Connect with us

Nation

Seattle Mayor Describes ‘CHAZ’ As A ‘Block Party’, Not ‘An Armed Takeover’

Published

on

Screenshot 2020 06 12 10.10.41

In an interview Thursday night with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan described blocks of Seattle’s streets that have been designated by Antifa the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” as a “block party,” rather than “an armed takeover.” The Seattle police and local government surrendered the area to Antifa anarchists Wednesday, leading to chaos.

“We’ve got four blocks in Seattle that you just saw pictures of that is more like a block party atmosphere,” Durkan said. “It’s not an armed takeover, it’s not a military junta. We will make sure that we can restore this, but we have block parties and the like in this part of Seattle all the time, it’s known for that.”

Sticking to his promise to restore law and order amid the violence in the wake of George Floyd’s tragic death, President Donald Trump has promised to take action in Seattle if local leaders don’t.

Durkan added, “There is no threat right now to the public. And we’re taking that very seriously. We’re meeting with businesses and residents. But what the President threatened is illegal and unconstitutional. And the fact that he can think he can just tweet that and not have ramifications is just wrong.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Nation

Is the FBI ‘purging’ agents with Conservative views?

Published

on

FBI

On Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan formally requested that the Justice Department’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, open an investigation into the FBI’s alleged use of political litmus tests to sideline or remove agents and employees with conservative viewpoints. This request also included a direct warning to FBI Director Christopher Wray about these practices.

Jordan’s action follows a report by Just the News detailing how an FBI security clearance review involved inquiries about an employee’s political beliefs. Specifically, the review asked whether the employee had expressed support for former President Donald Trump, attended a Second Amendment rally, or voiced skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines.

In a letter to Director Wray, Jordan expressed wrote, “The FBI appears to be purging itself of employees who do not share its preferred political views.” He emphasized the troubling nature of these practices, especially when they impinge on fundamental liberties and constitutional rights.

Speaking on the “John Solomon Reports” podcast, Jordan highlighted the severity of the situation: “Particularly when they’re asking about fundamental liberties, your constitutional rights, I mean, that is that is frightening stuff.” He further noted the retaliatory actions taken against whistleblowers who bring such issues to light, adding, “You put all that together, and you talk about politics driving what happens there.”

Jordan’s inquiry into the political weaponization of law enforcement has been ongoing, with a particular focus on the FBI’s conduct. In his communication with Inspector General Horowitz, Jordan underscored that the targeting of an employee’s political beliefs and First Amendment activities was deeply concerning and seemingly unrelated to legitimate security risk assessments. “These actions only serve to further erode the dwindling public trust in the FBI and reinforce the Committee and Select Subcommittee’s concerns about political bias within the FBI,” he wrote.

Jordan also referenced evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch, which suggested political retaliation against FBI whistleblowers aiding Congress. He pointed out that an FBI official allegedly disclosed nonpublic information about these whistleblowers to a Democrat member of the Select Subcommittee, ostensibly to discredit their testimonies about FBI misconduct. “It appears from the documents that the FBI sought to selectively disclose this nonpublic information so that it would be used to impugn the credibility of the whistleblowers,” Jordan stated.

In his separate letter to Wray, Jordan questioned the relevance of political viewpoints to security clearance determinations. He argued that while assessing the legality of employees’ actions is legitimate, questions about political beliefs are “completely irrelevant to any legitimate security risk determination” and infringe upon First Amendment rights.

Following the release of internal FBI memos showing that bureau officials had inquired about an employee’s support for Trump, stance on COVID-19 vaccines, and participation in a Second Amendment rally, concerns about political bias have intensified. These memos indicated that the employee’s security clearance was revoked months after confirming his conservative views and vaccine skepticism.

Tristan Leavitt, the lawyer representing the affected FBI employee, commended the congressional oversight, stating, “It’s good to see Congress holding the FBI’s feet to the fire.” He emphasized the need for a thorough investigation into how these questions were used to justify purging conservative employees from the FBI.

 Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton echoed this sentiment on the “Just the News, No Noise” TV show, predicting that the FBI would attempt to deflect criticism despite clear evidence of misconduct. “I’m sure we’ll get some distraction and noise from Chris Wray and a reaffirmation that the FBI never does anything wrong, even when it’s caught red-handed,” Fitton remarked.

Continue Reading

Trending