On one side you have a man, reelected twenty rears on, upholding the laws as they're written while finding innovative ways to keep costs down - without violating human rights. This man went to Washington to defend his policies when the gutless politicians trying to string him up before public opinion lacked the courage to invite him to the proceedings.
The other man, most notable for the "fake rape" Tawanna Brawley non-case, is a known anti-Semitic race-baiter, opportunist and scalawag of the worst sort who pretends to be a man of God trying to take advantage of Americans Who Happen To Be Black like his predecessor and con-man rival, Jesse Jackson.
Now YOU tell me which man deserves respect and which one needs the old fashioned tar and feathering treatment.
Like I said, I freely cede that it’s hard to talk neutrally about the guy.
Suffice it to say there is lively debate about how well he always achieved the “without violating human rights” part. The city settled cases rather than litigate to the bitter end. Most of this was in association with practices in his tent prisons, not in chasing down illegals, and most of these problems are gone now.
Others like you are incensed at the way terriers yapped at his heels for things which truly meant nothing at all and ended up with clear legal wins for the big ego Cl — oops, the Sheriff.
He’s a love or hate kind of guy. I do not have the resources to dig through all the paperwork myself to see what’s what. I wish you well and no ill with the Cl — oops, the Sheriff.