🐱 Here are 7 disturbing revelations from a National Guard officer about Trump’s Lafayette Square disaster

CatParty


An officer in the D.C. National Guard delivered a damning account of the events surrounding the federal crackdown on protesters in Lafayette Square in testimony released by the House of Representatives on Monday.

Adam DeMarco, a senior officer tapped to serve as a liaison between the National Guard and the Park Police, was on the scene during the June 1 assault on protesters, as his opening statement for a planned hearing on Tuesday explained. While the president gave a speech to reporters at the White House, federal officers, including the Park Police, violently cleared demonstrators, the media, and others from the nearby area. Shortly thereafter, the president walked across the street that had been cleared for a photo-op at St. John’s Church.



Though presumably intended to bolster Trump’s political standing, the optics of the events clearly backfired, as Vanity Fairreported:
In the days that followed, Trump’s approval ratings tumbled to their lowest point in over a year, and their lowest point of the coronavirus pandemic, according to FiveThirtyEight’s poll tracker. The first two weeks of June also saw Trump fall even further behind his Democratic rival, Joe Biden. Before June, Biden steadily held a four-to-six-point lead over Trump in national polls, fueled in part by massive support among the independent voters whom Trump won in 2016. Shortly after Lafayette Square, though, Biden began to open up an even bigger lead, a nine-point average lead over the president, with a Washington Post–ABC News poll this week showing Biden winning by as many as 15 points.
Many Trump administration officials have tried to downplay the assault on protesters and dismiss the criticisms, but DeMarco’s account provides disturbing details about what was going on behind the scenes. His conclusion about the events is scathing:


Having served in a combat zone, and understanding how to assess threat environments, at no time did I feel threatened by the protestors or assess them to be violent. In addition, considering the principles of proportionality of force and the fundamental strategy of graduated responses specific to civil disturbance operations, it was my observation that the use of force against demonstrators in the clearing operation was an unnecessary escalation of the use of force. From my observation, those demonstrators – our fellow American citizens — were engaged in the peaceful expression of their First Amendment rights. Yet they were subjected to an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force.
Here are seven key details from the statement.


1. DeMarco had no indication that protesters would be moved prior to 7 p.m., which was when the city’s curfew would be in place.

Defenders of the president, including Attorney General Bill Barr, have said that the protesters weren’t specifically cleared for the benefit of his photo-op. Instead, they said the purpose was to expand the perimeter around the White House. DeMarco confirms that there were plans to expand the perimeter, but he didn’t expect it to happen until nightfall:

I understood that a curfew imposed by the DC Mayor was not going into effect until 7:00 pm, so I was not expecting any clearing operation to commence before then.

At around 6:20 pm, after the Attorney General and General Milley departed Lafayette Square, the Park Police issued the first of three warning announcements to the demonstrators, directing them to disperse. I did not expect the announcements so early, as the curfew was not due to go into effect until 7:00 pm, 40 minutes later.
2. Federal officials didn’t even set up a new barrier until much later.

This fact suggests that DeMarco was correct to believe assume there was no plan to expand the perimeter until after the curfew was in place:


As for the new security barrier, whose installation was the stated purpose of the clearing operation, the materials to erect it did not arrive on the scene until around 9:00 pm, and it was not completed until later that night.
This supports the conclusion, as many critics of the president have argued, that the violent clearing of the square was for the purpose of his photo-op.

3. The warnings given to the protesters were entirely insufficient.

Some have defended the abuse of the protesters by claiming that they were defying the warnings of federal officials, who announced plans to clear the protesters. But DeMarco’s account confirms the reporting of journalists on the ground that these warnings were insufficient and inaudible:

The warnings were conveyed using a megaphone near the statue of President Jackson, approximately 50 yards from the demonstrators. From where I was standing, approximately 20 yards from the demonstrators, the announcements were barely audible and I saw no indication that the demonstrators were cognizant of the warnings to disperse.
4. As others who were on the scene have said, the protesters were peaceful.

Journalists on the ground have said that the protesters who were removed were behaving peacefully. There have been some who have claimed water bottles or possibly other objects were thrown by protesters at some point, but DeMarco did not report anything like this:


A few minutes before 6:00 pm, I was standing near the statue of Andrew Jackson in the middle of Lafayette Square as DC National Guard personnel formed up behind Park Police units positioned in a line behind the perimeter fence on the H Street side of the square, facing demonstrators on the other side of the fence. From what I could observe, the demonstrators were behaving peacefully, exercising their First Amendment rights.

General Milley walked towards the area where I was standing. As the senior National Guard officer on the scene at the time, I gave General Milley a quick briefing on our mission and the current situation. General Milley asked for an estimate of the number of demonstrators, and I estimated 2,000. General Milley told me to ensure that National Guard personnel remained calm, adding that we were there to respect the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights.
5. DeMarco provides direct evidence that CS tear gas was used by officials on the scene, despite repeated denials from the Trump administration.

I did not know what orders or rules of engagement had been issued to the Park Police concerning the use of force against the demonstrators. I asked my Park Police liaison if tear gas would be used because I had observed tear gas cannisters affixed to Park Police officers’ vests, and I knew that tear gas had been used against demonstrators the previous evening. The Park Police liaison told me that tear gas would not be employed.

As the clearing operation began, I heard explosions and saw smoke being used to disperse the protestors. The Park Police liaison officer told me that the explosions were “stage smoke,” and that no tear gas was being deployed against the demonstrators. But I could feel irritation in my eyes and nose, and based on my previous exposure to tear gas in my training at West Point and later in my Army training, I recognized that irritation as effects consistent with CS or “tear gas.” And later that evening, I found spent tear gas cannisters on the street nearby.
6. DeMarco described extreme and excessive violence being used against civilians.

From my vantage point, I saw demonstrators scattering and fleeing as the Civil Disturbance Unit charged toward them. I observed people fall to the ground as some Civil Disturbance Unit members used their shields offensively as weapons. As I walked behind the Civil Disturbance Units pushing westward on H Street, I also observed unidentified law enforcement personnel behind our National Guardsmen using “paintball-like” weapons to discharge what I later learned to be “pepper balls” into the crowd, as demonstrators continued to retreat.
7. Even DeMarco was unaware of all the federal agencies involved.


One emerging crisis from the Trump administration is the use of unnamed, unidentified federal officers with unclear jurisdiction or rules of operation. It’s disturbing that, in an operation in which DeMarco was involved as a senior National Guard officer, even he was unaware of the full range of federal agents present:

At approximately 6:30 pm, the Park Police began the clearing operation, led by Civil Disturbance Units and horse-mounted officers. The Secret Service, and other law enforcement agencies I was unable to identify, also participated in the push. No National Guard personnel participated in the push or engaged in any other use of force against the demonstrators.
 
If the governor or mayor requests federal troops, fine. But many times the troops were sent to cities where the mayor and the governor didn't want them. That kind of undermines states rights that Trump supporters want, no?

In this case, it was around the White House. DC mayor doesn't really get a say here. As for Portland, they are protecting federal buildings and workers. Trying to set the buildings on fire with people inside is not going to make me feel bad about the feds snatching them off of the street afterwards.
 
As @Some JERK said, I'm pretty sure the feds are just being used to protect federal buildings (though if not I'd love to see anything you know of). I mean, we could just make the rule that the Feds are not allowed to defend their buildings. That might cause issues later however.

Then why are they grabbing protesters and putting them in unmarked vans?

You right now.

I am not the one arguing for states rights
 
National Guard officer.

You can officially ignore his opinion on anything about the military since he ranks slightly above a kid playing Call of Duty and slightly lower than the guy who washes your windows for a dollar at a stoplight.

I mean, he says that he worked in a combat zone, so I figured that he became an NG after finishing his deployment with the Army or Air Force or whoever.
 
Of what? Rioters set fire to St. John's Church. It's a fact.

Yeah, because talking poorly about the "mostly peaceful" "protests", like setting fire to a historic church, is not important to most of the media.
We'd probably believe the media more if the public didn't have live video covering multiple angles of these protests in every city.



Someone set a fire inside the historic church. It didn't burn down and i'm not sure how bad the damage was. IIRC its still usable.
And yet, the minister (Episcopal, of course) was more bothered by the Feds pushing back the mob than his own church being set on fire. Simp.
 
I could be totally wrong, but from what I've seen federal officers are just being sent in to protect federal property (courthouses and such) in cities where the local government has abdicated their responsibility to maintain order, because the federal government has an obligation to do so.
Exactly. If the rioters want to go 5 blocks away and rob a business, the feds wouldn't even flinch. That's on the state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flaming Insignias
Then why are they grabbing protesters and putting them in unmarked vans?
They aren't grabbing "protestors", they're grabbing violent agitators and rioters and members of the terrorist group known as Antifa. Nothing (to my knowledge) obligates that federal vans be marked.

I am not the one arguing for states rights
No one in this thread is arguing for "states rights" right now. You're arguing against points nobody even made.
 
Last edited:
They aren't grabbing "protestors", they're grabbing violent agitators and rioters and workers in the terrorist group known as Antifa. Nothing (to my knowledge) obligates that federal vans be marked.


No one in this thread is arguing for "states rights" right now. You're arguing against points nobody even made.

Everyone, literally EVERYONE In the country knows what an unmarked cop car is....I have an old Crown Vic that used to be a cop car. When it was retired, the decals were scrubbed off it, it's just a plain white Ford sedan now, but people still get out of my way/won't pass me on the freeway because they think I'm an unmarked cop. The public KNOWS darn well what an undercover/unmarked unit is.

And yet, all of a sudden, we're being told by the leftist media that unmarked police vehicles that have allegedly shown up in Portland have NEVER EVER EVER been used before by ANYONE ANYWHERE, and is proof that you CAN panic now, the day of the jackboot is nigh?

It's ridiculous that people on the left are feigning ignorance that unmarked units are strange because, like I said, everyone KNOWS what you mean by saying "unmarked unit", it's not a secret, let alone something odd or nefarious, especially not at the scene of a two-month long riot that has the stated goal of burning down a Federal Courthouse.....

Only in Current Year could the media feign this level of ignorance, and this level of outrage, over something that has been happening for DECADES in a vain attempt to make Drumpf look bad.... even the act of being arrested for attempted arson is being spun as some kind of extra-legal abduction... it's pathetic.
 
Last edited:
I mean, he says that he worked in a combat zone, so I figured that he became an NG after finishing his deployment with the Army or Air Force or whoever.
Lots of NG got deployed to hold Active Duty's dicks, so he's either that, or he went National Guard and now he's looking for a paycheck.

He's talking to press, badmouthing his Commander in Chief, and acting as a Democrat shill. As far as I'm concerned he's an oath breaker and a scumbag.
 
The same ones who argue for "states rights" are the same ones totally okay with this.
Why wouldn't they? It's Antifa terrorists getting shitcanned for trying to damage/destroy federal buildings. Since their respective local authorities have let them basically use Seattle (and Portland especially) as playgrounds for their terrorism, rioting, and general lawbreaking, I don't see any problem with the feds ignoring them.
 
Why wouldn't they? It's Antifa terrorists getting shitcanned for trying to damage/destroy federal buildings. Since their respective local authorities have let them basically use Seattle (and Portland especially) as playgrounds for their terrorism, rioting, and general lawbreaking, I don't see any problem with the feds ignoring them.

It's still hypocritical. If the vans had been coming for the idiots breaking into state legislature buildings with guns because they want to get haircuts, the same people would be flipping their shit
 
It's still hypocritical. If the vans had been coming for the idiots breaking into state legislature buildings with guns because they want to get haircuts, the same people would be flipping their shit
It's not hypocritical at all, and your false equivalence doesn't make it so. I don't see any of those people who "broke into" state legislature buildings with guns participating in any riots, damaging/destruction of federal property, or any known terrorist groups, do I?

And what is with this "haircuts" meme you keep pushing like it hasn't already been refuted multiple times in the past already?
 
It's still hypocritical. If the vans had been coming for the idiots breaking into state legislature buildings with guns because they want to get haircuts, the same people would be flipping their shit

They didn't "break in", they, as the public are allowed in during normal hours..... and they didn't damage anything, nor break any laws.

Contrast a thousand maniacs in Portland tearing down several barricades to get INTO a Federal building that is CLOSED and light it up, which is, you know, arson.

It's not a double-standard if people who protest within the bounds of law are allowed to do so, and those who don't and actively commit crimes GET ARRESTED.
 
Lots of NG got deployed to hold Active Duty's dicks, so he's either that, or he went National Guard and now he's looking for a paycheck.

He's talking to press, badmouthing his Commander in Chief, and acting as a Democrat shill. As far as I'm concerned he's an oath breaker and a scumbag.
According to one congressman, he was also a House candidate in Maryland.

I think he's talking now because he regards what they did as a breach of the 1st Amendment. But if it was such an unambiguous breach, you think the Democrats would have spun up the impeachment wheel again, or at least made a murmur about it. Considering that, it just seems as if they've been having these meetings, either they be with officials breaking with Trump or his directors, to get soundbytes of them speaking truth to power for their reelection campaigns.

I had a thought about whether we could have someone captivating on the floor of the Senate or the House, like how Lincoln was purported to be, instead of having to hear Nancy Pelosi repeat "Testing, Testing, Testing" ad nauseam or Chuck Schumer's voice shake like he's about to cry about Trump being a big meaniehead, or Democrat congressmen froth at the mouth while they play TikTok videos in the chamber and RECLAIM THEIR TIME so they can fight a response, or Republican congressmen give Trump officials conspicuous handies after a Democrat struggle session. I'm even cynical about Rand Paul and his "am I the only guy who..." thing he's got going on, though he hardly does it as far as I know, so I can't be too hard on him.

But there's nobody, really, that I look up to in the whole of Congress right now. They all just seem like do-nothing dorks that can't act worth a damn. Like, I wanna see someone get caned on the House floor for their defense of a bill to repeal the Hyde Amendment or make it a constitutional amendment-- you know, something that makes me think these people care about what they do and the power they wield.
 
Last edited:
It's not hypocritical at all, and your false equivalence doesn't make it so. I don't see any of those people who "broke into" state legislature buildings with guns participating in any riots, damaging/destruction of federal property, or any known terrorist groups, do I?

And what is with this "haircuts" meme you keep pushing like it hasn't already been refuted multiple times in the past already?
They didn't "break in", they, as the public are allowed in during normal hours..... and they didn't damage anything, nor break any laws.

Contrast a thousand maniacs in Portland tearing down several barricades to get INTO a Federal building that is CLOSED and light it up, which is, you know, arson.

It's not a double-standard if people who protest within the bounds of law are allowed to do so, and those who don't and actively commit crimes GET ARRESTED.

They still came in with guns to intimidate law makers. That could easily be seen as a threat. The only reason you're fine with it is because Lord Emperor Trump ordered this. There's no reason to detain protesters in unmarked vans. Even if they're violating the law. The local police and the city, even maybe the state, would be the ones who should do it. If they don't, too bad. It's their jurisdiction.
 
They still came in with guns to intimidate law makers. That could easily be seen as a threat. The only reason you're fine with it is because Lord Emperor Trump ordered this.
Or they could be trying to emphasize a point about their protests, like that Not Fucking Around Coalition (NFAC) that you seemed to have no problems with, instead waiting in jubilation for some mythical coalition of "racist trash" to start denouncing them when they defended the anti-lockdown protests before (suggesting that your position on bringing guns to protests is based more on the given protests' political positions than on any actual principles of yours).

I don't care much about bringing guns to protests, provided that the protests in question are lawful in general.

There's no reason to detain protesters in unmarked vans. Even if they're violating the law.
There does not need to be a "reason" to detain rioters and terrorists (not "protestors", despite your attempted framing/spin-doctoring of the issue) in unmarked vans, and there is similarly no obligation for vans to be marked.

The local police and the city, even maybe the state, would be the ones who should do it. If they don't, too bad. It's their jurisdiction.
I am not the one arguing for states rights
Imagine contradicting yourself this badly.
 
There does not need to be a "reason" to detain rioters and terrorists (not "protestors", despite your attempted framing/spin-doctoring of the issue) in unmarked vans, and there is similarly no obligation for vans to be marked.

Lol you are saying the police can detain people for no reason? I know you Trump fans are known for being pro-fascist, but you should brush up on law, bro.

Imagine contradicting yourself this badly.

It's not a contradiction. The people arguing for "states rights" about crap, like the civil war, are the same ones assmad about this. I don't give a shit about states rights, but it is indeed their jurisdiction, so it's their call.
 
Back