🐱 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.
 
Do you actually believe that a criminal can't be arrested until a warrant is drawn up, even if they are committing a crime at the time?

Are you actually this stupid?

No, but even the federal police can't just randomly snatch people off the streets just for protesting. I get it, orange man good, but you are defending fascism. Fascists gonna fascist

I will put it this way... the federal police weren't distinguished as such and were using unmarked vans. If the protesters had shot them in self defense, thinking they were being kidnapped, would they get charged?
 
No, but even the federal police can't just randomly snatch people off the streets just for protesting. I get it, orange man good, but you are defending fascism. Fascists gonna fascist

I will put it this way... the federal police weren't distinguished as such and were using unmarked vans. If the protesters had shot them in self defense, thinking they were being kidnapped, would they get charged?
Idk why you seem to think throwing explosives and incendiaries is "just a peaceful protest bro". Either you're legit brain damaged or trolling.
 
No, but even the federal police can't just randomly snatch people off the streets just for protesting. I get it, orange man good, but you are defending fascism. Fascists gonna fascist

You can be detained if you match the description of someone who has committed a crime. Since all of these idiots wear the same outfit to blend in after commiting crimes then they're screwing themselves when it comes to situations like this.

It has nothing to do with fascism, no matter how much you want it to be.
 
I don't think these Antifa guys ever thought about the consequences of all looking alike. Yes, if you commit crimes you get to hide among the mob... but if you didn't do anything, you're possibly going to get pinched instead of them. Far as I'm concerned they should have just grabbed everyone who fit the profile and was present at the time of the attacks all at once, thrown them in the cells on suspicion of arson and conspiracy to commit arson based on their apparel and obvious coordination, and seen who was willing to cut a deal to save their own hides. Hell, chances are plenty of the guys would have some hard drugs on them, and when you've been snatched like that, whoops.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Iwasamwillbe
You can be detained if you match the description of someone who has committed a crime. Since all of these idiots wear the same outfit to blend in after commiting crimes then they're screwing themselves when it comes to situations like this.

It has nothing to do with fascism, no matter how much you want it to be.

No, it's fascism. Grabbing random protesters, putting them in unmarked vans, and we never hear from them again? That's textbook fascism. For people who supposedly love free speech, you Trump supporters sure are fascist
 
No, but even the federal police can't just randomly snatch people off the streets just for protesting.
No, but what evidence do you have that the people were being arrested just for protesting?

I get it, orange man good,
When someone with your record of blithe incomprehension says "I get it," generally what they mean is that they don't get it but they want to put words in your mouth. That's what you've done here. It's not nearly as clever a ploy as you think it is. Find some other lie to tell.

but you are defending fascism. Fascists gonna fascist
So because you decided that the administration is guilty, everything they do is evidence of that guilt and must be interpreted as proof of your charge. For someone who claims that others are being ill-treated by the system, you seem like exactly the kangaroo court type.

I will put it this way... the federal police weren't distinguished as such and were using unmarked vans.
Yes, law enforcement sometimes uses unmarked vehicles and sometimes does not wear giant glowing signs declaring that they are law enforcement. How have you attend your majority without noticing any of this? Do you walk around with your eye sockets stuffed with duct tape? What you don't know, can't guess, and haven't seen could fill several encyclopedias. It's kind of astonishing how little you seem to see when it is to your advantage not to see it.

If the protesters had shot them in self defense, thinking they were being kidnapped, would they get charged?
If I were to answer this question in your style, I would claim that there was an inherent contradiction between some people on the left opposing the concept of shooting in self-defense while advocating this. However, unlike you, I'm not a stinking liar. I understand that not all of my opponents are in the same camp. Why can't you display this minimal level of honesty?
 
Ya know I’m going to remain consistent in my views - fuck the feds, but if you’re ready to fuck with them well good luck. They have different rules and considering this is most likely going after people that organized violence or participated the warrants are probably sealed.

Mask don’t hinder the feds at all in getting the right person. Between gait recognition, ID from creases in pants, and an already in use system that uses van eck phreaking to ID people in crowds (regular businesses have this shit) they probably didn’t just rando snatch people.

So, fuck the feds, fuck antifa, and fuck antifa more for making me defend the feds in any capacity.
 
No, it's fascism. Grabbing random protesters, putting them in unmarked vans, and we never hear from them again? That's textbook fascism. For people who supposedly love free speech, you Trump supporters sure are fascist

I think you are confused. I'm pretty sure they already broke curfew, then they were declared an unlawful assembly. I saw video of them hurling pieces of concrete while the people in the front with umbrellas played defense for them. Then they set fire to a church. Then you say "Anyone who was there obviously did nothing wrong and were just snatched off the street, thats textbook fascism"?

Well guess what, according to your definition, America must've always been fascist. In fact the entire world is fascist.
 
Reminder that:

“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.‘”
Emphasis mine. The federal police were clearly distinguished as such. despite what some tale-tellers might say.

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 police do not need a warrant to detain you if you're caught right in the act of committing a crime. Every element of this "fascism" narrative is complete nonsense from the start.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AprilRains
And honestly, why would the police not be allowed to do that? Wouldn't they be kind of useless if they had to go play Simon says before they arrested someone for committing a crime right in front of their eyes?

I'm not sure why HHH insists on calling people fascists. He's not going to convince them that they are fascists. They know he's full of it. I strongly doubt he's convincing anyone else, given his hysterical tone and the stupid things he constantly says about every other subject. So what's the point? Masturbation? Great, go do that in the privacy of your own home, you goddamn idiot.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Iwasamwillbe
I will put it this way... the federal police weren't distinguished as such and were using unmarked vans. If the protesters had shot them in self defense, thinking they were being kidnapped, would they get charged?
People get snatched up by undercover officers in unmarked cars every day. I'll entertain any argument against that practice in general, but these feds aren't doing anything unheard of.
 
In terms of community, that sounds pretty cannibalistic. Is the TES thread that tapped for material?
I mean it was originally just about r/the_donald. There was some potential there but it got drowned out by the ongoing tsunami of Orange Man salt. It then turned into resident libs and nevertrumpers seething until the name and description change.
 
Back