Fun-lovin' Medford cops have a real ball with the election

Medford cops pretend to arrest Hillary Clinton

Screen captures by Joan Marshall.

UPDATE: Union president says it was just a joke, apologizes.

Today was the Haines Square Fall Festival in Medford and some members of the Medford Police Patrolmen's Association joined the festivities by "arresting" somebody in a Hillary outfit and palling around with a Trump pretender.

The union thought the photos were so funny they posted them to their Facebook page - until some gloomy Gusses started complaining about fairness and impartiality on the part of an armed constabulary, and so the union took down the photos.

Of course, this is the Internet and nothing goes away, including the photo on the left featuring union President Harold MacGilveray (the one on the right), which I know is him thanks to firing-squad lover Al Baldasaro.



    Free tagging: 



      somebody accuse me of being a trump supporter because i think its dumb people got upset over this

      That's fine if you like Trump

      Go ahead and share that with your ballot.

      The problem is that people in uniform, who represent the city and who will be stationed at the polling places and escorting the ballot boxes, have made their opinions clear.

      That, and the blatant ethics violations when a public employee engages in partisan politicking while in uniform. That's an absolute no. Had they donned cammo and did this off the clock, it would be tacky, but acceptable.


      Yes. Expecting the police to follow the rules of their employment makes me a fanatic. When I know what those rules are. When my taxes supposedly pay for professionals to know them and exhibit mature behavior and self control.

      I happen to live in the community where their "poor judgement" and other unprofessional behavior seems to continue without appropriate training and supervision or oversight or restraint.

      It isn't your ballot in those boxes. Maybe you should just STFU.

      you realize

      that theyre guilty of taking a photo with 2 civilians in costume 2 days before halloween right

      this is what you're mad about

      this is what you called politicking

      by the way, pretend i copied and pasted this to literally every person that is buttmad over this.

      Not true

      There was a whole skit complete with a PA system.

      Again, you don't live here. You haven't seen the videos that people took of the event or spoken to neighbors.

      You are also clearly unfamiliar with the ethics laws. I suggest you look them up - the bind all public employees.


      i admit all i was going by was the article that we're all commenting on

      also you have no idea where i live lol

      link the laws then you nasty woman

      We all know where you live

      By on

      We all know where you live: at the top of a pond.

      Grow up, get therapy, stop being an antisocial shit-stirring damaged-goods freak.

      You Swirls are an example of what's wrong

      By on

      with today's society - You can't take a joke. And before you get all high and mighty about "ethics laws" - which are too concerned with possible violations instead of actual ones, perhaps you should learn the meaning of the word context.

      You anon are an example of what's wrong

      By on

      with today's society - you're stupid as a box of rocks and completely ignorant of election laws. It's because of gullible dimwits like you that our elections are a complete shit show. Now shut up and let the grownups talk.

      Actually, the people who are crying

      By on

      "It's not a joke, it's a serious violation of ethics and election laws" are the ones who are truly gullible. Here's a suggestion - just IGNORE it and let's focus on ACTUAL issues instead of always making up "scandals" that have no basis.

      I am very familiar with ethics laws Swirly.

      I'd love you to cite the violation here. Then possibly explain why the Ethics committee isn't doing anything about it.

      In fact, there is no violation if a public employee wants to wear a sticker or button supporting a political candidate. The only reason why police officers cannot is because it is against most uniform policies, not violations of ethics laws.

      I've seen the Ethics Commission rule in favor of public employees on much more serious alleged "violations" than this.

      Your only mad because you don't like the Medford police, Trump and other people.

      The police may have violated their own policy (That may be true), but this wouldn't amount to any sort of state ethics action, not even close.

      You know what, Pete?

      By on

      Maybe you shouldn't be so cavalier and ticky-tacky about this. Do cops tend to like it when constituents take a lawyer-ish view of the law? How many times have you had to deal with something along the lines of "Hey pig, you can't arrest me because of specific reason XYZ!" when the guy is clearly doing something wrong and is either leaning on some technicality or otherwise showing his ass?

      Do you just shrug and say "Hey, well, ya got me there!" ? No, you either find some other way to nail the guy or you just wait for him to cross the line. Because judgment is involved, and you have a pretty good feeling this guy is going to do more than just antagonize you.

      So, now we have this incident where the cops are the ones flirting with the letter of the law while violating the spirit of the law. And now you're complaining "it violates no laws or regulations!". Can you now maybe see where people might be upset by this?

      Cops should be avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. This may have been a joke in poor taste, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you like Trump or hate him. This gives people the impression that the cops have predetermined beliefs and conclusions. This puts people on the defensive. This indirectly causes police encounters to escalate.

      My dad always said I had to respect him. I always had the point of view that respect is earned. This is part of the fundamental problem with policing in America.

      Two different issues.

      I'm not talking about impressions here, I'm talking about Ethics violations, which what Swirly was talking about.

      Your other talking points are red herrings and don't really have anything to do with what I was talking about.

      No it still isn't relevant.

      Swirly is mad because she doesn't like something the Medford police did. She already doesn't like the Medford police (which is fine), and she has criticized them before.. But then she cites ethics violations as her reason her fury, not the potential department violation or inappropriateness of the acts.

      If you want to say it was inappropriate or against department policy, I am fine with that. But don't tell me she isn't doing this because she is so concerned about public ethics law.

      The rules are the rules

      By on

      Cops are not above the rules.

      Don't play the "special cop" card. It looks really stupid.

      Police have to follow the same rules as other civil servants. No exceptions. It isn't about not liking cops, it is about PROFESSIONALISM and FAIRNESS.

      Wearing a Trump or Clinton sticker on a police uniform.

      Is not a violation of State Ethics law. But I assume you may have an opinion about whether or not that is fair or not fair, or professional or not professional.

      It is not professional, and that is why most police departments have their own policies regarding uniforms.

      I'm not talking about your or anyone's opinions anon, I was talking about Swirly's disingenuous commentary.

      Try it on Election Day

      By on

      Is not a violation of State Ethics law

      It's a violation of something more serious than that if you try it while pulling a detail at a polling place. But of course these cops know that and would never do such a thing.

      It wasn't a polling place, and it wans't election day.

      And a photo still most likely isn't going to be a violation with someone in a Halloween costume. (It might be unprofessional)

      You do realize the entire issue here wasn't the photos, it was the posting of them by the organization, with a slogan, making it more than just a photo.

      I'll say it a million times, the photo is not a violation of any Ethics law in this circumstance. Ask anyone on that Ethics commission.

      That's exactly what I'm saying

      By on

      Maybe the ethics accusation was off-base. I don't know, and I don't particularly care. It seems like the sort of thing that *should* be a violation.

      But I can certainly validate that she has reason to be upset, and if you're thinking that it's purely because of this "ethics violation" thing, then again, you're being really ticky-tacky about it by invalidating the letter of her argument and ignoring the spirit of it. She may be wrong about the ethics violation, but you're dismissing her complaint entirely on that basis. It's very lawyer-ish and...well..a dickish thing to do. But hey, Internet.

      And while we're on the topic of Internet...double-negative.

      Fair enough Cutriss.

      But I still disagree with you about the spirit of her argument, and that may have more to do with her past posting history which I am very familiar with. I think that is important.

      Hey Pete

      By on

      Read this:

      Subject to these exceptions, a public employee may not engage in political activity, whether election-related or non-election related, on his public work time; while acting in his official capacity or while in his official uniform; in a public building (except where equal access for such political activity is allowed to all similarly situated persons); or with the use of other public resources, such as staff time, public office space and facilities, public office equipment such as computers, copiers, and communications equipment, public websites and links to public websites, or public office supplies such as official stationery.

      Is that clear enough for your simple brain to comprehend?

      Not as simple as you want it to be.

      You don't get to define what a "political" activity is. Taking pictures with people in costumes is not going to be considered a political activity. Especially seeing how this board has ruled in the past. Ever read a ethics committee document?
      Ever see what they have used as an example of a poitical activity?

      Didn't think so. Can your simple brain figure out how to file an FOI request and get us some examples or do you want to make up stuff?

      Oh just stop it

      By on

      You don't get to define what a "political" activity is. Taking pictures with people in costumes is not going to be considered a political activity.

      No? And taking pictures of one "candidate" being arrested and the other just standing around grinning and glad-handing isn't political either, I suppose?

      You're gonna sprain something if you keep reaching like that.

      For the fortythousanth time, Pete

      By on

      It wasn't "taking pictures with people in costumes"

      There was an entire performance centered around arresting and chaining a candidate in effigy.

      Spare us your testalying, please. You make yourself look massively stupid.

      "Not going to respond"?

      By on

      But'cha DID, Blanche!

      Why does the "anon fool" have less credibility than you did? Are you now claiming that YOU saw the performance?

      Ethics violation

      By on

      "A public employee who engages in such political activity, unless the activity is of truly minimal duration or significance (such as wearing a political campaign button to work in a public office), violates the conflict of interest law," says the commission.

      This was not wearing a button. This was participating in a pueurile political passion play, and making it clear that they can't be trusted to monitor polls or handle ballot boxes.

      The polls are rigged. Yes, yes they are.

      Cavalier? Tacky-tacky?

      By on

      Ummm, bud, Pete is simply doing what swirly does in every post of hers, yet he gets a new one ripped for it and everybody here worships every square inch of the ground swirly managed to stink up. Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi, I s'ppose?

      Poor butt hurt anon

      By on

      Swirls is hardly worshipped, and Pete is hardly demonized, by most regulars here. Both have been here a long time, are pretty sharp, but also have rather obvious biases. If anything, swirl's haters are far more knee-jerk and vociferous than those who disagree with Pete.

      And no.

      I do not think they are violating the spirit of the law, that much is very clear to me.

      The spirit of the law is serious ethics breaches, not silly halloween photos.

      Obviously not

      By on

      If you don't see the violation.

      Even the herald could find the multiple conflict of interest violations in a short google.

      Quit your day job dude, you're way out of it.


      Oh the Herald found them? Then it must be true. Let me know when the Ethics commission decides to act.

      (In all seriousness, I did a "medium length" google search and couldn't find any Herald comments on this issue).

      Next up

      By on

      Officer Pete will tell us how you can burn a cross on the mayor's lawn in uniform and not be committing an ethics violation!

      I'm sure it was all good-natured fun

      By on

      But I think the biggest problem here is that many people feel very strongly against Trump's platform, including parts that would affect the function of police (like how immigrants might be treated), so police having the appearance of supporting Trump or not taking the issues seriously... is alarming.

      Those look like decent guys in the photos, and I think someone thought it was a funny community outreach thing to post the photos, without realizing how it would look to a lot of people.

      Another problem is that people want the police to be impartial, so if posing with people making political speech is done, the posted photos should've shown more balance, or it looks like an endorsement of some of the speech.

      Not "good natured fun"

      "just a joke" is the last refuge of a bully.

      These people are tasked with election duties. Their little "joke" says volumes about their commitment to free and fair elections.

      I give the benefit of the doubt here

      By on

      Even with the benefit of the doubt, a mistake was made in appearances, and it sounds like they already acknowledged that.

      If you do live here

      You'll have to leave pretty soon. People without jobs or prospects for them are being priced out. Maybe you can join these "jokers" in Wilmington?


      or one of the units i own in arlington maybe

      oops, i guess that debunks your myth a little about me doesnt it

      Hi MarKKK!

      By on

      Hey there! We were wondering what happened to you! Been run down by any cyclists lately?

      Skit and PA?

      By on

      Who put on the skit and provided the PA?

      community festival

      By on

      The PA was there for the festival events.

      The cops put on the skit.

      > blatant ethics violations

      By on

      > blatant ethics violations when a public employee engages in partisan politicking while in uniform. That's an absolute no.

      Can we stop talking about Hillary Clinton already?


      By on

      Don't remember you making a stink out of Bill Clinton inside of Holy Name during the primary

      That's because you need to see a neurologist

      By on

      To get that memory problem checked out. Or maybe it's something simpler, like you need to learn how to use a search engine. Because that's what I did, and quickly found this (note: If you're reading this on a phone, the link might take you to the main post and you'll have to look for "swirly").

      Did anyone ever look into possible charges

      By on

      If there was an intent to prevent people from voting at Sanders-leaning locations, wouldn't that be a serious crime?

      Are officials afraid to say anything?

      You think it's dumb that

      By on

      You think it's dumb that people are upset that armed LEO are publicly taking sides in an election? The same armed LEO that will be at the polls on the Nov 8th. Frankly, it's chilling.

      Personally, I feel they should have know better to even take the pictures, but for the union president to post them on the public union FB page with additional commentary is more than just a toe into unethical mud. Never mind, the announcer on stage at the event talking about Hillary going to jail over the speakers.


      By on

      ...Donald Trump's coy little statements about not accepting the election results if they don't go his way, and his inciting his followers to do the same?

      If only...

      By on

      ...somehow both of them could lose. To just about anybody.

      We had that option

      By on

      We had that option, and a lot of people chose not to exercise it, and that's why we are where we are today. And the ones complaining the loudest seem to be the ones who did the least to create other options.


      By on

      I would expect to see something like this in say, Texas or maybe South Carolina. Medford PD, this is piss poor. It's bad enough there are so many ignorant people who think he would be suitable for POTUS. He wants to cut taxes left and right and bragged how the American way is to dodge taxes. See how those LEOs feel after they get canned because their funding gets snipped. I'm pro LEO btw

      In NYC, I believe so.

      By on

      In NYC, I believe so.

      Hillary was integral to first responders getting public health benefits post 9/11.

      Against the Zadroga Bill

      By on

      weiRd, maybe theRe's a common theme uniting all these senatoRs, but damned if I can figuRe it out

      Who Voted Against The 9/11 First Responders “Zadroga” Bill In The Senate:
      Lamar Alexander, Republican, Tennessee.
      John Barrasso, Republican, Wyoming.
      Robert Foster Bennett, Republican, Utah.
      Kit Bond, Republican, Missouri
      Scott Brown, Republican, Massachusetts.
      Sam Brownback, Republican, Kansas.
      Jim Bunning, Republican, Kentucky.
      Richard Burr, Republican, North Carolina.
      Saxby Chambliss, Republican, Georgia.
      Tom Coburn, Republican, Oklahoma.
      Thad Cochran, Republican, Mississippi.
      Susan Collins, Republican, Maine.
      Bob Corker, Republican, Tennessee.
      John Cornyn, Republican, Texas.
      Mike Crapo, Republican, Idaho.
      Jim DeMint, Republican, South Carolina.
      John Ensign, Republican, Nevada.
      Mike Enzi, Republican, Wyoming.
      Lindsey Graham, Republican, South Carolina.
      Chuck Grassley, Republican, Iowa.
      Judd Gregg, Republican, New Hampshire.
      Orrin Hatch, Republican, Utah.
      Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican, Texas.
      Jim Inhofe, Republican, Oklahoma.
      Johnny Isakson, Republican, Georgia.
      Mike Johanns, Republican, Nebraska.
      Mark Kirk, Republican, Illinois.
      Jon Kyl, Republican, Arizona.
      George LeMieux, Republican, Florida.
      Richard Lugar, Republican, Indiana
      John McCain, Republican, Arizona.
      Mitch McConnell, Republican, Kentucky.
      Lisa Murkowski, Republican, Alaska.
      Jim Risch, Republican, Idaho.
      Pat Roberts, Republican, Kansas.
      Jeff Sessions, Republican, Alabama.
      Richard Shelby, Republican, Alabama.
      Olympia Snowe, Republican, Maine.
      John Thune, Republican, South Dakota.
      David Vitter, Republican, Louisiana.
      George Voinovich, Republican, Ohio.
      Roger Wicker, Republican, Mississippi.


      By on


      As a cop, I'd guesstimate

      By on

      As a cop, I'd guesstimate that 90% of police officers don't vote democrat. I actually used to be very far left, but then I became a cop.

      No preaching or politicking or anything, but I think it's because we see an ugly side of America that most people will never see. And it was enough to discourage me and make me go from liberal to moderate. If I were moderate to begin with, I'd probably be far right.

      I truly feel that the Democratic Party is making this country more dangerous for police officers. But what's the alternative? A racist, sexist nutjob? Awful.

      Depends where you work anon.

      I'd say the Boston police is 50/50. You also have to remember that veterans who work for the police are probably close to 100% Trump voters.

      "far left"

      By on

      That sounds highly suspect. Almost nobody ever says they are far-anything.

      In the US, far-left basically means slightly left of center anyway.

      Let's put this into perspective

      By on

      This is probably NOT the only photo these officers took with community members. I'll take a wild guess, there are dozens of photos of them with others dressed up, however these just rubbed YOU the wrong way. (Community outreach much)!

      I looked at your twitter and you seem to hold no grudge torwards the pics with the individual wearing the Trump mask. Though to your defense, the person with the trump mask was in a cheep suit not an orange jumpsuit and he's not under federal Investigation.


      The issue isn't photos that didn't get posted

      By on

      The issue is that the president of the patrolmen's union chose these specific photos to post on his union's Facebook page. What does that say about him? No, I don't really care about them palling around with the faux Trump by itself; yes, I care about what men with guns are saying about "arresting" a political candidate.

      The question is however

      By on

      Would you hold issue if said officers posed with BLM or some other organization which held views you agreed with. Probably not.

      You're upset because you dislike the photo. How is this any different than say Kapernick kneeling?

      You need to learn how analogies work

      By on

      Ths things have to be comparable. Posing next to a Hillary in chains would only work with your analogy if the BLM people were also in chains (or in a chokehold). And, yeah, I'd look at that the same way.

      Also, nlike football players, police officers can do things like arrest you. They have a far greater potential impact on somebody's life than a guy who throws a football for a living. That power brings a responsibility with it.

      Actually ...

      By on

      I would have a problem with No on 2 signs in a school window - same as I did with the pro-charter people pulling kids out of class to lobby at the State House.

      But a teacher on a corner is just different from a cop with a cuffed Hillary stand-in. One has a uniform and a gun and can arrest or shoot you . In an election in which one candidate has vowed to lock up his opppnent, that's not a good look.

      Buy why are you still defending the Medford cops? The union president apologized. I'm willing to take him ay his word. You?

      A man on national television

      By on

      A man on national television every single week not kneeling for the flag has a far greater impact and platform on EVERYONE's lives than a cop that you'll most likely never interact with.

      He does kneel

      By on

      That's the problem. He's supposed to be standing, the same way you're supposed to be standing and looking at the flag instead of taking attendance of the players on the sideline

      Oh please

      By on

      Cops have greater impact than celebrities, especially star athletes? gaffin, are you for real?

      The only misery Kaepernick can inflict on me is through the NFL

      By on

      A cop can royally fuck up my life just because he doesn't like me.

      Cops that have no problem taking public photos in uniform with a "Convict Hillary" are probably less inclined to be worried about whether or not I did something wrong if they decide that they don't like me and want to make my life miserable.


      By on

      He isn't required to follow the laws and regulations of public employees, last I checked.

      I was staffing a neighborhood event, on duty, as a public employee yesterday. If I handed out campaign flyers or wore an inappropriate costume, or was at all involved in a "tar and feather Trump" skit, I would be fired or, at least, severely reprimanded and my union would not back me up.


      By on

      The whole idea is to prevent those in a position of power from using that power to force their political views on others. Now, can you tell me with a straight face that a random cop has more influence on others than a major celebrity who could send millions of lemmings off a cliff with a single tweet? If you're calling for the heads of those cops, shouldn't we have a bowling party with a whole bunch of star athlete and celebrity heads at this point?

      Except that the picture with

      By on

      Except that the picture with Hillary was taken at a Fall Festival, not a Halloween event, and I don't recall anyone there that was in costume.


      By on

      Its PC BS that makes them call it a "Fall Fest"; its Halloween weekend.

      Tell me with a straight face you didn't see dozens of people in costume today.


      By on

      But that still wins over her opponent pulling a Goldwater.

      Lets take a look at those poll and compare shall we?

      You seem to be under the impression that somehow Baker was behind in the polls and eked out a surprising win. That was never the case.

      Here are the Baker/Coakley polls before the election.

      RCP average poll of polls had Baker ahead by 3.7 points.
      He won by 1.9 points
      Baker was ahead of Coakley for just about all the campaign except where they ran about even in September and October.

      Now here are the Trump/Clinton polls one week before election

      RCP average has Clinton ahead by 4.6 points
      Clinton has been ahead just about the entire time of this election except for one week in July. She is more in common with Baker.

      So your analogy is wrong to say the least.


      By on

      , not Coakley-Baker, is what came to mind.

      I never laughed so much at a candidate's loss. So VERY satisfying!

      no edith you dont get humor

      obviously you just dont understand it. this is a dire offense and is very much against ethics laws which are very clearly written but nobody seems to be able to provide!

      For the federal government

      By on

      For the federal government employees like me, it is called the Hatch Act. We are not allowed to talk about our opinions about the election, wear political things to work, campaign while at work, or use our positions while campaigning to influence people.

      This can be a very tricky law to stick to when you add in the public and the more public you add in, the harder it gets. Many people want to speak with me about the current election and I am unable to and they often get upset over their perceived curtailing of my 1st amendment rights or that I obviously don't support their candidate. One woman told me once how she hoped that a candidate would lose and was insulted when I told her that I couldn't discuss it with her because I could lose my job.


      By on

      Does that apply to all agencies? I have some friends who work for the fed who are pretty out spoken about their political leanings. (One, so much so, I had to block his crap from my feed.. he was doing it so much!). I know this one department is pretty lax when compared to other parts of the fed. (so yeah it's not the FBI, CIA, IRS, etc)

      Different agencies have

      By on

      Different agencies have different rules about everything, which is why it is so hard to keep them straight! haha. Each agency within the government has a different culture, as well, so some things are tolerated in one more so than another.

      If it is on your own time, you can do whatever you want on your facebook/twitter feed. Also, if you don't represent the gov thru that feed you can do different things.

      If you are politician, obviously you have different rules about talking about politics than a person who works in an office or with the public.

      Can confirm

      By on

      This applied to my wife working for the USACE, which falls under the DOD. I quailed about it at first when I first learned about it. There's basically an explicit exception you have to agree to on hire which has all manner of anti-first amendment provisions in it. This was a long time ago so I don't recall the specifics of it, but yeah, it's definitely a thing.

      All MA State and other Public Employees

      By on

      They are all subject to the rules of the State Ethics Commission.

      This skit clearly violates the following:

      The State Ethics Commission advises all public employees to not partake in any political activities while on the job, especially in uniform.

      "A public employee who engages in such political activity, unless the activity is of truly minimal duration or significance (such as wearing a political campaign button to work in a public office), violates the conflict of interest law," says the commission.

      Cops are covered by this, too. All MA Public employees are. Even volunteers for town commissions have to do the training and sign forms.

      If this were actually brought

      By on

      If this were actually brought up as an issue, I find it very unlikely that taking pictures with folks dressed up for Halloween runs afoul of the rules. Certainly it can be said that it is inadvisable and probably shouldn't be done again, but it's really just a thing to shrug over.

      Only the most overtly partisan folks are in an uproar. It's a popular costume this Halloween. They probably shouldn't have a picture taken with sexy nurse/witch/vampire either. *shrug*


      They weren't "taking pictures with people in costumes"

      By on

      I was there.

      This was a loud skit that involved apprehension, arrest, and chaining of an effigy of a candidate, followed by pictures.

      That's terrorism in my book. It isn't funny. It isn't a joke. It is childish at best but jaw-droppingly horrifying when you consider these same high school forever jock losers will be at the polls.

      I'm sure Hitler was just taking pictures and joking, too?

      Which impairment do you suffer from?

      By on

      So...are you stupid, or illiterate, or disingenuous? One photo: cops palling around with someone dressed as a political figure. Other photo: cops pretending to arrest someone dressed as another political figure. So, which impairment do you suffer from that prevents you from seeing a difference between them?

      The basic premise of ethics laws

      By on

      is "appearance of impropriety", as opposed to actual impropriety. In other words, we think you may have done something wrong, so you actually did something wrong. Seems a little extreme response to take for a joke.

      For What It's Worth

      If the opposite skit was posted and it was Medford Police arresting Trump for his fraudulent university or alleged sexual assault he'd be using that an example of "how the election is rigged" and some of his supports would be sending death threats to the police.

      The skit was dumb as paid government employees shouldn't engage in anything which even seems political while on the clock.

      If only these Medford police-idiots

      By on

      had skipped the part where they're palling around with Donald, it would have STILL been most inappropriate, but it would have been much more accurate.

      That is, Hillary in chains and wearing orange is as it should be.

      Further, it shows that the cops (with their politicking) and Hillary (with her long list of lifetime lies, etc.) have something in common: Breaking the law.


      By on

      Someday, someone will sit me down and explain to me about all of Hillary's alleged crimes. Then I'd like to know why no one — since 1992 and through massive high-level investigations that cost millions upon millions of tax dollars, initiated by one Republican Congress after another — has EVER been able to pin a single "crime" on her.

      Are all the Republicans who are busy shouting "Lock her up" aware that, if they had a single LEGITIMATE claim of some law broken, they COULD have at least indicted or charged her, if not actually locked her up by now? They've had 24 years to accomplish this. They apparently sucked at follow-through.

      Were all the Republicans accusing her of various crimes since 1992 unaware of their legal responsibility to catch and try this alleged criminal — or did they simply not have a leg to stand on? Or were they too wimpy, or inept, or stupid, or scared? Or were they just WRONG WRONG WRONG?

      Why is she able to run for president if she is supposed to be in chains, please?

      Oh, right.... it's because she's so clever and powerful. She's a lawyer for heaven's sake. And you know how sneaky they are. (Odd that many of the GOP politicians screaming about her crimes are lawyers, too.) Oh, and she and her husband, a former president — eternally beloved by all — can pull every string, even in a Republican Senate and House, even in the FBI and CIA . They can even do it during Republican administrations. (Because everyone secretly adores them, I guess?)

      Okay, yes. I'll buy all that. One smart lawyer versus 24 years of hundreds of dumb, nervous ones plus the FBI and CIA who shiver in their boots at the idea of arresting a former first lady.

      And I have just voted for Hillary because if she's that clever, powerful and resourceful a woman, she'll make a great president. If all of you people screaming "Lock her up" haven't managed to get your elected officials to do so in 24 years, it's time to give it up.

      Oh...well, um...

      By on

      read some more recent news...and stay tuned.

      The Clintons are sleazebags of the lowest order. Slickness and their influence may keep them out of jail.

      "Extreme carelessness" = "gross negligence"

      The "recent news"

      By on

      The "recent news" seems to further support the ongoing finding of no evidence of wrongdoing by Clinton. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you "lock her up" types keep promising a bombshell that'll take Hillary out once and for all, you betcha, and instead delivering a wet fart that only further stains your skivvies. Forgive me if I stop jumping to attention every time you cry wolf.

      (and before you go there, I was and am a Sanders supporter, and am still unsure of what I'll do on Election Day, but I sure as hell won't be voting for some bloated orange fascist)

      Can't wait to hear the whining

      By on

      When President Clinton visits Tufts and the Medford Cops are excluded from any details because of this Fourth Reich stuff, THAT will be funny!


      By on

      As Hillary herself said about 'progressives': 'They need to get a life'

      A police officer never ceases to be a citizen

      By on

      A police officer never ceases to be a citizen and the union is not a public entity, so they can say and do what they want politically. No apology needed, in fact federal law strictly protects unions and political activity.

      The support for Trump and disdain for Clinton is nationwide in law enforcement. She is a criminal, even if not yet charged. The photos merely reflect that. Posing with citizens in Halloween costumes is a form of community policing. Didn't Secretary of State John Kerry pose with a bachelorette party and their sexual toys on Nantucket?

      Special thanks to Trump supporter and Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke (African-American) who received a standing ovation this week at the Massachusetts Police Association convention, demanding prison for Clinton. No apology from him.

      Re: Question

      By on

      Why is it important to note Clarke is black? I have my suspicions why you think it's relevant. But, explain it.

      Cops want to act as citizens?

      By on

      Cops want to act as citizens? There's nothing stopping them. After work, take off your uniform, hang up your gun, dress in civvies, leave your badge home, and go and citizen to your heart's content, without throwing your cop weight around.

      Special thanks to Trump supporter and Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke (African-American) who received a standing ovation this week at the Massachusetts Police Association convention, demanding prison for Clinton.

      Wasn't he the one that Trump called a "thug" and had thrown out because, you know, black people?