🐱 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.

My dude, they're only a rioting mob who attempted to burn down a church and are going to be within throwing distance of the President of the United States.

No big deal. What could go wrong?
 
My dude, they're only a rioting mob who attempted to burn down a church and are going to be within throwing distance of the President of the United States.

No big deal. What could go wrong?

Since when is Illinois and Oregon within throwing distance of Washington DC? The feds didn't even identify themselves. If the protesters had been armed, they'd have been perfectly justified defending themselves from kidnappers

Fascists gonna defend fascism.
 
The feds didn't even identify themselves.
>thinking feds *have* to identify themselves

If the protesters had been armed, they'd have been perfectly justified defending themselves from kidnappers
I thought the only reasons one had to bring a gun to a protest was if they were scurred or that they wanted to "intimidate" people, not for (supposed) self-defense against (alleged) kidnappers.

Well, then, what is the "correct" non-fascist response to people rioting for 40 straight days and trying repeatedly to destroy federal property?
Literally "muh states' rights". Just let the states/local governments handle it, because they've been so able/willing to do so before.
 
Last edited:
Since when is Illinois and Oregon within throwing distance of Washington DC? The feds didn't even identify themselves. If the protesters had been armed, they'd have been perfectly justified defending themselves from kidnappers

Fascists gonna defend fascism.

“The State has presented just one example of an arrest without probable cause and one example of an unreasonable seizure. That is the sum total of the evidence before me that underpins the legal injuries the State asserts in its brief,” the judge wrote. “In both instances of a federal seizure it is either admitted or clearly visible that the agents’ uniforms say ‘Police.‘”
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Iwasamwillbe
“The State has presented just one example of an arrest without probable cause and one example of an unreasonable seizure. That is the sum total of the evidence before me that underpins the legal injuries the State asserts in its brief,” the judge wrote. “In both instances of a federal seizure it is either admitted or clearly visible that the agents’ uniforms say ‘Police.‘”
Don't you see that the judge himself is wrong because HHH knows in his innermost secret heart of hearts that unmarked vans and unidentified officers were just sweeping innocent peaceful protesters off the streets to put them in the ovens.

I can't believe you guys are defending anonymous fed troops kidnapping people and putting them in unmarked vans. Like I said, fascists gonna fascist.

That's a new low even for A&N Trump supporting manlets
I presume you didn't actually read this:
“The State has presented just one example of an arrest without probable cause and one example of an unreasonable seizure. That is the sum total of the evidence before me that underpins the legal injuries the State asserts in its brief,” the judge wrote. “In both instances of a federal seizure it is either admitted or clearly visible that the agents’ uniforms say ‘Police.‘”
 
Last edited:
I can't believe you guys are defending anonymous fed troops kidnapping people and putting them in unmarked vans. Like I said, fascists gonna fascist.

That's a new low even for A&N Trump supporting manlets

But the evidence before a Federal Judge to stop this alleged abuse, was noted by the Judge himself, as being carried out by admitted agents whose uniforms say "police", how do you respond to this? He threw the suit out because the alleged "unmarked and unknowable people abducting citizens in unmarked vans" couldn't be proved in a court of law by people who are AGAINST the use of Federal force..... they aregued "this is clear fascists police state tactics" and the Judge said "no"

Was the Judge wrong?

Was evidence supressed?

What you are claiming just isn't in the evidence,one would assume the BEST evidence, brought before an actual Judge....
 
But the evidence before a Federal Judge to stop this alleged abuse, was noted by the Judge himself, as being carried out by admitted agents whose uniforms say "police", how do you respond to this? He threw the suit out because the alleged "unmarked and unknowable people abducting citizens in unmarked vans" couldn't be proved in a court of law by people who are AGAINST the use of Federal force..... they aregued "this is clear fascists police state tactics" and the Judge said "no"

Was the Judge wrong?

Was evidence supressed?

What you are claiming just isn't in the evidence,one would assume the BEST evidence, brought before an actual Judge....

Yeah, and I still disagree with that verdict, as does the mayor of Portland. You Trumpers were all upset about "THE PRECEDENT!" when delaying an election, but you don't see a problem with the precedent with this? You guys are literally defending fascism.

But again, I should expect this from A&N Trumpers, especially the one who jacks off to threads about how great Trump is (not you, the other Trumper in this thread)
 
What "precedent" are you talking about for the election that has any bearing on this? You mean COVID? That a pandemic shouldn't delay the election? I really don't know what you mean here. But this I do know: I'm not upset at protesters, I"m upset at rioters. Now, before you respond, you can leave me out of the "Trumper" crowd, I didn't even vote for him, so let's get that out of the way. Now, how is supporting the arrest of rioters, who are destroying or trying to destroy property, supporting fascists?

I'll even concede that they're using unmarked vans to do it, but, unmarked police cars are NOT illegal to use and have no bearing on the probable cause standard of evidence you need to arrest someone. And in a riot environment, where cops have been repeatedly targeted with thrown explosives, thrown objects, and having lasers shined in their faces, I'd say its' a SMART move to not announce your presence as cops until you are the point where you are going to arrest someone....

So, what is the problem with the feds arresting people for vandalizing and trying to burn a Federal building?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, and I still disagree with that verdict, as does the mayor of Portland. You Trumpers were all upset about "THE PRECEDENT!" when delaying an election, but you don't see a problem with the precedent with this? You guys are literally defending fascism.
There literally isn't a single "precedent" set here. It's federal agents arresting rioters and terrorists, which is well within their scope to do.

But again, I should expect this from A&N Trumpers, especially the one who jacks off to threads about how great Trump is (not you, the other Trumper in this thread)
Since you want to go this route...

Reminder that this dude literally admitted that he doesn't want to talk to my "brainwashed ass" for long, lest he cop a threadban by sperging out, and is now bringing up "haha you jack off to hentai" out of nowhere as a cope because he's so assmad about me disagreeing with him.
 
Last edited:
Supposing the feds were only grabbing actual arsonists/attackers, how would we know? Are we assuming that there is sufficient amounts of video evidence for every single hammer bro and molotov man out there (and if so then why are we complaining about "muh warrants"? Do I need to serve you a warrant if I catch you in the act?). If not, then aren't we jumping to conclusions here? I mean, how would one go about defending a federal building from barbarians rioters, particularly if the state/city governments are content to let them burn?

Not saying this isn't spook as fuck, but I'm not seeing any better alternatives here.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Iwasamwillbe
Supposing the feds were only grabbing actual arsonists/attackers, how would we know? Are we assuming that there is sufficient amounts of video evidence for every single hammer bro and molotov man out there (and if so then why are we complaining about "muh warrants"? Do I need to serve you a warrant if I catch you in the act?). If not, then aren't we jumping to conclusions here? I mean, how would one go about defending a federal building from barbarians rioters, particularly if the state/city governments are content to let them burn?

Not saying this isn't spook as fuck, but I'm not seeing any better alternatives here.
The point that few people ever seem to bring up is that if the rioters get in there and absolutely trash the place and destroy everything--which is a given, they would do that--then any evidence that's on site that's going to be used for Federal crime cases could be damaged or demolished. I'm positive that there are plenty of people sitting in a Federal prison right now, glued to the television screens, gleefully rubbing their hands and hoping.

The Federal courthouse is in Federal jurisdiction, there's really no reason that they couldn't or shouldn't be defending it.

Also, no, you are not required to pursue or issue a warrant if you catch someone performing a criminal act. You're not even obligated to read their Miranda Rights in that situation, let alone jump through any of the other hoops. If you're doing something illegal and a policeman sees you doing something illegal, that's it. That's all the reason he needs.
 
The protesters and rioters couldn't storm the White House, so all they can do is complain that the crowd was cleared out quickly and bigly. That's really the point of everything: this was the White House being surrounded. What happened there with the clear out should've also happened at every statue, every riot, and every scene where Antifa, BLM, etc tried to set up shop and start shit.
 
I gotta say, I love how a judge's opinion on laws being broken or not only holds weight when it agrees with Person X's partisan bias.

Really, the default stance should be "who cares what some bozo in a black dress says?"
Just listen to the experts, who spent their whole lives studying this shit. Except when they disagree with me politically, of course. Then they're evil and wrong and literally supporting fashizm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: greengrilledcheese
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.



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?
I can't believe you guys are defending anonymous fed troops kidnapping people and putting them in unmarked vans. Like I said, fascists gonna fascist.

That's a new low even for A&N Trump supporting manlets
You are literally the only fascist in this thread you disgusting little creep.
 
I gotta say, I love how a judge's opinion on laws being broken or not only holds weight when it agrees with Person X's partisan bias.

Really, the default stance should be "who cares what some bozo in a black dress says?"
I can't wait for the mayor to quote ol' Andy Jackson the Injun Killer only to realize this court actually does have plenty of people to enforce that ruling.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Iwasamwillbe
Back