by David Safier
As usual, Tedski at R-Cubed nails it, in fewer words than it often takes me to clear my throat. Here's his post, in full.
Just to Make It Clear…
Okay, it’s all about equivalency, right?
In that spirit, we have a report from our Both Sides Do It desk summarizing the cases from the detractors of Joe Arpaio and Clarence Dupnik. Because, of course, these arguments are all the same.
The Case Against Arpaio: He’s subject to an ongoing federal investigation into racial profiling by his department; conditions in his jails violate civil rights and have led to costly lawsuits; he has abused his authority by using department resources to investigate (even arrest) politicians and members of the media who oppose his policies; an investigation showed that he had misspent over $80 million in the past five years; an internal memo last year showed that his office’s top men “willfully and intentionally committed criminal acts by attempting to obstruct justice, tamper with witnesses, and destroy evidence”; and, to top it off, his deputies killed a guy’s dog over a misdemeanor.
The Case Against Dupnik: He said some things that hurt the feelings of some conservative activists.
Do I have it right?
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.