You say that her filing two days after the alleged incident “could indicate” that it was the cause of her filing. Why? There are some very plausible alternatives. What if her divorce attorney recognized that inventing a recent incident “could indicate” the same thing, and make her more likely to receive concessions in potential divorce proceedings.

On why Russell and LuAnne remain married, you assuming the worst of both and cast that as the most credible explanation. She’s scared of Russell divorcing her like DeSimone? She’s the one who originally filed for divorce – I doubt she could be threatened by it. She’s in it for the money? Aside from being a terrible slander – I’ve never heard anything to suggest she sought money – Russell’s salary as a legislator is $24,000 annually. There are people who make more than that begging for pocket change.

You “think her credibility was greater” in the 28 year old divorce filing than in her more recent denials. Why? There doesn’t seem to be a penalty for making false statements in divorce proceedings, and I think it’s a very bad practice to assume that even lawyers who face penalties for encouraging/making false statements, won’t make false statements. We need to be realistic and realize that allegations are very frequently exaggerated in these sort of cases.

All I said is Flake has nothing to do with this mailer. I am sure he is helping Gibbons in some ways, but I really doubt they are have nightly conference calls.

As for the veracity of Mrs. Pearce present statements, everyone must weigh them for themselves. In my profession, I have worked with a lot of victims of domestic and a good number of them recant their claims.

We all should weigh the evidence for ourselves. I do it like this: This was a sworn statement, signed in front of a notary, on a legal document being filed in a court of law. In the affidavit, Mrs. Pearce claims that Russell Pearce choked her and threw her to the ground TWO DAYS EARLIER and gave a specific date. The fact she was filing for divorce two days after this incident could indicate that this event did happen and was the CAUSE of her filing for divorce.

Arguments on why she would now recant: They did not get divorced. Her husband’s election depends on her now saying it is not true. There are financial incentives too, if she wants to continue on the State Health insurance and further boost Russell’s pension, etc. Also, she does not want to cause Russell’s loss. Then maybe he would divorce her, just like DeSimone is now divorcing his wife.

Come on everyone, of course she now denies it!

I think her credibility was greater the day she signed the sworn affidavit. Denials today mean little.

If she were to sign a sworn affidavit admitting her perjury and stating that she intentionally lied in an affidavit to hurt her husband, that would be one thing. But just saying Russell never hit her doesn’t fly with me.

You should also remember that back when it was first leaked to the press, Pearce’s wife denied it publicly. Sproul ignored the wife’s denial and approved the piece anyway, knowing not only that is was ugly and despicable, but most likely a lie. What a scumbag that guy is.

And then to try to tie in Jeff Flake is ridiculous. This is an independent expenditure made by a group of people who are obviously tired of Russell Pearce. Flake had nothing to do with it. Stop the conspiracy theories.

Gibbons had nothing to do with it either! It is an independent expenditure. Gibbons would have no knowledge or say in what was done. But even though Gibbons has no control over its content, Pearce still gets matching funds from the citizens of Arizona. That seems fair!!!! Clean Elections is a joke. I still can’t believe Pearce is taking public money for his campaign!!!!!

So it is okay to smear Natha Sproul, but heaven forbid a mailer pointing out a fact is published in a court record? The hypocrosy is amazing.