The background is that not-so-peaceful protesters set fire to the church that is only 0.1 mile from the White House and injured 60 Secret Service agents over the weekend when "protesters threw projectiles such as bricks, rocks, bottles, fireworks and other items" at them. The secret service has an obligation to clear a path to protect th…
The background is that not-so-peaceful protesters set fire to the church that is only 0.1 mile from the White House and injured 60 Secret Service agents over the weekend when "protesters threw projectiles such as bricks, rocks, bottles, fireworks and other items" at them. The secret service has an obligation to clear a path to protect the President no matter where he wants to go. And President Trump has every right to visit a church within walking distance damaged by violent protesters the night before. The peaceful protesters don't have exclusive rights to the ground surrounding the White House. It isn't the Bastille where innocent people were held in a horrible prison and deserved to be set free. It isn't clear from the video I saw whether the protesters were asked to move and refused to do so. If they were never asked to clear a path, then it was wrong to tear gas them. But if they were asked to clear a path and didn't, then disobeying the orders of secret service agents to clear a path for a President has consequences.
By the way, Fox News is reporting that: [The] "U.S. Park Police told WTOP protesters were pushed back because some were attacking police officers -- not to clear the way for Trump. The outlet also cited sources saying tear gas was not used." ... "instead smoke cannisters were deployed, which don't have an uncomfortable irritant in them,” reporter Neal Augenstein tweeted. “And, the source says Park Police didn't know President Trump would be walking across the park several minutes later.” The article says it was also "riot police" not the Secret Service, and the video shows the police with shields confronting a crowd and later guarding a safe pathway for the President.
Curfew was at 7:00, yet Park Police started the pushback at 6:15, and Park Police wasn't the only law enforcement entity there. Those moments are on tape, and it shows police initiating the physical confrontations.
If you watch the CNN video, it clearly shows 6:35 as the starting point the officers started to push back, so either the article by Carney gets facts wrong, or CNN can't tell time, or CNN puts out fake live-video.
I have three questions for you (the first two involve general facts about the incident that I don't know the answer to):
1) Did the Secret Service ask the crowd to disperse making a path for the President to visit a violently attacked church that is only about 130 feet away from the White House gate?
2) Did the crowd ignore the dispersal request of the Secret Service, even though Marco Rubio tweeted that "they knew the street needed to be cleared before 7 pm curfew," as the CNN video shows it happened at 6:35 pm?
3) If it were not for the tear gas, do you think the right of the crowd to peaceful protest should override the right of the Secret Service to clear out an area directly by the White House gate so that the President could safely walk 200 feet to a church of historic importance that was set on fire the night before?
The Carney article from the Washington Examiner article you quoted, clearly states "sometimes before, sometimes after, a verbal demand to move." This suggests the crowd was ignoring "verbal demands to move," which is advance notice. The DC curfew states "Officials said during the hours of the curfew, no person shall walk, bike, run, loiter, stand, or motor by car or other mode of transport upon any street, alley, park, or other public place within the District." As the Park Police began their movement forward at 6:35 pm by CNN's video times stamp, the protesters only had about 25 minutes to get home and off the street. The evidence suggests that they were allowed to protest all day long and that the push back only started a short time before the curfew, when the protesters had a legal obligation to be headed home anyway.
Once again, should a President have the right to safely walk to a church about 130 feet from the White House gate, shortly after making a speech indicating the violet riots of the past week have to end, indicating his discuss of the destruction of property and loss of life by the recent riots.
The first paragraph of Trump's speech had this quote "All Americans are rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd. My administration is fully committed that for George and his family, justice will be served. He will not have died in vain." Since Trump has clearly on the side of justice for Floyd, and since Floyd's death in MN had nothing at all to do with Trump, a legitimate question is why violent rioters are reaping destruction in cities all over the country, including injuring 60 Secret Service agents this weekend while they were protecting the White House.
More non-sequitur. No one disputes that the President can go where he wants. The problem is that he literally said he was an ally to peaceful protesters and not an hour later he violently moved them aside, personally overssen by Barr.
If protesters are ignoring the verbal requests of peaceful police to disperse and head home 25 minutes before a curfew requiring them to be home, they are not exactly peaceful protesters. A peaceful protest does not involve a mob preventing the free movement of other people. The right to protest does not override Trump's right to access public property near the White House in safe manner. Trump had every right to expect the crowd to disperse to allow him to do so, and so my comment is not non-sequitur.
This is a quote from Carney's article that you cited: "Because the officers were often standing face-to-face with protesters, and because the advances by the officers went as far as 20 yards at a time, this inevitably involved police shoving otherwise peaceful protesters (sometimes before, sometimes after, a verbal demand to move)." That clearly indicates people were told to move back and didn't, contrary to your claim.
A second quote from the same article indicates that not all protesters were peaceful: "This shoving sparked some retaliation. A group of young men who had clearly come to scuffle started hurling plastic water bottles and eggs at Secret Service near Vermont Avenue. The officers didn’t react to these projectiles, but they kept pushing forward" The article also reports that protesters were yelling at police prior to the officers advancing forward.
The Carney article from the Washington Examiner article you quoted, clearly states "sometimes before, sometimes after, a verbal demand to move." This suggests the crowd was ignoring "verbal demands to move," which is advance notice. The DC curfew states "Officials said during the hours of the curfew, no person shall walk, bike, run, loiter, stand, or motor by car or other mode of transport upon any street, alley, park, or other public place within the District." As the Park Police began their movement forward at 6:35 pm by CNN's video times stamp, the protesters only had about 25 minutes to get home and off the street. The evidence suggests that they were allowed to protest all day long and that the push back only started a short time before the curfew, when the protesters had a legal obligation to be headed home anyway.
The background is that not-so-peaceful protesters set fire to the church that is only 0.1 mile from the White House and injured 60 Secret Service agents over the weekend when "protesters threw projectiles such as bricks, rocks, bottles, fireworks and other items" at them. The secret service has an obligation to clear a path to protect the President no matter where he wants to go. And President Trump has every right to visit a church within walking distance damaged by violent protesters the night before. The peaceful protesters don't have exclusive rights to the ground surrounding the White House. It isn't the Bastille where innocent people were held in a horrible prison and deserved to be set free. It isn't clear from the video I saw whether the protesters were asked to move and refused to do so. If they were never asked to clear a path, then it was wrong to tear gas them. But if they were asked to clear a path and didn't, then disobeying the orders of secret service agents to clear a path for a President has consequences.
They weren't peaceful the night before, but they were peaceful when they were violently run out with tear gas and rubber bullets.
By the way, Fox News is reporting that: [The] "U.S. Park Police told WTOP protesters were pushed back because some were attacking police officers -- not to clear the way for Trump. The outlet also cited sources saying tear gas was not used." ... "instead smoke cannisters were deployed, which don't have an uncomfortable irritant in them,” reporter Neal Augenstein tweeted. “And, the source says Park Police didn't know President Trump would be walking across the park several minutes later.” The article says it was also "riot police" not the Secret Service, and the video shows the police with shields confronting a crowd and later guarding a safe pathway for the President.
Curfew was at 7:00, yet Park Police started the pushback at 6:15, and Park Police wasn't the only law enforcement entity there. Those moments are on tape, and it shows police initiating the physical confrontations.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/prepare-ye-the-way-of-the-trump-make-straight-paths-for-him
If you watch the CNN video, it clearly shows 6:35 as the starting point the officers started to push back, so either the article by Carney gets facts wrong, or CNN can't tell time, or CNN puts out fake live-video.
That was the moment when the gas was flying.
The video shows that was the moment when the police were marching forward. If you look at the video, this advance was what led the crowd to disperse.
I have three questions for you (the first two involve general facts about the incident that I don't know the answer to):
1) Did the Secret Service ask the crowd to disperse making a path for the President to visit a violently attacked church that is only about 130 feet away from the White House gate?
2) Did the crowd ignore the dispersal request of the Secret Service, even though Marco Rubio tweeted that "they knew the street needed to be cleared before 7 pm curfew," as the CNN video shows it happened at 6:35 pm?
3) If it were not for the tear gas, do you think the right of the crowd to peaceful protest should override the right of the Secret Service to clear out an area directly by the White House gate so that the President could safely walk 200 feet to a church of historic importance that was set on fire the night before?
No one mentioned any forewarning. The pushback happened suddenly, without notice. They were clearing the way so Trump could walk to St. John's.
The Carney article from the Washington Examiner article you quoted, clearly states "sometimes before, sometimes after, a verbal demand to move." This suggests the crowd was ignoring "verbal demands to move," which is advance notice. The DC curfew states "Officials said during the hours of the curfew, no person shall walk, bike, run, loiter, stand, or motor by car or other mode of transport upon any street, alley, park, or other public place within the District." As the Park Police began their movement forward at 6:35 pm by CNN's video times stamp, the protesters only had about 25 minutes to get home and off the street. The evidence suggests that they were allowed to protest all day long and that the push back only started a short time before the curfew, when the protesters had a legal obligation to be headed home anyway.
Once again, should a President have the right to safely walk to a church about 130 feet from the White House gate, shortly after making a speech indicating the violet riots of the past week have to end, indicating his discuss of the destruction of property and loss of life by the recent riots.
The first paragraph of Trump's speech had this quote "All Americans are rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd. My administration is fully committed that for George and his family, justice will be served. He will not have died in vain." Since Trump has clearly on the side of justice for Floyd, and since Floyd's death in MN had nothing at all to do with Trump, a legitimate question is why violent rioters are reaping destruction in cities all over the country, including injuring 60 Secret Service agents this weekend while they were protecting the White House.
More non-sequitur. No one disputes that the President can go where he wants. The problem is that he literally said he was an ally to peaceful protesters and not an hour later he violently moved them aside, personally overssen by Barr.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barr-personally-ordered-removal-of-protesters-near-white-house-leading-to-use-of-force-against-largely-peaceful-crowd/2020/06/02/0ca2417c-a4d5-11ea-b473-04905b1af82b_story.html
If protesters are ignoring the verbal requests of peaceful police to disperse and head home 25 minutes before a curfew requiring them to be home, they are not exactly peaceful protesters. A peaceful protest does not involve a mob preventing the free movement of other people. The right to protest does not override Trump's right to access public property near the White House in safe manner. Trump had every right to expect the crowd to disperse to allow him to do so, and so my comment is not non-sequitur.
This is a quote from Carney's article that you cited: "Because the officers were often standing face-to-face with protesters, and because the advances by the officers went as far as 20 yards at a time, this inevitably involved police shoving otherwise peaceful protesters (sometimes before, sometimes after, a verbal demand to move)." That clearly indicates people were told to move back and didn't, contrary to your claim.
A second quote from the same article indicates that not all protesters were peaceful: "This shoving sparked some retaliation. A group of young men who had clearly come to scuffle started hurling plastic water bottles and eggs at Secret Service near Vermont Avenue. The officers didn’t react to these projectiles, but they kept pushing forward" The article also reports that protesters were yelling at police prior to the officers advancing forward.
Non-sequitur. The fact remains that the protesters had no advance warning.
The Carney article from the Washington Examiner article you quoted, clearly states "sometimes before, sometimes after, a verbal demand to move." This suggests the crowd was ignoring "verbal demands to move," which is advance notice. The DC curfew states "Officials said during the hours of the curfew, no person shall walk, bike, run, loiter, stand, or motor by car or other mode of transport upon any street, alley, park, or other public place within the District." As the Park Police began their movement forward at 6:35 pm by CNN's video times stamp, the protesters only had about 25 minutes to get home and off the street. The evidence suggests that they were allowed to protest all day long and that the push back only started a short time before the curfew, when the protesters had a legal obligation to be headed home anyway.
Thank you.