
Hyper woke 'sanctuary city' mayor's re-election campaign derailed after sordid love triangle ends in 'violence'
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu' s re-election campaign has been derailed after a sordid love triangle in her hyper-woke administration allegedly ended in violence.
Two City Hall employees Marwa Khudaynazar, 27, and Chulan Huang, 26, were fired after facing domestic violence charges from an alleged cheating scandal involving a third unnamed city official.
But critics are now demanding answers over whey another high-ranking official named in the dispute was allowed to keep their job.
Khudaynazar, former chief of staff at the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency, and Huang, former neighborhood liaison for Downtown, Chinatown, and the Leather District, were arrested last Thursday.
They were both charged with assault and battery on a household member, while Khudaynazar was also charged with assault and battery on a police officer, according to court documents first reported by the Boston.
Both pleaded not guilty.
Khudaynazar allegedly told officers she suspected her boyfriend of a year was having an affair, so she went on a date with his own boss earlier that night. She then allegedly showed up at his apartment to gloat about her betrayal.
Huang, who lives at the apartment where the dispute took place, allegedly told officers, 'She went on a date with my boss', adding 'they booked a hotel and she came here to rub it in my face'.
City Councilor Ed Flynn and mayoral candidate Josh Kraft have called for Segun Idowu, chief of economic opportunity and inclusion who oversees the department where Huang worked, to be terminated.
Kraft is now demanding Wu release her internal investigation report that allegedly cleared other city workers of wrongdoing.
'The public deserves more information,' Kraft said.
'The police report indicated the incident stemmed from a relationship with a city employee in a position of authority,' Flynn said. 'Although it may not be an issue of power dynamics, unanswered questions regarding relationships in the workplace remain.
'It is critical to restore public trust with an independent investigation into the relevant city departments, and ensure we are not creating a culture that facilitates a hostile work environment,' he added.
'Two aides were dismissed following a domestic dispute that resulted in violence against a police officer, but with no consequences for Segun Idowu, a top aide to the mayor, who is allegedly involved with one of the aides that was fired,' Kraft said.
'If the public is to have any confidence in the 'internal investigation' that Mayor Wu claims 'found no violations of laws or city workplace policies by any other city employees,' she should release the report to the public,' Kraft said.
'The mayor should also inform the public if the terminated city employees will be receiving a severance payout, and a copy of the city's workplace policies.'
This comes after the mayor was accused of 'dictatorial' behavior for kicking an employee out of office just days after he announced plans to run against her in this year's election.
John Houton, a lawyer in Boston's city treasury, says he was put on paid administrative leave for challenging his boss, Wu, a punishment he likens to communist-run China.
Both candidates are Democrats. But while Wu, 40, trumpets Boston's pro-immigrant sanctuary rules, Houton, 58, says he would help the Trump administration round up illegals, if elected.
'I'd expect this from Chairman Mao's China, but not modern-day Boston,' Houton told Daily Mail.
'It's clearly an effort to intimidate me and my family and to stop me from collecting signatures. Other city employees are running for office, but I am singled out because of my particular speech and content.'
Wu's office says City Hall lawyers have to stay 'non-political' and that the mayor was not involved in the decision about Houton's job.
Houton announced plans to unseat Wu earlier this month, saying the progressive mayor's anti-Trump rhetoric will cost the city in federal dollars, and is out of step with blue-collar Boston voters.
The married dad-of-three offers Bostonians instead a platform of 'kitchen table' issues to tackle migrant flows into Massachusetts, homelessness, high housing costs and traffic.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Sun
31 minutes ago
- The Sun
Actor Jared Leto denies historical claims of sexual misconduct from nine women
ACTOR Jared Leto has denied historical claims of sexual misconduct. The star, 53, was accused by nine women, including some who were teenagers at the time. But he has rebuffed the Air Mail report in which model Laura La Rue said she was just 16 when the then 36-year-old began messaging her. Describing a visit to his home, she said: 'He was flirting with me. "He'd lean in close, then pull away.' She says he later emerged from a room naked. La Rue said: 'I thought maybe this was just what adult men do.' He is also the frontman to rock band Thirty Seconds To Mars. His representative said: 'Their communications contain nothing sexual or inappropriate and Ms La Rue later applied to work as his personal assistant.' La Rue denied she ever applied for the job. Jared Leto's band Thirty Seconds To Mars perform Closer To The Edge 1


Reuters
33 minutes ago
- Reuters
Explainer: Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
June 8 - President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California after two days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying that the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion, opens new tab' against the authority of the U.S. government. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday said he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind "its unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County" and return them to his command. Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406, opens new tab - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' WHAT ARE NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ALLOWED TO DO UNDER THE LAW CITED IN TRUMP'S ORDER? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press. Experts have said that Trump's decision to have U.S. troops respond to protests is an ominous sign for how far the president is willing to go to repress political speech and activity that he disagrees with or that criticizes his administration's policies. Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations have cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to immigration protests calling it inflammatory and reckless, especially without the support of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has said Trump's actions would only escalate tensions. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Title 10 also says "orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States," but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. California could file a lawsuit, arguing that deployment of National Guard troops was not justified by Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion' or threat to law enforcement. A lawsuit might take months to resolve, and the outcome would be uncertain. Because the protests may be over before a lawsuit is resolved, the decision to sue might be more of a political question than a legal one, experts said. Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Casting protests as an 'insurrection' that requires the deployment of troops against U.S. citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents aren't the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial. But, the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
AP PHOTOS: Portugal beats Spain to win the Nations League
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.