To the Editor:

According to a Sept. 27 Oregonian article, Sheriff Glenn Palmer was forced to testify at a video deposition at which he was forced to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination no less than 51 times.

If he’s re-elected sheriff, will Palmer later possibly (1) be indicted for crimes; (2) attempt to take administrative leave with full pay during his entire criminal prosecution and one paid by hard working Grant County tax payers; and/or (3) seek to have his criminal defense lawyer paid by hard earned tax dollars?

It’s a crime to destroy public records in Oregon. I believe Palmer intentionally deleted public emails sent to and received by him as sheriff. According to the Oregonian article, Palmer invoked his right against self-incrimination (1) when asked whether he reviewed the legal definition of “public record”; (2) when asked about his own email exchanges with the Grant County district attorney; (3) when asked about whether the emails were public records, if copies existed, where he filed printed versions and why they weren’t released to the Oregonian after it requested them; and (4) when asked about other documents which he previously said under oath he didn’t have, but which other government agencies subsequently provided to the Oregonian.

What possible motive did Palmer have (1) intentionally to delete public records which are required by law not to be destroyed; and then (2) be forced to protect himself from possible incrimination by “taking the Fifth” no less than 51 times? Was it possibly because the deleted public emails provided incriminating evidence of possible crimes by Palmer?

Should Palmer’s professional conduct cause Grant County residents possibly to question Palmer’s professional competence, professional judgment, professional credibility and professional integrity?

Brian McDonough

Bennington, New Hampshire