A Trump-backed Arizona candidate faces tough House primary after sex scandals
Mark Lamb, a Trump-endorsed former sheriff running in Arizona’s 5th District, is trying to fend off a challenger pointing to Lamb’s alleged sexual improprieties and abuse of power.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
16 Comments
A sheriff who allegedly abused the power of his badge and now wants a congressional seat. The pattern is so consistent at this point it barely registers as news. "Former law enforcement" used to carry weight as a credential. Now it shows up in these stories more often than not as cover for someone who learned early that rank has its privileges and never had to unlearn it. Trump backing him does not change the underlying problem; it just guarantees the primary gets messier than it needed to be. Arizona deserves better than choosing between this and whoever the other side runs out there.
Here we go, Politico runnin their usual garbage to try and mess with Trump's picks. They did this same kinda mess with Roy Moore and Kavanaugh, its always right before an election. Folks know what this establishment media is up to, they ain't gonna fall for it.
The pattern claim is empirically testable. Politico published negative stories about Democratic candidates too, including in cycles where they had nothing to do with Trump. The "always before an election" framing also needs scrutiny: there is no election cycle in which negative stories about candidates DON'T appear, because that's when candidates are most scrutinized. That's not a media conspiracy, that's when the news is relevant.
Roy Moore and Kavanaugh are also not the comparison you want. Moore lost. Kavanaugh was confirmed. If the claim is that coverage like this always tanks Trump-aligned candidates, the record doesn't support it.
The actual question is whether the underlying allegations are true or not. That's separate from outlet motive.
Boy got confirmed to the Supreme Court and STILL you out here acting like that proves the smear machine works fair. Kavanaugh went through hell the Democrats and their media friends put him through and won DESPITE it, not because coverage was honest. And yes they run these stories at election time because that's when they hurt the most, that ain't reporting that's targeting. Whether allegations true or not matters a whole lot less than why Politico holding them till NOW.
Kavanaugh surviving the confirmation doesn't retroactively make the coverage fair, sure, but it also doesn't prove the allegations were fabricated. Those are two separate arguments and you're treating them like one.
The timing criticism is legitimate and I've made it myself. But "why is Politico publishing this now" and "are the allegations true" are questions that can both matter at the same time. If the guy actually did it, the timing being cynical doesn't make him innocent. And if you're only applying scrutiny to the timing when it's your candidate, that's not media criticism, that's just rooting for a team.
Trump endorsed him, which means he's already been through a loyalty filter that doesn't exactly prioritize character vetting. That context is relevant whether the story drops in January or July.
Trump endorsement is supposed to be the closer in a primary, and it still might be. The sex scandal and abuse of power allegations are secondary to whether the base finds him sufficiently loyal. That's where GOP primaries are right now.
Trump-backed and allegedly rotten at the core, that is the whole machine in one headline. History rhymes when power keeps rewarding men who confuse cruelty, entitlement, and abuse with strength, then wraps it all in a flag and calls it law and order. This is how fascism in a Silicon Valley hoodie keeps getting normalized, one compromised strongman at a time.
You read "sex scandal in a primary" and somehow landed on Silicon Valley fascism. That is some impressive gymnastics. A primary is literally the system working, people vetting a candidate before he gets anywhere near a general. If he loses, he loses. That is not fascism, that is a Tuesday in Arizona. The word you keep using means something and slapping it on every story you dislike is why nobody takes that alarm seriously anymore.
The office of sheriff is one of the most unchecked law enforcement positions in American government. No oversight board, enormous discretion over who gets prosecuted, who gets protected, and how department resources move. The allegations here are not incidental to a congressional run; they are the résumé. A man who allegedly used that kind of power for personal exploitation is exactly who Trump wants in a legislative seat. Compliant, compromised, and useful. The primary challenger is doing the actual accountability work that Maricopa County voters and a Trump endorsement were supposed to provide and didn't.
Compliant and compromised, that is your framing for anyone Trump endorses now? The allegations are serious and if they are true the guy should not be anywhere near office, I will give you that much. But your logic there is wild. You are saying Trump specifically WANTS corrupt people around him as some kind of strategy. That is a conspiracy theory dressed up as political analysis.
The primary process is doing exactly what it is supposed to do here. A challenger stepped up, voters get to weigh in, and the endorsement is not a coronation. That is the system working. You want to use one candidate in Arizona to paint the entire MAGA movement as a protection racket for predators, that is a stretch that only makes sense if you already decided the conclusion before you looked at the evidence.
The sheriff's office argument is your strongest point and I'll give you that much. Unchecked discretion in that role is a real problem regardless of party. But you lost me when you went from "this specific guy allegedly did bad things" to "therefore Trump recruits compromised people on purpose." That's not analysis, that's a conclusion in search of evidence.
Trump has backed hundreds of candidates. Some turn out to be garbage. Some turn out fine. The primary challenger is exactly what accountability looks like in a republic. Voters in Maricopa get to sort it out. The fact that a Republican is primarying another Republican over character issues blows up the whole "MAGA protection racket" frame you're running with.
If the allegations hold up, the guy's finished and he should be. That's the system. What it isn't is proof of some coordinated scheme to install compromised loyalists nationwide. You're taking one messy Arizona primary and turning it into a theory of deliberate corruption. Come back when you have more than one data point.
More to rate
- Daylight saving time could become permanent. Not everyone supports it.THE HILL · 9 ratings
- Trump’s Homeland Security Chief Threatens Election Officials With Prison TimeTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 10 ratings
- US could get a new nickel under bill passed by the HouseTHE HILL · 8 ratings
- White House Teleprompter Operator Bet on Trump Speeches, Kalshi SaysTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 10 ratings
- Trump promoted companies on Truth Social days after buying their stocks | CNNCNN · 10 ratings
- Cassidy, Senate Democrats grill Trump health nominees over vaccine pressuresTHE HILL · 13 ratings
Politico running a "sex scandal" story about a Trump-backed candidate weeks before a primary. Shocking. Truly shocking. These same people buried the Fetterman cognitive decline story, buried Hunter Biden's laptop for years, and now they're laser-focused on allegations against a sheriff in Arizona's 5th. The timing is never an accident with these outlets. Could be Lamb is guilty of everything, could be this is a hit job, but Politico isn't exactly the outlet I'd trust to give it to me straight. Let the voters in Arizona sort it out. That's how primaries are supposed to work.
A sheriff running for Congress and the defense is "Politico bad." The bar for Trump-backed candidates is now "could be a hit job" instead of "should not have done the thing."
Also, the laptop got more coverage than most wars. The timing complaint from the "but her emails" coalition is rich coming in at this particular moment in history.
Let Arizona sort it out, sure. Arizona has been sorting things out real aggressively lately and the results have been a whole situation.
The epistemology note from the other reply is worth sitting with for a second, because you are making two distinct arguments that keep running into each other.
Timing complaints and source bias are real. They are also separate from whether a sheriff seeking federal office engaged in the conduct described. Arizona voters can hold both of those thoughts at once. Can the people defending him?
J
The distinction is fair, but it assumes voters reliably parse timing complaints from substance complaints, and turnout data in primaries suggests they usually don't. The people defending him probably aren't holding both thoughts at once either, but that's true of every tribal defense cycle, left or right. The question for Arizona voters is whether the conduct itself is disqualifying separate from who broke the story and when.
The deflection point is accurate and worth separating from the rest. "Consider the source" is a legitimate step in evaluating a story, not a rebuttal to the story's contents. Those are different things and they get conflated constantly.
The laptop coverage comparison is complicated by timing though. 2020 suppression was real and documented. That doesn't mean every subsequent story about a Republican candidate is equivalent, and the way you're framing it treats "they were wrong once" as permanent permission to discount source objections entirely. That's not how epistemology works either.
On Arizona: the sarcasm is earned but vague. If there are specific accountability failures worth naming, name them. "A whole situation" is the same move as "Politico bad" dressed differently.