CauseACTION Logo

Meet the two armed citizens who stopped a ‘potential mass shooting’ at Oklahoma restaurant

Law enforcement revealed Friday that two armed citizens were responsible for thwarting a “potential mass shooting” at an Oklahoma restaurant — not just one like initial reporting claimed.

What are the details?

When a lone gunman opened fire at Louie’s Bar & Grill on Lake Hefner Thursday, 35-year-old Juan Carlos Nazario and 39-year-old Bryan Wittle ran to their vehicles in the parking lot to retrieve their firearms so they could engage the madman.

The shooter managed to wound three people before Nazario and Wittle engaged him and killed him. Police believe the men’s quick thinking action saved countless lives.

“They were able to shoot the suspect and put an end to a very dangerous situation. They stopped an incident that was very, very bad,” Oklahoma City Police Captain Bo Mathews told ABC News.

“Thankfully the only person that is deceased is the person who was trying to harm others, and it looks like others are going to survive at this point. That’s the best thing that we can hope for at this point,” he added in comments to KFOR-TV.

Patrons inside the establishment agreed. Jabari Giles, whose wife and daughter were shot, thanked the good samaritans for their actions.

“Thank you. I think [they] saved some lives tonight. I think it could have been a lot worse,” Giles told KOCO-TV.

What did the armed citizens say?

They were very humble when describing why they did what they chose to do.

“Just did what I was trained to do to neutralize the situation,” Nazario told KOCO.

Meanwhile, Wittle told USA Today: “I just did what needed to be done to stop the threat. Nothing special. A lot of people would have done the same given the situation.”

Ex-aides allege they were required to become ‘personal servants’ for Republican congressman

Rep. Tom Garret (R-Va.) allegedly turned the congressman’s staffers into personal servants and gofers, according to statements from multiple former employees, Politico reported.

What were they asked to do?

Four former staffers claim they were assigned to do grocery shopping, pick up clothing the congressman forgot at his Washington apartment, care for the family dog, and chauffeur his daughters, according to the report.

The former employees — not named in the story — said they performed the tasks out of fear that their careers would not advance if they refused. The former aides said “inappropriate” requests were also made of interns.

Politico stated that it agreed to not name the former employees because they fear retribution. Some of the demands were made by Garrett’s wife, Flanna, who frequently came to his House office with him, according to the report.

“I didn’t know who I was working for: Was I working for him? Was I working for her?” said one of those staffers. “We became their gofers.”

Several aides said the couple brought their dog to the office and occasionally would forget about the pet. If that happened, the aides were responsible for transporting the dog back to Garrett’s Washington apartment.

How did Garrett respond?

Matt Missen, a spokesman for Garrett, declined to respond to a list of allegations.

“We see no reason to respond to anonymous, unfounded allegations primarily targeting Congressman Garrett’s wife, made by Politico’s ‘unnamed’ sources,” he said. “It is easy to spread untruths and even easier to exaggerate and imply wrongdoing when none exists.”

Garrett’s chief of staff, Jimmy Keady, abruptly quit Tuesday over the couple’s alleged misuse of “official resources.”

“Multiple sources raised the issue with the congressman, and senior staffers tried to rectify the situation repeatedly,” the report stated.

Garrett, 46, an Army veteran and former state senator, told associates on Wednesday that he may not run for re-election, an announcement that stunned Republicans in Virginia and Washington. But the next day he held a 30-minute news conference announcing that he is seeking another term.

“There is no way in heck that I’m not going to be back here in 2019 as a member of the Congress representing the 5th District of Virginia. Too darn much is at stake,” Garrett reportedly said.

DA makes decision about woman who lied about cop rape. His decision will enrage some.

A Texas district attorney has made a decision about the fate of a black woman who falsely accused a white state trooper of rape — and he already knows that his determination is going to “frustrate many in the public.”

What’s a brief background?

After a Sunday morning traffic stop on suspicion of DUI, a woman named Sherita Dixon-Cole alleged that a Texas state trooper sexually assaulted and threatened her several times during her arrest and transport to the police station.

Activist Shaun King caught wind of Dixon-Cole’s allegations and created an internet firestorm against the department and agains the officer, and despite not initially having the facts in front of him, King swore up and down that he believed Dixon-Cole’s allegations against the trooper.

Dixon-Cole’s lawyer added fuel to the fire by issuing a lengthy press release detailing her lurid — and later shown to be utterly fabricated — allegations of sexual assault.

The department issued a statement on Monday noting that they reviewed footage of the entire stop, arrest, transport, and processing, and noted that nothing even remotely resembling Dixon-Cole’s allegations occurred.

The department released the footage to the public shortly after making the statement, and indeed, the officer was nothing but polite, respectful, and professional.

Dixon-Cole’s lawyer distanced himself from Dixon-Cole after the footage emerge, which completely exonerated the officer, and even activist King referred to himself as a “victim” in a lengthy blog post admitting that he now believed Dixon-Cole had obviously lied about the alleged encounter.

On Thursday, the D.A. initially said that the office was investigating the possibility of pressing charges against Dixon-Cole for filing a false police report.

The rest, as they say, is history.

So what’s the DA going to do?

Ellis County District Attorney Patrick Wilson revealed that his office would not be charging Dixon-Cole with any crimes, as she never formally filed a police report.

Late Friday night, Fox News reported that Wilson “reported the alleged assault to a detention officer on two separate occasions the night of her arrest,” and “not to a sworn peace officer.”

What does this mean? Well, according to Wilson, it means that Dixon-Cole never actually filed a false police report.

“Ms. Dixon made a general claim that the trooper made inappropriate physical contact with her,” he explained. “That claim was made to a detention officer, not to a peace officer. That fact is important in this office’s analysis.”

Wilson said that Dixon-Cole was encouraged to file a complaint with DPS, but instead complained to another officer.

The officer confirmed that Dixon-Cole was taken to a hospital, but refused to be examined or treated.

“We know this decision will frustrate many in the public who have called for criminal charges against Ms. Dixon-Cole as both a punishment to her and as a deterrent to others who may make false and damaging allegations against the peace officers who protect all of us,” Wilson added.

A new special counsel to investigate FBI & FISA abuses? Republicans just made a major first step

More than two dozen congressional Republicans took a major first step to initiating a second special counsel investigation in Washington on Friday, this time into potential misconduct at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and FISA abuses.

Lead by Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), 25 Republicans co-sponsored legislation on Friday demanding a second special counsel be appointed.

“Expressing the sense of Congress that the Attorney General of the United States should appoint a Special Counsel to investigate misconduct at the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, including an investigation of abuse of the FISA warrant process, how and why the Hillary Clinton probe ended, and how and why the Donald Trump-Russia probe began,” the resolution states.

What are the details?

The legislation, just 12 pages long, lists nearly four dozen reasons why a new special counsel investigation is needed. Some of those reasons include:

  • “Misconduct” high in DOJ ranks may have led to “premature conclusion” of FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, despite clear evidence to suggest serious violations of the law occurred.
  • Former FBI Director James Comey’s seeming contradiction over when he chose to not bring charges against Clinton. He told Congress it was after investigators interviewed her. It was later revealed to have happened months earlier.
  • The DOJ’s failure to “fully investigation” Clinton for her part in the Uranium One deal and its connections to the Clinton Foundation.
  • The DOJ using “politically biased, unverified sources” to obtain secret FISA warrants on Carter Page.
  • The FBI failed to follow its own procedures, known as the “Woods Procedures,” when obtaining the warrant on Page.
  • The fact that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into President Donald Trump and Russia remains ongoing, despite uncovering hardly any evidence in two years. The legislation also alleges the investigation is “based on questionable and insufficient intelligence and biased motivations.”
  • The fact that Comey admittedly leaked information to a lawyer friend about his meetings with Trump.
  • The text messages between FBI senior agent Peter Strzok and now-former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
  • The informant placed in the Trump campaign.
  • The DOJ’s refusal to comply with many requests made by Congress.

For all of those reasons, Zeldin wrote that “the DOJ and FBI cannot be expected to fully investigate themselves regarding this matter.”

“The concerns of the American people are serious and the issues requiring an immediate, unbiased, independent, and thorough investigation are broad,” he added. “The Attorney General of the United States should immediately appoint a special counsel to conduct a thorough and independent investigation of these grave concerns.”

Read the full legislation below:

Exit polls show that voters in Ireland might have just legalized abortion by a landslide

Irish citizens voted on Friday over whether or not to lift the ban on abortion in the country, and exit polls are showing that the bid to allow the practice appears to have been quite successful.

In 1983, the eight amendment to the Irish constitution was ratified, which outlawed abortion in the country. Since then, roughly 170,000 Irish women have traveled to other countries to have pregnancies terminated.

What did the polls show?

A poll conducted by RTE Television showed that almost 70 percent of respondents voted to repeal the abortion ban, and another poll for The Irish Times was similar — showing 68 percent of those surveyed voted for repealing the eight amendment, against 32 percent who said abortions should still be banned in the country.

The results also exposed large divisions between age groups, with voters over 65 mostly voting against repealing the ban on abortions, and 18 to 24-year-olds voting for repeal at roughly 87 percent.

Ireland has traditionally been a devoutly Catholic country, making the exit polling speculations even more remarkable.

How are people reacting?

Deputy prime minister of Ireland, Tanaiste Simon Coveney, said in response to the preliminary polling, “Thank you to everybody who voted today – democracy can be so powerful on days like today – looks like a stunning result that will bring about a fundamental change for the better.”

A prominent pro-life advocate in the country, Cora Sherlock Tweeted in response to news of the surveys: “Exit polls, if accurate, paint a very sad state of affairs tonight. But those who voted No should take heart. Abortion on demand would deal Ireland a tragic blow but the pro-life movement will rise to any challenges it faces. Let’s go into tomorrow with this in mind.”

50-year-old Irish voter Finbar O’Regan told his own story, of his mother being sent away to England to give birth to him and have him adopted rather than aborted. He said, “I’m a staunch No. It’s the life of an unborn baby. I’m one of the lucky ones.

“I’m very emotional.”

Publix acquiesces to ‘die-in’ protests organized by anti-NRA activist David Hogg

Publix, the grocery store company, has caved to pressure from a protest led by David Hogg that included “die-in” disturbances at their stores.

Here’s what happened

The Parkland massacre survivor began calling for a protest against the company over campaign donations they had made to Adam Putnam, a Republican candidate for Florida governor who was supportive of the NRA.

“Anyone who supports an NRA sellout is an NRA sellout,” Hogg tweeted. “That is why I am calling on everyone to stop shopping at Publix until they pull their endorsement of Putnam publicly.”

Hogg began to plan “die-in” protests where his accomplices lie down in Publix grocery stores and pretend to be dead while holding campaign signs and chanting slogans. The disturbance is meant to pressure the company to give in to their political requests.

Hogg was also demanding that Publix double the amount it had given to the pro-NRA candidate and donate that amount to the Stoneman Douglas Victims fund.

Videos of the protests were spread online by supporters of the anti-NRA campaign, and through lavish coverage from the media.

On Friday, Publix released a statement vowing to end their political contributions and review their donations process.

“We regret that some of our political contributions have led to an unintentional customer divide instead of our desire to support a growing economy in Florida,” the statement read. “As a result of this situation, we are evaluating our processes to ensure that our giving better reflects our intended desire to support a strong economy and a healthy community.”