Monday, January 01, 2018

Sheriff Clarke Flips Out on Twitter

Former Milwaukee County sheriff and Donald Trump ally David Clarke has threatened to make the media "taste their own blood," following news reports of bombshell allegations in an FBI affidavit that he sicced deputies on a fellow airplane passenger almost a year ago. Clarke, who resigned as sheriff in August, made the threat in a tweet Saturday following stories about the affidavit that was unsealed on Thursday. He also warned "libs" to "bring a hard hat" because "I'm going to smack you around."

More

On Saturday, Clarke lashed out in several tweets about "libs," "lib media" and "fake news" following the stories about the affidavit. The "tasting blood" tweet included a photoshopped image of Trump holding a wrestler labeled "CNN" who was being kicked in the face by a smiling, photoshopped Clarke.

"When LYING LIB MEDIA makes up FAKE NEWS to smear me, the ANTIDOTE is go right at them," Clarke tweeted. "Punch them in the nose & MAKE THEM TASTE THEIR OWN BLOOD."

In June he said he turned down a job offer from the Trump administration to be assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. He resigned as sheriff in the wake of concerns about troubling deaths in the county jails his office supervised.

(In other words, you don't have to be a whinging puss to be a Trumpfist, but it sure does help.)

Comments

---- crimmal.

#1 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-01-01 05:57 AM

It was an FBI affidavit.

Why is he threatening the media?

Maybe the knows that if he told the FBI they were "going to taste their own blood" it would be a federal offense and he'd end up in a federal prison.

#2 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-01 07:10 AM

Are we sure that Boaz and Clarke aren't the same person?

#3 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-01-01 10:11 AM

It's a shame when the deep state goes after good men for political reasons. It's funny how the FBI lets Chicago, Baltimore and New York corruption go on and on.

#4 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-01 11:15 AM

"the deep state"

LOL!

You clowns are hilarious.

#5 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-01-01 11:23 AM

It's a shame when the deep state goes after good men for political reasons. It's funny how the FBI lets Chicago, Baltimore and New York corruption go on and on.

#4 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

"Deep State". I suppose you think we shouldn't have career professionals who have, you know, experience in doing the things needed to keep the country running. Maybe we should fire all 2,000,000 Federal employees every time the White House changes hands? And then bring in 2,000,000 know-nothings to replace them. What could possibly go wrong?

I used to work for a very large computer manufacturer. One of their most profitable products was their line of mainframe DASD (disk drives). Somewhere in the mid-80's they got the idea that they could be more profitable by offering "early retirement" to their most senior (read: "most experienced", AKA "most expensive) employees. A year later they discovered that they couldn't make promised delivery dates because all their "senior experts" took the buyout and the company no longer had the expertise they needed to meet production requirements. They had to bring them back in as "consultants" in order to get the job done.

There are many things that require expertise acquired over years in order to accomplish. These people are men and women who have taken an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution", not the current resident of the White House (who, in this case, doesn't appear to have even read the damn thing).

#6 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-01-01 11:28 AM

In this country's early years the Federal and most local governments operated under the spoils system. The civil service system was created to mitigate the chaos that can happen with a large turn over in a short amount of time and the inherent corruption of a party based government. One of the tenets of the civil service system reform is that it should not be partisan. To insure that, civil servants were restricted in their political activities. Those restrictions for the most part are now gone. A partisan civil service primarily serves itself. Because it identifies with the party you most closely identify you may think that's ok or even desirable, but they don't represent your interests either.

#7 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-01 11:45 AM

#6 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

I worked for a company that did the same thing, except they figured they couls out-source it to engineers from India. That was 18 years ago and the company still hasn't recovered, plus they have a reputation for incompetence and lack of concern for their customers.

This is exactly the same problem with Trumpco and his fans. It's just like i heard a former North Korean describing, loyalty to the despot is more important than competence.

#8 | Posted by kudzu at 2018-01-01 11:46 AM

It's a shame when the deep state...

#4 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

OK Comrade. I'll bite too.

In revolutionary times the "deep state" were the true patriots of the Land. They come from all walks of life. Hard working men and women who went about the business of just being Americans. Government workers and private citizens alike. But, everyone knew they could be called upon in times of Crisis (to respond in minutes) to protect the Constitution of the United States from ALL enemies foreign AND domestic. This is why America will never be defeated from outside.

This "deep state" are those people. I am those people.

Also called Minutemen. 🇺🇸

Semper Fi brother.

#9 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-01 11:47 AM

#7 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

People who take a civil service job are not required to be non-partisan. They are required to do their job without regard to party. That's not the same thing. There are no people who don't have political opinions. The government cannot discriminate in hiring based on political party (1st Amendment). You seem to think people can only be investigated by people who support them. What kind of sense does that make? I guess criminals can only be farily investigated by other criminals, then. Did you have a problem when (Bill) Clinton was being investigated by Republicans who had contributed to Reagan's and GHWB's campaigns? Did any Republican have a problem with that?

#10 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-01-01 11:53 AM

I'm sure Trey Gowdy will make all texts between all the Benghazi! committee members public...

...and hell will freeze over.

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-01 11:56 AM

Whodaman, I won't put words in your mouth but I agree with the first part of your statements and you seem to be agreeing with me that a partisan civil service wasn't trustworthy when investigating Bill Clinton. A Federal Bureaucracy that identifies 95% Democratic will not be trusted by the opposition party.

#12 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-01 12:09 PM

"A Federal Bureaucracy that identifies 95% Democratic"

Link?

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-01 12:16 PM

"the deep state"?

Clarke had a guy arrested for asking if he was Sheriff Clarke and then walking away while shaking his head in disgust.

#14 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-01 12:31 PM

"A Federal Bureaucracy that identifies 95% Democratic"
Link?

#13 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

He might be right.
/snark

Seriously, though, there are a lot of jobs that have few "conservatives" in them because you can't get rich doing them. Therefore, those jobs are taken by "liberals" and "progressives" who value other things than money. School teachers come to mind. Many "civil servants" could make more money in the private sector if that were their only motivation. Patriotism isn't just a characteristic of those in the armed services. You probably won't find a lot of "conservatives" in the Peace Corp.

#15 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-01-01 01:02 PM

Corp = Corps

#16 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-01-01 01:02 PM

thehill.com

Who are you kidding, no money in government? They literally print the stuff.

#17 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-01 01:11 PM

#14 | Posted by Tor

For idiots like "visitor_", this is what passes for "good men".

#18 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-01-01 01:18 PM

God bless you.

#19 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-01 01:50 PM

"God bless you."

N/A

#20 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-01-01 02:26 PM

LOL, visitor is a Bill Hicks-Jones rube, aka a very extra stupid kind of ------. Silly hilljack! Poor guy can't think for himself.

#so sad

#21 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-01-01 04:09 PM

Clarke: the archetype of the Trumpvoter©.

#22 | Posted by e1g1 at 2018-01-01 07:53 PM

"...Federal Bureaucracy that identifies 95% Democratic..."

#12 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-01 12:09 PM

Post a link or GTFO

#23 | Posted by e1g1 at 2018-01-01 07:55 PM

Posted it above.

#24 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-02 12:49 AM

"A Federal Bureaucracy that identifies 95% Democratic"

Oh, is that what the Deep State is? The Federal bureaucracy itself is the Deep State?

I would have figgered the Federal bureaucracy is just the State.
The Deep State ought to mean something else.
Something hidden.
What is it?
(It's a fairy tale for mental children like you.)

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-02 12:56 AM

A partisan civil service primarily serves itself.
#7 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

You've pretty much described every cop in America.

#26 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-01-02 05:27 AM

"...Federal Bureaucracy that identifies 95% Democratic..."
#12 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-01 12:09 PM
Post a link or GTFO

#23 | POSTED BY E1G1 AT 2018-01-01 07:55 PM | REPLY

Posted it above.

#24 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Fake News Alert!

Did you use your Fuzzy Math to figure that out?

Comrade, your link shows no such thing.

It says 95 % of "contributions" went to Clinton. No where does it say that 95% of the Federal Government identifies Democratic.

Fake News Alert!

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-02 12:09 PM

Are all Trump's fans drug abusers?

#28 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-02 12:47 PM

Differences without distinction, clearly they gave money to support Clinton because they're actually Republicans.

#29 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-02 02:03 PM

I think visitor is playing dumb.

Adults aren't actually stupid enough to think everyone donates to politicians.

#30 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-02 02:08 PM

Party registration means little, Sheriff Clarke won his office running as a Democrat. Roughly a third of people claim to be independent. The ratio of contribution is pretty good proxy for determining actual support. Do you have any evidence that the Federal Government doesn't overwhelmingly support the Democrats?

#31 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-02 02:19 PM

Party affiliation has to take a far back seat to other matters.

Like Clarke's fan base WTFU to his being crazy.

#32 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-02 02:25 PM

I think visitor is playing dumb.

#30 | POSTED BY TOR AT 2018-01-02 02:08 PM | REPLY

Nawww, he's not playin'.

If true that the majority of contributions in the POTUS election went to Clinton rather than Gropenfuhrer it simply confirms my idea that most Fed employees are not effing morons. Unlike Visitor's butt boy.

#33 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2018-01-02 02:44 PM

More conservative self-fulfilling prophecies; They claim government is full of liberals and then conservatives stop working for government; making the statement true.

Conservative stupidity knows no bounds.

#34 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-02 02:54 PM

by deep state the righties mean anyone in a gvernment job who doesn't buy their ideological BS

#35 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-02 03:01 PM

thehill.com

Who are you kidding, no money in government? They literally print the stuff.

#17 | Posted by visitor_

I laughed at your link - according to your link 88% of vets supported Hillary? I don't even need to call BS because we all know that isn't true. Only 2 million in "tracked" contributions? I have to laugh at that also. Then again - maybe it's just an indicator of where the GOP money came from...

Compared to the private sector - there is no money in government. Not to mention most positions that do pay well for the field are in unionized segments which means people that want to make more through work and effort actually face an uphill battle - this is one of those things I criticize unions on and Republicans are loath to deal with. Let's not forget whole segments are in areas of service that most conservatives I know wouldn't even consider.

#36 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-01-02 05:33 PM

. Do you have any evidence that the Federal Government doesn't overwhelmingly support the Democrats?

#31 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

You want us to prove a straw man ?

It's YOUR straw man. Get to work Comrade.

Remember. No one (in their right mind) thought Trump would (or should) win.

95% of Contributions going to Hillary can mean a lot of things. But it definitely does not mean 95% of the civil servants are Democrats.

#37 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-03 10:25 AM

It's an accurate indicator of overwhelming support. You're making the contention it is not, that's your argument to prove.

#38 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-03 10:33 AM

I think visitor is playing dumb.
#30 | POSTED BY TOR AT 2018-01-02 02:08 PM | REPLY
Nawww, he's not playin'.

Definitely not playing. Visitor is a true believer of his ideology.

When someone is a Believer all facts seem to twist themselves to fit neatly into what he already believes.

And like most Beliefs when taken to their logical conclusions they resemble insanity.

Add to that our media being manipulated by a hostile foreign power to foster divisions and chaos and this is what you get.

Someone who actually probably now believes we should have an ideological Purge of our agencies so that Trump can do whatever pops into his feeble brain at any particular moment without question.

There are laws that protect us from the arbitrary whims of tyrants. Civil servants do not have to be "loyal" to a boss unless he has earned it. They are expected to be loyal to the law. In that they have no choice. Every agency is created by Congress. Each job is a law created by Congress to perform a task for the American People.

You want to change that you have to change the Law. And Congress is the body that does that.

So good luck with that brother.

#39 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-03 10:47 AM

"It's an accurate indicator of overwhelming support."

But not an accurate indication of how many civil servants are Democrats. Just that 95% of contributions of those who decided to contribute went to the Hillary camp.

For the past 60 years, at least, politicians have been trying to figure out if career federal civil servants are Republicans or Democrats so I wish you luck in that endeavor.

They do tend to be slightly older, better-educated and are more likely to be military veterans (that lean Republican) than the rest of the U.S. workforce.

While they do seem to lean Democratic that does not mean a full 95% ARE Democrats.

Good luck with that strawman Comrade.

#40 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-03 11:14 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

White House Budget Director: Shutdown 'Kind of Cool' (68 comments)

Oxfam: World's Richest 1% Hoard 82% of the Wealth (50 comments)

Senate Votes to End Shut Down (45 comments)

When Trump's Foreign Policy Luck Runs Out (19 comments)

Opinion: Fix NFL PR Nightmare? Put a Woman in Charge (18 comments)

Patriots vs. Eagles (17 comments)

White House Answering Machine Message Lays Blame (15 comments)

Voters Disapprove of Trump, Doubt His Mental Stability (14 comments)

What Killed the Aztecs? After 500 Years, We May Know (14 comments)