Linkedin Share
Wire

It Looks Like 'Squad' Member's New Husband She Secretly Married Broke the Law in a Major Way

Linkedin Share

It appears the newest “squad”-mate might have as little respect for the law as his wife has for law enforcement.

After news broke this week that far-left Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri had secretly married a man her campaign had hired for security services, questions started to arise about the ethics of a congresswoman paying a romantic partner with campaign funds.

Now, thanks to a Fox News report, new questions are being raised about the possibility that Bush’s new husband had broken the law himself.

According to Fox, Cortney Merritts — the new Mr. Cori Bush — has been apparently providing professional security services to his now-wife without benefit of having a current private security license.

And on paper at least, St. Louis takes that kind of thing very seriously.

Trending:
Massive Migrant Caravan Marches Toward US with LGBT Flags Flying as Mexican President Snubs Biden at Summit

In fact, the website of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, which handles private security licensing, has this sentence right near the top:

“With the exception of St. Louis Police Officers, all persons performing a security function in the City of St. Louis must be licensed to do so through the Private Security Section. “

According to Fox, a public records request filed Monday with the department found no license for Merritts had been issued in a decade.

Should Cori Bush’s husband be prosecuted if he broke the law?

The “last security license issued to that individual expired in 2012,” an administrator said, according to Fox.

If Merritts was, in fact, operating as a security detail without with an expired license, it’s worth pointing out that the St. Louis PD addresses that very issue in its “Private Security Section” under “frequently asked questions“:

“May I work on an expired license?”

“NO. Working on an expired license or no license subjects you to arrest and booking. Companies or agencies that knowingly employ someone without a license subjects them to a fine and/or liability in a civil action.”

Is the uppercase “NO” not emphatic enough? Is the threat of arrest and booking not serious enough? Is the information that companies or agencies — presumably including congressional candidates and elected congresswomen — are subject to a fine and/or liability in a civil action not enough to deter such behavior?

Apparently not, considering the Fox report. But would anyone who’s familiar with Bush’s record be surprised at that?

Related:
Chemical Spill Threatens Water Supply in Major US City - Officials Say It's Safe Until 11:59 PM

Since she was elected to the House in 2020, Bush has been consistently hypocritical on the subject of law.

While advocating defunding police officers who protect the lives and property of American citizens — including the poor and minorities who live in Missouri’s 1st Congressional District, which covers the city of St. Louis and northern St. Louis county, and where black residents actually outnumber whites — she has spent a queen’s ransom on her personal security.

According to KDSK in St. Louis, which broke the secret wedding story, Bush has spent at least $627,088 on personal security since August 2020.

Even more than other security-spending “squad” members, she apparently spares no expense when it comes to her own safety. For her constituents, it’s clearly a different story.

And now, it turns out this lawmaker has apparently married a lawbreaker — a man providing security services for a fee without having secured a license to do so. And not only that, Bush’s office was the one making the illegal payments, according to Fox

Bush being the kind of politician she is, it’s a good chance it won’t be long before “racism” gets pulled into this conversation — as though no one would have looked into the background of the spouse of a high-profile congressional agitator if that agitator had only been white.

Regardless of how it plays out — in the Republican-controlled Congress, in Bush’s home district, or in the court of public opinion — one thing is clear:

Between one trying to defund law enforcement and the other’s apparent disregard for the law — these two were made for each other.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Submit a Correction →



Linkedin Share

Conversation