Breaking down Jason Dunn’s thoughts on the feds in Portland
Re: “The real story of federal agents in Portland,” July 25 guest commentary and “Trump should keep feds away,” July 24 editorial
The guest commentary by Jason Dunn, US. attorney for the District of Colorado concerning the use of federal troops to quell disturbances and protect federal property in American cites, was factual, objective, and unbiased.
It stands in sharp contrast to the basically tabloid-style accusation of a threat to use federal agents to “intimidate protesters and silence the voices clamoring for an end to police brutality and for reform of our deeply flawed justice system.” Arson, looting, vandalism, and property destruction are not “speech” and they are not “protests.” They are crimes, pure and simple.
Richard Stacy, Highlands Ranch
Because he is the local U.S. attorney, Dunn’s piece about the events in Portland caught my attention since it is hard to figure out what truth is there. Dunn recounts his conversation with his counterpart there and ends with “those are the facts about Portland.”
That should be good enough for me, right? Well it would have been in any other Justice Department. But in Attorney General Barr’s Justice Department, everyone is suspect of spinning the story. Sad to say but Dunn is no longer entitled to have his words taken at face value. Barr has taught us to mistrust and then verify.
Scott Bridgford, Highlands Ranch
Dunn leaves out a lot when he claims the federal response in Portland is appropriate. Video evidence, credible journalism, and statements by officials in Oregon indicate federal agents are inflaming tensions and are acting against the wishes of those officials. A federal judge on July 23 granted a temporary restraining order against federal officers in Portland, finding evidence officers had retaliated with violence against peaceful journalists.
I think these facts, none of which Dunn mentioned or addressed, are very germane to the real story of federal behavior in Portland.
Dunn concludes by writing that he’s talked to federal officials in Portland and is confident that the Inspector General for the involved agencies will address any problems in the Federal behavior. Forgive me but this sounds just like local police who claim they will investigate themselves and let us know if they did anything wrong. The piece was intended to reassure, correct the record, and promise accountability. To this reader it did the opposite. I have not yet attended a protest. After reading Dunn’s “real story,” I will.
Greg Smith, Centennial
Dunn wrote that Trump’s deployment of federal “police” to U.S. cities is nothing more than “bringing law enforcement to areas that need support” and is a “good thing.” It might be easier for many of us to take such a rose-colored view of this, had Trump not announced the deployment during a partisan rant in which he stated that he would be deploying the troops to “Democrat run cities” and warning that the country would “go to hell” if Joe Biden is elected.
This of course was preceded by Trump stating that the American military would “dominate the streets,” a promise that he couldn’t keep because the American military refused to be used for such a purpose, so Trump had to raise his own private army through the DHS.
Trump’s claimed concern for crime in Chicago might be more credible if he had tried to do something about it during the first three years of his presidency, rather than a few months before an election. Chicago has had a serious crime problem for many years, and I recall that Trump used to blame it on Obama.
Jim Dieterich, Denver
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.