Missouri Congressman Calls For Criminal Charges Against California Congressman In Removal Of Painting Depicting Police As Pigs

wm-_lacy_clay_official_photo_2009hshotthumbThere is an interesting controversy brewing on Capitol Hill where Missouri Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo., wants California Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Ca) criminally charged after Hunter took down a painting by one of Clay’s constituents that contains insulting images of police as pigs and other animals. The question is what the crime might be in such a circumstance since the painting was not damaged. It is analogous to the recent controversy at the University of Pennsylvania where students pulled down a portrait of William Shakespeare and replaced it with a portrait of a black feminist author. The painting (as in this case) was brought undamaged to the office. Of course, this is the removal of art from a Capitol building.

Clay and members of the Black Caucus are calling for criminal charged after Hunter took it upon himself to remove the painting that was part of an art display in the Cannon Tunnel running between the Capitol buildings. The painting was done by high school student David Pulphus and won Clay’s annual Congressional Art competition.


The depiction of the officers as pigs and other animals is obviously insulting to many and disrespectful to police officers who routinely put themselves in harm’s way for the public, including officers who sought to stop the looting and burning in places like Ferguson, Missouri. That however does not give license to a member to remove art from the Capitol. The members of the Black Caucus noted that they have equal objections to other art, including permanent art. Clay noted the statues of Confederate leaders such as Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee in the Capitol: “Two traitors who cost America 600,000 lives,” he said. “They’re treasonous; they should be out of here.” It is an interesting point. If Clay removed Lee’s statue, would it be a protected act by a member?

Citizens would likely be charged if they removed art from the walls of the Capitol. However, Hunter reportedly did not keep the art and rather left it with Clay’s office.  Nevertheless, Clay has mentioned “theft” charges as appropriate in the circumstance.

The theft provision of federal property is 18 U.S.C. § 641:

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.


The act could be viewed as a defacing or damaging government property. That might fall under 18 U.S. Code § 1361:

Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:

If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

Recently, two men were charged with defacing both the new Trump hotel and the FBI building.

However, the painting itself does not appear to be government property and it is not clear if the wall was damaged in the removal. The painting itself was not kept by the member and thus not a case of theft or conversion.

The U.S. Attorney’s Manual expressly rules out “adverse possession” as part of this crime:

Section 1361 protects “any property” of the United States or an agency or department thereof, or any property being manufactured or constructed for the United States or an agency or department thereof, from willful depredation or attempted depredation. “Depredation” has been characterized as the act of plundering, robbing, pillaging or laying waste. United States v. Jenkins, 554 F.2d 783, 786 (6th Cir. 1977); cf. Deal v. United States, 274 U.S. 277, 283 (1927) (“depredation” defined in context of postal statute). This section prohibits actual physical damage or destruction of both real and personal property, but mere adverse possession of that property without physical harm is insufficient to violate the law. United States v. Jenkins, supra, 554 F.2d at 785. Section 1361 is a specific intent crime, see United States v. Jones, 607 F.2d 269, 273-74 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1085 (1980), and the government must prove that the defendant acted willfully; that is intentionally, with knowledge that he/she is violating a law. United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, 1004 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 910 (1970). The government is not required to prove that defendant knew the property belonged to the government, because government ownership is “merely a ‘jurisdictional fact’.” United States v. LaPorta, 46 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir. 1994), quoting United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (1975). In fact, title or possession by the United States is not a necessary element of this offense, if the property in question was being made for the United States. The government must present evidence establishing value of damage. United States v. Seaman, 18 F.3d 649, 651 (9th Cir. 1994). The penalties for violations of this section are tied to the extent of the property damage. As amended on September 13, 1994, if the damage exceeds $100, the defendant is subject to a fine of up to $250,000, ten years imprisonment, or both. See Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-322, § 330016, 108 Stat. 1796, 2146-47 (1994). When property damage does not exceed $100, the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $100,000, one year imprisonment, or both. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a), 3571.

That would make this a rather interesting but unlikely case. Nevertheless, members are not afforded the authority to unilaterally strip art from the walls of Congress. That could be a matter for internal deliberations before there are retaliatory acts by other members in a tit-for-tat demonstration.  There may also be a countervailing move by members to seek enforce a rule prohibiting insulting and demeaning images to be placed on walls in the  Capitol.  Many would find this art to be deeply disrespectful and disturbing.  Given the fact that all citizens come to the Capitol to meet with members, Clay’s selection could be viewed as itself a violation of rules of decorum and conduct for members.

What do you think?

124 thoughts on “Missouri Congressman Calls For Criminal Charges Against California Congressman In Removal Of Painting Depicting Police As Pigs”

  1. Rather than discussing how a decent, human being–so incensed by the vile depiction of our valued and treasured police–stripped the walls of this incendiary and despicable piece of garbage, masquerading as a piece of art, we should, instead, be discussing how Congress can, once and for all, be stripped of useless, mobbed-up, degenerate, do-nothing representatives like Clay. Yes. I live in St. Louis. Well acquainted with his reputation. He secures his place because he is controlled by the unions, who, in turn, demand that their members continue to vote for this thug, decade after decade. Any frank and honest discussion of his shenanigans, however, is stifled because it is, automatically, deemed racist or bigoted to criticize his ineptitude and incompetence.

    1. It’s called hiding behind a “racial suit of armour” – Barack Obama showed us all how well it works.

    2. Paragraphs are a good thing. It goes like this:

      Topic sentence

      New Paragraph
      Topic sentence

      . . .

      You should try it sometime, it makes your hate easier to read.

      1. Your constant inane, vapid and mostly imbecilic comments are of no interest to any person on this thread. Don’t like my style of writing, then, simply, don’t read my comments, Rain Man. Too complicated for you. Definitely too complicated. More difficult than driving slowly on the driveway. Definitely.

        1. Sure thing, bam. I just like the point out the hypocrisy of a few commentators. I apologize that you are one of them.

        2. BTW, my inane comments are far from constant (look up the word); though I could understand how you view them as such.

          Sorry to point out that your comments are far removed from any reasonable discourse, much like it was on other blogs.

          Remember, bam bam, even if you just want to scream, scream in paragraphs because your chances of someone understanding your screams increases.

          1. The only screams are the screams heard in your own head, Rain Man. If you hear screams when you simply read opinions, perhaps the docs need to adjust the meds. There is help for those who hear imaginary screams. As far as I can see, your comments on these threads consist of one thing, and, one thing only. You, consistently, fail to contribute or produce a single, original thought and, instead, react with antagonistic and insulting comments aimed at others who do manage to form opinions on the various articles. Yes. I know. Screams, emanating from inside one’s head can cause that. Quite predictable in your tactics. How about configuring an original opinion, based upon what you have read, instead of merely snidely commenting, in a juvenile manner, upon the comments and opinions of others? Not enough paragraphs for you Rain Main? Don’t worry. The waitress is coming by with toothpicks for your pancakes. All will, once again, be restored to calm in your head. The screams should subside.

            1. bam bam.

              Antagonism bleeds from your every word; so delicate of structure, baring its face.

              Your calm, cool words are the future, I’m sure.

              1. We all eagerly await a single, solitary original thought relating to the article at hand. Keep trying, Rain Main. The toothpicks are coming for the pancakes. Don’t freak out.

        3. Petty, insulting words; I am so hurt!

          Where is the enforcement of the civil policy, or whatever it’s called? Where is Darren when you need him?


    3. It’s best to avoid a string of superlatives when discussing issues. Ya know, like, “stripped the walls of this incendiary and despicable piece of garbage, masquerading as a piece of art,”.

      It doesn’t work: the walls weren’t stripped — a painting was taken down; incendiary — really, incendiary; despicable piece of garbage — ‘painting’ would work here.

      This style of writing makes you sound like someone with an axe to grind; someone who’s mind is made up, and here I thought this blog’s commentators valued their ‘free thinkers’ self-anointment.

      This is a claim of many here, though I see no evidence of such.

        1. Looks like doc is watching. He’s glad to see one of the patients out of the day room and on the computer.

  2. The whole thing is a side show red herring for a party that is morally bankrupt if it hand anything in that accouont to begin with. There is no difference between a racist act or a reverse racist act to clearly identify the surface of the problem. However having said that how did the one justify spending $7,000 of the publics money supporting racism? The underlying and always present question is how much of the $7,000 was declared as income and not returned in part as a political contribution. It is after all the pay to play party. If it was bought with private money whole new set of rules. Appearance of impropriety to use a socialist party favorite might be addressed. But then how would you define the constantly moving bar which by now is about 10 ‘ underground. It’s smacks of the same reasoning used by that party in going after Sessions when the party itself has been racist since the days it was founded not to mention anti civil rights. That party includes their right wing of the left known as RINOs.

  3. It’s only fitting that in this era of fake news, this piece of “art” should be hung in our nation’s capitol. Duncan Hunter should immediately call on his district to provide a work of “art” that reflects the truth of what took place in Clay’s district. Then hang that right next to this piece.

    1. Exactly. Which also parallels all the religious nonsense seasonly installed on public property. Satanists should have an equal place, side by side. Right?

      1. The keyword being “seasonally”. Feel free to place your preferred form of expression at all other times. 😉

    2. You have the inside track on truth, Olly?

      Paint you’re own version then, even if it’s only words that grace your canvas.

        1. Maybe you could enlighten the blog with your directions to truth, Olly.

          Point us to the truth; the floor is yours, a big blank canvas for you to impress upon. I’m sure Paul S. will help you with any citations.

          1. That’s the thing Jose, you’ve been exposed to the truth but you refuse to see it. It doesn’t fit within your worldview. Discovering the truth requires a compass that you apparently do not possess. Go find that compass and you will discover the truth.

            Good luck.

            1. “To hell with the truth! As the history of the world proves, the truth has no bearing on anything. It’s irrelevant and immaterial, as the lawyers say. The lie of a pipe dream is what gives life to the whole misbegotten mad lot of us, drunk or sober.”
              — Eugene O’Neill, The Iceman Cometh

            2. “. . . Jose, you’ve been exposed to the truth but you refuse to see it.”

              How do you know this, Olly? How do you know I’ve been both exposed to the truth and also refuse to see it? You must be sentient of many things beyond your immediate.

              “It doesn’t fit within your worldview.”

              How do you also know this? You seem to know a lot about me to make such grandioise statements.

              “Discovering the truth requires a compass that you apparently do not possess. Go find that compass and you will discover the truth.”

              What a nice homily, Olly, beautifully written.

              The floor is still yours, Olly; what is the truth? Write it down, here, on this blog.

              1. “Truth hurts. Maybe not as much as jumping on a bicycle with a seat missing, but it hurts.”
                Lt. Frank Drebin, Naked Gun 2 1/2

              2. Jose,
                Show some courage. I know, the following is from some old white guy but he makes a good point.

                “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] “Have courage to use your own understanding!”–that is the motto of enlightenment.” Kant


                1. “Show some courage.”

                  Aw, gonna draw me out now? I’ve read your dribble of few years past on ‘natural law.’ The word incongruent comes to mind.

                  But here on this thread, I’m specifically referring to your statement of January 10, 2017 at 12:42 pm:


                  Present the truth of, “what took place in Clay’s district.”

  4. I would really like to see what the rest of the competition was for this honored spot on the wall.

  5. Like most artists, David Pulphus paints what he knows. The best artists challenge the status quo, Pulphus has done that. The art should be put back on the wall, Hunter should apologize for removing it. No charges.

    1. Hunter is having his own problems just staying in Congress since he likes to use his campaign funds to pay for his kids schooling, trips for his pet rabbit. But not to worry since Prof Turley will forget to mention such things, and the GOP just now made a rule change that makes graft LEGAL for members of the incoming Congress. They can declare their accounts private and off limits to outside audits. Then we have Darren refusing to admit that Trump will become the most corrupt President in our history since he refuses to divest himself and his family from his businesses. Pres Carter had to sell off his peanut farm to avoid conflict of interest. Yet Trump can violate his contract with the GSA to run his hotel while being President. He refuses to release any of his tax returns, and future ones, despite Clinton having done so for ALL of her public life over the years. Yet he can state she would have been the most corrupt! That is called post reality politics. All we have to do is to look into the hearts of our public officials and NOT at what they say and DO! Good luck folks with your ESP. I prefer reality.

      1. Clinton released her personal tax returns for ALL of her public life over the years and it means absolutely nothing. How many times did the Clinton Foundation have to refile its taxes due to “errors” in not reporting donations from foreign governments over many years? The Clinton Foundation should be audited by the IRS and stripped of their non-profit status.

        1. “How many times did the Clinton Foundation have to refile its taxes due to “errors” in not reporting donations from foreign governments over many years?

          And you know this because . . .

            1. I think you have a point, but Clinton’s behavior can hardly be construed as a “pass” for anyone else to do what ever they want, including Trump. All this, team x does it so team y can do what ever they want is tribal nonsense.

            2. So, read randyjet’s comment, then yours, then mine and note the ellipse I finished with.

              Repeat until you understand.

              1. Yeah we know it because they released their tax returns….is the point you are making. Got it. But as a non-profit the Clinton Foundation is required to make their IRS Form 990s available to the public. My point about the Clinton’s personal tax returns is that noone believes they were released without having been “well prepared” for public scrutiny. Saying Trump didn’t release his “like Clinton did with ALL of hers” is not a persuasive argument in my book. I don’t particularly care about the tax return issue. And we know from the scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation’s 990s that it made many many careless “errors” over the years — and noone believes they were careless omissions or errors either.

                1. BB – I gave up on the Clinton tax returns when they itemized their donations to Goodwill, $2 for each of Bill pair of shorts.

    2. OK. What if what he knew was that he was a white supremacist and that all minorities were subhuman? Would that honest and sincere depiction stand on the wall of the Capitol? Would your defense stand?

      I agree with you on no charges, but I think they should debate the minimum standards for art in the Capitol. This does raise interesting points of free speech, and that ugly speech must be protected. But does ugly speech need to selected over others to hang on the wall of the Capitol?

      1. “But does ugly speech need to selected over others to hang on the wall of the Capitol?”

        So, Karen knows what ‘ugly’ speech is, while Olly knows the ‘truth’.

        This is hilarious stuff.

        1. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A cross in a jar of urine is thought provoking art to some. And because of the First Amendment, I defend their right to display that cross in urine in an art show, even though I find it in bad taste and cruel. Attendance to the art show is voluntary. The question is, should we use taxpayer money to buy a cross in a jar of urine, for example, and put it in the Capitol building, where everyone who passes must view it?

          I find the painting of cops as pigs to be offensive and bigoted. Someone else may find it daring, avant guard, and thought provoking. Those are the subjective opinions.

          The facts are that the painting depicts an occupation in a derogatory light, and that there have been calls for violence against cops that specifically call them pigs. (“Cops are pigs. Fry ’em like bacon.”) There is no positive interpretation of cops painted as pigs, an epithet against cops.

          Should a piece that depicts an occupation in a derogatory manner be paid for by taxpayer money? Some may love it and some may hate it, but there is no getting around the fact that it is derogatory to a specific job. Is it fair to use taxpayer money to pay for contentious art, where viewing it is not voluntary but unavoidable for anyone with business at the Capitol? Or should such pieces be relegated to the private sector art shows? Or should it stay in Clay’s office, where the statement is restricted to him rather than the entire Capitol?

          It’s placement in the Capitol sends the message that our federal government views cops as pigs, when it is supposed to represent cops, as it does every other citizen.

          1. Karen S – taste in art is very personal. Both my wife and I collect art, but we collect different things. And are willing to pay different prices to get them. Art that is provocative is the same way. For some it is, for others it is not. Personally, I do not think the art in this painting deserves an award of any type. However, the Congressman does. He wants a painting that will poke a finger in the eye of his fellow Congressmen and he has succeeded. One of those Congressman fought back.

      2. It’s the Capitol. Its a place for dignified ceremonial art work, not for outre art student jokes or inane political statements. Congressman Lacy Clay put this painting there because he’s a manifestation of the classless society – i.e. the one where no one has any class at all.

    3. No, he doesn’t know anything of the kind, any more than a random customer of American Airlines knows anything about plane crashes from palpable experience. For a black male, your lifetime probability of being shot to death by a police officer is 0.065%, If you don’t fire a weapon at him or try to take his duty gun away from him, it’s considerably less than that.

  6. The painting is yet another example of demonizing a demographic of the United States by our so-called leaders and the end result is anger directed toward that demographic. That it is used for political gain is even more reprehensible. The hostility toward the police has in large part been fanned by politicians such as Clay and charlatans who create false enemies to gain supporters and money.

    What other occupation class of American workers do some members of Congress care to disrespect? Perhaps they should look at themselves for a change. Congress and our president have killed, maimed and displaced more people in the world through the prosecution of senseless wars and actions than all other occupational classes combined. And, they do so while attending swanky events and priding themselves in their belief that they are the benefactors of all that is good in the world.

    1. Your critique of the painting, which I agree with, and the debate inspired by what the painting rightly or wrongly represents, are only possible because the painting is actually on display.

      1. Oh, puhleeze! Would you approve a cartoon depicting Obama as a monkey, bazooka toting, mass-murdering scum bag, which accurately defines this war mongering slime ball?

        Google images for the search term “Libya rubble.” Barack and HRC did that.

        “Most transparent” and “scandal free” Obama has imprisoned and prosecuted more journalists for felony leak laws than all POTUS combined before him.

        I’ll tell readers a very interesting and true story. I retired as a mid-high rank first responder from a major city. About a year after I retired I visited the building which was my second to the last work location. Barack had recently won his first term; he may or may not have taken office. There was a high ratio of black employees at that location. I talked with two of the most seasoned, most experienced, and among the smartest employees with whom I ever worked. One of them had transferred from LAFD, and had been inside dozens of the homes of rich and famous Hollywood entertainers. The other had worked in the hardest parts of east Oakland, where gang bangers routinely rolled their fellow gang members out the car IFO the firehouse, for the FD to treat their gun wounds. Both employees were black. One of these guys had totally turned his life around after being addicted to drugs and alcohol. Daily he proudly and actively employed the 12 step program, offering tremendous free aid and charity to any desiring it.

        I really miss those two people.

        Loudly, and with high emotion, both these guys warned me that BO would be among the worst ever Presidents, wielding undeserved criminal power because no one in the press would do their jobs keeping the nation informed.

        I had really no idea what to make of that. But their predictions were dead accurate.

        1. I wouldn’t approve of it, but if such an art series were temporarily installed, I would use the opportunity to raise those issues. Not whine about seeing a painting.

          1. Dave137 – you know that such a painting would stay installed about 30 seconds.

            1. How does this do anything other than reinforce the narrative the Left wants to keep going — that blacks are “victims” of a racist, white-privileged world? What are the Democrats actually ‘doing’ to raise the so-called ‘victims’ out of ‘servitude’ to the Left?

    2. Darren is my hero.

      Interested readers take note. The gestalt, the zeitgeist, the meme that America is great, and it is America’s sworn personal responsibility to spread democracy around the world, to protect innocent persons from the evil of oppressive regimes (AKA regime change such as the failed states of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now Yemen), the idea that America must intervene anywhere and everywhere on the globe to spread freedom and democracy….there was a time only a C ago that this meme did not exist. That was the pre-Woodrow Wilson era.

      This meme started with Woodrow Wilson.

      This meme has directly killed more innocent persons, destroyed more civilizations, than any other “movement” before and since, combined. No less a Republican than General/President Dwight Eisenhower warned of this in his Farewell Address (“…beware the ‘military industrial complex’…”). General/President Washington, in his Farewell Address, forbid the USA from any permanent relationship such as defines our relationship w/Israel now, stating that “…all foreign entanglements are temporary…”. (In other posts I describe how the USA relationship w/Israel is a felony crime…ditto India and Pakistan.)

      When you hear any POTUS say anything related to the USA spreading democracy, you hear the remnant of, the mass murdering doctrine of Woodrow Wilson. Virtually every single word coming from the mouth of John McCain and Lindsey Graham is geared to foment the waste of your tax dollars to fight unnecessary illegal wars and military excursions (the Constitution gives sole power to war to the people’s elected representatives in Congress, and forbids transfer of this power to anyone or anything else, a direct slap in the face of the Monarchy which is what POTUS is when he fights illegal wars).

    3. I agree, Darren. I am deeply troubled that Clay would have selected artwork that dehumanized a segment of our population that puts themselves between us and danger every day. The animalistic portrayal of the officers were not specific officers convicted of crimes, but represented all officers. It was a bigoted statements against and entire group of people.

      The people who think Clay’s choice in art to display is courageous are the same ones who frantically call 911 when they are in danger. When they are safe, some declare all cops are racist pigs and all African Americans incarcerated are political prisoners. But when someone breaks in or threatens them, they expect the police to break the sound barrier rushing to them on time and to put themselves in danger to save them.

      Imagine the outcry if the art depicted nurses, doctors, or lawyers in such a manner.

      This was not a crime. The art was not damaged, and it is in the possession of its owner. They can certainly debate its final destination in the Capitol, but criminal charges would be an abuse of power that the police would be very unlikely to obey.

      If they want to use this bigoted painting to stimulate discussion, then show it at an art show where people can go see it voluntarily.

      Perhaps they do need to impose some sort of guidelines on acceptable art, such as at the bare minimum, not dehumanizing an entire field of occupation.

      1. What is especially sad is that Hunter described Clay as a friend. Friends do not agitate to press charges against friends who take down their painting in a public space of cops as pigs.

        This friendship is yet another casualty in the polarization of America.

        1. Hunter’s indubitably trading in humbug. The two men do not serve on any of the same committees. They’re both in Congress and both legacy pols, but their similarity ends there. They’re 20 years apart in age, their family configuration is different, their occupational histories are dissimilar, and they’re poles apart on issues. I doubt they’re more than passingly acquainted.

        1. What about a painting of some white, pointy hat guys with swastikas dragging minorities to a fire? That could be just a painting too. Why can’t that be in a congressman’s office?

  7. The painting is sparking debate: which is, uh, the point.

    We’re governed by five-year-olds.

  8. Clay had to know that painting would further the racial divide in this country. Steve Groen comments above that Hunter’s motivation was for votes; does he believe Clay simply is honoring an “artist”? By hanging this piece of work in the nation’s capitol building, he is literally painting ALL law enforcement with the same brush. If he wanted to honor the artist from his district, he should hang the painting in his own office.

  9. Imagine what the response would be if in the same painting depicting the police as pigs the people were depicted as monkeys.

  10. I live in the St. Louis area. Congressman Clay is using “The People’s” building to further the mantra’s surrounding the Ferguson crime committed by a young individual whose brazen aggression in the store and with the police officer sparked the murders of “law enforcement” officers all across our nation.

    I am both embarrassed and enraged that the Congressman is furthering that mentality and would ask him to step down and work in a different capacity somewhere outside the government.

    1. Say it loud and say it often yellowroselady. We need to stop BLM and its backers (including Barack Obama) from propagating the lies.

  11. Duncan Hunter is trying to get re-elected in a district that is the meth capitol of the US. I’m sure he’s done himself a great service.

    Other than violating any rules of decorum promulgated by the House and subject to some sort of internal reprimand, the Cannon Tunnel is an integral component of congressional “attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same. . . .” As a non-verbal political act (sort of like wearing a T-Shirt that says “Towelheads Must Die”), I wonder whether the Speech or Debate Clause might provide for immunity from a federal prosecution anyway?

    1. “Duncan Hunter is trying to get re-elected in a district that is the meth capitol of the US.”

      Newsflash! My congressman was reelected 2 months ago!

      Other than that, would you care to site your source for that “meth capitol” claim?

    2. Hunter has never had a plurality lower than 18% of the electorate and has been held to a score under 60% of the vote only once in five contests. He’s not scrambling for votes nor would he have lost any had he ignored this inane painting.

  12. The painting was done by high school student David Pulphus and won Clay’s annual Congressional Art competition.

    IOW, Clay is personally implicated in selecting and displaying the painting. The homicide rate in St. Louis City was 38 per 100,000 before the Black Lives Matter extravaganza got underway. About the last thing they need is a local politician extending his upraised middle finger at police officers. He’s a legacy pol whose career is the issue of his father’s brand and influence. His father was elected to the seat in 1968 and it was passed father-to-son in 2000. From the age of 26 to the age of 44, he was in the Missouri legislature. From ca. 1978 to ?, he appears to have worked as a paralegal. He also dumped his wife after 17 years of marriage, a fairly unusual thing for a man of 53 to do; she said she found out he was serving papers on her from a news article.

    Waste of space.

  13. Of course, if there were a picture of Jesus Christ, I guess there’d be no discussion.

    1. Of course, when the line formed to acquire common sense, some left for other activities. Witness Hugh’s post above.

      To say an analogy between Jesus Christ and mocking of police depicting them as sub human murderers is weak, is an understatement.

      Half of California’s major cities are/were named by association to Roman Catholics, possibly San Francisco being the most prominent. Would you change the names of all such cities? How far do you think your campaign would go, and with how much success?

  14. Whenever I read incidents like this involving Congress the song from the musical, A Little Night Music, Send in the Clowns, gets stuck in my head.

  15. I think there are standards about what can be displayed in a government art show , and this violates that standard.
    For example you can’t display pornography.

      1. Plus, arresting the Congressman for the alleged crime “ain’t going to happen”. I don’t see any motivation on behalf of police to take a weak case, especially one that is deeply insulting to them. LEOs have statutory discretion in this section of the law and believe me Lacy Clay will be on the losing side of any charging decision.

Comments are closed.