🐱 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.
 
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.
rioters and terrorists
That is (part of) the reason the police and the "unmarked vans" can detain these people, along with trying to destroy federal property. I never even implied that police can detain people for no reason. Your attempt at a "pro-fascist" straw man is pathetic.

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.
"I don't give a shit about state's rights, but this one state should have the right to have Antifa terrorists running amock and destroying federal buildings without federal intervention, because hey, it's their jurisdiction and their call."

Sure sounds like a self-contradiction and (selective) support of "states' rights" to me.
 
That is (part of) the reason the police and the "unmarked vans" can detain these people, along with trying to destroy federal property. I never even implied that police can detain people for no reason. Your attempt at a "pro-fascist" straw man is pathetic.

Yeah, they still need a warrant to arrest them. Just saying "They're antifa!!!" isn't a reason to arrest unless there is a federal warrant. For claiming to not be a fascist, you seem to be pretty okay with fascist tactics
 
You really think they had federal warrants for all those people and the mayor and governor was unaware of it? Riiight
I pretty sure that, given the way the mayor (and likely governor) were acting (and the way these local governments coddle the Antifa terrorists you're now white-knighting), they either:

1. Knew about the warrants already, and ignored their existence in favor of getting Twitter brownie points.
2. Did not know about the warrants because it wasn't considered important/relevant to inform them beforehand

I also don't think it would be all that difficult to get warrants for people trying to burn down federal buildings.
 
I pretty sure that, given the way the mayor (and likely governor) were acting (and the way these local governments coddle the Antifa terrorists you're now white-knighting), they either:

1. Knew about the warrants already, and ignored their existence in favor of getting Twitter brownie points.
2. Did not know about the warrants because it wasn't considered important/relevant to inform them beforehand

I also don't think it would be all that difficult to get warrants for people trying to burn down federal buildings.

All they had to do was publicly mention they had federal warrants for them. They never mentioned it. Just claiming the people were antifa and thus able to be arrested, without proof, is super duper illegal
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Flaming Insignias
All they had to do was publicly mention they had federal warrants for them. They never mentioned it. Just claiming the people were antifa and thus able to be arrested, without proof, is super duper illegal
Do you think that just because they never went out and publicly stated that they had warrants out for people who tried to burn down federal buildings, that those warrants somehow don't exist?
 
"A federal judge on Friday denied a request by Oregon’s attorney general to restrict tactics used by federal officers in Portland, finding the state lacked legal standing and presented scant evidence to support allegations that the officers were illegally snatching people off city streets."
It amazing how quickly all these "fascism" media narratives collapse in the face of any hard evidence or reason.
 
It amazing how quickly all these "fascism" media narratives collapse in the face of any hard evidence or reason.

They literally were grabbing people off the street who were protesting. That is pretty much definition fascism, despite what that judge said. Even a Trump fanatic like yourself should be able to see that. And like I said, if they did this to the anti-lockdown protesters, you'd be throwing a shitfit.
 
People who say that Trump ran away and hid in a bunker are retarded as fuck. The call was made by the Secret Service and was forced him to retreat in the bunker because protecting the President is their job.

They literally were grabbing people off the street who were protesting. That is pretty much definition fascism, despite what that judge said. Even a Trump fanatic like yourself should be able to see that. And like I said, if they did this to the anti-lockdown protesters, you'd be throwing a shitfit.
Hitting people with hammers and commiting arson isn't protesting, my dude.
 
They literally were grabbing people off the street who were protesting. That is pretty much definition fascism, despite what that judge said. Even a Trump fanatic like yourself should be able to see that.
Ah, so now you know more about the law than the expert in this situation, the judge who spent his entire life learning law. That sounds presumptuous and arrogant as fuck, especially from someone who has harangued others for disagreeing with experts beforehand.

I'm pretty sure at this point that the only reason you're even going on about this is because you agree with the "protesters" politically.
And like I said, if they did this to the anti-lockdown protesters, you'd be throwing a shitfit.
The anti-lockdown protesters weren't rioters, members of terrorist groups, or attempted destroyers of federal property.

You keep trying with these false equivalences, but you keep failing all the same.
So every protester who was grabbed had a warrant for their arrest or were seen in the act of hitting people with hammers and committing arson by the same police who arrested them? I find that hard to believe
The people who were "grabbed" were almost certainly ringleaders or accessories to that kind of behavior, yes.
 
Just gonna say that the rules are very different between misdemeanors and felonies. You don't need warrants to go after people suspected of felonies if they're out and about in public areas, which these rioters certainly are. Further, cops are allowed broad powers to detain possible accessories and other persons of interest when it comes to serious crimes like these.
 
Ah, so now you know more about the law than the expert in this situation, the judge who spent his entire life learning law. That sounds presumptuous and arrogant as fuck, especially from someone who has harangued others for disagreeing with experts beforehand.

I'm pretty sure at this point that the only reason you're even going on about this is because you agree with the "protesters" politically.

The anti-lockdown protesters weren't rioters, members of terrorist groups, or attempted destroyers of federal property.

You keep trying with these false equivalences, but you keep failing all the same.

The people who were "grabbed" were almost certainly ringleaders or accessories to that kind of behavior, yes.

Yes, abducting protesters is fascist. I would expect a Trumper like yourself to say it isn't, but it literally is textbook definition. They're violating their first amendment right. It'd be the same thing as doing it to the lockdown protesters, which would've made you flip your shit except they were on Trump's side so he didn't get the goons after them.

I don't like fascism. That is why I am against it. You seem to be totally fine with fascism, though.

Just gonna say that the rules are very different between misdemeanors and felonies. You don't need warrants to go after people suspected of felonies if they're out and about in public areas, which these rioters certainly are. Further, cops are allowed broad powers to detain witnesses, possible accessories, and other persons of interest when it comes to serious crimes like these.

So you are saying every protesters that was grabbed was suspected of a felony? How could they even tell it was them with masks on?
 
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.

Why haven't they been charged? Intimidating people with a gun is a crime.

Because they didn't actually break the law, that's why.

And I don't care if Trump or Barr or anyone "ordered" the lawful arrest of arsonists, I'd be FINE with ANY Federal official ordering the arrest of arsonists. I'm fine with it because arresting people who try to burn buildings is the RIGHT THING TO DO.

And Federal buildings are Federal jurisdiction, it's the FEDS jurisdiction too, if they city won't protect it, it's not a case of "too bad" it's a case of "Well, now the feds have to do it" Your ignorance on that point speaks volumes. As well as you declaring an arrest to be "abduction".
 
Why haven't they been charged? Intimidating people with a gun is a crime.

Because they didn't actually break the law, that's why.

And I don't care if Trump or Barr or anyone "ordered" the lawful arrest of arsonists, I'd be FINE with ANY Federal official ordering the arrest of arsonists. I'm fine with it because arresting people who try to burn buildings is the RIGHT THING TO DO.

And Federal buildings are Federal jurisdiction, it's the FEDS jurisdiction too, if they city won't protect it, it's not a case of "too bad" it's a case of "Well, now the feds have to do it" Your ignorance on that point speaks volumes.

They should've been charged with a crime. And like I said many times during the thread, which was never answered satisfactorily, why would they even bring guns, other than to intimidate? Unless they're scared of everything (which, being gun nuts, they probably are).

The protesters who were arrested weren't in the act of torching federal buildings or anything (well maybe a few were, i don't know, but most certainly weren't). A lot were just peacefully protesting. Have we even heard from any of them since they were abducted? That's textbook fascism, bro
 
Yes, abducting protesters is fascist. I would expect a Trumper like yourself to say it isn't, but it literally is textbook definition. They're violating their first amendment right. It'd be the same thing as doing it to the lockdown protesters, which would've made you flip your shit except they were on Trump's side so he didn't get the goons after them.
The "abducted protesters" weren't "abducted" or "protesters", they were rioters, terrorists, and attempted arsonists against federal property who were arrested for their crimes.

This is something you insist on ignoring for some reason, as you try to prop up some flaccid and delusional narrative about "fascism" while you white-knight Antifa.

They should've been charged with a crime.
Only by your standards, Karen.

And like I said many times during the thread, which was never answered satisfactorily, why would they even bring guns, other than to intimidate? Unless they're scared of everything (which, being gun nuts, they probably are).
I did answer you, with the answer of "emphasizing a point about rights". You just dismissed it because it didn't fit your ever-shifting standards of a "satisfactory answer".

The protesters who were arrested weren't in the act of torching federal buildings or anything (well maybe a few were, i don't know, but most certainly weren't). A lot were just peacefully protesting.
And how exactly do you know this? How do you know whether those arrested were just "peacefully protesting", other than pretensions to wide-scale psychic powers in order to shore up this autistic "REEEEEE fascism" narrative.
 
Last edited:
So, isn't it possible the "Few" who tried to burn the building were the "Few" who got picked up by the cops? Because thousands of people haven't been herded into boxcars and shipped out to parts unknown. Even the people trying to protect the rioters could only show a handful of videos of this alleged illegal kidnapping. Sounds like a few people broke some VERY serious laws and got treated to VERY serious Federal attention, I'm not seeing the problem.....
 
So, isn't it possible the "Few" who tried to burn the building were the "Few" who got picked up by the cops? Because thousands of people haven't been herded into boxcars and shipped out to parts unknown. Even the people trying to protect the rioters could only show a handful of videos of this alleged illegal kidnapping. Sounds like a few people broke some VERY serious laws and got treated to VERY serious Federal attention, I'm not seeing the problem.....
No no no you don't understand, that was all fascism maaaaaaan, and the feds are ackshually kidnapping 6 gorillion gud boi protesters who dindu nuffin and were just peacefully protesting so they can put them in gas chambers to appease the fascist dictator Donald Drumpf.
 
Back