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.
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.
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.