John “Burn It All Down“ Thompson, (DFL, HD67) got pulled over with a valid, Wisconsin license, to replace the Minnesota license that had been suspended quite sometime ago.
He’s getting dragged pretty hard in Minnesota social/political media.
I’m going to break with the crowd, And defended Thompson.
It’s true, he moved to the Twin Cities 18 years ago. And and yet he kept up his Wisconsin drivers license.
I totally get it. When I moved to the Twin Cities, and first encountered metro drivers, I wanted to keep some sort of document that proved I knew how to drive, too.
E
Yea, there is a discussion about this going on right now Justice & Drew. Rep. Eric Lucero is on commenting on this.
So he had an MN DL, it got taken away for not paying child support, and then he got a WI DL? Or he had both an MN and a WI DL?
Something ain’t right here.
Also this guy writes the laws that he expects you to obey.
I approve of your wry joke there. It’s a very decent joke.
I disagree!
If Omar can be elected and be above the law, why not Thompson? This is just the beginning, folks!
Disappointed that he wasn’t shot.
Yeah, you’re a trash piece of shit Allen, we knew that.
A Minnesota driver’s license can be suspended for non-payment of child support under Minn. Stat. 171.186.
John Thompson’s license was suspended under Minn. Stat. 171.186.
John Thompson got elected to the state legislature, served his first term this Spring.
This Spring, the state legislature passed Senate File 350 which repealed Minn. Stat. 171.186. You can no longer have your driver’s license suspended merely for failing to pay child support.
What an amazing coincidence.
^ There’s some fellas who write and read this blog that are probably real sympathetic to mens’ rights and would think it’s a good thing you can’t have your license revoked for being behind on child support.
That law change, such that it was changed, wasn’t done for Thompson specifically. On the left and within the Reason magazine crowd there has been some energy behind the idea to loosen the administrative / court screws that prevent black men from working straight jobs. That DL / child support thing is one of those things. So, it actually got changed here in MN.
Not exactly a coincidence…
It is difficult to feel sympathy for a guy who did this:
Responding to a neighbor who appeared to express support for “blue lives,” Thompson said: “Come on over here with your Blue Lives Matter sign! Blue lives ain’t s-t! And if people in Hugo don’t support black people, f—k Hugo, Minnesota!” Addressing the Minneapolis Police killing of George Floyd, which occurred after officers investigated a report of a $20 counterfeit bill, Thompson then said: “this whole god d-n state burned down for 20 god d-n dollars, you think we give a f-k about burning Hugo down? Now you running your coward a– back into the garage.” The video later showed Thompson striking effigies of Kroll and his wife, WCCO television anchor Liz Collin.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/dfl-candidate-for-minnesota-house-apologizes-after-hugo-protest/89-a09b0fed-5f43-4e38-bd72-ab1bd481e80c
So the guy is known to make violent threats. Say something like “I support the police” and he will threaten to beat you up, and burn down houses (presumably with people in them) in areas of town that he thinks are his enemies.
Today’s face of the DFL.
But you know, you gotta be more terrified about some out state rep who says that maybe Trump really won the election. After all, Biden’s FD tells us that the greatest threat to the US is Trump supporters.
JK wrote:
On the left and within the Reason magazine crowd there has been some energy behind the idea to loosen the administrative / court screws that prevent black men from working straight jobs.
Kind of racist that the effect of this is based on skin color. Also sexist, since women sometimes pay child support & fall behind.
Laws that are written (or re-written) specifically to address ra ce issues are an abomination. In fact the 14th Amendment guarantees all Americans equal protection of the law.
MO, you are forgetting that victors write the rules (and history) and those who count the votes elect victors. Welcome to the circle jerk.
MO – It’s not repealed specifically to reverse a disparate impact. But the disparate impact did highlight the issue. As I say, there are plenty of white guys that have the admin state put the screws to them in petty, counterproductive ways over child support.
It was a dumb law, has undesirable second order effects.
OK, he had a valid drivers’ license in Wisconsin. Two words: “motor voter”. I’m wondering if he voted there, too.
Something to look into…..
Lawyer Joe: “This Spring, the state legislature passed Senate File 350 which repealed Minn. Stat. 171.186. You can no longer have your driver’s license suspended merely for failing to pay child support.
What an amazing coincidence.”
I don’t see that this has been passed into law. There was a Senate vote. Thompson isn’t in the Senate.
“What an amazing coincidence.”
I read a couple news accounts but didn’t see the phrase “Deadbeat Dad,” nor any comment by women’s rights advocates or poverty experts discussing how fathers abandoning their financial obligations harms children.
Odd.
Re: Tompson’s threats and incitement to violence.
It is wise to remeber the true story of George Floyd’s detainment and death.
1) The fake $20 Floyd passed was going to be deducted from the store clerk’s pay. That’s why he called the police. Floyd had just stolen $20 from a poor working shlub more honest than he was.
2) When he was detained by the cops, Floyd went into a melt down. If he had cooperated with the cops, he would have likely been detained for a few hours or days & then released by the DA. You never would have heard the name “George Floyd.”
3) If Floyd had been white, done the same thing, and died with Chauvin’s knee on his neck, you also would never have heard his name.
4) At no time during his prosecution, was it ever suggested that Chauvin’s actions were motivated by racism.
Chief Inspector Woolly: Was it ever determined the $20 bill was counterfeit?
Some of MO’s retelling being accurate, the true story of George Floyd’s death is Chauvin put him on the ground and kneeled on him for 9 minutes when he didn’t need to / had no reason to. That’s murder.
Chief Inspector Woolly despises the Derek Chauvin verdict. That, by itself, tells you that it was the correct verdict.
Hey, the mob didn’t burn down the city again, so that’s a win, right?
Totally not a lynching.
Fundamentally, all folks want is for the police not to commit violent crimes against the people they are sworn to serve and protect. Concomitantly, police officers who commit crimes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It is astonishing that this is controversial.
“I vote guilty on all counts so please don’t burn down my house” is not controversial.
It’s just wrong.
I’m confused. To obtain a Minnesota driver’s license, you must claim to be a Minnesota resident. And it’s a claim made under penalty of perjury. Wisconsin has a parallel rule.
Since Thompson has a Wisconsin driver’s license, we can assume he truthfully claimed to be a Wisconsin resident, right? We’re assuming he’s not a liar in addition to being a Deadbeat Dad.
So if he’s a Wisconsin resident, how did he qualify to run for office in Minnesota?
Comfortably Smug on July 9, 2021 at 12:44 pm said:
Chief Inspector Woolly despises the Derek Chauvin verdict.
Please indicate when I wrote anything like this.
The idiocy is strong in you, Emery.
“Comfortably Smug on July 9, 2021 at 11:45 am said:
Chief Inspector Woolly: Was it ever determined the $20 bill was counterfeit?”
You can use the internet as well as I can, Emery. I am not google.
What Joe says. Where was he registered to vote, where did he vote, where did he live, where did he claim to live when he ran for office…..
I’d guess that the application to run for office is done under penalty of perjury, too. Looks like somebody needs to do some time.
Inspector Woolly wrote:
“It is wise to remeber the true story of George Floyd’s detainment and death.
1) The fake $20 Floyd passed was going to be deducted from the store clerk’s pay. That’s why he called the police. Floyd had just stolen $20 from a poor working shlub more honest than he was.”
What evidence does Inspector Woolly have to claim/verify the $20 bill was fake?
Deranged Thompson was initially pulled over because he was missing the front license plate on the vehicle he was driving, which is required in both MN and WI. Of course, the moron trotted out the race card and claimed he was being profiled.
As I have posted before, as a route salesman, about 70% of my week, is windshield time. Daily, I observe at least one black person, driving like bats out of hell, tailgating and weaving in and out of traffic. I’ve also seen two or more black drivers chasing each other in heavy traffic. I can only say this; they wonder why they get pulled over and/or profiled.
The store clerk at Cup Foods testified at Chauvin’s trial. Earlier that day, Floyd and a friend attempted to pass a $20 with a bluish tint which the clerk rejected as counterfeit and Floyd’s friend tore up to throw away outside. Floyd later returned and attempted to pass a similar counterfeit bill. That testimony was not rebutted.
What evidence shows the bill was not counterfeit?
Cut the crap Lawyer Joe: Did the Minneapolis police make a determination that it was counterfeit or not?
WTF does it matter, Lawyer Emery? The Clerk (a black guy) made the call, the cops went to talk to Floyd, who was observed trying to stuff something beside the seat, presumably to keep the cops from finding it.
Spend five minutes doing a little f’ing research & maybe you will have a valid point to make.
Chauvin’s defense didn’t try to prove the bill was fake because it didn’t make any difference. The prosecution ditto.
Jesus, Emery, haven’t you looked at timeline of the events? When the police approached his car they ordered him to show his hands ten times. He wouldn’t do it because he was busy hiding something. Then one of the cops pulled his gun and they arrested and cuffed Floyd. Once again, what point are you trying to make?
👆Because you’re a screeching minority.
I was going to say, judging from past and present comments, if “Comfortably Smug” has a “point” it is (1) write stupid things, and (2) waste everyone’s time.
Let me say how much of an exception this trial was. Firstly, the MN AG’s office got involved, and they then coordinated with Hennepin Co. prosecutors to bring a three-count indictment, where two of the counts concerned a murder charge. Secondly, the prosecutors were aggressive, driving hard the indisputable physical evidence, the expert medical opinion, etc., toward their conclusion: Chauvin was palpably guilty of killing Floyd. There was only one way this would go: conviction on one or more charges, and so it was.
Huge difference here when one sees the “criminal justice system” actually arrayed against a law enforcement officer; rarely does one observe the whole panoply of prosecutorial devices employed in such a comprehensive manner. In hundreds or more of cop killings there is only a pro forma investigation, and usually with no criminal indictment.
I think the most important element leading to the verdicts was the testimony of the Police Chief, the head of training and other Minneapolis police officers. Rather than closing ranks behind a “fellow officer”, they stood up and told it like it was.
If it takes a crime this egregious, this obvious to motivate investigators to leave no stone unturned and prosecutors to build an airtight case against a former police officer.
I’m not celebrating and thinking that this is a watershed moment. Because tomorrow the crime won’t be as egregious or obvious.
Look at “comfortably smug” evade.
Let me give you a time line:
First “comfortably smug” accuses me of something for which he has no evidence, namely, despising the Chauvin verdict-
Comfortably Smug on July 9, 2021 at 12:44 pm said:
Chief Inspector Woolly despises the Derek Chauvin verdict. That, by itself, tells you that it was the correct verdict.
I inform “comfortably smug” that he is making things up again, abd to produce evidence that I despise the Chauvin verdict. Unable to do this, he rhen switches to demanding to know if I know if the $20 bill passed by Floyd was really counterfeit.
Comfortably Smug on July 9, 2021 at 2:26 pm said:
Inspector Woolly wrote:
“. . .
What evidence does Inspector Woolly have to claim/verify the $20 bill was fake?
This is where we really enter crazy land, because it makes no difference, the question is moot. it is like asking how I know if the clerk ID’d Floyd correctly. I mean, WTF!? I hinestly can’t figure out where “comfortably smug” is going with this, since no one connected with the trial, defense or offense, saw fit to raise that question, any more than they questioned whether the clerk had ID’d the right guy (other than some pro-forma testimony from the clerk, just as the clerk was asked pro-forma questions about why he thought the $20 was a fake).
When he realizes that he is at a dead end with that bit of nonsense he plagiarizes something completely unrelated to anything anyone has said or written in this thread:
Comfortably Smug on July 9, 2021 at 5:17 pm said:
Let me say how much of an exception this trial was. Firstly, the MN AG’s office got involved, and they then coordinated with Hennepin Co. prosecutors to bring a three-count indictment, where two of the counts concerned a murder charge.
. . .
“Comfortably smug”:once again confirms his title of Ambassador from Looney Land.
Regarding the nature of the bill that Floyd passed, it’s said that when you handle a lot of currency, you get pretty good at determining what is real and what is fake. There is a distinctive feel to the paper, distinctive colors to the ink, metal threads in the paper, and more.
Did the DA independently verify that the bill was fake? Well, we wouldn’t know yet, but we do know that Floyd’s friend refused to testify because of 5th Amendment concerns, so we would assume that he is being prosecuted for something, and that alleged fake bill might be one of them. So the weight of evidence suggests that at least two experts probably took a look at the bill and believed it to be fake.
Now that doesn’t mean that Chauvin’s actions were warranted–I’d strongly favor a clear “excessive use of force” law that would have made it an open and shut case–but it does mean that the store had reason to call the police. When a grocery store’s margins are typically only about 4% net, shoplifting and counterfeiting hurt pretty badly. Look at what’s going on in San Fran for a reference point, really.
BB, it doesn’t really matter. If the clerk had been wrong about the bill, and in addition had fingered the wrong person for passing it, it wouldn’t have mattered to the defense or prosecution. No one was on trial for killing the wrong guy or the right guy. Chauvin was found guilty of murdering Floyd, not a guy who had passed a bogus bill.
The unrebutted testimony given by the prosecution witness at the Chauvin trial was the $20 was counterfeit. Emery refuses to accept the prosecution’s evidence, thought he has none of his own to refute it, and then criticizes us for accepting the trial evidence. Must be having a Garden moment.
I literally can’t understand Emery’s reasoning, Joe Doakes. No one, other than the crazy, violent, riot inciting DFL’r Thompson, is suggesting that Floyd was killed for passing a fake Jackson.
Before his name became a rallying cry for Americans fed up with the police killings of unarmed black men, he was an aspiring Houston rapper nicknamed “Big Floyd” whose lines were steeped in the lore of his beloved Third Ward neighborhood.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/george-floyd-aspiring-rapper-symbol-police-violence-against-black-men-n1222561
An aspiring rapper? OMG! Chauvin should have ten years added to his sentence for killing an aspiring rapper!
The writer of the article should be fired for thinking that describing Floyd as an “aspiring rapper” would gain him sympathy from MSNBC readers. What’s the joke? Real rappers kill people, aspiring rappers just aspire to kill people? What an f’d up “profession” journalism is
I quite enjoy your responses, but you two guys do know that the little weasel is just turning your cranks. He will be back next week or whenever he can jack a thread to any of his favorite topics and rehash the *exact*same*points*all*over*again as if you never l’arned him again for the N’th time.
So do we agree Thompson, with a valid WI license (if it is actually valid), is violating all kinds of state and likely federal laws for holding an elected office without representation? Talk about grand election fraud! I am sure MN State AG and WH DOJ will be right on it in three… two… oh, who are we kidding?!
Wisconsin is not part of the compact where having your driver privileges suspended in one state automatically carries over to other states.
But I don’t believe that you can be a resident of two states at the same time.
Powerline is on it: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/07/what-rep-john-thompson-represents.php
Apparently Thompson has NEVER had an MN drivers license, though he was elected to the MN legislature last fall and claims MN residency, in his Saint Paul district, for 18 years.
W-H-A-T?
If he is not forced to resign or sent to jail for this, it is a clear case of black privilege.