Category: Uncategorized

  • Elected Officials’ Support of Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP)

    Elected Officials’ Support of Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP)

    In the summer of 2020, amidst nationwide protests against purported police brutality and systemic racism following the death of George Floyd, a unique and controversial experiment unfolded in Seattle, Washington. The Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP), initially known as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), represented an attempt to create a “police-free” zone. Spanning several city blocks in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, CHOP became both a symbol of resistance to capitalism and democratic governance and a subject of intense scrutiny.

    Origins of CHOP: The Context and Build-Up

    The seeds of CHOP were planted during the initial days of protests following the death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. Demonstrations spread across the United States, calling for justice and systemic reform. Seattle, known for its history of progressive activism, became a focal point of this movement. Capitol Hill, an area with a rich history of countercultural and LGBTQ+ activism, saw sustained protests near the Seattle Police Department’s East Precinct.

    Confrontations with Police

    In the first weeks of June, tensions between protesters and the Seattle Police Department (SPD) escalated dramatically. Protesters accused the SPD of excessive force, citing the use of tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and rubber bullets to disperse crowds. These actions drew widespread criticism, including from Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan, who imposed a temporary ban on tear gas.

    Capitol Hill protest in Seattle at night with various protestors holding signs

    The most intense clashes occurred near the East Precinct, where nightly confrontations between protesters and police became routine. As tensions escalated, police barricaded the area, but the standoff grew unsustainable.

    The Abandonment of the East Precinct

    On June 8, 2020, SPD made the controversial decision to abandon the East Precinct, citing safety concerns for officers and protesters. This marked a turning point, as demonstrators quickly took over the area, dismantling barricades and declaring it a police-free zone. The establishment of CHOP followed shortly thereafter.

    What Was CHOP?

    CHOP encompassed approximately six blocks, including Cal Anderson Park and the area surrounding the East Precinct. Protesters erected barricades to delineate its boundaries and declared it an autonomous zone, free from police presence.

    Community Atmosphere

    Initially, CHOP had a festive and community-driven atmosphere. Art installations, music performances, and mutual aid efforts thrived within its boundaries. Volunteers distributed free food and water, while organizers held teach-ins and discussions on various topics such as systemic racism, police reform, and community-led governance.

    {insert street mural}

    Cal Anderson Park became a central gathering space for speeches, vigils, and debates. The area featured murals supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, including a now-famous street mural spelling out “BLACK LIVES MATTER” in bold letters.

    Aspirations of Self-Governance

    CHOP was envisioned as a model for community-led solutions, with participants emphasizing non-hierarchical decision-making and mutual aid. However, the absence of formal leadership created challenges in maintaining order and articulating unified goals.

    Goals and Demands of CHOP

    The activists behind CHOP articulated a series of demands aimed at addressing assumed systemic injustices. Their demands reflected broader calls for police reform and racial justice nationwide but also included specific local grievances.

    Primary Demands

    1. Defund the Police: Protesters called for a 50% reduction in the Seattle Police Department’s budget (although many protestors called for the abolishment of SDP entirely), with the funds reallocated to community services and public health initiatives.
    2. Criminal Justice Reform: They demanded an end to imprisonment as a form of punishment and advocated for community-led approaches to addressing harm.
    3. Support for Black Communities: Specific demands included increased investment in Black-owned businesses, the appointment of Black doctors to treat Black patients, and educational reforms to address racial disparities.

    Policy Changes: Protesters sought the banning of armed police responses to mental health crises and the dismantling of the “school-to-prison pipeline”.

    Challenges and Violence Within CHOP

    Despite its idealistic beginnings, CHOP soon faced significant challenges. The absence of formal governance and law enforcement created vulnerabilities, leading to escalating violence and disorganization.

    Incidents of Violence

    1. Fatal Shootings: Between June 20 and June 29, multiple shootings occurred within CHOP, resulting in the deaths of two young men and injuries to others. These incidents underscored the difficulties of maintaining safety in a police-free zone.
    2. Assaults and Property Crimes: Reports of assaults and property crimes within CHOP further fueled criticism from local residents and city officials. Namely, Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best stated “Our calls for service have more than tripled. These are responses to emergency calls — rapes, robberies, and all sorts of violent acts that have been occurring in the area that we’re not able to get to.”

    Organizational Struggles

    The decentralized nature of CHOP posed challenges for decision-making and conflict resolution. Raz Simone, a local activist and musician, became a prominent figure in the zone but faced allegations of authoritarian behavior and distributing weapons. While some within the protest zone viewed Simone as a necessary leader, others criticized his approach as inconsistent with CHOP’s egalitarian ideals.

    Democrat Elected Officials Initially Support Protest

    CHOP drew criticism from public officials, activists, and the media; however, some elected officials spoke more positively of the protests and occupation of the Capitol Hill neighborhood.

    Governor Jay Inslee

    Washington Governor Jay Inslee commented on Twitter about “very real racial injustices in our society” and claimed “CHOP was largely peaceful” at the time of his June 11 tweet.

    Mayor Jenny Durkan’s Response

    Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan initially expressed optimism about CHOP, referring to it as a potential “summer of love.” However, as violence and disorder escalated, she faced growing pressure to take action. Durkan also described CHOP as “more like a block party atmosphere, it is not an armed takeover,” on CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time.

    Durkan eventually ordered the dismantling of CHOP, but her initial support for the zone became a point of contention.

    Councilmember Kshama Sawant

    City Councilmember Kshama Sawant became one of CHOP’s most vocal supporters. Sawant joined protestors who marched to Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan’s home to make demands and called for defunding the SPD or resign from her position. Critics accused Sawant of exacerbating tensions, particularly after she led protesters to the mayor’s residence, prompting concerns about public safety and civility.

    The Seattle Mayor’s office released as statement in response to Sawant’s actions:

    “Instead of working to make true change, Councilmember Sawant continues to choose political stunts. Tonight she did so without regard for the safety of the Mayor and her family. The Mayor was not even home — she was working at City Hall. Seattle can and should peacefully demonstrate but should not put families and children at risk.”

    Dismantling of CHOP

    The turning point for CHOP came as incidents of violence escalated within its boundaries. Between June 20 and June 29, several shootings occurred, resulting in the deaths of two individuals—19-year-old Horace Lorenzo Anderson and 16-year-old Antonio Mays Jr.—as well as injuries to others. These events highlighted the inability of CHOP participants to maintain order in the absence of law enforcement. The tragic deaths, combined with reports of assaults, property crimes, and deteriorating living conditions, intensified scrutiny of the zone.

    Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best expressed deep concerns about the safety of residents and protesters within CHOP, describing the zone as “lawless and brutal.” Her statements added to the growing pressure on city officials to address the situation. Community members, including business owners and residents of Capitol Hill, also voiced frustration, citing disruptions to daily life, decreased access to emergency services, and fears for personal safety.

    Mayor Jenny Durkan’s Decision

    Although Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan was initially supportive of CHOP as violence escalated and public criticism mounted, her stance shifted. On June 30, Durkan signed an executive order declaring the clearing of CHOP necessary to restore public order. This marked a significant departure from her earlier rhetoric, as the city moved from tolerance to direct intervention.

    The executive order authorized the Seattle Police Department (SPD) to clear the protest zone and remove barriers erected by demonstrators. Durkan emphasized the importance of balancing the right to protest with the need to protect public safety, a balance that had clearly tipped in favor of intervention by late June.

    The Clearing of CHOP

    On the morning of July 1, 2020, SPD officers moved into CHOP with a large police presence. Armed with riot gear, officers dismantled barricades, removed tents and structures, and arrested 44 protestors on various charges ranging from failure to discourse, assault, obstruction, pedestrian interference and malicious mischief. Video footage from the scene showed officers methodically clearing the area while protesters chanted slogans and decried the city’s actions.

    The operation, which lasted several hours, brought an end to CHOP’s occupation of the Capitol Hill neighborhood. SPD subsequently reopened the East Precinct, which had been abandoned nearly a month earlier, and reestablished a police presence in the area.

    Aftermath and Legacy

    The dismantling of CHOP left a divided legacy. Supporters viewed it as an inevitable conclusion to an unsustainable experiment, while critics argued it marked a failure to address grievances that gave rise to the zone. For many, the violence and disorganization within CHOP overshadowed its initial goals, reinforcing the challenges of creating lasting change through such unstructured efforts. The operation highlighted the complexities of balancing protest rights with public safety, a tension that continues to shape discussions around social justice and governance.

  • Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s 2018 Warning of ICE Raid Sparks National Controversy

    Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s 2018 Warning of ICE Raid Sparks National Controversy

    In February 2018, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf drew national attention and widespread debate after publicly warning her community about an impending U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation. Her announcement, made in her interest of protecting illegal immigrant families, was hailed by some as a bold act of advocacy and condemned by others, including federal officials and Republican lawmakers, as an interference in federal immigration enforcement. This article unpacks the events surrounding Schaaf’s warning, the resulting political fallout, and the broader legal and ethical questions it raised.

    The Warning: A Message to Oakland’s Immigrant Community

    On February 24, 2018, Mayor Schaaf issued a public statement warning the Oakland community of an imminent ICE operation targeting undocumented immigrants. She explained that she had received credible information from “multiple sources” about the raid, which was expected to occur within 24 hours. Schaaf’s warning came in the form of a press release and social media posts, urging residents to seek legal advice and know their rights.

    Schaaf’s statement emphasized her belief in protecting vulnerable communities, stating:

    “It is my duty and moral obligation as Mayor to give those families fair warning when that threat appears imminent.”

    The mayor also clarified that her warning was not an outright call for defiance but rather an effort to inform residents so they could prepare appropriately. Schaaf encouraged people to access legal resources and exercise their constitutional rights.

    ICE’s Response and Operation Outcomes

    The ICE operation Schaaf warned about, referred to as Operation Keep Safe, focused on apprehending undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions or other outstanding deportation orders. ICE later confirmed that the operation targeted more than 1,000 individuals in Northern California. However, following Schaaf’s public warning, ICE was only able to detain 232 individuals.

    ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan criticized Schaaf’s actions, claiming they jeopardized the operation and endangered the safety of law enforcement officers. ICE also stated that warning the public about such operations undermines their efforts to enforce federal immigration laws and remove individuals who pose a risk to public safety.

    Is Warning About ICE Raids Illegal?

    The legality of Schaaf’s actions became a central question in the controversy. According to federal law, while it is not illegal to warn individuals about an impending law enforcement operation, actively interfering with or obstructing such operations can be a crime. ICE emphasized this distinction in a public statement, asserting that misinformation and interference could endanger officers, the community, and even the individuals targeted by the operations.

    Critics of Schaaf’s warning argued that by sharing details about the operation, she crossed the line from providing information to potentially obstructing federal enforcement efforts. However, Schaaf maintained that her actions were within her legal rights and aimed solely at protecting her community.

    Republican Backlash and the ‘Mayor Libby Schaaf Act’

    Schaaf’s warning provoked a swift response from Republican lawmakers. Representative Steve King introduced the “Mayor Libby Schaaf Act of 2018,” a bill that sought to penalize elected officials who deliberately hinder federal immigration enforcement operations.

    Representative Steve King's tweet showing criticism of Shaaf's actions and intentions for a bill to protect Americans

    The proposed legislation would impose fines of up to $5,000 and potential imprisonment for officials who “prevent or attempt to prevent the apprehension” of individuals by ICE. King argued that Schaaf’s actions endangered public safety and set a dangerous precedent for local officials prioritizing political ideology over federal law.

    While the bill garnered support from immigration hardliners, it faced criticism from Democrats and immigrant advocacy groups, who saw it as an attempt to intimidate local leaders from protecting immigrant communities.

    President Trump’s Reaction

    Then-President Donald Trump was among Schaaf’s most vocal critics, condemning her actions as a “disgrace” during a meeting at the White House. Trump claimed that Schaaf’s warning allowed hundreds of criminals to evade capture, stating:

    “What the mayor of Oakland did the other day was a disgrace. They had close to 1,000 people ready to be gotten, ready to be taken off the streets … many of them, they say 85 percent of them are criminals and had criminal records. And the mayor of Oakland went out and warned them all, scattered, so instead of taking in a thousand they took in a fraction of that.”

    Trump’s remarks highlighted a recurring clash between his administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies and local leaders in sanctuary cities who resisted federal efforts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants.

    Schaaf’s Defense: A Stand for Oakland’s Values

    In her official statement following the ICE operation, Schaaf defended her actions, reiterating that she believed it was her moral responsibility to warn her community. She also pushed back against accusations that she interfered with federal enforcement, asserting that she shared general information without compromising operational specifics.

    Screenshot of Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf's statement addressing the controversy.

    Schaaf stated:

    “I do not regret sharing this information. It is Oakland’s legal right to be a sanctuary city, and we have not broken any laws. We believe our community is safer when families stay together.”

    The mayor framed her decision as consistent with Oakland’s status as a sanctuary city, where local authorities limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to protect undocumented residents.

    Broader Implications and the Sanctuary City Debate

    The controversy surrounding Schaaf’s warning reignited a broader debate over sanctuary city policies and the role of local governments in immigration enforcement. Sanctuary cities argue that fostering trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement is essential for public safety, as it encourages undocumented residents to report crimes and cooperate with investigations without fear of deportation.

    However, opponents contend that such policies shield individuals with criminal records from accountability and undermine federal law. Schaaf’s warning became a flashpoint in this national debate, symbolizing the deep divisions over immigration policy and enforcement under the Trump administration.

    Mayor Libby Schaaf’s 2018 warning about an impending ICE raid remains one of the most contentious moments in the ongoing conflict between federal immigration authorities and local governments in sanctuary cities. While supporters praised her for standing up for vulnerable communities, critics accused her of jeopardizing public safety and interfering with federal law enforcement.

    The legal and political fallout from Schaaf’s actions continues to reverberate, with ongoing debates about the balance between local autonomy and federal authority, the ethical responsibilities of elected officials, and the broader impact of immigration policies on communities across the United States.

  • The 2013 IRS Tax Exemption Controversy with Conservative Groups

    The 2013 IRS Tax Exemption Controversy with Conservative Groups

    In 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) faced widespread criticism after revelations that it had unfairly targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. An audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) uncovered that the IRS used politically biased criteria to flag organizations for additional scrutiny. This discovery sparked outrage, particularly among Republicans and conservative groups, who accused the agency of systemic discrimination. The scandal raised serious concerns about government overreach and impartiality, prompting investigations, resignations, and a series of reforms. This article explores the details of the controversy, the reactions it elicited, and the steps taken to address the fallout.

    The Controversy: What Happened?


    The IRS controversy came to light after a TIGTA audit revealed that the agency had used inappropriate criteria to screen applications for tax-exempt status. Specifically, the IRS targeted groups with names or themes associated with conservative political ideologies, such as “Tea Party,” “Patriot,” and “9/12.” These groups faced delayed processing, intrusive questions, and extensive documentation requests.

    Sign in front of the United States Internal Revenue Service building

    This targeting occurred as organizations applied for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, which allows groups to engage in limited political activity without disclosing their donors. The TIGTA report highlighted systemic issues in the IRS’s handling of these applications, raising concerns about fairness and political impartiality.

    Public and Republican Reactions


    The revelation sparked outrage among conservative groups and the Republican Party, who accused the IRS of politically motivated discrimination. Republicans viewed the targeting as evidence of systemic bias against conservative values, calling for investigations and accountability.

    Conservative group protesting IRS audit controversy, 2013

    The public’s reaction was equally strong. Many saw the issue as emblematic of government overreach and demanded swift action. The scandal became a significant talking point in the broader debate about the size and role of government, with critics questioning the IRS’s transparency and accountability.

    Understanding BOLO: The Screening Mechanism


    The term “BOLO” (Be On the Lookout) was central to the controversy. According to the TIGTA report, BOLO lists were used by the IRS to identify applications for additional scrutiny based on certain criteria. While BOLO lists are not inherently improper, their use in this case was problematic because they explicitly targeted groups based on political affiliations or perceived ideologies.

    These lists included terms like “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and references to government debt and taxes. By focusing disproportionately on conservative organizations, the IRS violated its obligation to administer tax laws impartially.

    Lois Lerner’s Role in the IRS Scandal


    Lois Lerner, the Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Unit, became a central figure in the 2013 controversy. She publicly acknowledged the targeting during a 2013 event, describing it as “inappropriate” and apologizing for her division’s actions. However, her handling of the situation quickly drew intense scrutiny from Congress and the public.

    Internal Revenue Service Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner is sworn in before testifying to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
    WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 22: Internal Revenue Service Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner is sworn in before testifying to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee May 22, 2013 in Washington, DC. The committee is investigating allegations that the IRS targeted conservative non-profit organizations with the words “tea party” and “constitution” in their names for additional scrutiny. Lerner, who headed the division that oversees exempt organizations, plans to assert her constitutional right not to answer questions. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

    Facing calls to resign, Lerner refused to step down from her position. In response, the IRS placed her on administrative leave. Her refusal to resign further fueled criticism, with many arguing that her decision reflected a lack of accountability. The situation escalated when Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment rights during a Congressional hearing, refusing to answer questions about her involvement in the scandal.

    Lerner’s actions and the decision to place her on administrative leave rather than terminating her employment deepened public distrust in the IRS. Her role became emblematic of the broader concerns surrounding the agency’s impartiality and accountability during the controversy.

    President Obama’s Response


    President Barack Obama condemned the targeting, calling it “intolerable and inexcusable.” His administration pledged to hold those responsible accountable and launched internal reviews. Obama also accepted the resignation of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller as part of an effort to restore public trust in the IRS.

    Obama responds to IRS tax exemption scrutiny controversy, 2013

    Despite his swift response, critics argued that Obama’s actions were insufficient. Republicans accused the administration of attempting to downplay the severity of the issue and called for further investigations into the matter.

    Were Conservative Groups Specifically Targeted by the IRS?


    While the IRS initially claimed that the targeting was not politically motivated, subsequent investigations, including one by Vox, confirmed that conservative groups were disproportionately scrutinized. Liberal-leaning organizations applying for the same tax-exempt status did not face similar delays or intrusive questioning.

    The TIGTA report and other analyses underscored that the IRS’s actions were not neutral but skewed against conservative groups. This targeting undermined public confidence in the IRS and raised serious concerns about political bias within the agency.

    Steps Taken to Address the Issue


    In the wake of the scandal, several measures were introduced to address systemic issues within the IRS. These included:

    1. Policy Reforms: The IRS revised its BOLO procedures, ensuring that applications were reviewed based on content rather than organizational names or political affiliations.
    2. Leadership Changes: Several senior officials resigned or were reassigned, including Acting Commissioner Steven Miller and Lois Lerner.
    3. Congressional Oversight: Multiple Congressional hearings were held to investigate the IRS’s actions and propose safeguards against future abuses.
    4. TIGTA Recommendations: The TIGTA report included several recommendations for improving the IRS’s processes, all of which were adopted.

    While these actions addressed some of the immediate concerns, the controversy left a lasting impact on the public’s perception of the IRS and its role in enforcing tax laws impartially.


    The 2013 IRS tax exemption controversy exposed significant flaws in the agency’s handling of politically sensitive applications. Conservative groups were unfairly targeted, leading to public outrage and political fallout. The scandal highlighted the importance of maintaining impartiality in government institutions and prompted reforms aimed at restoring trust.

    While the measures taken addressed some of the systemic issues, the controversy remains a cautionary tale about the dangers of bias and the need for transparency in government operations.

  • Did MSNBC Compare Donald Trump’s Madison Square Garden Rally to a Nazi Rally?

    Did MSNBC Compare Donald Trump’s Madison Square Garden Rally to a Nazi Rally?

    MSNBC aired an opinion segment comparing former President Donald Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally during the 2024 election campaign to a Nazi rally held at the same venue in 1939. This sparked significant debate, with critics questioning whether the comparison was warranted or consistent. Did MSNBC explicitly draw such a comparison? Here’s an analysis based on the transcript and additional context about Madison Square Garden’s historical use for political events.

    Historical Context Provided by MSNBC

    The segment opened by recounting the infamous 1939 rally at Madison Square Garden, where over 20,000 American Nazi supporters gathered under banners displaying swastikas. During that event, speakers promoted anti-Semitic rhetoric, and a Jewish protester was violently attacked by “stormtroopers.” MSNBC juxtaposed this historical moment with Trump’s rally, emphasizing the venue’s symbolic weight.

    Frame of historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat's appearance on MSNBC

    History professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat argued that Trump’s choice of Madison Square Garden was “not a casual choice,” suggesting it invoked historical parallels. She pointed to Trump’s rhetoric, including phrases like “polluting our blood” and “vermin,” which she claimed mirrored language used by Adolf Hitler.

    Comparisons Between Trump and Fascist Leaders

    MSNBC’s panelists examined Trump’s rhetoric, comparing it to that of authoritarian leaders. Anne Applebaum, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, highlighted Trump’s use of dehumanizing terms like “animals” and “cold-blooded killers” to describe his opponents, as well as his frequent appeals to authoritarian ideas. Both Ben-Ghiat and Applebaum argued that Trump’s rallies aim to radicalize voters, mobilizing latent anger and extremism.

    The segment also linked Trump’s alleged calls for mass deportations and military obedience to historical fascist tactics, drawing parallels between his rhetoric and authoritarian regimes. While MSNBC did not explicitly equate Trump’s rally with the 1939 Nazi rally, the implication was clear with visual representations of the 1930’s rally then transitioned to Trump’s 2024 rally.

    Madison Square Garden’s Political History

    Despite MSNBC’s focus on the 1939 Nazi rally, Madison Square Garden has a long history of hosting political events, including several Democratic gatherings that were not subject to similar scrutiny or comparisons.

    • Democratic National Convention (1924): The convention, held at Madison Square Garden, was deeply divided over issues like immigration and Prohibition, requiring a record 103 ballots to nominate John W. Davis.
    • Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Campaign Speech (1936): During his re-election campaign, President Roosevelt delivered a significant speech at Madison Square Garden.
    • Democratic National Convention (1980): President Jimmy Carter and Senator Ted Kennedy addressed the convention held at Madison Square Garden during Carter’s re-election campaign.
    • Bill Clinton’s Acceptance Speech (1992): Clinton delivered his acceptance speech as the Democratic presidential nominee at Madison Square Garden during the convention.

    These events underscore that Madison Square Garden has served as a venue for significant political events across the ideological spectrum. Unlike Trump’s rally, none of these Democratic gatherings drew comparisons to the 1939 Nazi rally, despite their large-scale use of the venue and contentious issues of their time.

    Does the Segment Make a Direct Comparison?

    Historical footage of pro-Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden circa 1939 aired on MSNBC

    While MSNBC did not explicitly state that Trump’s rally was identical to the 1939 Nazi rally, it strongly implied a connection. The focus on historical parallels, rhetoric, and symbolism invited viewers to draw their own conclusions. However, the segment’s omission of Madison Square Garden’s broader political history raises questions about whether the comparison was fair or selective.

    MSNBC’s segment implicitly compared Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally to the 1939 Nazi rally through historical and rhetorical parallels. However, the venue has hosted many political events, including rallies and conventions led by prominent Democratic figures, which were not similarly scrutinized.

    This raises broader questions about the consistency and fairness of such comparisons. Whether MSNBC’s framing was appropriate or hyperbolic remains a subject of public debate.