In my humble opinion, I don’t think it is a clever idea to use government resources to call a press conference and produce a widely disseminated video of the press conference especially if the assassination attempt fails and leads to civil litigation which can end up being quite costly for taxpayers.
I also don’t feel it is a promising idea to even come close to risking taxpayer dollars by mentioning what could very possibly be HIPAA protected information concerning a political candidate you do not support and have just fired.
I also don’t think it is a clever idea to claim that a media outlet was going to do an “expose” on the candidate you don’t support unless you can offer specific proof that there was going to be an “expose” because who knows a news director might challenge the truth of the matter asserted. Certainly using the term “expose” instead of “story” or “news piece” is a desirable choice of terms if someone wants to make things sound really bad, but IMO not a good choice of terms.
Just from a political perspective, although it is part of the game to try and assassinate an opponents character, I think it would be a good idea before you do a presser to evaluate how ones actions will be perceived by voters from both sides of the political aisle because you risk the possibility that for example Democrats will come out in droves to vote for a Republican candidate simply because they don’t like the dirty tactics, and it could very easily turn off many Republicans who have been victims of public character assassination in the past by the Sheriff. Another thing that should be considered is the possibility that a Democrat candidate for Sheriff might jump in prior to May 20, 2022, and take advantage of all the Republican mess going on.
Just a few observations from someone unencumbered with a political ideology who doesn’t like dishonesty in law enforcement.