Portland Protests

Disturbing Reports from Portland

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Portland has been a disorderly mess for some time now, but new allegations that unidentified federal officers in unmarked vans are snatching people off the street and whisking them away to undisclosed locations require prompt and full answers from the Trump administration.

From Oregon Public Radio:

Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14. Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.

From the Washington Post follow-up:

Pettibone said he still does not know who arrested him or whether what happened to him legally qualifies as an arrest. The federal officers who snatched him off the street as he was walking home from a peaceful protest did not tell him why he had been detained or provide him any record of an arrest, he told The Post. As far as he knows, he has not been charged with any crimes.

Videos from the streets of Portland are hardly comforting. As our own Orin Kerr notes:

If the reports are true, this is dangerous and inappropriate and should be stopped immediately.

NEXT: Private Schools Are Adapting to Lockdown Better Than the Public School Monopoly

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Looks staged, friend. Unlikely those are federal agents.

    1. Wow, my money was on “all normal, nothing to see here, just Federal agents arresting people as is their job” as the first line of defence. I guess that will come next…

      1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…

        ==================► Home Profit System

      2. Excellent call, Martinned.

      3. All normal, nothing to see here.

        The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it usually turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

        Antifa Rioters Break Into Portland Police Union and Set It on Fire

        Quote:
        On Saturday evening, two groups of antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters terrorized Portland, squaring off against police and federal troops. One group attacked the Portland Police Bureau’s North Precinct and the Portland Police Association (PPA) — the police union — while the other group targeted the federal courthouse and Justice Center, returning to set yet another bonfire at the ruins of the elk statue nearby.

        At about 10:45 p.m., antifa rioters broke into the PPA office and ignited a fire inside.

        1. So this fire turns out to have been a cabinet and a square foot of carpet.

          Also, calling everything Antifa does not make it Antifa.

          I’m not saying property damage is cool, but maybe keep your hat on, lest it seem like you’re grasping for straws to justify a government crackdown on people you don’t like.

          1. “So this fire turns out to have been a cabinet and a square foot of carpet.”

            ?????

            What does an unsuccessful (because a quick response extinguished the fire) arson tell us about the intentions of the people committing the arson?

            Is arson a mere property crime? Why or why not?

            If neo-Nazis made an unsuccessful attempt to torch the Holocaust Museum, would your response to calls for prosecuting the Neo-Nazis be “I’m not saying property damage is cool, but maybe keep your hat on, lest it seem like you’re grasping for straws to justify a government crackdown on people you don’t like.” ?

            1. Come on. You know that the picture painted by ‘it was set on fire’ is very much not ‘a file cabinet was scorched.’ Even the law recognizes the distinction.

              I’m not saying things were nonviolent or that this was a great move. But this is hardly the LA riots. And I’d also note that this flare-up came after the federal crackdown. Americans don’t take kindly to such authoritarianism.

              If neo-Nazis made an unsuccessful attempt to torch the Holocaust Museum, I think they should be arrested and persecuted. I wouldn’t think it’s time to occupy the streets of DC – which is what ‘keep your hat on’ is talking about.

              Kevin’s links are spin in attempt to justify this crackdown. I don’t think they do so, for multiple reasons (timing, magnitude, proportionality). I find it disgusting propaganda pushing for partisan state violence.

              1. “You know that the picture painted by ‘it was set on fire’ is very much not ‘a file cabinet was scorched.’ ”

                Here is the well known right wing source MSN with a headline “Police Association Building Set Alight in Portland”. Pause it at the 5 second mark, look at the orange glow through the door, and tell us if you think that the building isn’t going to go up if not promptly extinguished.

                “Even the law recognizes the distinction.”

                You have the law degree, not me. Can you explain to us lay people how the law doesn’t call it arson if the fire department gets there in time?

            2. “What does an unsuccessful (because a quick response extinguished the fire) arson tell us about the intentions of the people committing the arson? ”

              Well, it suggests that the people committing it don’t have much experience, or they’d be better at it.

    2. Anyone bother to get plate numbers?

      1. They were rented cars, apparently.

        1. REAL Feds wouldn’t rent. No, they want all their toys, they want big engines & high performance tires. If they did rent, it’d be from the Fed’s own fleet.

          I imagine an intrepid attorney could bring a retroactive Habeas Corpus action against the head of the jail — find a Trump-hating judge… But when it comes out that “he didn’t enter the building — he ain’t on our video” — that’ll get interesting.

        2. Even if they were rented, it should take the Portland police no time at all to identify the renters

          1. Speaking of the Portland Police, If I saw unmarked vehicles and people getting grabbed. I’d dial 911….

        3. The best journalist to read on this subject is Andy Ngo. Here is his latest Twitter post:

          https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1284219893718691841

          Portland Police arrested 21 people at the violent #antifa & far-left protests on 16–17 July. Rioters attacked both the southeast police precinct & the area outside the downtown federal courthouse. They started fires, blinded police w/lasers & threw rocks.

        4. More peaceful protestors (video link):

          https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1284113010018197505

          @PortlandPolice retreat at one point as the angry mob of antifa black bloc throw projectiles and move in closer to the southeast Sherrif’s Office building. #PortlandRiots

        5. Peaceful protests (video link)

          https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1284107368285057024

          Unwilling to directly confront federal police, Portland antifa rioters turned their violence toward the public. They smashed the window of the nearby 711, threw a projectile at an EMS vehicle driving on the street and here, try to chase down a driver:

        6. It must be cold at night in Portland during the summer.

          https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1284099585837805568

          Antifa rioters started another fire nearby the Portland federal courthouse and are fanning the flames with their shields. #PortlandRiots

        7. Immigrant property does not matter, apparently (short video)

          https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1284091467795968000

          Portland Police push back the mob of antifa outside the southeast police building, who are chanting about burning it down. They steal property from a nearby Indonesian restaurant to create barriers on Burnside street. Video by @DannyJPeterson

        8. The situation will not get better in Deep Blue Portland.

          https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1283937575066120193

          Multnomah county’s incoming DA, Mike Schmidt, who will oversee prosecutions in Portland, is favored by the far-left & antifa. When asked about the recent riots, he says it takes “more than just peaceful protests to get the government’s attention.”

        9. Naturally, all of this does not help the general law and order situation.

          https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1283711528731062274

          There has almost been a 400 percent increase in shootings in Portland. Last month @tedwheeler & city council disbanded the @PortlandPolice Gun Violence Reduction Team in response to the BLM & antifa riots (which continue to this day).

          1. You are retweeting a liar.

        10. Feds do rent cars, from what I understand, and under fake names for various purposes. My official stance is to await more information. I reject the initial reporting by the MSM as much of the coverage on these protests has suppressed information and concealed illegal behavior.

          For all we know there was probable cause. If they are brought to a court house, there has to be at least a charge, right?

      1. Sorry Bernard, this sounds super fake. Let’s go over the report.

        “Mark Pettibone, 29, told the Washington Post and OPB that he was among those protesters grabbed off the streets of Portland. Pettibone said he was heading home from a protest with a friend early Wednesday morning when several men in green military fatigues jumped out of an unmarked gray van….He ran, but said he was caught, detained and searched. He was taken to a federal courthouse and placed in a holding cell. Officers read him his Miranda rights and he declined to waive those rights and answer questions. Then, he was released with no record of his arrest.”

        Point 1: “Green military fatigues”. Who on earth is wearing these and doing law enforcement?
        Point 2: “Taken to a federal courthouse”

        What federal courthouse? There’s one in Portland… Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse. You’re telling me there’s absolutely no record, visual or otherwise, of someone being booked into a holding cell in the only federal courthouse in Portland? No one who would even leak stuff like this? This is the same federal courthouse that has protests and riots around it, but somehow people are smuggling grey vans into it with captured protesters? Really?

        1. “You’re telling me there’s absolutely no record, visual or otherwise, of someone being booked into a holding cell in the only federal courthouse in Portland? No one who would even leak stuff like this?”

          Who’s telling you that? These arrests only happened in the last 48 hours. You think there would have been a FOIA request that had been validly processed in that time?

          ““Green military fatigues”. Who on earth is wearing these and doing law enforcement?”

          Maybe these guys? https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/park-police-say-protesters-near-trump-speech-were-cleared-for-attacks-on-cops/

          1. “Who’s telling you that?”.
            -This Mark Pettibone apparently. You know the same person who made this entire report

            “Green military fatigues”
            You’re suggesting Trump sent the PARK POLICE to Portland to kidnap people? Really?

            1. “You’re suggesting Trump sent the PARK POLICE to Portland to kidnap people? Really?”

              You asked who on earth is wearing these and doing law enforcement. I’m quite sure I have no idea who he’s sending – that’s the point of sending people without identification. The point is that federal forces wearing green military fatigues have been doing law enforcement, so why should that make this somehow less credible here when we have recent documented examples?

              1. Sorry, I thought the context was clear. “In Portland.” Not in areas that have large national parks.

                Plus, there’s a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. Trump is sending people “without identification”….but they’re somehow booking people into holding cells in federal courthouses.

                Usually these federal courthouses don’t let just anyone in, especially not to throw people in their holding cells. Usually, there has to be “identification” of some sort.

                Now, if you argued they were brought to a dark warehouse somewhere…that I could buy without identification. But not a federal courthouse.

                1. The video quality isn’t good, but looking around I found better. They are US Marshal Service, with Special Response Team shoulder patches. Not unidentified at all.

                  And, yes, they are authorized to arrest people if they have warrants.

                  1. Wait, you’re saying the “unidentified agents” were really identified with clear markings?

                    Huh, how the story changes.

                    Now, if you’re telling me that clearly identified federal agents with valid warrants were arresting people due to federal charges, and booking them in holding cells in a federal courthouse. That I would believe.

                    1. So it’s US Marshals who are detaining people without probable cause, holding them without charges and then releasing them without ever explaining why? Oh, thank God. Here I was worried that people’s rights were being violated.

                    2. No, it’s US Marshals who are alleged to be detaining people without probable cause, and so forth.

                  2. Great! Please post links to the better video you found such that one could readily identify SRT shoulder patches.

                    1. Note you can delete all the junk from the Oregon Live photo URLs prior to “cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com” and get the much higher-resolution original. For example, this is one Brett mentioned.

        2. Armchair — I agree with you om everything except the green fatagues. The guys who fly black helicopters wear them, although they DID have tail numbers on their helo.

        3. this sounds super fake

          Still sound that way? Show some integrity, A.L., and admit it’s not fake.

        4. Apparently, he was not arrested. Cops can question you for as long as you will put up with it, without arresting you. You have to ask : “Am I under arrest? Am I free to go?” Otherwise you are in a legal limbo. Not under arrest. Not charged with a crime. There is no need for any record of your VOLUNTARY interrogation. If a cop ever says “Come with me. You need to answer some questions.” ask him if you are under arrest. If he says yes, demand a lawyer before you speak. If he say you are not under arrest, tell him bye bye. Know your basic rights people. The cops have played this “take him in for questioning” game for about a century. This is not a DJT invention. This is not unique to Portlandia.

          The courts allow the police have some flexibility as to how long they can detain you for questioning against your will. For a traffic stop, it’s something like 20 minutes. The normal time of a typical traffic stop. In the case of taking someone off the streets, they still can’t keep you for long, without arresting you IF YOU ASK TO LEAVE. If you choose to hang out and listen to their crap for 12 hours, that’s your option.

          The cops are under no obligation to tell you that you are not under arrest and you are free to go.

          Reading him his rights was an interesting twist. Your rights always exist. If you are not under arrest, your rights still exist.

          – Jake

          1. Apparently, he was not arrested. Cops can question you for as long as you will put up with it, without arresting you. You have to ask : “Am I under arrest? Am I free to go?” Otherwise you are in a legal limbo. Not under arrest. Not charged with a crime. There is no need for any record of your VOLUNTARY interrogation

            Yes, that’s all well and good, but if you’re grabbed and forced into a car, you’ve either been arrested or kidnapped.

            1. I have found no evidence that force was used. I saw the video of one detention. No cuffs. They did lay hands on him. There was no struggle. In one report I read , an official said they removed him for questioning, because a crowd was approaching.

              https://twitter.com/matcha_chai/status/1283328232033411072

              From what I gather, they never told him he was under arrest. If they don’t say you are under arrest, you are not under arrest. According to a local news report yesterday, there had been a total of two similar brief detentions. Separately, there have also been actual arrests by the feds.

              Detention for questioning is different from an arrest. If a cop ever says, “Come with me. We need to ask you some questions.” Say loud and clear, “I will not answer any questions. Am I free to go?”
              Don’t mince words. Force them to either let you go or formally arrest you and provide you with a lawyer. Either way, keep your mouth shut, other than to ask if you have been arrested and to demand your freedom.

              – Jake

    3. Trump is saying that the deployed federal agents to Portland. So unless you think Trump is lying then they are probably feds.

      1. Trump lies, but probably not about that. Having federal agents in Portland is not inconsistent with having people fake an interaction with federal agents. If this is real, it looks like a valid civil rights case. On the other hand, Jimmy the Dane provides some good reasons for skepticism below.

        1. Why is it a “valid” civil rights case? There is no reason to assume that they are picking people off the streets at random, rather the assumption would be the have probable cause to think they committed a federal offense, which are legion.

          1. Multiple people they picked up say they protesters, nothing more.

            So there is reason to assume they’re picking protesters off the street at random.

            1. If they say they were only protestors, it must be true. Totally innocent.

              1. If they weren’t only protesters – if they weren’t innocent – one would expect them to have been charged, yes?

                1. No. That is plain silly. The Portland authorities know, by now, who many of the violent rioters and arsonists are, but are studiously avoiding arresting them.

            2. “Multiple people they picked up say they protesters, nothing more.”

              Uh huh.

              “So there is reason to assume they’re picking protesters off the street at random.”

              Only if you’re a gullible idiot.

    4. So in this brilliant hypothesis, who are the false flaggers who have the ability not just to detain people at gunpoint, but to take them to federal courthouses, bring them handcuffed past security, place them into holding cells, and then release them from said holding cells?

      If this is a staged conspiracy, boy did it take some heads-up planning ahead.

      1. “ability not just to detain people at gunpoint, but to take them to federal courthouses, bring them handcuffed past security, place them into holding cells, and then release them from said holding cells?”
        Not sure where you are getting that from the video linked above. If from other reports, why do you believe those reports, and do you also believe reports of violence committed by BLM/antifa supporters?

        1. I’m getting that from the reporting from the Washington Post and Oregon Public Broadcasting, including interviews with people who’ve been detailed – and the fact that DHS didn’t actually deny it, but responded to OPB with a statement on background confirming that DHS Secretary Wolf was in Portland and the time, and then a statement from Wolf ranting about angry mobs having the gall to protest in front of courthouses.

          So yes, who should we believe: the people who’ve been detained, or the people not denying that they’ve detained people?

          1. you’re believing the word of a protester/rioter/marxist insurrectionist taken at face value with no corroboration that anything at all happened.

            Fitting the facts presented is also he and his buddies rented a van, played dress-up, took him into the van so he could have it filmed and the entire detention is fabrication.

            That you and every leftist seems to take it as a given that law enforcement is prone to just randomly scooping up people for no reason leads me to believe the later over your preferred narrative until facts otherwise emerge. kinda like all the fake hate crime reporting we see from the wokesters and their fellow travelers.

            1. The general act (detainment without charge and use of force by federal agents) has been confirmed by state and local officials, and multiple media sources, and a Senator.

              All marxists in on the plot, I presume?

          2. ” Wolf ranting about angry mobs having the gall to protest in front of courthouses.”

            “Ranting” is subjective, so I’m not going to dispute that, but he wasn’t talking about protesting, but instead criminal acts.

            “Below is a snapshot of the lawless destruction and violence of the past several weeks that Department of Homeland Security and its subcomponents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and Federal Protective Service have faced:” What follows is a very long list of crimes, many quite serious, such as assault and battery.

            1. None of which the people detained were charged with. So what do those crimes have to do with anything?

              1. Look, I’d be careful about taking at face value anything the person who got arrested says. Reason regularly gets burned doing that.

                1. When did you start trusting law enforcement? You’re normally highly skeptical – rightly so, IMO.

                  But when they start picking up people you don’t like you drop your objections immediately.

                  1. “When did you start trusting law enforcement? You’re normally highly skeptical – rightly so, IMO.”

                    The way we police is flawed, yes. However, not nearly as flawed as the way these ongoing mobs “protest”.

                    1. Don’t conflate the protestors with the vandals.

      2. Only if you believe the “victim” wasn’t in on it somehow.

        I mean it takes a certain amount of gumption to believe that unmarked grey vans are somehow transporting captured protestors into the same courthouse the protestors are outside of…and no one notices.

        1. Or calls 911. Or has a friendly lawyer file a habeas corpus. Or posts the video on youtube. Or all three….

    5. OTher reports indicate unmarked cars , with agents that are badged/marked with identification.

      I would discount claims of being completely unidentified.
      Why risk getting a solid case/indictments/arrests threw out for some gestapo tactic

      1. Considering that there’s no indication that the people detained were actually charged with anything, I’m not sure that the people doing the detaining are quite as concerned about getting a solid case/indictments/arrests thrown out as you are.

    6. CBP has acknowledged they did it.

      Care to admit you were wrong?

    7. Tags on the uniforms just said “POLICE.” Feds don’t wear things that say “POLICE,” they wear things that say FBI or TSA or ATF or DEA, etc.

      But I’m with you: this was probably acted out so there’d be something for Biden and the ever-lovely Pelosi to wave at to try to make a case against Trump. Seeing is beliving if you have little to no intellect behind the seeing part. What can Keith and Orin be thinking?

      1. this was probably acted out so there’d be something for Biden and the ever-lovely Pelosi to wave at to try to make a case against Trump. Seeing is beliving if you have little to no intellect behind the seeing part. What can Keith and Orin be thinking?

        What are you thinking?

  2. Get the feds on record, with documents, with their accounts of who they arrested in Portland and on what charges. Then hear from the witnesses who alleged Third Worldish police behavior. Let’s get to the bottom of this.

    And – if true – let’s hope there’s no qualified immunity.

    1. And what if they refuse to answer? It’s not like we can ask Trump…

      1. It’s not like anyone can keep him quiet…if he has his version of events he’ll probably Tweet it and we’ll have an official story to check against the evidence.

        1. What difference does it make what Trump tweets? It’s going to be a bunch of lies.

          1. Get the feds on record promptly so that *if* they’re lying they hopefully won’t have enough time to iron out all the discrepancies, and the truth will get out sooner.

            Or if the reports are wrong, know that as soon as possible, too.

    2. What’s third worldish about reading people their rights, giving them process in the courthouse, and releasing them after processing them?

      I hope no one is asserting that the Feds can’t plausibly argue federal crimes are being committed in Portland? Almost everything is a federal crimes as David Koresh and Randy Weaver discovered decades ago.

      1. “What’s third worldish about reading people their rights, giving them process in the courthouse, and releasing them after processing them?”

        These are allegations and I don’t know if they’re true, as I was trying to emphasize.

  3. The feds are making no secret they are building Federal cases for interstate conspiracy, particularly in the Portland/Seattle area.

    If they have “John Doe” indictments, they can detain to identify, can’t they?

    1. My first thought as well. The first round of indictments to be released soon. This is an irresponsible post by Prof. Whittington who knows there are many violent criminals amongst these protestors who have been using Facebook/Twitter/Discord/Slack to organize violence. Oh, and by the way, the local officials consistently allow this violence to proceed unmolested, possibly violating the civil rights of people under their jurisdiction.

      1. Did I call that one correctly or what?

        1. How hard is it to correctly call the outcome with the highest Bayesian probability?

          1. For the record, I don’t think “Bayesian” means what you think it does…

      2. Civil rights is only about government actions, a private criminal committing crimes against another individual is not a civil rights violation. Still bad, not not a constitutional issue.

        1. I would argue Antifa has been informally deputized by the Portland mayor.

          1. I’m sure you would.

            1. If so, they are acting under color of law and can be held to be committing civil rights violations.

              1. The “So what?” was in response to you saying “I would argue…” We know you would argue it. So what?

        2. But the willful allowance of the local government that is allowing these crimes to be committed does come close enough to a Constitutional violation that there’s already a lawsuit regarding the autonomous zone that was allowed to exist for a time. So it’s questionable as to whether or not it actually is a Constitutional violation at this point, since I’m not aware of a ruling yet.

          1. That wouldn’t be a constitutional violation (since the people of Portland don’t have a constitutional right to be protected by their police), but even if it were, the violators of that right wouldn’t be the private criminals. It would be the police not enforcing the law.

        3. “Civil rights is only about government actions, a private criminal committing crimes against another individual is not a civil rights violation.”

          There is a criminal statute of conspiracy to violate an individual’s civil rights, which could apply to private actors “arresting” antifa activists, or could apply to antifa itself if they were conspiring to deny others the right to peaceably assemble.

  4. You heard it on Oregon Public Radio. Must be true, right?

  5. To add, apparently the crime wave in Portland that justified this intervention was, euh, too much graffiti: https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1283972378620506113

    1. They have been rioting at the federal courthouse daily.

      1. But also apparently the rioters don’t notice the grey vans full of prisoners being snuck past them into the hold cells at the same court house.

  6. Highly unlikely to candlestine operation to arrest “peaceful protestors”

    Most likely, they got warrants for the specific individuals arrested.

    Highly unlikely, the feds got procedural issues screwed up , so that future trial, future convictions get tossed

    1. The point is not a trial. It’s just a show of force. An illegal, unconstitutional, show of force.

      1. Dude look at the videos. This is fake. Characters are straight out of central casting.

        There is an easy way to verify if that are government rentals. A quick Freedom of Information request will yield the purchase orders and other financial instruments used to obtain them. Why isn’t the media looking for this type of info? Yup…I think we all know the answer.

        1. Jimmy,

          Why isn’t the media looking for this type of info? Yup…I think we all know the answer.

          What is the basis for your claim that they are not looking for this type of info? Of course, they are. This happened days ago. I don’t know how fast you think the government responds to FOIA requests, but, contrary to what you seem to think, It ain’t days.

          1. Have you ever filed a run of the mill FOIA request? Getting one back especially when it is just electronic records is a matter of days. If the media found someone in Congress to process it through that office they would get an answer in 24 hours or less.

            1. If the government doesn’t resist or drag their feet. They could easily deny if they wanted to based on any number of objections and force litigation. Again, you claim is that they weren’t looking for the info. There is zero chance they are not. Your better conspiracy theory would be that they did look for the info, found an answer, and are now just going to report based on speculation rather than fact.

              But they are looking and will report once the truth is established, whatever that truth turns out to be.

            2. I file FOIA requests all the time. I rarely get anything back within 6 months.

              1. Are you a Member of Congress?

        2. How did these fake federal agents get access to federal courthouse to lock them up?

          1. How do you know there actually was a federal courthouse?

            1. How do you know there actually was a federal courthouse?

              Silly rabbit — the detainees found out they had been there. After the fact. Somehow.

  7. I don’t know what to think of this. We apparently have one report of someone being detained in a federal court house, with no apparent corroboration.

  8. “If the reports are true”

    Big freaking if, it’s the WaPo, which has become a joke in these last few years.

    1. How has it become a joke?

      Because it tells the truth about Trump?

      And suppose it is true, Brett, and the Administration is behind it. Are you going to condemn it, or make up more of your crappy rationalizations?

      1. The WaPo has certainly become highly opinionated, and its coverage has a slant. But they’ve still been highly engaged and rigorous in what coverage they do undertake to provide. They’re no CNN.

        1. Seriously, at this point their coverage has so much of a slant it’s got an overhang going. They might have started out merely highly opinionated, but at this point they’re just frothing.

          Seeing their report describing Trump’s speech at Mt. Rushmore as amplifying racism moments after watching it was the last straw for me, I don’t trust their weather reports without looking out the window at this point.

          1. You don’t trust anything in or from the American mainstream, Brett Bellmore. Your disaffectedness has reached saturation.

          2. Brett ignored racism in a speech, so it stopped existing. I guess that’s where Trump got the idea to defeat coronavirus by eliminating testing.

            1. Less ignoring it and more believing that subtle appeals to racial bias aren’t actually racism, even though subconsciously he knows that’s what is being appealed to and he likes it. He’s what Lee Atwater was talking about when he did his infamous southern strategy interview with Alexander Lamis.

              1. Yes, yes, the blissfully unfalsifiable dog whistle theory. In other words, no objective evidence whatsoever.

              2. We’re talking about appeals to racial bias that are so subtle that only people who are already convinced Trump is a stone cold racist see them.

              3. Uh, that speech was about as subtle as the firebombing of Dresden.

                1. I didn’t say it was subtle, just that it wasn’t racist.

          3. Here is Mona Charen’s take on the speech.

            Is it your opinion that she is a radical leftist?

            1. Never heard of her in my life before, so I have no opinion of her.

              But having had a quick skim through the article you kindly linked, I’m wondering why you linked it. She has literally nothing to say about any allegedly racist elements in Trump’s Mount Rushmore speech.

              All she offers is a complaint that Trump didn’t say some things she would have like him to have said, and complaints about things she didn’t like him saying on other occasions.

              As Wolfgang Pauli would undoubtedly have said “Thin gruel ? This isn’t even gruel.”

      2. The second. Or just go full: Pinochet did nothing wrong.

    2. I somehow suspect you’ve reached this determination for any number of outlets that reported facts you didn’t like. Something of a pattern, eh?

      1. I reached this determination by reading the idiot rag.

        For instance, they’ve got this ‘project’ tracking Trump’s ‘lies’; Not a hard task, you’d think. He’s not scrupulously honest, the very best you could say is that he’s guilty of major league braggadocio. So compiling an honest list of lies he has told should not be challenging.

        But the list, once you get into it, is a freaking joke. At this point they claim he’s up to 20,000 verified lies.

        An example, “repeated 18 times”: “It’s a political witch hunt, it just continues. It’s been from before I got here when Obama and Biden and everybody else was spying on my campaign illegally – they were illegally spying on my campaign. And it’s a very grave crime. It’s the biggest political crime in the history of our country.”

        The WaPo actually has the cast iron gall to claim Trump is lying when he claims his campaign was spied on. Their ‘refutation’ essentially amounts to claiming it was justified.

        In fact, they count multiple versions of this same truthful point as “lies”.

        Then there’s the dishonest coverage. Trump’s speech at Rushmore prompted the headline, “Trump’s push to amplify racism unnerves Republicans who have long enabled him.”

        The WaPo is a joke.

        1. The below quotes are from the site FactCheck. Brett, I don’t think your problem is the Washington Post as much as facts in general.

          “On Dec. 9, the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General released its report on the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump campaign were coordinating with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. That report contradicts some of the claims the president, and other Republicans, have made over the years about the investigation, but it also supports at least one assertion.

          Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have claimed that the FBI’s Russia investigation was sparked by a dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. But the IG report said that “Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.”

          Trump repeatedly has accused the FBI of illegally spying on his campaign. But the IG report “found no evidence that the FBI placed any” confidential sources or undercover agents in the Trump campaign or tasked any such sources “to report on the Trump campaign.”

          Trump has accused the FBI of obtaining a surveillance warrant of former campaign aide Carter Page under false pretenses. The IG report didn’t find “intentional misconduct,” but it did find at least 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in court applications for Page’s warrant.

          The IG report also debunked Trump’s claims that the investigation was motivated by political bias on the part of FBI staff. The report found no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation” influenced the opening of the investigation or decision-making during it.”

          https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/how-old-claims-compare-to-ig-report/

          1. But that’s not what Breitbart, or Hannity, says.

          2. “Trump repeatedly has accused the FBI of illegally spying on his campaign. But the IG report “found no evidence that the FBI placed any” confidential sources or undercover agents in the Trump campaign or tasked any such sources “to report on the Trump campaign.””

            That’s typical fact checking nit picking. Trump said that the FBI had spied on his campaign, the ‘factchecker’ counters by asserting that the FBI didn’t infiltrate his campaign. But they didn’t claim that he infiltrated it, he claimed they spied on it, and they absolutely did engage in the wiretapping.

            “The IG report also debunked Trump’s claims that the investigation was motivated by political bias on the part of FBI staff. The report found no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation” influenced the opening of the investigation or decision-making during it.””

            Again, typical approach of a ‘factchecker’ when they want to declare something a lie. Trump asserts somebody did something out of bad motive, that somebody didn’t confess the bad motive to the FBI, so Trump is lying.

            Maybe Trump is right, maybe he’s wrong, but he’s only “lying” if he knows it’s wrong, and says it anyway. At worst this could be a “mistake”, but the WaPo automatically goes straight to “lie” if they so much as don’t like the implications of something Trump says, even if he’s just expressing an opinion.

            Literally, if Trump has a conversation with somebody, he says they said one thing, they say they said another, and there’s no proof either way, the WaPo says Trump is lying. If Trump says China is lying about something, the WaPo says Trump is lying.

            1. So Brett, if Trump says something, what’s your bet–is he lying or not? If he speaks 10 sentences how many are misrepresentations or lies? 4 of 10? If you ask those same questions about any other person you interact with what is the chance that they are lying? Donald Trump has no credibility. So the best strategy is to ignore everything he says, otherwise you are wasting your energy.

              1. Depends. Like I said, he is very given to braggadocio; He boasts a lot, and is not too concerned about whether the boasts are strictly true. It’s not an admirable trait, that’s for sure. But it’s not really the sort of lying by politicians we’re really concerned about, now, is it?

                I mean, if he says that he just gave the greatest speech in the history of mankind, and the WaPo fact checker says the St Crispin’s day speech was better, (Yes, I know it’s from a play…) it’s kind of anal to put it in the list, no? If he’s bragging, I’d urge you to just treat it as background noise. In fact, just ignore everything he says that has an adjective.

                Then there’s substantial lies, of the “If you like your doctor you can keep him.” sort, that are actually intended to mislead people. I don’t see a lot of those coming from Trump. I don’t see him telling us that an embassy was attacked over a youtube video, either, and having the producer jailed to make the lie look plausible.

                So, if he says, “I’m going to nominate judges recommended by the Federalist society.”, whoa, he does it. In that important regard, he’s pretty darned honest by politician standards.

            2. OK, Brett : Explain how the FBI “spied” on Trump’s campaign, what actions they took, and who / what exactly was wiretaped. Let’s get your reply and find out who is “nit picking” information, you or FactCheck.

              As with a contest of credibility between the Washington Post and D.J. Trump, I expect we’ll find it’s no contest at all.

              1. So, we’re pretending you’ve just been in a cave for the last few years, are we? Carter Page, Flynn, and Manafort were “wiretapped”, and by FBI procedures, when you wiretap somebody, you can also wiretap anybody “two hops” removed from them. A kind of ‘warrant by contagion”. In fact, you’ll get what they call “reverse engineered” wiretaps, where they want to wiretap Joe, but can’t so a basis for doing so, so they come up with excuses to wiretap Tom, Dick, and Harry, all of whom are associates of Joe. And just incidentally wiretap Joe.

                1. This is a diversion. all respect to grb, but lets not go there. I’m sure you want to relitigate your coup theory yet again, but how about we deal with what’s happening in Portland?

                  1. I’m fine with that, now that we’ve litigated my right not to regard the WaPo as a reliable, objective source of information.

                    1. Nah, ad hominem is still a fallacy Brett.

                      Anyhow, it’s not just the WaPo anymore. Not hardly.

                    2. Ad hominem is still a useful heuristic, Sarcastro. We’ve been over that. Yes, there are no proverbial Cretans around, liars occasionally tell the truth. But that doesn’t mean you count on liars to tell the truth.

                    3. You discounted a story that turned out to be true based on the source.

                      And now you defend you past actions of being unthinkingly wrong.

            3. That’s typical fact checking nit picking. Trump said that the FBI had spied on his campaign, the ‘factchecker’ counters by asserting that the FBI didn’t infiltrate his campaign. But they didn’t claim that he infiltrated it, he claimed they spied on it, and they absolutely did engage in the wiretapping.

              There was no wiretapping.

              1. They really want to change the subject.

              2. Of course there was wiretapping. That is why they got four successive FISA warrants on Carter Page. That is what Title I FISA warrants are for. IG Horowitz provided evidence that the last two were clearly illegal (lying on the FISA applications, changing evidence, ignoring evidence by another agency that Carter Page worked for them, lying about the known lack of provenance of the Steele Dossier, etc), and that suggested that the first two were illegally acquired.

                1. Of course there was wiretapping. That is why they got four successive FISA warrants on Carter Page.

                  Carter Page was not part of the campaign when the first FISA warrant was obtained. Carter Page was not part of the campaign when the second FISA warrant was obtained. Carter Page was not part of the campaign when the third FISA warrant was obtained. Carter Page was not part of the campaign when the fourth FISA warrant was obtained.

                  So even if the rest of what you wrote was accurate — it wasn’t – it would be irrelevant.

                  1. A FISA warrant allows you to access the target’s communications, plus everyone within two hops of him, for the period of the warrant and retrospectively.

                    1. You are confusing metadata with wiretapping. And you can’t wiretap retroactively at all, not without a time machine. (Reading old emails is not “wiretapping.”)

                    2. I was merely pointing out that your referencing of the fact that Carter Page was no longer a member of the Trump campaign when he had a FISA warrant sicced on him is irrelevant to the question of whether anyone within two hops of him – presumably a large chunk of the Trump Campaign – had their communications swept up.

                      It is and they did.

                      As for whether having your emails read is “wiretapping” may be of nerdy significance for the purposes of statute; but for the common man it adds up to the same thing – the Feds are spying on my communications.

                      It’s hardly as if the DNC said, oh nobody tapped our wires, they just hacked our emails. That’s OK then. The FBI and Mueller thought it was a big deal too.

            4. You’re so full of shit.

              You insist that WaPo is being unfair to the President because it concluded that, despite his statement that he was spied on, really there’s no evidence that his campaign was illegally infiltrated. And that it was therefore unfair for them to “automatically go[] straight to ‘lie'”. But of course they didn’t; the “20,000 verified lies” link you posted says 20,055 “false or misleading claims“. If you control f on the article and look up “lie” the only thing you’ll find is stuff about Flynn lying to the FBI.

              A factcheck does not necessarily require a lie. It just requires somebody to state something not factually true. (Same with the FactCheck link, it doesn’t say “lie”; that’s you.)

              Your diatribe about the difference between a lie and a false statement is irrelevant, because you falsely concluded that someone else said “lie”. How did you miss this?

            5. The IG showed that there was political bias in the spying on Trump and his campaign. And showed that they had been spied on (electronically, as well as by assets working for federal agencies). But what he did not find was a smoking gun saying that they were illegally spying on Trump and his campaign for political reasons. It could easily be inferred, of course. Peter Strzok told Lisa Page that they would make sure that Trump wasn’t elected, while running both the Clinton and Trump investigations, letting her off, and working with McCabe to set up the Mueller special prosecutor investigation. He was also the one who sat on the Weiner laptop for a month, try.ing to run out the clock on the election, claiming that he only had time for one investigation, and the Trump investigation was more important. But he never said he was doing that to make sure that Trump wasn’t elected.

              1. The IG showed that there was political bias in the spying on Trump and his campaign.

                No, he didn’t.

                And showed that they had been spied on (electronically, as well as by assets working for federal agencies).

                No, he didn’t.

            6. if Trump has a conversation with somebody, he says they said one thing, they say they said another, and there’s no proof either way, the WaPo says Trump is lying.

              “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.”

          3. Fact check – not spying on the trump campaign meme has been discredited with documents forthcoming from the Flynn case

            1. I like “has been discredited” with documents “forthcoming.” Which is it?

              (Answer: neither.)

              1. There’s no contradiction. Although “forthcoming” is often used to refer to future events, since it just refers to coming forth it can be used to refer to the past, present or future, eg in the past :

                “I asked him where he’d been last night, but no satisfactory answer was forthcoming.”

                In context, Joe Dallas’ comment plainly refers to documents that have already come forth.

          4. grb : The IG report also debunked Trump’s claims that the investigation was motivated by political bias on the part of FBI staff.

            Nonsense.

            The report found no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation” influenced the opening of the investigation or decision-making during it.”

            You – like the media – have simply mentally excised the words “documentary or testimonial” from the IG’s report :

            On being questioned in the Senate Committee (see in particular his answers to Senators Hawley and Paul) Horowitz made it quite clear :

            1. that there were politically biased individuals involved in the investigation
            2. but that proving that the bias of investigators influenced their investigation was, absent documentary or testimonial evidence, was very difficult, and
            3, he had certainly not concluded that bias had not affected the investigation

        2. An example, “repeated 18 times”: “It’s a political witch hunt, it just continues. It’s been from before I got here when Obama and Biden and everybody else was spying on my campaign illegally – they were illegally spying on my campaign. And it’s a very grave crime. It’s the biggest political crime in the history of our country.”

          The WaPo actually has the cast iron gall to claim Trump is lying when he claims his campaign was spied on. Their ‘refutation’ essentially amounts to claiming it was justified.

          The problem is both that Trump is lying and you’re illiterate. They didn’t spy on his campaign by any normal person’s definition of spying. But we’ll let that slide because that’s not what he said. What he said, that the Post called a lie, was that “they were illegally spying on his campaign.”

          But wait, is that all? No, he didn’t merely say that “they” illegally spied; he said that Obama and Biden illegally spied. You want to use Obama as synechdoche for his administration? I guess. But Biden?

          1. So as I understand it :

            1. There is a distinction between legal and illegal spying (ie spying does not entail illegality, so legal spyng is not a null set) and

            2. the FBI did not spy on the Trump Campaign

            So the question is –

            what would be illustrations of the sort of things that the FBI might have done in relation to the Trump Campaign which would amount to (legal) spying ?

            1. “what would be illustrations of the sort of things that the FBI might have done in relation to the Trump Campaign which would amount to (legal) spying ?”

              You’d have to ask the President, since he’s the one who made the distinction between legal and illegal spying.

              1. Although doing so would be pointless, since the President doesn’t know anything about legality.

              2. Er, Nieporent makes the same distinction. Trump is not a regular on VC so we can’t ask him for his idea of the distinction, but Nieporent is a regular, and we can ask him.

                En passant, I’ll note that “illegal” – to my mind – could be understood in a couple of slightly different senses :

                (a) where those carrying out the spying were committing criminal offenses, and
                (b) where those carrying out the spying were doing so pursuant to a legal authority, eg a warrant, which had been obtained improperly, and was therefore invalid

                eg as with the DoJ’s admission, following the IG’s investigation, that the 2nd and 3rd Carter Page renewals were invalid.

                And in a non Trumpy context, where a court finds that a warrant was not supported by probable cause.

                1. “…eg as with the DoJ’s admission, following the IG’s investigation, that the 2nd and 3rd Carter Page renewals were invalid.”

                  The 2nd and 3rd Carter Page renewals were not done by “Obama and Biden”.

                  1. No, but the original application and the first renewal were. And the DoJ has not announced its conclusion on those. Moreover when Horowitz announced that he thought there was adequate predication for the original aplication, based on the evidence he had been able to review, both Barr and Durham went out of their way to state that that was not a conclusion that they had yet reached.

                    But perhaps more significant than the Carter Page FISA is the FISA Court review of “non compliant” queries on the NSA database in the Nov 2015 to Apr 2016 test period. “Non compliant” here means non compiant with the law, ie illegal. It emerges that 85% of the searches were non-compliant.

                    We, the humble public, don’t know who these illegal searches were on. But there’s no reason to suppose Trump doesn’t know.

    3. Brett Bellmore : “Big freaking if, it’s the WaPo, which has become a joke in these last few years”

      One of Donald John Trump’s biggest supporters in this forum talking about credibility! Irony doesn’t come any thicker than that……..

      1. But no matter what Brett is, the Post is now really just the DNC’s mouthpiece.

        1. No, it isn’t. Their news has editorial standards, their opinion columns include lots of conservatives. Possibly more conservatives and/or Trump boot lickers (who are often not at all conservative) than liberals.

          1. “editorial standards”

            LOL Standards.

            They had a big article a few weeks ago because two Red Guard college students were upset about a “black face” Halloween costume two or more years ago.

            1. I am not familiar with the article. Was there something untrue in the article?

          2. I guess none is a standard, or OrangeManBad congruence with the DNC’s daily talking points. How often do they use uncorroborated single source anonymous statements to spin their entire narrative.

            How often do you need to see reported “peaceful protest” while the background is in flames before you let it go.

        2. “the Post is now really just the DNC’s mouthpiece”

          One of the DNC mouthpieces. NYT, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC are others.

    4. Brett,

      Can you give us your take on this if the reports are true?

      Would it be wrong to engage in this manner with rented vehicles, no identification of agency, etc.? Will you condemn this based on the fact that, if this is happening, doing it this way sows confusion, discord, and prevents accountability?

      Or are you just going to be suspicious that the videos are real so you can cobble together a dishonest defense later?

      And you would be fair to ask the same of me, so:

      This does look so bizarre it appears to me staged. At even money, I would bet it’s not real without more corroboration than just these videos and a few witness statements. In fact, maybe 25% chance or less it’s real. But, there is a non-negligible chance it is real, including because uninvited federal agents are roaming the streets there (which is a problem in and of itself).

      If it is not true, the people involved should likely be charged with crimes, such as impersonating a police officer, because (whether legit or not legit) this conduct is very damaging to the rule of law and undermines our democracy.

      If it is true, the people involved should be investigated and, if appropriate charged with crimes because it is very damaging to the rule of law and undermines our democracy. Whatever the liability of those conducting these arrests (if they are federal agents), whoever authorized this, up to and including at the White House, should be promptly ejected from their position of power. This would be absolutely, totally unacceptable if true. We are not the Soviet Union, Pinochet’s Chile, or Castro’s Cuba. Unacceptable.

      Brett, take a stand?

      1. “If it is true, the people involved should be investigated and, if appropriate charged with crimes because it is very damaging to the rule of law and undermines our democracy. Whatever the liability of those conducting these arrests (if they are federal agents), whoever authorized this, up to and including at the White House, should be promptly ejected from their position of power.”

        That will never happen. Cops, even federal ones, get away with stuff all the time.

        1. Especially federal ones. I didn’t predict what would happen, but what I think should if these reports turn out to be true.

      2. “charged with crimes”
        What crime exactly?

        Its not illegal to not have id plates or visible badges or use rental cars.

        If Portland police were allowed to do their jobs, no need for federal intervention. These “Black Bloc” cosplayers have been attacking the US courthouse daily.

        1. It is illegal to take someone off the street with no probable cause, no warrant, no reasonable suspicion, etc.

          If they didn’t have probable cause, etc., it could be false arrest, assault, battery, etc. Of course, we don’t generally charge LEOs for such crimes, but they should be where they know they have no legal basis to detain a person. The report is that someone was taken off the street, held against his will, and released without being charged or any other explanation. This suggests there was no warrant, no suspicion of a crime by the detainee, which suggests it was simply false arrest.

          Washington state has laws against “official misconduct”, for example. I don’t know what Washington laws might be applicable, though there are many candidates, which I said “if appropriate”.

          Are you saying it is impossible any crime was committed if they knew they had no lawful reason to detain the person, knew they were not acting in accordance with law, etc.?

          1. I think these accusations deserve the full attention of both the Portland PD and FBI, including clear statements under oath by the victims and a full investigation.

          2. It is highly unlikely those arrests are without a warrant – as previously stated – it would be stupid for the feds to get case tossed for a 4a violation.

            1. The report is that at least some of the people aren’t being charged with anything. If true, your “case tossed” disincentive isn’t a disincentive at all. Try again.

          3. “It is illegal to take someone off the street with no probable cause, no warrant, no reasonable suspicion, etc.”

            So?

            You have no idea why this person was detained.

            1. Assuming the reports are true (which these subthread does), neither does he. Even after being released. That is abusive use of power if, in fact, these are LEOs.

              We do not, yet, live in a totalitarian state that permits detaining people and transporting them to a detention facility without ever telling the people why they are/were detained or who detained them.

              Surely you see that frustrates the ability of the detainee to assert their constitutional rights. Or is that a feature, not a bug, for you?

              1. *this subthread (not these subthread) (edit button please)

      3. “Would it be wrong to engage in this manner with rented vehicles, no identification of agency, etc.?”

        I think that the FBI, for instance, have to identify themselves to somebody being arrested. They don’t have to identify themselves to passerby’s. I don’t believe they’re required to drive vans with, “Warning, FBI, run if you expect to be arrested!” printed on the side, either.

        My chief stance in this is that it being reported in the Washington Post does not strike me as persuasive evidence that it happened. I put the WaPo on about the same level of trustworthiness as your average supermarket tabloid; Probably accurate if the truth serves their ends, if it doesn’t they’ll lie without shame.

        If this is really happening, it should be relatively easy to prove, because these people will have friends and family to ask after them, and make a fuss if they can’t be found. If such proof does not surface in the next few days, I’ll call it a hoax.

        I expect they are arresting some people, in a more conventional way, though.

        I would point out that, if you think this is the stuff of the USSR, that it wouldn’t exactly be unprecedented in the US.

        1. You are absolutely right that the Chicago Homan Square situation was absolutely atrocious. That is the type of stuff of authoritarian governments. We should not let police get away with such tactics. It ultimately makes us all less safe by sowing distrust of, if not contempt of, police officers, which is not good for them or us.

        2. But you still haven’t answered the question:

          Is that an appropriate method and manner of law enforcement if it is true that these are federal agents who are not identifying themselves and are detaining/arresting people without warrants?

          1. If they are not identifying themselves to the people being arrested,, if they are arresting people without warrants, hang ’em from the nearest lamppost. But it will take more than a report in the Washington Post to make me believe it.

            1. Thanks. I agree.

              1. I have, by the way, found better video/photos. They are not in unmarked uniforms, they’re clearly identified as US marshal Special Response Team.

                Admittedly it’s not obvious from the blurry video that prompted this OP.

            2. What will it take?

    5. I know I, personally, have never heard of anybody lying in their own defense. I bet that Pettitbone guy is totally on the up and up and it happened just as he said it did.

  9. This looks completely staged and fake. It is almost like the Left is sad that this isn’t actually happening so they had to go invent it just to reinforce the narrative. Too bad Trump is just so incompetent he actually can’t be good at the fascism he is accused of doling out.

    1. Except CBP has admitted it.

      1. Except, oops — they haven’t.

        Not only have they not admitted to the supposed campaign that was the subject of the breathless WaPo article that spurred this thread, they haven’t even admitted to the single incident you may think you’re referring to. Go back and read the page again. You’ll have to scroll all the way to the bottom.

        Just the latest example of shameless people braying things they want to be true, knowing they’ll quickly be repeated and amplified by people such as yourselves who also want them to be true, and then *ever so quietly* walking them back.

  10. As for the “this is all fake people”, do you think the Secretary for Homeland Security is lying too?https://twitter.com/DHS_Wolf/status/1284081029683257344

    1. How does that authenticate video above? Looks like it might be a civil rights violation if real, but Jimmy the Dane points out several reasons for skepticism below. Techniques are not consistent with federal law enforcement training.

  11. “Hey, guys, lets some of us rent a few vans and dress in camo, then “arrest” the rest of us, and blame it on the Feds. All the media will buy it for sure.”

    1. Worked for Josie in Chicago with a complete fake hate crime so why not?

  12. If you were wondering whether the feds will get away with this or not, just look at the comments here.

    1. Get away with what exactly?

      1. Bob,

        Are you willing to state this is an egregious abuse of power if true? (And I agree there are good reasons to be skeptical.)

        1. If what is true?

          The post and supporting articles are a porridge of allegations.

          Federal LEOs are allowed in Portland no matter what the mayor or governor says.

          They can use rental cars.

          They are identified by DHS or BOP patches.

          Portland and Oregon authorities have failed in their duties so the feds properly step up.

          1. Portland and Oregon authorities have failed in their duties so the feds properly step up.

            When not invited by the elected governments of Portland and Oregon?

            You’re a fascist.

            1. The US government is an elected government too, comrade.

              Did Portland and/or Oregon succeed from the Union?

              1963 Alabama per Sarcasto: US marshalls should not be here, Gov. Wallace didn’t invite them. Its fascism.

              1. Bob,

                You’re smart, right? What’s the counterargument to your made up Sarcastro response to Gov. Wallace using state force to resist a court order?

                1. “made up Sarcastro response”

                  Oh, he wasn’t in Alabama in 1963. My apologies.

                  Federal agents can enter a state or city to enforce federal law without permission, like they can to enforce a civil court order.

                  1. What’s the order?

                    1. “What’s the order”?

                      You’re asking what authority the federal government has, if a State or State actors physically attack and take over federal property in that state?

                      I just want to make sure I have your question exactly correct.

                    2. “What’s the order?”

                      Doesn’t have to be one.

                      “Federal agents can enter a state or city to enforce federal law without permission”

                      They are enforcing federal law against attacking US court houses and assaulting officers

                      http://www.koin.com/news/protests/riot-declared-as-federal-courthouse-attacked-in-portland-070402020/

                    3. Seems like they’ve gone well beyond guarding federal property to assaulting random unarmed protesters.

                      That’s a campaign of fear against American citizens, and not something even you should condone.

                    4. “seems like”

                      Seems like something. Seems like someone’s making up a story, not unlike a certain gay African american in Chicago. did.

                    5. “Seems like they’ve gone well beyond guarding federal property to assaulting random unarmed protesters.”

                      See, they aren’t protesters but rioters and there was no assault. Unarmed IDK nor do you. Neither do you know it was “random”.

                    6. I’m basing my story on Oregon and Portland officials, and the media.

                      You don’t even have a story.

                    7. Seems like someone’s making up a story, not unlike a certain gay African american in Chicago. did.

                      Wow. That’s in the running for idiotic Internet comment of the week.

              2. “Did Portland and/or Oregon succeed from the Union?”

                Do you still claim to have “succeeded” with respect to earning a law degree?

            2. When not invited by the elected governments of Portland and Oregon?

              Yeah, that’s what 10 U.S. Code § 253 says.

              After all, we have experience in this country of elected in state and local governments deciding to sit back and allow violent thugs to run rampant denying people their Constitutional rights. So there’s a remarkably broad provision in Federal law, based on the 14th Amendment, for stepping in to restore order.

              But it’s nice to know you think suppressing the Klan without the invitation of elected of state and local elected officials constituted “fascism”. Shall we petition the Unicode Consortium for a Confederate Flag emoji so you can broadcast you allegiance more effectively?

              1. This is hardly integrating the schools, DRM.

                1. nah, it’s just assaults in the streets and rampant destruction of property. Those things are apparently fine to people like you.

                  1. Portland is not as you describe it. Or it wasn’t until this nonsense started.

                    I wouldn’t be okay with such things happening, but I’m less okay with the Feds being mobilized to enforce state laws.

                    You’re okay with it, so long as the Feds are beating down the right people. What does that make you?

                  2. You’re being lied to.

                    There’s no rampant destruction. They are complaining about graffiti.

                    1. You’re being lied to, or participating in the lies. It started with graffiti, and then escalated.

            3. “When not invited by the elected governments of Portland and Oregon?

              You’re a fascist.”

              Using your logic, so was Ike in regards to school desegregation.

              1. You know what those troops didn’t do?

                Use force on the protesters.

                1. More accurately, they used the minimum amount of force needed to accomplish their mission. Read the paragraph following the picture.

                  The more interesting question, perhaps, is would they have been wrong to use force to make arrests if the segregationists had, say, gone into a Black neighborhood and engaged in some good ol’ ‘just property damage’?

                  1. You’ve got a good head on your shoulders. Is what’s going on in Portland more like school desegregation…or Kent State?

                    As to your pretty good hypothetical – preventing crimes beyond federal property wouldn’t have been their job; that’s not what they were deployed for, nor is it something they could have been deployed for.
                    If there were some exigency (i.e. plain sight, hot pursuit, etc), we can talk.

                    What’s happening here and all this escalation is well out of proportion to graffiti. You investigate crimes like that, you don’t snatch people of the street. This isn’t defending federal property, this is a show of force. And it doesn’t belong in America.

                    1. I’m having a hard time finding a coherent thread in your responses, but FWIW…

                      “Is what’s going on in Portland more like school desegregation…or Kent State?”

                      It’s not a whole lot like either, I suppose. One difference is that deploying the 101st to Little Rock and the NG to Kent State both involved using troops. The scuttlebutt I hear is that the folks you are upset about are probably the Border Patrol SWAT people, who are federal LEOs who are frequently used for extra manpower, from the LA riots to prison riots to search & rescue during Katrina to Superbowl security to … .

                      ” preventing crimes beyond federal property wouldn’t have been their job; that’s not what they were deployed for, nor is it something they could have been deployed for.”

                      The people in Portland aren’t in the Army, they are (likely) LEOs, and arresting people who have committed federal crimes is very much something fed LEOs do. For example, do you think the FBI or marshal’s service won’t arrest whoever killed the son of that federal judge whenever and wherever they find him?

                      “well out of proportion to graffiti.”

                      You keep saying that, but what’s happening in Portland goes a bit beyond a teenager tagging boxcars. Moreover, tag some boxcars, and later a deputy recognizes you as the tagger while you’re peacefully walking your dog in the park. Does the deputy arrest you (AKA ‘snatch you off the street’) or not?

                      If, when the facts emerge, it turns out that Trump has created off the books death squads who are disappearing law abiding political opponents into camps, then I’ll join you in marching on D.C. to throw the bum out. But I’m guessing the odds of that are well under 50%. How much real world money would you bet, and at what odds, that these don’t eventually prove to be lawful detentions?

                    2. My thesis is pretty easy – this is an unwarranted action, and harmful.

                      A lot of my argumentation may not hold together, because it is more like a defense attorney – poking holes in peoples justifications. I’ve not seen that many – it’s that this is fake news, or that Portland is a warzone, that the feds should be policing because Portland is basically the People’s Republic of Antifa, or that this is just how you investigate graffiti on a courthouse.

                      Speaking of,
                      1) I don’t see how your distinction about troops versus DHS troops matters. They look the same on the ground, and they do the same things. So military or DHS I don’t much care, it’s all bad news.
                      The one detail is that federal troops would probably be better trained. DHS is used to dealing with people whose rights are quite curtailed. This ain’t the place for them. But that’s like a deck chairs on the Titanic thing.

                      2) They aren’t arresting people who committed crimes, they are arresting protesters with no crime being apparent. And then they are releasing them. They’re also assaulting and gassing nonviolent protesters. This was messed up when it was local police; it’s much worse for the fabric of our federated republic when it’s Feds.

                      3) No one who has been snatched has been arraigned for trial, so your scenario of these snatched-up protesters actually being vandals doesn’t hold up.

                      4) You don’t need camps for this to be awful. Just federal use of force against protestors without individualized suspicion of a federal crime is screwed up. That’s what this is looking like.

                2. They did use force.

                  1. I’d be interested in the details. I would also suspect it was not at all like what we’re seeing in Portland.

                    You’re sharp, and often point out stuff that I need to retract in a way that Brett and Bob and Jimmy do not. Do you think this federal action is
                    1) Legally justified?
                    2) Good policy?

                    I can’t call this unamerican – I’ve learned too much about the civil rights era and Vietnam protests. But it wasn’t needed or good back then, and I hate to see it now.

                    1. “I can’t call this unamerican – I’ve learned too much about the civil rights era and Vietnam protests. But it wasn’t needed or good back then, and I hate to see it now.”

                      I don’t follow. There is a parallel between e.g. Little Rock and Portland. In each case, the law was clear – in Little Rock the law forbade segregated schools, and in Portland the law forbids arson, breaking windows, toppling statues, stealing the fencing around the federal building, and what have you. In both cases law enforcement (or in the case of Little Rock, troops acting to enforce the law) was used to enforce the law. What is the objection to that?

                      You have an absolute right to advocate for any cause you like. You can write op eds, put up billboards, picket, circulate petitions, march (as long as you do so within the law), etc, etc. You don’t have any right at all to break windows or even spray paint slogans on other people’s buildings.

                    2. I’m not talking about Little Rock, which appears to have been proportional from what I’ve heard (welcome to being disabused of that notion).

                      The use of state power against protestors in the Civil Rights era looked a lot like this. The issue there was proportionality. Do you think that was a fine use of state authority?
                      The use of Federal power is more a thing for Vietnam. Again, within authority by certainly Kent state was not a proportionate use of authority. Don’t you think?

                      What makes this different is the questionable authority here. This doesn’t look like enforcing federal law, it doesn’t look like quelling riots (which I’m not sure is a federal job). It looks more like suppression of lawful protests.

                      I’m not arguing riots, vandalism, and violence are cool. I’m arguing that 1) this reaction is out of proportion and set up to make this problem worse, if anything, and 2) this is not a problem of damage to federal property. It is therefore not a problem the Feds get to solve over the protestations of state and local authority.

                    3. 1) Legally justified? Absolutely. Like it or not, there are people in those cities who are having their rights utterly stomped on and their local government is unwilling to do anything. The Feds job is to protect the rights of Americans. If locals won’t do it, then sadly, the Feds have to do so.

                      2) Good policy? Best of bad options. There was no good policy here to choose from. There were several gradations of shit sandwiches to choose from.

  13. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1284104775576027137
    They are wearing DHS patches. This is a hoax.

    …DHS said yesterday that they were going to be there protecting federal property. The media will make it something it’s not of course.

    1. You’re quoting Pizzagate Man?

  14. So, no posts on the important voting decision out of Florida, but this stuff? C’mon Professor Whittington, the VC isn’t Twitter with a higher word limit.

  15. OK for those who think that this is real, watch the comically funny video linked above in Twitter.

    1. Those are not load outs that federal agents carry when in an urban environment. You don’t carry canteens when water is easily accessible.
    2. Come on – THAT van of all vans…
    3. The “protester” seems awfully compliant which is not the SOP when getting arrested. He looks almost happy to get “arrested” and put into an unmarked van.
    4. The “arrest” is hardly by the LEO book. First off they don’t conduct any kind of pat down to secure weapons. They don’t secure him with handcuffs or zip ties before transit
    5. Even the takedown is not by the book. They would usually pull up closer in the vehicle, prone the guy out, then secure him for transit.
    6. There just happens to be a guy with a camera who captures the whole thing in detail. The “agents” don’t seem to mind that he is feet away from them. In a real situation at least one officer would secure bystanders and watch the backs of the arresting officers.

    Maybe federal agents are serving warrants around town. That wouldn’t surprise me if the DOJ is building cases. But these videos are not that of warrantless abductions by rouge federal officials.

    1. If this is real, it should take the Portland police about 45 minutes to get to the bottom of it. Trace the license plate, and if it is rented, get the renter’s info from Avis or whatever.

      Unless the Portland police are in on it too!!!

      1. Even a private journalist could trace the plate easily. Rental car companies purchase and register cars in lots. Depending on how Washington issues their plates a large batch of cars are going to have sequential (or close to it) registration numbers. Just go down to the Avis or Hertz rental lot and take a gander.

        Or call up Avis and ask if they want to do business with the federal government using their private property to abduct citizens. Give them the plate number and ask for a comment. Bet you in 30 minutes they will have a response and a denouncement if that was their car.

  16. “unidentified federal officers”

    Fake news.

    Some are wearing DHS patches. Some Bureau of Prisons patches.

    Please show me where they are legally required to have name bars or badges or can’t use rental cars?

  17. So not a single verified fact, just a a bald assertion of the account. Totally couldn’t be faked, couldn’t be a lie. That’s some solid Journolisting going on there.

    Good to see VC carrying water for rioters and violent marxists.

  18. I can not wait for all the commentators who think this is fake to admit they were wrong and say how appalled they are when it is verified to be real.
    This is really scary, and I do understand the desire for this not to be real, but it is, this is where we are not as a county.

    1. I, of course meant “where we are now as a county.”

    2. I’m waiting for all those who hop of these hoaxes and push it out without verification to come out and say only confirmed stories with facts should be released.

    3. I don’t know which is potentially scarier, federal agents arresting people or someone staging fake arrests. Which ever it is it’s scary.

      1. Federal agents arresting people, not telling them who is arresting them, and not telling them the charges is very scary.

        Someone staging fake arrests is not scary at all, and why should it be? They will be exposed and that will be the end of it.

        1. The latter is a problem because it does sow distrust. There are reasons you may not impersonate a police officer and this would seem to be one of them.

        2. Someone faking this has the apparent intention of sowing discord, discontent and possibly inciting others to protest and violence.

          That anyone would undertake what would be a conspiracy to falsely accuse federal officers of misconduct points to an organized group capable of using violence to promote civil discord.

          If it is exposed some people will continue to believe it actually happened.

        3. “Someone staging fake arrests is not scary at all, and why should it be? They will be exposed and that will be the end of it.”

          Well, except for the criminal sentences and jail time.

        4. “Someone staging fake arrests is not scary at all, and why should it be?”

          Without regard to the validity of the video and associated reporting, false flag operations can be _very_ effective and damaging.

    4. They’re not going to be appalled. They’ll either praise it or rationalize it. There are two main groups here. First there are those who actually favor a state that uses widespread state violence to suppress their political opponents and people they consider undesirable. Second, there are those who are going to make rationalizations and defenses for specific acts of state violence while generally saying they don’t support some kind of authoritarian government. They’ll do this for each act until they’re essentially indistinguishable from the first group.

      1. Yes just like they do with fake hate crime hoaxes. “Well SOMEONE at SOME POINT IN TIME experienced this so it is real and accurate even though this one was staged…”

        1. Not taking a position on fakeness. Just saying that if it’s real you and others are obviously going to praise or rationalize it.

          1. kinda like you and the rest of the leftists ignore and rationalize the violence and property destruction done by your fellow travelers? Look at the reporting the last 2 months and there was nothing but “peaceful protesters” and in totally unrelated and unreported occurences there was vandalism, assaults, destruction and murder…but never mind that “peaceful protesters” is the narrative.

            1. Yes, it is unrelated.

              A murder in Minnesota does not mean you get to deploy federal troops in Minnesota, much less Oregon.

              1. Umm if they deface and vandalize federal property, yes you do. If the local authorities are refusing to enforce the law and that is violation of civil rights, yes you do. So, yes you do.

                1. What civil rights? I’ve seen no finding. Certainly the people getting detained don’t seem to be violating anyone’s rights.

                  Think for a moment what you’ve just rationalized under color of civil rights.

                  1. Allowing armed vigilantes to usurp the law, demand bribes from business owners, restrict lawful movement, and try to set up a “free” zone in a sovereign state are all violations of civil rights.

                    1. First, no those are not violations of civil rights. You’re totemicaly invoking civil rights as though there is a right for bad people not to hurt you. As NToJ noted above, there is no civil right for police protection.

                      Second, the people you are describing and the unarmed protesters that Sen Markley and the media are describing are not the same people.

                      Third, as I noted you are rationalizing literal federal thugs taking over the streets in the name of ‘civil rights.’ Think about that for a moment.

                    2. Equal protection clause, Sarcastro: The police don’t have to protect specific people, but the government can’t systematically fail to enforce the law where they happen to not like the victims of crimes.

                    3. First, that’s not how the EPC operates. Otherwise disparate response times would be unconstitutional.

                      Second, there is no evidence of anything systematic occurring. If there is such evidence, the Feds should release a statement saying so, not just talking about how courthouses are sacred.

              2. but you do get to assault people in the street and destroy buildings and statues anywhere you like apparently. Oh, and as a bonus your apparently immune to COVID-19 while doing so.

                1. Yeah, that’s what local law enforcement is for.

                  It’s not what Federal uniformed forces are for.

                  You’re pretty awful at small governmenting.

                  1. The mayor won’t let the police do anything.

                    He supports the rioting.

                    1. That’s nonsense, Bob.

                      But lets say it’s true. Sounds to me like you think it’d then be legal to have the feds depose the mayor then, eh?

      2. “There are two main groups here. First there are those who actually favor a state that uses widespread state violence to suppress their political opponents and people they consider undesirable. ”

        …which, mind you, is what Portland is doing…

    5. I can not wait for all the commentators who think this is fake to admit they were wrong and say how appalled they are when it is verified to be real.

      No; they’ll immediately switch to the claim that it’s totally justified and remember when Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster?

      Remember the typical Trump dance:

      1) Trump says something seemingly awful.
      2) He gets lots of criticism from decent people.
      3) Trumpkins rush to explain how he’s being misinterpreted and he’s actually saying something innocuous.
      4) Trump comes out the next day and says, “No, I really meant the awful thing.”
      5) Trumpkins say, “Well, yeah. The awful thing is totally true. Of course Trump said it, snowflake.”

    6. I can not wait for all the commentators who think this is fake to admit they were wrong and say how appalled they are when it is verified to be real.

      I take from this you’re committed to doing the same when it’s verified to be fake.

      1. So now that CBP has admitted that it was them, are you still holding onto the “fake” theory?

        1. CBP admitted what was them?

          1. The “it” that you predicted would be “verified to be fake.”

            1. So CBP admitted that they “have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14,” have been “driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off,” “bringing them to the courthouse, putting them in cells, & trying to interrogate them, over hours” and so on?

              I’ll take a cite on that one.

        2. Except that WaPo initially got it wrong and has updated the story. CBP admitted to detaining an individual suspected of violence against federal agents and destruction of federal property, but they were not referring to Pettibone. Pettibone’s report is currently uncorroborated. The individual detained by CBP is currently unidentified, and allegedly was hurriedly removed due to an approaching “large and violent mob”.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/

          Note the correction note at the very end of the updated article.

  19. Some Trumpists are saying this is obviously fake.

    Others appear to be saying, no problem, it’s completely by the book because they are wearing DHS or Bureau of Prisons patches.

    If it looks obviously fake (which it does), it cannot be by the book. It’s a problem to use unmarked cars and arrest people in a way that looks pretty fake, does not appear to involve any identification of who is purporting to arrest the people, and no telling them their rights or why they are being arrested. We’re America, you can’t just snatch people and then tell them later who you work for and what law you have allegedly violated to justify your arrest/detainment. A patch on a military-style uniform does not solve these abuses.

    Of course, if it’s fake, which it looks like to me it is at this point, notwithstanding “patches”, it is extremely irresponsible and, not my area, but would seem likely criminal.

    1. Do a quick google search and you can find the EXACT “uniforms” and load outs being carried by the so-called “agents.”

      1. So you are all in on it being fake? I already said I think you are probably right.

        So if it isn’t, this is bad, right?

        1. On the off chance, this is real, I am in the “I need more info” camp before deciding whether to be outraged or not. Specifically, were the arrests/detainments within the legitimate jurisdiction of the officers who conducted them. We have a zillion different federal law enforcement and quasi-law enforcement agencies, each with their own defined areas of authority.

          If it turns out that these guys were ICE agents arresting illegal immigrants with outstanding deportation orders, or US marshals picking up fugitives, my outrage factor will be very low.

          On the other hand, if it is a bunch of prison guards picking up long-hairs and other suspicious characters, my outrage level will increase markedly.

          And if it turns out to be EPA cops arresting people for improper battery disposal, I’ll storm the White House (just kidding, Secret Service).

          1. It is fair to withhold judgment on degree of outrage. Though, there is zero indication this is ICE lawfully detaining illegal immigrants, particularly as the person has been released, ditto US Marshals.

            If these are LEO, the method and manner and the fact that no federal agency has stepped up and said, hey, these are our agents and they are lawfully enforcing X law…..it creates confusion, sows distrust, creates the impression that peacefully protesting puts you at risk of random detainment, so is highly inappropriate. If true, this is the kind of tactic used by authoritarians to intimidate people into not exercising their constitutional rights. It should not be tolerated.

            If it is the feds, they should say so and say why. That they are not openly declaring it is them already warrants some amount of outrage if these are, in fact, federal agents purporting to act under color of law.

            1. Well, no, I found better pictures, and they were US marshals. Special Response Team.

              That said, I’m going to need an impartial account of this, not coming from the guy who got arrested. (Not detained; If you can’t leave on your own initiative, you were arrested.)

            2. It is too early to say who is doing what — the only “on the record” incident I have seen reported is the guy Pettibone who says he was detained and released after a few hours. We don’t know who, if anyone, else has been detained.

              I agree, however, that the Feds should be a lot more forthcoming about what they are and are not doing.

              1. Eh… They’re dealing with a fairly widespread criminal conspiracy, they’ll likely not be forthcoming until the initial sweep is done, and they think everybody who is going to go to ground has.

                1. At this point, where we are talking about it and it is all over the news. If there is a widespread criminal conspiracy that has been targeted as you allege (conspiratorially), then the conspirators know their compatriots are going missing at the same time of these reports. There is no longer any reason for the feds not to say it’s them and give at least a broad brush explanation and, definitely, identify who has been arrested in these “sweeps”. They aren’t. That’s a problem.

      2. I can find a UPS driver’s uniform with a google search; that hardly suggests that the package that arrived on my doorstep is fake.

      3. Water is 7 lbs a gallon — you don’t carry it unless you have to.

    2. “you can’t just snatch people and then tell them later who you work for and what law you have allegedly violated to justify your arrest/detainment”

      Yes, you can.

      The LEO has to have a warrant or probable cause to support the detention but doesn’t have to tell the “perp” anything. A Miranda warning if they want to use an interrogation as evidence, that’s it.

      1. So if people storm wearing paramilitary gear without identifying who they are try to detain you and throw you in an unmarked rental van, you just have to take a guess whether you should exercise your Second Amendment rights and, if you guess wrong, you get charged with murder? Or, less dramatically, if you try to fight them off absent an explanation, you get charged with resisting arrest?

        It does appear that, at best, the law is murky and so qualified immunity would likely apply to the officers’ conduct. But this is obviously a huge problem. You shouldn’t have to guess whether the person purporting to arrest you is an actual officer. That is why, traditionally, they wear uniforms which clearly mark them as an officer and generally identify themselves as officers. It is why, even if not illegal, this is incredibly abusive behavior.

        And your statement that “the LEO has to have a warrant or probable cause to support detention, but doesn’t have to tell the ‘perp’ anything” is not true in all circumstances.

        Doornbos v. City of Chicago:

        The jury asked if a police officer must identify himself as an officer during a stop. The court responded with a categorical “no,” saying that an “officer is not required to identify himself” to conduct a stop. This answer sweeps too far. The “ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is `reasonableness.'” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006). Although some unusual circumstances may justify an officer’s failure to identify himself in rare cases, it is generally not reasonable for a plainclothes officer to fail to identify himself when conducting a stop.

        It is only in unusual circumstances where officers can just grab a suspect while not clearly identified as an LEO exercising his lawful authority to stop, frisk, detain, and/or arrest. Granted, our laws are such that the only remedy is likely to be a civil suit after the fact that might easily run aground due to qualified immunity, but that just speaks to the justice of the laws protecting citizens’ rights, not whether they have the rights.

        1. Brigham City v. Stuart was a warrantless entry search and seizure case.

          Have these agents executed a warrant-less entry into a residence?

          1. Doornbos v. City of Chicago also involved a “plainclothes” officer. These were in uniform with organizational id and had “police” on their back.

            1. I think the fact that about half the posters here think these are fake police making fake arrests suggests they are not, in fact, readily identified as LEO.

              Or are Brett, Jimmy the Dane, Michael Towns, and Just Eric completely delusional in asserting these are fake police?

              1. I’m not asserting they’re fake police. I’m asserting that I don’t trust anything out of the Washington Post without independent confirmation.

                The uniforms look right for the US marshal Special Response Team, though you could put that together from a high end costume source. Now prove to me there wasn’t a warrant.

                1. The burden is on the feds to prove these are lawful arrests based on a valid warrant. I, obviously, can’t prove a negative. And you know that.

                  1. No. You need more corroboration than that.

  20. This is surely possible, but since the sources seem basically to be protester” (which often means rioters) I am looking at it skeptically. Why would feds be doing this? It’s not like they’re being dragged off the gulag, at least some of them are just released

    1. Are you saying it is okay to pick people up if you just release them later?

      I am skeptical too, but the reason would obviously be to sow fear and to push the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is “normal” so it is easier to go one step further the next time, and then another step, etc. You don’t use secret police tactics in detaining people just to release them later with no charges, etc., for no purpose. If these are federal agents (it seems unlikely to me at this point), this is an incredibly brazen abuse of power by the officers and, more so, whoever authorized this action.

      1. you’re not skeptical of the uncorroborated statement in the slightest. The same pushing the envelope rationale works as well or better for the agents of destruction in the “protester” category as they do for the police. But your framing is only that this is bad for federal agents, not that this is bad regardless.

      2. It entirely depends on your basis for picking them up.

      3. Social Justice,

        I have multiple comments in this discussion expressing skepticism. I replied to a comment suggesting there is no problem because, if the stories are true, at least some people who were detained were released. My point is that, if true, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem. In fact, it suggests the methods are entirely unnecessary because if these were dangerous criminals that needed to be swept off the street using unmarked vehicles and uniforms that other posters have credibly posited could be easily obtained by private citizens, they would just be released.

        But your framing is only that this is bad for federal agents, not that this is bad regardless.

        I have commented multiple times in this discussion that it is bad regardless of whether the people being arrested are lying or, if instead, these are LEOs arresting people in this manner without explanation and without probable cause, warrants, or (according to the guy quoted) actual charges or any explanation. But the latter would be a bigger problem.

      4. Can LEOs, federal or otherwise, detain people for questioning without arresting them? Given the volatility of the surroundings, is it within their purview to remove the detained individual for the safety of the agents as well as the detained individual?

        I’m not a lawyer and genuinely asking. At the time of this post, we have two people mentioned in the updated WaPo story, Pettibone and someone unidentified, who appear to have been detained but not arrested.

  21. This could be the feds picking up an undercover officer or informant to get critical info or warn him of something critical like blown cover.

    1. That too, but still looks sloppy (e.g., no frisk).

  22. The video being fake and DHS officers being on the streets might both be true.

  23. “If the reports are true, this is dangerous and inappropriate and should be stopped immediately.”

    I would agree.

    I would also agree that “If the [WaPo’s] reports are not true, this is dangerous and inappropriate and should be stopped immediately.”

    1. Agreed. It creates more risk for everyone. Whoever is doing it is highly irresponsible. If the reports are true, it is orders of magnitude worse that people with power are acting irresponsibly. They should lose their power.

  24. Another plausible explanation brought up elsewhere is that these incidents could be temporary extractions of confidential informants intended to keep the cover of those CIs intact.

    1. If you need elaborate secret machinations like this to make the action seem okay, maybe the actions aren’t okay.

      1. So you think undercover operations into the KKK were wrong? Even in the 60s in the south when local mayors and governors would ignore their intimidation tactics and cross burning?

        1. If there’s something secret going on to recontextualize things, I’ll evaluate once that comes to light.

          Until that happens, I’m not going to fan-fiction myself into this being okay.

          1. No, you’ll just fanfiction yourself into believing federal agents are arresting people without probable cause, without evidence.

            1. That requires no fiction, only my eyes.

              You’re the one creating a bunch of CI’s and an extraction op out of nowhere.

              1. There are multiple, non-illegal reasons for this to be happening. Its a wide eyed conspiracy theory to think federal agents are engaging in a series of illegal arrests, particularly given how leaky the LE Agencies have been under the Trump admin. WAPO would have had this story before there was a video if that was the case.

                1. Wow you are awful at being libertarian, awesome vigilance. Great job burden shifting.

                  1. From my POV, in our current environment, these protestors acting as a paramilitary force for the local government are as much of a threat as the actual police.

                    That you don’t see that simply means you happen to be aligned with this particular edition of a red guard.

                    1. So the real threat comes not from the government, but from the populous.

                      Maybe consider which historical personages that puts you in alignment with…

                    2. The misunderstanding between you and me, is I think Antifa are operating as pseudo-government agents in some of the major cities.

                    3. Ah, so it’s a civil insurrection, and the Feds are putting down agents of the government of Oregon.

                      Or you’re redefining the populous as enemies of the REAL people.

                      Either way, not doing great.

                    4. @Sarcastr0
                      July.17.2020 at 7:58 pm

                      “So the real threat comes not from the government, but from the populous.”

                      Without regard to the eventual determination of what’s going on in Portland, both the government and the populace are capable of terrible acts. We know this because both groups are comprised of humans.

                    5. Sure, but when its populous versus the government, even liberal me knows which side you shouldn’t be saying gets a pass on justifying themselves.

                      Especially if you’re a small-government type.

                    6. @Sarcastr0
                      July.18.2020 at 11:58 am

                      “Sure, but when its populous versus the government, even liberal me knows which side you shouldn’t be saying gets a pass on justifying themselves.”

                      Neither should get a pass, but at least I think we can agree that governments are more dangerous.

  25. What’s most disturbing is that serious law professors are taking this at face value.

    This looks like a couple of AirSoft teams staging things for the cameras in Portland.

  26. Having now waded through all the comments, I do not know if these actually are federal agents, or if it’s a staged hoax as some here are alleging.

    The problem for Trump, though, is that this kind of behavior is entirely in keeping with the sort of stunts this administration would pull, whether or not they actually pulled this one.

    1. “hat this kind of behavior is entirely in keeping with the sort of stunts this administration would pull,”

      Really? Do you have any examples of “This kind of behavior”?

      It’s like like Trump has been ordering the assassination of US Citizens via drone attack, now has it?

      1. Edit… “not like”

      2. Well, we can start with the Secret Service using tear gas to clear Lafayette Square of peaceful protesters so Trump could have a photo op holding a Bible in front of a church.

        1. you mean “peaceful protesters” out after lawfully initiated curfews and throwing things at the officers? No idea why getting such people to disperse might take more than asking nicely for the dozenth time.

          1. The square was cleared half an hour before the curfew. Jesus, at least get the basic facts right.

        2. You’ve got an odd definition of “peaceful”

  27. OK lets just hit the pause buttons here:

    1. The Feds are pretty well trained these days. They also have tons of resources. Perhaps the 1990’s version of the Feds raiding Waco might do something like this, but not the 2020 brand.

    2. It would be SOP to delegate these kinds of arrests to city/state law enforcement. But, here the locals are probably told not to assist the feds. That leaves them with little option (again assuming these are ACTUAL arrests) but to do “swoop and snatch” grabs. The area is hostile and you don’t want to create a scene where violent protesters engage you.

    3. Other then optics not looking good, there is nothing necessarily unconstitutional about effecting an arrest in this manner. If I was the supervisor I probably wouldn’t tell my agents to rent a van, don paramiltary looking gear, and make arrests like that on the street. Maybe there is some tone deaf official who could care less overseeing the operations, but given the climate I highly doubt it.

    1. But how else do they effect arrests. If they drove marked vehicles, they would be mobbed if they stopped to pick up wanted rioters and arsonists. If they stopped and went through a normal arrest procedure, where they searched him, checked his ID, informed him of his rights, etc, they would be mobbed. This isn’t conjecture. We see video every day of rioters and their enablers attacking police when they try to effect arrests, trying to reclaim the arrestees from police control.

  28. I call bullshit. Doesn’t seem like I was the first, though.

  29. So, despite the fact that Acting Deputy of Homeland Security Chad Wolf has admitted to deploying Barr’s Secret Police, and the feds are apparently using the graffiti on the fed courthouse as grounds to deploy the BSP, the usual group of Volokh mouth-breathers, toe-pickers, and genuine psychopaths are still reasoning out their “false flag” hypotheses? Sounds right.

    1. It shows they have reached the limit of their rationalization ability, and thus must presume reality is not what it appears to be.

      Makes me optimistic.

      1. Remember that hate crime, where those “mouth breathers” used a noose and poured bleach over that famous gay African American in Chicago?

        1. Impressive leftward-turning rationalization as always, AL.

          But what would you say if this turns out to be as reported?
          Is the Trump Administration still OK in your book if this is what they’re doing?

          1. “Impressive leftward-turning rationalization as always, AL.”

            Remember what you were saying about that “hate crime” and how bad it was in Chicago, at the time? And how bad it was. And when people were skeptical, you said stuff like “America is racist” and “It’s Trump’s Fault”?

            How many times, how many scams have to be run, before you’re the tiniest bit cautious?

          2. What would you say if this turns out to be as reported?
            Is the Trump Administration still OK in your book if this is what they’re doing?

            1. “As reported” this isn’t happening. Period. There are too many holes.

              1. OK, but as a hypothetical (and just in case your ironclad logic isn’t this one time), what would you say if this turns out to be as reported?

                Is the Trump Administration still OK in your book if this is what they’re doing?

                1. “As a hypothetical”…

                  You mean like the hypothetical Trump pee tapes?
                  Or the hypothetical Russian collusion?
                  Or another hypothetical.

                  I’ll give you a hypothetical. If a US president was to order the use a military drone to assassinate a US Citizen, without any sort of trial, would you condemn that President and any party who supported him?

                  Answer that honestly, and I’ll answer your hypothetical.

                  1. You seem REALLY reluctant to answer my question for some reason.
                    Don’t change the subject.

                    What would you say if this turns out to be as reported?
                    Is the Trump Administration still OK in your book if this is what they’re doing?

                    1. I already told you. Answer my hypothetical, and I’ll happy answer yours.

                    2. You’re changing the subject. Again. My previous positions on past issues are not relevant to my question to you.

                      I’m not going to fall for your weak and obvious attempt at deflection.

                      I also asked first.

                      What would you say if this turns out to be as reported?
                      Is the Trump Administration still OK in your book if this is what they’re doing?

                    3. It’s funny how you don’t want to answer the question. Not really, but expected.

                      I told you the terms. I’ll hold to them. I’m honorable like that.

                      If you can’t hold to the deal, that’s your problem.

                    4. Well, I can’t stick around here forever…. Odd how the 2-4 minute replies suddenly vanish when Sarcastro is called on to make an actual opinion on the record.

                    5. I don’t work on your schedule, AL.

                      I told you why I won’t answer your question: it’s changing the subject.

                      You have no excuse not to answer mine, other than that you’re a moral coward.

    2. I guess if you have been waking up every morning for the last four years to log on to the echo chamber that is Twitter, consume every Huffpo article like it is the gospel truth, and get breaking news updates from CNN, you would believe that the fascist Donald Trump would personally order illegal arrests by rogue federal agents and that Barr actually had a squad of “secret police” and that we were one click away from going into a full blown dictatorship. But then again it is the right who is delusional, correct?

      1. Yes. And “delusional” is being kind.

      2. Trump has already come very close to ordering illegal arrests, he has already asked the police to do illegal acts. As for Barr, federal police without identification were deployed for the DC protests in June, so that has already happened.

  30. DHS, Senator Merkely, the mayor and the governor have all confirmed Federal agents are outside of Federal property and assaulting unarmed protesters.

    This is not fake.

    This is a performance of unmoored federal authoritarianism that has no place in a republic, much less a federal one, and no one here should be condoning it.

    1. Did you watch the video? If so, what about the points people are making that show it is obviously a fake? Any comment on that or do you just want to make generalized statements without any support?

      1. I did watch the video, but I’m a trusting soul.

        I also don’t care about the video, since it’s been confirmed that the Feds are out there assaulting unarmed protestors nowhere near federal property in Portland.

        1. So you don’t care about reality, ok got it.

          You are smart enough to know that the Feds can effect arrests away from federal property right? And that a lawful arrest is not “assault” right? And that vandalizing a FEDERAL courthouse is a FEDERAL crime and even though the liberals in the state government seem to be complacent with vandalism and destruction of public property, that doesn’t mean the feds have to put up with it, right?

          1. This is well out of proportion for graffiti.

            And if you think these assaults are just normal investigation work you’re beyond gullible.

            1. Where were you when the Feds were trying to confiscate livestock at the Bundy Ranch?

              1. No changing the subject.

              2. Jimmy,

                Implying someone else has a double-standard would be much more effective if you first established that you don’t have one.

              3. Where were you when Bundy was violating BLM rules concerning how the land he was leasing was to be used. If you violate the rules BLM comes in and removes the livestock so that the grazing is not degraded permanently. I am sure they would be happy to move the livestock to his private Bundy Ranch land.

            2. And yes if you vandalize a federal courthouse you can expect to get arrested and charged. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. Being a “protester” does not make you immune from generally applicable laws. I realize that leftie protesters believe it does and are used to not being prosecuted for their violence, vandalism, and destruction, but that doesn’t mean that they are ACTUALLY immune to prosecution.

              1. There is no evidence the people being detained and assaulted had anything to do with the courthouse.

                1. There is also no evidence that this isn’t just completely fake and there is a lot of evidence it is fake.

                  1. Bob thinks these are clearly identified LEO. You seem to agree they aren’t. So if it isn’t fake, you agree it’s abuse of police power?

                    1. Nope. If they were arrests, it is very possible that the alleged snatch and grab was the minimal force apprehension, in view of the common response by the rioters of attacking the police and trying to liberate arrestees.

            3. They may have started with graffiti, but they escalated to assault.

            4. “This is well out of proportion for graffiti.”

              Is it out of proportion for attacking a federal agent with a hammer?

              https://reason.com/2020/07/17/disturbing-reports-from-portland/#comment-8353866

              From your prior post in this thread: “DHS, Senator Merkely, the mayor and the governor have all confirmed Federal agents are outside of Federal property and assaulting unarmed protesters.”

              So DHS itself confirmed federal agents were assaulting unarmed protesters? Gonna back that up with a link? I’ll believe that the senator, governor, and mayor would _allege_ that feds are assaulting protesters, but DHS _confirming_ it is an extraordinary claim. Let’s see some evidence for that.

              1. Yeah, a single act versus this campaign is out of proportion. And I link to the quotes below. DHS defends their actions, but…yeah.

                1. If it were just the hammer, I might be inclined toward your position, but that was just one example. There is quite a bit of destruction and violence going on in the vicinity of the fed courthouse, and the rioters have repeatedly attempted setting it on fire. between the time of your post and this one, rioters have set a police union building on fire (it was put out before long). It’s way out of hand in Portland.

          2. STILL going with “fake.” AND talking about “reality” while he does it.

    2. “assaulting unarmed protesters”

      I doubt DHS confirmed this. Doubt it very much.

      “outside of Federal property”

      So? Federal jurisdiction is not confined to Federal property

      “unmoored”

      Rioting has occurred in Portland for over a month with the support of the city and state governments. These rioters have repeatedly attacked federal facilities and federal agents.

      That’s the mooring.

      1. In a letter released Thursday, DHS Ating Secretary Wolf said, “Portland has been under siege for 47 straight days by a violent mob while local political leaders refuse to restore order to protect their city.”

        “A federal courthouse is a symbol of justice,” Wolf wrote, denigrating protests against racism in the United States’ criminal justice system as an angry mob. “To attack it is to attack America.”

        Mayor Ted Wheeler’s office declined to comment on the latest events involving federal officers, but reiterated a statement from earlier in the week, saying federal officers should be restricted to guarding federal property.

        “We do not need or want their help,” Wheeler said. “The best thing they can do is stay inside their building, or leave Portland altogether.”

        What are you rationalizing, Bob? Graffiti means Federal takeover of the streets?

        1. That is a whole heck of a lot of bluster IF this is real. Feds are allowed to effect arrests anywhere.

        2. “Graffiti means Federal takeover of the streets?”

          You are being intentionally obtuse. There have been repeated violent attacks on the federal courthouse and federal agents, one deputy marshal was attacked with a hammer but there have been others.

          Not to mention general citywide rioting most nights for 45 days.

          If the mayor would let the police protect the citizens, none of this would be happening.

          1. The time to deal with violent attacks is as they occur. Not to use it as an excuse to just go marching about the streets and detaining randos.

            That sounds a lot more like a police state.

            If the mayor would let the police protect the citizens, none of this would be happening.
            There it is. Time to federalize the local police.

            That’s fascism, Bob.

            1. So when the federal government investigates local police because they violate civil rights of minorities that is NOT fascism?

              1. Haha, yeah, that’s very much not fascism, JtD.

                Can you find a few differences between that and this?

                I’m sure you can if you try!

            2. “The time to deal with violent attacks is as they occur.”

              What, you mean if the feds aren’t right on hand at the moment the crime occurs, they can’t do anything? How long is this statute of limitations of yours? 5 minutes, or 5 seconds?

              1. If someone commits a federal crime and the feds aren’t there on the scene, what you do is investigate it and arrest a suspect once you have probable cause.

                What you don’t do is take over the streets.

                1. “take over the streets”

                  No, in Portland, that is the role of the so called “Black Bloc”.

                  1. No changing the subject.

                    1. Why do you hate changing the subject? Is it because you hate having your hypocrisy exposed?

                      The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it usually turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

                      Antifa Mob Viciously Assaults [gay Asian] Journalist Andy Ngo at Portland Rally

                      Andy Ngo, a photojournalist and editor at Quillette, landed in the emergency room after a mob of antifa activists attacked him on the streets of Portland during a Saturday afternoon demonstration.

                    2. Got bad news about your boy Andy…he was lying.
                      https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andy-ngo-right-wing-troll-antifa-877914/

                      Hold up. So Rolling Stone fabricated the picture at the top of their own article?

                      And themselves lied by captioning it “Andy Ngo was hit with a milkshake by counter-protesters at a far-right rally in Portland in June”??

                      And then further lied when they said later in the article: “Footage also surfaced on Twitter of Ngo at the rally, being doused with a milkshake and silly string, and getting punched by an antifascist protester”???

                      You’re a real piece of work.

                    3. Did…you not read the article, LoB?

                    4. Did…you not read the article, LoB?

                      Dude, I’m going to clue you in on an amazing secret. You know those little sqiggly things I put around some of the words in my post? Like this? ”

                      It’s sorta hard to explain what they mean, but I promise you they’re the latest in thing. Try them sometime!

                    5. Really, you trust Rollingstone? Rape-hoax central?

                      I looked at your precious article. It’s simply an assortment of assertions and calumny. I’m not certain what value you would have anyone glean from it.

                2. I’m not seeing any “taking over the streets”, looks more like investigating and arresting to me.

                  1. Detaining and interrogating random protestors isn’t interrogation, it’s occupation.

                    1. You are assuming that the rioter was randomly arrested. No evidence of that.

                    2. They were later released. Burden at that point is on the government.

                  2. Come on! One guy was allegedly arrested and read his rights and questioned and then released after 90 minutes!!!!!!

                    How can you not be out of your mind with deranged, frenzied panic?

                    Your sanity is unbecoming of this discussion.

                    1. Minimizing a violation because it hasn’t happened to a large enough mass of people isn’t the best look.

                    2. I may have won the disapproval of the frenzied mob. Alas.

                    3. So much for principles of liberty, if people have offended you I guess.

                    4. It’s the 90 minutes that ended the principle of liberty. Because no one was ever arrested by US Marshals before.

            3. Fascism is like racism, a charge losing its power.

              Portland has anarchy, you want it to continue.

              1. You’r reading from the fascist playbook, Bob. That’s what I accused you of, and you’ve not done a great job defending yourself. Appeals that we need authoritarianism to combat civil disorder is like fascism 101.

                First, I dispute that Portland is in anarchy. I have a friend out there, he says it’s pretty normal when we spoke last weekend.

                Second, even if it were anarchy, saying that federal troops taking over the streets is fascism isn’t support of anarchy; it’s saying lets not do fascist things.

                1. You’ll like a parrot.

                  Fascist! ack Fascist! ack Fascist!

                  Its not fascism for federal LEOs [not troops] to enforce federal laws in a US city.

                  1. This doesn’t look like law enforcement, it looks like unmarked vans snatching people off the street,

                    And you appeal to federal laws, but quickly break down to supporting the general proposition of the feds restoring law and order in the face of anarchy.

                    Bob, I’ve supported why I think you are supporting fascism – I’m not just throwing it out there; I didn’t call anyone else here a fascist,

                2. Maybe your friend needs to get out more? Like to a “peaceful protest”? Or maybe he is an Antifa supporter?

                  The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

                  He brought an American flag to protest fascism in Portland. Then antifa attacked him

                  Quote:
                  Paul Welch came to the downtown protest Aug. 4 to let his political leanings be known.

                  With pride he clutched his U.S. flag as he moved among the crowd of like-thinking demonstrators.

                  Soon a group of black-clad anti-fascist protesters, also known as antifa, demanded he lose the flag, calling it a fascist symbol. Welch refused, and a tug-of-war ensued.

                  Video captured by Mike Bivins, a freelance journalist, shows what happened next.

                  As Welch and the counter-protesters wrangle over the flag, another masked counter-protester begins to strike Welch’s body from behind using a weapon concealed in black fabric.

                  That person then uses the weapon to club Welch on the back of the head, causing him to collapse instantly. The demonstrator with the weapon wanders off.

                  1. No changing the subject, especially with that weak-ass nonsense.

                  2. “The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats. ”

                    Counter-example: Jeremy Christian. Attacked three people on a Portland light-rail train, killing two of them, because they objected to his decision to harass a couple of teenage girls on his way home from a right-wing rally in Portland.

  31. Are we going to get apologies when/if this turns out to be fake? Or if these are legitimate arrests of suspects? There’s a lot of you buying into a lot of unconfirmed buzz. That’s going to be yet another irresponsible false alarm if this turns out to be fake or some dumb drama about regular law enforcement.

    No. No one will apologize or learn anything. The same people who panic every time over what turns out to be a hoax will panic again and again and again.

    1. People will go to jail, Ben, has has happened as a result of most of the hoaxes that get national attention.

      But so long as we’re asking about future conditionals, what if it turns out to be true, Ben?
      Do you think this is fine behavior by the Trump Admin?

      1. Why would someone go to jail for posting a video of theatre like a bunch of actors in paramilitary gear arresting a protester? That is hardly criminal. Sure, filing false police reports about it might be. But just the act of seeing who takes the bait is protected by the First Amendment.

        1. Impersonating a federal officer ain’t good.

          Also, 2 seconds of Googling: 18 U.S. Code § 1038. False information and hoaxes

          1. I don’t think dressing in paramilitary garb and recording a video as intentional theatre is going to fall into an exception of the First Amendment. Things like filing false police reports would of course be a crime. But just making a video and seeing who is dumb enough to take the bait is not a crime.

              1. Are you trying to say that the video, in of itself, is a crime not protected by the First Amendment?

                1. My original claim is that all the hate crime hoaxes Ben_ invoked generally result in legal action that doesn’t end well for the hoaxers. In other words, his assumption hoaxers get off scott free isn’t correct.

                  As to your question about the First Amendment as relates to this case, there’s an anti-hoax law on the books that appears to be good law, but I dunno how it’s been applied.

                  Of course, I’d also wager a prosecutor could gin up some good ole wirefraud; that’s always an easy go-to.

        2. I thought he meant the story’s bogeymen would go to jail. And some higher-ups or something. Something very, very dramatic. Because yeah, drama.

      2. I’m responsible enough not to draw conclusions based on buzz or hypotheticals.

        Note, you don’t allege anything specific. Just innuendo. If you wanted to ask about a very specific hypothetical (a made-up story, in other words), then you can also go ahead and make up the part where I give an answer. I hope it’s entertaining.

        1. Ben, you posted an entire hypothetical about this being a hoax.

          I’m asking you to respond to the same thing, except inverted – what if it’s not a hoax.

          Your dodge doesn’t hold water.

          Why are you so reluctant to answer?

          1. Ask a very specific question.

            What’s the answer to innuendo? Best answer is to refuse to engage with it. You know, like a responsible person might do.

            The best answer to non-innuendo is endorse careful fact-finding and due legal processes toward a fair and just conclusion. You know, like a responsible person might do.

            You remember what non-frenzy, non-conspiracy, non-melodramatic thinking is like?

            1. I’m not engaging in innuendo, nor conspiracy.

              What if the situation described in the OP is true as written?
              Is that okay behavior by the Federal government?

              1. “Is that okay behavior by the Federal government?”

                Yes.

                1. That would depend on exactly what conduct and exactly what circumstances. I endorse careful fact-finding.

                2. “‘Is that okay behavior by the Federal government?’
                  Yes.”

                  Unless it isn’t. As I noted previously, this isn’t about enforcing law. It’s about propping up our President’s delusions of masculinity.

                1. The Federal Government can enforce Federal law. This is taught in HS civics class. Other than the fact the video is most likely fake, there is nothing wrong with effecting lawful arrests. Nothing here suggests otherwise (that is if the video is even real.) The bluster is all because the Left thinks that their actions shouldn’t amount to criminal offenses. But in the real world it does. And sometimes when you live in la-la land too long you forget that it is not reality.

                  1. Nothing to suggest these arrests aren’t lawful? Except, you know, the Mayor, a Senator, and a bunch of the people being arrested after they were released without charge.

                    Lord, you’re bad at this.

                    1. Agenda-driven fabulists confirm dramatic situation! Case closed.

                2. You don’t think the OP sets out a specific enough scenarios? It lays out three of them.

                  1. I’m going to endorse careful fact-finding

                    1. You are going to doge the question yet again,

                      Telling.

                    2. Yep. What’s up with this Ben_ guy? Wanting to learn facts rather than believe hype!? He’s going to miss the witch hunt again!

                      This Ben_ guy’s lack of reverence for mob reasoning and witch hunts is just out of step with modern norms of derangement.

                    3. You started with a hypo. I answered yours and also had a hypo. Suddenly you don’t like hypos. Also my hypo is looking more and more likely to be true.

                      And still you don’t answer.

                    4. More information happened: they arrested a guy, said they had a good reason.

                      Yay for waiting for more information instead of jumping to conclusions.

                      Did they really have a reason? Here’s an idea: let’s wait to find out. You know, like a responsible person might do.

                    5. “Yep. What’s up with this Ben_ guy? ”

                      Talking about himself in the third person? What a weirdo!

  32. If true, extremely concerning, paper trail needs to be run down, people need to go to jail.

    But just for the record, I’m going with completely fabricated bullshit.

  33. So now that Customs and Border Protection has issued a statement confirming that they’re the ones who did this, I’m assuming everyone who spent the last five hours lecturing us on all the ways they could tell that the video was staged are working on their switchover from “hoax” to “rationalization,” right?

    1. CBP probably made SOME arrests and is admitting that.

    2. WaPo has updated the story. CBP admitted to detaining an individual suspected of violence against federal agents and destruction of federal property, but they were not referring to Pettibone. Pettibone’s report is currently uncorroborated. The individual detained by CBP is currently unidentified, and allegedly was hurriedly removed due to an approaching “large and violent mob”.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/

    3. They did not say anything about these particular videos. And if you look at the fatigues and gear carried by the “agents” in the video they are different. My money is still on fake-fake-fake. The incident they claim happened doesn’t fit into what these videos depict.

      1. Lol! “Yeah, feds are rounding up in Portland, but nobody has directly pointed at the video and said true. And when you look at it under the right light you see…”

        No wonder the Vikings went extinct.

  34. Portland is being torn to shreds by looters, arsonists, and armed thugs. Yet some get their knickers in a twist over law enforcement attire and the use of unmarked vehicles. If I lived in Portland, I wouldn’t care if law enforcement wore Snuggies while drive a Wienermobile. Please, just stop the madness.

    Did you ever stop to think why law enforcement is using unmarked vehicles (if they are)? It’s because marked vehicles are attacked by the rioters.

    Incidentally, in the midst of a riot, there is no such thing as a “peaceful protester,” at least not one that values his life. Rioters love “peaceful protesters.” They embed themselves among them and use them as human shields.

    1. “Incidentally, in the midst of a riot, there is no such thing as a ‘peaceful protester,’ at least not one that values his life. Rioters love ‘peaceful protesters.'”

      they love people that don’ t exist?

  35. The fact that those condemning this (assuming that it is indeed true, which is yet far from proven) is that AntiFA and BLM rioters now seem to be contesting every arrest that they can. Someone assaults a LEO. The LEOs attempt to arrest the perp. The mob then tries to liberate the arrestee by mobbing and attacking the LEOs. I have seen a number of videos showing just that in the last couple days.

    With that background, it could be argued that a snatch and grab off the street by officers in unmarked vehicles is the minimal violence way of making arrests. If they were driving marked vehicles, and stopped to make an arrest, they would likely get mobbed. And ditto if they went through the normal process of making an arrest, or even of interrogating apparent rioters. If the handcuff him, or try patting him down, etc, there would be a decent chance of getting mobbed.

    Which is to say that the federal supervisors could easily be ordering this, as the least likely way for people to be hurt when arresting people, or even to interrogate them for a short period of time. The alternative would be to give the violent rioters a veto power over arrests – they could prevent themselves from being arrested by merely mobbing the federal officers (or other LEOs) whenever they attempted to arrest or interrogate someone.

    1. Yes they are just engaged in leftist stoogery. It is your standard “play the victim card” type tactic. Throw in a smattering of “seriously these guys are actual Hitlers” and you get the current recipe. The fact they call federal LEO’s “Trumps secret police” adds a particularly good laugh factor to it all.

      Funny how just a few months ago the left was all about “rule of law” during impeachment. We would hear impassioned speeches about how Trump had to go for the good of the republic. Now it is just all crickets when violent protesters take over large sections of the city, loot, assault, and even murder others. Not a peep about that “rule of law” now.

      1. When your logic can justify the gestapo, maybe you should examine where you went wrong.

      2. You seem confused. You think the leftists are “violent protesters” who “take over large sections of the city” and “loot assault and even murder others”.

        In Portland, the most recent violent protester who murdered others was a right-wing nutball who killed a couple of dudes and tried to kill another one for daring to come to the aid of the two teenage girls he was busy harassing at the time.

        Google “Tri-Met murder” and check out the news coverage of Jeremy Christian, who came to Portland to participate in a “Unite the Right” rally, and then entertained himself by harassing minorities on the right home on public transportation.

        1. D’oh! On the RIDE home.

      3. “Yes they are just engaged in leftist stoogery. It is your standard ‘play the victim card’ type tactic.”

        So it’s part of the “War on Christmas” then? Or are they victims of the “Deep State”?

  36. So if even reason.com peddles fake news, who can we trust? Our guts…

    1. You’re assuming I trust your guts, but I don’t.

  37. This isn’t about punishing criminal activity, it’s about fighting the notion that our beloved President is an ineffective twit who cowers in the basement to hide from mobs of angry citizenry.

    Notions of due process and civil rights would only slow down our manly, manly leader from showing those punks who is tough. Or at least, as tough as a leader can be without actually personally coming out of the shelter in the basement.

Please to post comments