as a champion of “family values” and wanted to impose those values upon society, Loretta has never done that. It wasn’t the sex that was the issue, it was the hypocrisy.
You’re right on about Salazar. White, black, Asian or Latino matters not if they vote against the people’s best interests.
I will get to work on that post and look forward to your comments as well.
AND GUESS WHAT! JUDY CHU IS A SPONSOR OF THE DREAM ACT!
Sunny has to get past simple genetics to determine who’s really on her side.
Sunny,
I am a big fan of Gil Cedillo. I have had the chance to get to know him over the years and have had the chance to spend time with him away from the political arena. I really wanted to see him win that seat. However at the end of the day a Democrat was still elected and Judy Chu is a fine representative indeed. So while Gil did not win, “we” did not necessarily lose.
For many of us the “Dream Act” is a major issue. We are disappointed that Loretta has not played a bigger role in pushing for its passage. So in our eyes she is not supporting “our issues”. If we do not convey our disappointment and just keep our mouths shut as you want us to do, “our issues” will never be heard.
Loretta’s refusal to co-sponsor the bill has more to do with her future political asperations than it does her current seat. She probably feels it would hurt her in a statewide run for elective office. If that is the case she should just say so.
What do mean on my side? Sanchez supports my issues. Whether or not she sponsors The Dream Act is not an issue for me at all. As for Chu, the VOTERS in her district are majority Latino and Asian, so sponsoring that bill is safe for her.
“As for Chu, the VOTERS in her district are majority Latino and Asian, so sponsoring that bill is safe for her.”
Sunny,
According to the demographic statistics I found online Loretta’s district is 65.3% Hispanic, 13.9% Asian and 17.8% white. So based on those figures your argument does not hold water.
Do you mean Loretta’s district or Chu’s district? And where did you find these statistics? I looked up Loretta’s district and it is hard to get the percentage of white voters because they cross list Latinos and whites.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/census/ca/district-47/
Sunny,
I was referring to Loretta’s district. I got the numbers from Wikipedia.