When a person runs for office I can understand people will attack them. What I don't understand is attacking people that work for the person or the people supporting them. I am aware of things of the people supporting the opponent but I do not see the purpose of sullying their reputation.Even if they are true.

If a person presents ALL the facts and not just what they want to publish I can understand that. To edit and publish a 20 second recorded conversation in a meeting (with jailers) that lasted an hour or more shows me a lack of accurate details. More so when the person that  did this was either terminated or left prior to being terminated. What is the motive for this persons actions?

Publishing half of an incident should be published fully for that is a responsibility we all have to the truth. What is to be gained by publishing  half the facts? Why not publish all? Also publish the outcome. Why be so  vindictive  as to try to ruin a persons character or livelihood?  Because they support a person you do not like? Or is it  they represent some percieved threat in your mind? Or is it for some personal agenda?

It appears some people do not like the out come of any investigation even if the State Police investigate it. Case in point the report on R. Scott. Checked into by an independent respected agency, the Ar. State Police. They found NO wrong doing. The comments on Sgt Romeo. Obviously not true and did not happen. She is still in law enforcement and has dedicated her life to this difficult profession How could anyone make this accusation without facts? .And if any of the naysayers had the the intestinal fortitude they would embark in a career in law enforcement. .

And this will be blocked for comments because I don"t care to read insincere ,argumentative or negative comments  Also John this isn't Oregon and where do you get your "facts"? What publication and year so WE all can read it . Please don't say google either.