By Our Argonaut Legal Correspondent

Certain waging, legal tongues are speculating that Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to spend city taxpayer dollars to educate undocumented workers (and/or illegal aliens) about San Francisco’s sanctuary policy and the fact that city services are available to them, was the act that triggered the convening of a Federal Grand Jury that is currently hearing evidence.

Others that it was the spending of taxpayer dollars to send undocumented minors arrested for drug trafficking offenses back to their country of origin to avoid prosecution that triggered the investigation. Others were suggesting that city workers who aided the San Francisco Chronicle’s series were “going to be hunted down and stomped.’ Others suggested that these city workers were entitled to whistle blower protections, but would probably be forced to hire their own criminal defense attorneys.

Rest assured that the convening of a Federal grand jury to snoop around into San Francisco’s legally questionable immigration policies has more than a few butholes puckering around city hall. The hiring of criminal attorneys to defend city policies is a sign that some intelligent minds feel it is better safe than sorry. But make no mistake about it. Regardless how legal, or illegal, city procedures stemming from San Francisco’s decades old, sanctuary city policy are, the fate of the grand jury will ultimately be decided in a political manner.

In other words, everything rides on this November’s election. In the likely event that the Democrats capture the white house, the grand jury is likely to peter out. If McCain were to pull of a miracle, this could get ugly. That alone is cause enough for many public officials to have an Obama signs in their window. But even with a Democratic White House likely secured, our Mayor would do well to ask his attorneys, criminal or otherwise, the following questions:

1. So tell me about the Supremacy clause?
2. Can San Francisco have its own immigration policy?
3. Is there such a thing as a violation of an oath of office?
4. If so, what would the penalty be for such a thing?
5. Why do we need criminal attorneys?
6. Who pays for the criminal attorneys?
7. Is our sanctuary policy legal?
8. What penalties can the federal government impose on city officials who instruct city workers not to cooperate with federal officials?
9. Can we punish city workers who cooperate with the media or the federal government, or with immigration officials?
10. Should the city take any legislative action in light of recent revelations?