Donald Trump

National Guardsman Contradicts Trump Administration's Account of Use of Force Against Protesters

A National Guard officer will testify that the June 1 clearing of protesters outside the White House was "an unnecessary escalation of the use of force" and "deeply disturbing."

|

A National Guard officer will testify Tuesday at a congressional hearing that the June 1 clearing of protesters outside the White House was "an unnecessary escalation of the use of force" and "deeply disturbing to me, and to fellow National Guardsmen."

"From my observation, those demonstrators—our fellow American citizens—were engaged in the peaceful expression of their First Amendment rights," Adam DeMarco, a major in the D.C. National Guard, will tell the House Natural Resources Committee, according to his prepared remarks. "Yet they were subjected to an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force."

DeMarco's testimony directly contradicts several of the Trump administration's shifting explanations for what happened on June 1, when law enforcement violently dispersed a crowd of protesters in Lafayette Square, across the street from the White House. After police cleared the crowds, President Donald Trump conducted a photo shoot of himself holding a Bible outside St. John's Church.

DeMarco and other National Guardsmen were deployed outside the White House on June 1, along with U.S. Park Police, Secret Service, and other federal law enforcement. A 7 p.m. curfew was in place in D.C. that evening.

DeMarco testifies that around 6 p.m., Attorney General William Barr and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, arrived.

"As the senior National Guard officer on the scene at the time, I gave General Milley a quick briefing on our mission and the current situation," DeMarco writes. "General Milley told me to ensure that National Guard personnel remained calm, adding that we were there to respect the demonstrators' First Amendment rights." (Milley has since apologized for appearing in Lafayette Square. "I should not have been there," he said. "My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created the perception of the military involved in domestic politics.")

At around 6:20 p.m., DeMarco continues, verbal warnings were given to the crowd to leave. But from where he was standing, about 20 yards away from the line of protesters, the warnings "were barely audible and I saw no indication that the demonstrators were cognizant of the warnings to disperse."

Law enforcement rushed the crowd at around 6:30 p.m. Videos showed law enforcement assaulting an Australian TV crew. Media and other observers also reported being tear gassed.

The Trump administration says that protesters were throwing items at law enforcement, which DeMarco testifies he did not see. Park Police also emphatically denied they fired tear gas, claiming that officers instead fired smoke canisters and pepper balls, the latter of which are also a chemical irritant. But DeMarco says that tear gas was indeed used.

"The Park Police liaison officer told me that the explosions were 'stage smoke,' and that no tear gas was being deployed against the demonstrators," he writes. "But I could feel irritation in my eyes and nose, and based on my previous exposure to tear gas in my training at West Point and later in my Army training, I recognized that irritation as effects consistent with CS or 'tear gas.' And later that evening, I found spent tear gas cannisters on the street nearby."

The Trump reelection campaign demanded media outlets issue a correction about any tear gas reporting. "Every news organization which reported the tear gas lie should immediately correct or retract its erroneous reporting," Tim Murtaugh, campaign communications director, said in a statement.

As Reason's Elizabeth Nolan-Brown pointed out at the time, whether tear gas was used is rather incidental to the larger issue of the government attacking protesters so the president can do a silly photo op. But the distraction served its primary purpose for the White House and conservative media: to muddy the waters enough that average news consumers might shrug their shoulders and ignore the whole thing.

Advertisement

NEXT: New York Police Unions Partly Succeed in Stopping Release of Misconduct Records

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. “From my observation, those demonstrators—our fellow American citizens—were engaged in the peaceful expression of their First Amendment rights,”

    So he participated in an unlawful suppression of constitutional rights, in violation of his loyalty oath?

    1. He was just following orders so the only person responsible is the Commander in Chief, Der Drumpfer!

      1. My last month’s on-line earning was $17930 simply by doing a straightforward job on-line. best home primarily based on-line job to earn additional greenbacks monthly simply by doing work for optimum two to three hrs daily.JHb. I actually have joined this job concerning three months past and in my 1st month I actually have created $12k+ simply with none special on-line expertise. everyone on this earth will get this job nowadays and begin creating money on-line by simply follow details on this web site……… HERE══════►►►Money90

      2. Didn’t Trump scapegoat Barr on this one.

        1. No.

          They said the park police made their own determination.

          I watched CNN live. They were saying Trump ordered the park cleared for a photo op as soon as he crossed the street. They reported it as fact. That trump personally ordered it.

          Then they reported that he caught the secret service off guard. The walk across the street was not planned, it was a spur of the moment decision by Trump, looking for a photo opportunity.

          Then they reported that an insider told them that he planned the whole thing because of reporting that he was taken to the bunker which he felt made him look weak and afraid.

          This was all within minutes. The only things sourced were the secret service and the park service. Everything else had the distinct air of being completely made up on the spot.

          1. So it was merely an impromptu violation of people’s rights for a farcical photo op.

            1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

              Heres what I do…………►Click here

            2. Tony, just go back to fucking yourself with your big black dildo and leave the comments to the adults.

      3. “Acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan of the United States Park Police said officers did not use tear gas against protesters near the White House on Monday, according to a statement released Tuesday.
        Reports of officers using tear gas against protesters in Lafayette Park circulated Monday, with many saying the demonstrators were expelled from the area to make way for a photo opportunity by President Donald Trump at St. John’s Episcopal Church.
        According to Tuesday’s statement, the USPP was assisting the United States Secret Service with the installation of temporary fencing inside the park. Protesters, however, “became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons.”
        While pepper balls and smoke canisters were used against the protesters, “no tear gas was used by USSP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park.”
        ~ Newsweek 2 June, 2020 ~

        1. Shhh, Ciaramella’s angling for his journalisming job back at Buzzfeed and doesn’t need your facts to wreck his narrative, thank you very much.

      4. If that is the case tell me why many solders have court marshaled and spent time in prison from “just following orders” when the solders knew that the orders are not lawful?

      5. Following orders is not a defense. It hasn’t been a defense since the Nuremberg trials. Adolf Eichmann was also “just following orders”. The major deserves high praise for his courage and coming out.
        If the protesters were peaceful and it looks that the protesters at the Lafayette Park were peaceful, than the administration has committed an egregious act of violating their 1st amendment right to peacefully assemble to redress grievances with the government. During normal times, such an escapade would be sufficient for the AG to lose his job. On the other hand, the horrible abuse of the FBI by the previous administration is nothing to be trifled with. Our personal freedoms are at stake here.

    2. Not clear he did or didn’t. The Park Police were in charge of clearing the crowd.

      The article could be more clear about which agencies were responsible for which actions, but guess that will come out in his testimony.

    3. In his prepared statement, he said none of the National Guard troops had munitions of any kind, including non-lethal munitions like tearing agents, and they were not in charge.

      1. See, that’s the bullshit right there. If you’re going to do that, don’t bother to have them there in the first place.

        1. Have you read the statement?

    4. Where in the article do you see any indication that the National Guard participated in the attack on the protesters?

  2. They were just exercising their rights to burn a church down and destroy public and private property. Everyone knows arson is covered by the first amendment.

    1. When are we going to start slaughtering bigoted, homophobic, and transphobic Christians in America’s Colosseum, also known as NFL stadiums?

      1. I can just see AOC in a toga and laurels ordering the human torches lit, while Bill Maher behind the glass of his luxury box starts fapping furiously (little does he realize the Corbyn wing of the DNC will do the Jews next).

        1. Let’s hope. As a Leninist I’m looking to the Trump administration’s example on how to treat my ideological opponents. When you guys are singing “I Love My Beautiful Tractor” in the re-education camp run by Bernie Sanders and AOC at least you’ll have the benefit of knowing that this is exactly what you deserve. That is, you could have denounced Dear Leader’s douchebaggery, violence and lies while you could, but now that the shoes on the other foot you are getting the jackbooted thug placed squarely up your arse where it belongs.

    2. Again, different individuals, unless you traffic in lumping people together collectively and/or guilt by association.

      1. When you have a massive protest where violence breaks out, containing the violence isn’t about law enforcement, it becomes peace keeping. When that happens, YES, you clear everyone from the scene. It wasn’t about arresting people, it was about clearing an area. Once riot has been declared, GET THE FUCK OUT. It doesn’t matter if a specific individual has committed violence at that point, they still need to GET THE FUCK OUT.

        1. That doesn’t have anything to do with John’s making no distinction between whoever set a fire at the church the night before and the protestors who were in the square the next day.

          1. We’re not as stupid as you hope. There’s no distinction anymore, the George Floyd protest ended at his funeral. There are no more peaceful protesters, only Peaceful Protesters.

        2. This is a libertarian site, right? Jesus Christ.

    3. The Church clergy were trying to burn the church down? Are you even trying?

      1. The church was set on fire. You fucks are destroying churches all over the country. You are just garbage

        1. DoL is burning down churches?!

          1. Probably. He certainly hates Christians enough.

    4. John is just getting lazy with his trolling now

    5. That occurred the night before with a different group of protesters.

      Neat you have to lie.

  3. We believe this guy instead of the multiple witnesses stating bottle throwing and such based on….

      1. True. He is.

        1. But then who will be bad when the US economy collapse because to the rioting and the covid-19 if the president does nothing and the governors and mayor are telling the police to stand down?
          That would have been a great campaign issue for Biden and the democrats to say that the president fiddled while the nation burned and they would have been correct!

          1. The economy may collapse because of COVID-19. The rioting is too small in scale and isolated, relatively speaking, to affect the entire economy. In Portland, rioting doesn’t even have much affect on the area around the Federal courthouse once the sun comes up.

            1. These riots, while they make for good Twitter video, pale in comparison to the 1960s. Watts in 1965, Newark in 1968. Even CHAZ was a boy scout level operation compared to the anti-war demonstrations. In fact the protests/riots are being blown out of proportion. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, folks.

              1. They were really bad immediately after Floyd was killed. But now they are not at the economy threatening level.

                1. If Trump can escalate them enough maybe they’ll actually distract from his COVID failures for five minutes.

      2. Indeed, Orange Man is an epic piece of shit

    1. All he says about the behavior of the crowd in his prepared statement is: “From what I could observe, the demonstrators were behaving peacefully, exercising their First Amendment rights.”

      You did click on the prepared statement, didn’t you, JesseAz?

      So, his testimony doesn’t necessarily conflict with what others, with other vantage points, say they witnessed.

      1. Yes. His prepared statement is worthless.

        Now keep white kknghting the left. It is all you’re good for.

        Now answer, why do I give a fuck about this guy’s statement when multiple other statements contradict it?

        1. I’m not sure why you don’t give a fuck. I presume it’s because it challenges a worldview that you’ve invested in heavily.

          I will continue to call you out on your b.s., even if you mischaracterize that calling out of your b.s. as white knighting for the left.

          You mischaracterize things a lot. As well as trying to gaslight people.

          1. You of all people shouldn’t be accusing anyone of gaslighting.
            Fucking hypocrite…

    2. Aligns perfectly with the priests from the church, reporters there that day, and basically anyone other than Barr, Trump, and associated goons.

      1. Again, you are wrong. There is video of projectiles being thrown, spray painting and attempted arson from around that time.

        Have you ever not believed in a conspiracy theory?

          1. Sure. Here: https://www.today.com/news/look-damage-inside-historic-st-john-s-church-washington-dc-t182954
            Lot’s of pictures of the fire damage and graffiti. They even burnt the toys in the nursery.

            Bet you didn’t actually want that link, did you, you dishonest fuck.
            Look at those pictures good though. That’s what you’re covering for, you piece of shit.

            1. Thats a different day and location than the subject of this article. Why are you big government conservatives so dumb and lazy with your arguments?

              1. Oh well as long as arsonists only burn the other churches when the police and national guard aren’t present then I guess you proved your point!

          2. Ask JesseAz to post proof of whatever bullshit he’s frothing at the mouth about and you’ll never see him again

  4. As Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan-Brown pointed out at the time, whether tear gas was used is rather incidental

    No, if the media played a game of telephone and told a lie, it needs to get called out.

    If it were reported that 72 protesters were killed in a hail of bullets, then later it was revealed that no one was killed, or no shots were even fired, then it’s im-fucking-portant- especially when the goal is to determine of the response was a “brutal” overreach and escalation.

    1. The protesters had no right to occupy the park forever. So whether tear gas or excessive force was used is entirely the point.

      As usual, only protesters have rights reason will respect

      1. Nice straw man

    2. “No, if the media played a game of telephone and told a lie, it needs to get called out.”

      Are you or are you not on board with the resistance?

      1. I posted this way back when it first came out, and people largely ignored it at the time. I thought it was important then, and I think it’s still important now.

        “An open letter to Trump from the US press corps”

        —-Columbia Journalism Review, January 17, 2017

        https://www.cjr.org/politics/trump_white_house_press_corps.php

        That was an open letter to President Trump at the very beginning of this presidency signed by the almost everyone in the White House Press Corp, in which they promised to offer a “untied front” against him during his presidency.

        Read that open letter. They did everything they said they would do. They are who we thought they were. The press is the enemy, and they made themselves the enemy on purpose.

        1. Trump went out of his way to alienate the press. Green new deal? Sure, fuck you Ken. Medicare for all? Yep, fuck you Ken. Gun control? Does it hurt Ken’s feelings then full speed ahead.

          1. So, you don’t care about what’s good policy or bad policy, your entire political philosophy is all about hurting my feelings?

            Wow, I must really loom large in your mind!

            “I am your father”.

            —-Darth Shultz

            You know what would really hurt my feelings? Suspending the payroll tax indefinitely, a balanced budget amendment, and changing the name of the Redskins to “The Rebel Yell”.

            Get to work. Chop! Chop!

          2. So you’re saying you’re an insurrectionist and if we want our rights protected, we need to eliminate you and anybody like you?

            I’m not opposed to that, mind you. Just checking.

        2. I liked where they say “We will set higher standards for ourselves than ever before”. Yes, they do this by seeing how low they go and they are doing a fine job.

        3. The press as a whole has done every thing that they can do legally (and maybe not so legal) to destroy this president. But that also includes the democrats also. The thing about this is this nation can withstand just about any thing the president can do in office because the president cannot make laws nor change laws already passed. When the that president is out of office then any damage done can be undone. But if a presidential candidate plays up to the destructive left crowd which has anti government ANTIFA cadre guiding the more base elements of the crowd to destroy when that candidate gets in office will have to bow to that same destructive crowd or will have the same thing happening to that administration as has happened to this one. Only if the President (and other politicians) bows a knee to their leadership will they avoid being destroyed as the current one is being destroyed.

          1. Let’s just agree that newspapers are owned by corporations. And some corporations ( as well as some Congresspersons and some bureaucrats ) are representing the interests of foreign entities. All this talk of Russian Collusion and we didn’t hear a peep about the Chinese. And we have sports figures and news people defending China and calling Trump a racist for calling it WuFlu or whatever.We now have the consulates issue in Houston and San Francisco and the response in Chengdu. China insisted on INSPECTING DIPLOMATIC POUCHES coming out of the Chengdu consulate. The closure actually impacted the Chinese stock market. So I have to ask if the reporting of relatively insignificant domestic disturbances is a smokescreen for foreign politics. How much money are Representatives and Senators taking from China? Biden’s son? Mitch McConnell’s wife is Sec’y of Transportation and they use the family owed shipping business as a tax dodge…?

        4. I don’t even know where to start, Ken. The press is the enemy, huh? Because it wrote a letter about being adversarial with the head of the government it covers. For writing a letter explaining its job to a president who was and is actively hostile to the press because he thinks its job is to proclaim his genius and good looks. And apparently you think that’s what the press is for too.

          1. Given the way Obama was covered, I can see how some might get the impression that the media’s job is to proclaim the president’s genius and good looks.

            1. Consider that they give Trump at least as much of a pass as Obama and that Trump is just much worse a human being and president.

              Consider also that a vast portion of the media actually treats Trump as the second coming, a cultish devotion to party that never actually exists for Democrats in the objective media.

        5. I believe the letter was a response to President’s threat to limit some press and to use only friendly press. All Presidents dislike the Press, they are suppose to dislike the Press as it hold them accountable. This is hard for a President who takes responsibility for nothing.

          1. So, this is unique and Obama did not try to expel FNC?

        6. Get a grip you fucking fascist. I know you want the press Corp to resemble how SEan Hannity does things, but the rest of us prefer that journalists don’t give him the fucking reach around you’d like to see. God, Ken, you are fucking priceless.

          1. Did you say the same thing as the press polished Obama’s knob for 8 years?

    3. And it turned out that tear gas was, in fact used, along with OC spray, pepper balls, and all the usual. Park police admitted to the use of pepper balls, OC, and smoke, and tear gas canisters were found by Reuters reporters on scene.

      1. Again, your wrong.

        How can you consistently be wrong about everything?

        1. Let me guess. Now all of a sudden whether the president violated anyone’s rights and acted like a Muppet version of a dictator hinges on whether he actually deployed chemical weapons. And even if he did deploy chemical weapons on Americans, you’re going to huff and puff until it becomes enough of a controversy to sow doubt. Meanwhile everyone forgets that the president doesn’t actually have to use chemical weapons before he becomes a tinpot shitpile.

          1. Your resistance mascarade would be over in 15 minutes in a real Dictatorship.

            1. Still plenty of time left and an election coming up. I know I have my popcorn in bulk.

      2. Haha. “Reuter’s…” ROLFCopter.

  5. Is that the Adam DeMarco who Open Secrets donor list shows as contributing $2,500 to the campaign of Adam DeMarco(D)?

    1. A bit more research shows it is. He campaigned for a House seat in Maryland.

      1. Guilty of perjury!

        Proof: The guy ran for office as a Democrat once!

        1. It does imply bad faith in his “neutral” observations.

  6. Another bombshell.
    This is the tipping point.
    The walls are closing in.
    It’s the beginning of the end.

    #Impeach

  7. Wasn’t this event like three years ago?

    1. The election is in four months. That’s the only time-frame that really matters to the news media.

      This time, four years ago, they were comparing Trump campaign events to Nuremberg rallies, and they were accusing his staff of acting like Brownshirts.

      Whatever happened to Michelle Fields? Did Breitbart survive the awesome impact of her resignation?

    2. And I’m sure Trump has been reading that Bible every day since.

  8. Everything the police and military says is a lie–until they start criticizing President Trump. Then, somehow, it becomes the truth.

    This guy has an opinion like everyone else. He’s welcome to it.

    Did he say anything about Biden’s proposed Green New Deal? Because in my opinion, that’s so bad, I’d vote for Trump to prevent Biden from signing it–even if what this guardsman is saying is true.

    1. Why would a National Guard officer be giving testimony in Congress about the Green New Deal?

      1. He has an opinion, and maybe it’s anti-Trump. Why wouldn’t that be important?

      2. Well shit I suck at smartphones. I was scrolling and flagged this comment sorry, White Knight.

    2. Trump is the real victim here, fellow libertarian.

      1. Poor picked-upon most powerful man in the world.

        1. For six more months, tops. After that, he spends most of his time testifying in litigation, paying back taxes, and trying to dodge a prison term.

    3. What do you have against sustainable energy Ken? If I were to ask you what you’re so afraid of, would the answer contain the word “communist” as well as other hysterical rightwing references to grumkins and snarks? Is there an evil interest you don’t spend your days doing butt work for? I mean, why can’t you people be in the side of good once by accident?

      1. A non solution for a non problem.

        1. I’ll decide for myself whether I think the planet becoming uninhabitable for human beings is a problem or not. I’ll leave the goth kid “death is beautiful and nothing matters” shtick to you, I guess.

          1. Please explain how the Green New Deal is supposed to stop the planet from becoming uninhabitable.

            1. Explain how sticking your thumb up your ass and giving more tax cuts to Trump spawn will do so.

  9. >>”deeply disturbing to me, and to fellow National Guardsmen.”

    whining is key solution to emotional distress

    1. Well, he’s a Democrat, so lying and whining come natural.

      1. “Dems have no rights. also people who say things I don’t like are all dems, even if they’re not.” – some guy pretending to be libertarian.

        1. As noted above, he is a Democrat. No question.

    2. Iraq veteran says he is deeply disturbed. Somehow that becomes “whining”.

  10. What ever sympathy I had for all these ‘protestors’ is used up. There are big problems with the police in this country ,but, the burning, looting and violence has over shadowed the problem.

    1. So, to hell with the First Amendment?

      1. No, to hell with rioting and looting. Are you being purposely thick?

        1. If you people has any grasp of anything you’d realize just how much like good little fascists you sound like. Collective guilt for a vague crime that for some reason among all other vague crimes is bad enough to jettison individual rights. You have to give Trump more power to smash the enemy, because well they’re the enemy and that’s what you do!

          1. Lol, ok kiddo. You know the US is not Ukraine right? You can’t organise a coup if you don’t like it’s president.
            BLM sympathiser talking about Collective guilt is priceless anyway.

  11. Trump is a fascist piece of shit.

      1. When fascism comes to America, it’ll be holding a bloody bible upside down in front of a church.

        1. Fascism is already here, and they fly the banner of being anti-fascist.

          1. Trump apologists and antifa are two sides of the same coin. Relevant text: “The True Believer”

            1. One side of the coin runs the most powerful government on earth while the other is practically an internet myth.

    1. Not yet. But his successor will be.

      1. Mike Pence?

  12. Muslim Seattle Police officer injured during Seattle’s weekend riots. Here’s her blog post.

    Today’s front page, above-the-fold stories on the Seattle Times:

    The Seattle area is in a ‘short-lived heat burst.’ Here’s how balmy it could get and when things will cool off.

    Coronavirus Daily Update

    Trump National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien Has Coronavirus

    As coronavirus patients skew younger, tracing task seems all but impossible

    Native leaders, organizations decry ‘intimidation’ outside home of Seattle City Council’s Juarez

    Analysis: As Pac-12 schools shift to remote-only instruction, why is football rolling on?

    SDOT seeks cheap ways to protect neighborhoods from traffic detoured by West Seattle Bridge closure

    Remember, Journalists, just because you’re not talking about it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

    1. “As Pac-12 schools shift to remote-only instruction, why is football rolling on?”

      Just as a side note, I suspect the NCAA as we knew it is probably over in some really important ways.

      I think Cal was supposed to open at UNLV? That game won’t happen–and we may never see a PAC-12 school play a game against a non-Power Five conference again after this season. There’s so much money for big teams from big conferences in playing each other, and they’re literally giving that money away to pipsqueak programs like UNLV when they play them.

      Now that they’re going division opponents only this season, why go back to the way things were? The Power Five can fill in their non-division schedules with teams from other Power Five conferences, and the ratings would go through the roof. Why should they split that money with a zillion other teams from a zillion other conferences that can’t draw those ratings unless they’re playing a team from the Power Five?

      Add to that the need to let players start getting money, and what’s the purpose of the NCAA anyway?

      They should break off, call themselves the Power Five League, and hold their own playoffs and championship bowl game.

  13. Yep let the beatings begin. You show me the man and I’ll show you the crime. There is no level democrats will stoop to in undermining democracy and the rule of law. My guess is either they threatened this poor guy or paid him off. They have done this consistently over the years they find expert witnesses to contradict reality and they memory hole anyone who stands up to them. It’s really sickening how much they have become Stanlists. Well not really because they always were they have now removed the masks.

    A vote for Biden is the end of our constitutional republic and the rule of law. The real resistance is against the left and their immoral and criminal ideology.

    1. Paid him off, threatened him? You need to be medicated. He is echoing what the priests of the actual church say, and several reporters who were there.

      1. DeMarco tried for a U.S. House seat in Maryland, running as a Democrat. He’s just following the party line.

        1. Could have told you there would be a big effort from many commenters here to assassinate the character of anyone who bears witness against Trump in any way.

          1. Identifying someone as a Dem is character assassination? … well… if it isn’t ultimately true I am actually sympathetic to that assertion

          2. Right. A former democratic candidate, testifying in front of a democratic house to further the democratic narrative of Orange Man Bad, is totally on the up and up. Nothing shady at all there.

            There’s a chain of command and a procedure for reporting violations. As a military officer, your first stop isn’t congressional testimony. Most military officers know this.

            He’s got his eye on bigger things. His military career is probably mostly dead from this. But I’m sure he thinks this will buy him some nice endorsements on his next run.

            Personally, I’m just really tired of the democrats trotting out some staff weinie who once served a tour in Iraq to try and establish the narrative that Trump has lost the support of the military, or that the military somehow supports and condones rioting and lawlessness. They’re trying to hitch their burning wagon to anything they think will pull them through the election.

            1. Does anyone have any idea why the Dems are jumping on the pro-riot bandwagon?

              I mean, Speaker Pelosi called the DHS agents protecting the courthouse in Portland “stormtroopers”. That was the
              Speaker, not some low-level official from the middle of fucking nowhere! I am surprised there was not a revolt among the House Democratic caucus.

              1. They must think the youth vote will actually come out and vote if they are sufficiently riled up. Add to that a gamble that POC don’t care about the stability of community [i think they do care] more than they do ‘getting back at the man’ and maybe that accounts for the strategy. It fills in the big enthusiasm gap but is an act of a rather dark faith then.

    2. Way to construct a hermetically-sealed bubble of your own that no evidence or logic can penetrate!

  14. You know how I know that the shit is getting violent in my town? The media isn’t talking about the protests…

    The Seattle Times has a long history of doing 2000 word stories when four people show up downtown to sing a few verses of We Shall Overcome.

    The fact that they’re not talking about it at all tells me they don’t want to cast a light on it.

  15. You most libertarian cult leader ever who has no ties to Russia whatsoever, just got his inexplicable proposal to allow Russia back into the G7 rejected.

    Man what a patriot! Sicking troops on protesters, “take their guns first and do due process later”, and a bunch of foreign financial entanglements that we don’t get to know the details about (just trust life long conman Donald Trump!), what will he do next?! Allow blatant foreign election interference (oddly enough GOP refused several drafts of an election security bill that would have extended the requirement to report foreign campaign donations)? Refuse the results of an election?

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-g7-summit-russia-germany/germany-rejects-trumps-proposal-to-let-russia-back-into-g7-foreign-minister-idUKKCN24R0T9?il=0&utm_source=reddit.com

    1. Most patriotic president ever!

    2. Was your foreign election interference extension the only change to those versions? Somehow I doubt it.

    3. Allow blatant foreign election interference (oddly enough GOP refused several drafts of an election security bill that would have extended the requirement to report foreign campaign donations)? Refuse the results of an election?

      If I 100% believed the Russian collusion narrative, that means that his predecessor allowed foreign election interference and then his opponents refused the results of the election.

    1. They’re despicable traitors and desperate.

    2. Why are you so obsessed with foreign election interference?

      1. Why do I care about the fundamental basis of the whole Republic?

        Because I’m an American patriot who does not put party over country.

        1. I have yet to observe that with your comments.

          Read here and weep!

          http://ethicsalarms.com/2020/07/25/now-what-2-but-no-quiz-just-now-what/

          It is suspicious, I have to say, how the major mainstream media outlets have been almost silent on the clear indications that Obama and Biden met with various Justice Department and FBI personnel and discussed how to “get” Michael Flynn. For one thing, the notes taken by Peter Strzok tell us that Joe Biden is lying. Don’t they care? Isn’t that important? Doesn’t democracy die in darkness? Oh, the Daily Caller and the Federalist and other “conservative” news organizations have written about it, but you know, they’re conservative. It’s all lies The claims are being fabricated by “Trumpers.”

          – Jack Marshall

        2. liar and hypocrite.

          Where were you when Obama set up his online donation system to have zero accountability or even filtering for non-US donations. Anybody with a handful of data entry keyboard jockeys could run up millions of dollars of untraceable foreign donations.
          Where were you when Bill was racking up significantly increased foreign ‘speaking fees’, averaging $400k/30minutes, to their foundation while Hillary was the SofS managing deals with the very countries funding the speaking events.
          where were you when Gore was investigated for large Chinese campaign donations?

          This goes back decades, and as much as it it bi-partisan, the Dems appear to have dirtier hands and more disturbing foreign engagement.

          1. This seems like a valid argument and totally not both sidesism based on lies meant to absolve Trump very crimes you supposedly agree are bad. Just say that whatever it is, it’s OK if Trump does it. Why strain for nuance at this point?

            1. to you, it was okay when Obama did it!

          2. It should also be noted that the software Obama used for payments DEFAULTED to requiring some form of zip code verification. Meaning he turned that off.

    3. Nice gaping loophole in there for incumbents isn’t there? Talk 5 minutes on official business and the meeting falls under the exception rule and no one can prove otherwise without a recording.

  16. “Adam DeMarco, a major in the D.C. National Guard, will tell …. “Yet they were subjected to an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force.”

    DeMarco must like being a major because he is looking at a major career stall by contradicting Commander In Chief Trump’s admin.

    1. Might only be a few more months of Trump administration.

    2. He was a Democratic candidate for a House seat in Maryland in 2018.

    3. Yeah, he’s got his eye on other prizes. MAJ is a respectable enough rank to run for office on. I’m sure he thinks this will buy him some nice endorsements on his next run.

    1. They blocked unanimous consent. They didn’t stop any bill from being voted on and debated. Stop lying so much.

  17. While DeMarco deserves credit for coming forward with his testimony, now, and his restraint and his restraint of his troops, then; he took an oath, which full faith to demanded that he and his troops defy the unlawful order to attack protestors and to act to prevent the government goons from doing so.

    Better late than never. Better than the rest of Trump’s forces. Maybe, not quite good.

    “[C]ivilization means, above all, an unwillingness to inflict unnecessary pain … those of us who heedlessly accept the commands of authority cannot yet claim to be civilized men.”
    ~ Harold J. Laski

    1. It’s not clear what part the National Guard played, in contrast with the Park Police.

  18. As Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan-Brown pointed out at the time, whether tear gas was used is rather incidental to the larger issue of the government attacking protesters so the president can do a silly photo op. But the distraction served its primary purpose for the White House and conservative media: to muddy the waters enough that average news consumers might shrug their shoulders and ignore the whole thing.

    Just straight up admitting that the narrative is more important than the truth.

    1. Only if you think it matters a lot whether the Park Police were shooting tear gas or pepper balls at people. Why does that matter much?

      1. CS gas is a more extreme/less targeted means of riot control you absolute retard.

        1. Ah, the personal insults always come out.

          1. Imagine being constantly insulted and thinking everyone else is the problem.

            1. Here is the thing. I don’t care.

      2. Also they’re not similar. You shouldn’t trust anybody who can’t tell the difference (or more likely doesn’t know that people can tell when they’re lying.)

      3. Why does that matter much?

        Am I supposed to consider it relative to standing on people’s necks until they die or think like a white supremacist?

    2. Who decides what is “a silly photo op”?

      It is laughable how many Americans think they alone get to decide on such matters, but then these are the same people who believe they should get to decide what constitutes “hate speech”, so there’s that.

  19. But I could feel irritation in my eyes and nose, and based on my previous exposure to tear gas in my training at West Point and later in my Army training, I recognized that irritation as effects consistent with CS or ‘tear gas.’

    “effects consistent with” lol at taking this lawyer’s statement at face value

    1. He’s not a lawyer.

      1. His lawyer isn’t a lawyer? Wut?

        1. You were quoting from his prepared statement.

          1. Yes. The one obviously written by his lawyer. WTF is wrong with you.

            1. You are the one who said we shouldn’t believe his statement because something in it was worded in words that were too lawyerly.

              I could ask, WTF, why does that matter?

              1. said we shouldn’t believe his statement

                God you’re stupid.

                https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+at+face+value

                1. I stand corrected on the precise meaning of “take at face value”.

                  1. “precise” Dunning-Kruger superstar here

      2. Nope. He’s a wannabe Democratic Representative from Maryland.

  20. On the other hand…..
    “Acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan of the United States Park Police said officers did not use tear gas against protesters near the White House on Monday, according to a statement released Tuesday.
    Reports of officers using tear gas against protesters in Lafayette Park circulated Monday, with many saying the demonstrators were expelled from the area to make way for a photo opportunity by President Donald Trump at St. John’s Episcopal Church.

    According to Tuesday’s statement, the USPP was assisting the United States Secret Service with the installation of temporary fencing inside the park. Protesters, however, “became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons.”
    While pepper balls and smoke canisters were used against the protesters, “no tear gas was used by USSP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park.”
    ~ Newsweek 2 June, 2020 ~

  21. job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you cAn work with your own working hours. You cAn work this job As A pArt time or As A full time job. You cAn eArn from 65$ An hour to 1000$ A dAy! There is no limitAtions, it All depends from you And how much you wAnt to eArn eAch dAy…..ReadMore.

  22. Adam DeMarco, a major in the D.C. National Guard, will tell the House Natural Resources Committee, according to his prepared remarks. “Yet they were subjected to an unprovoked escalation and excessive use of force.”

    Was the Major there? If so, why did he allow it to happen?

    1. He was there. He wasn’t in charge.

      He did allow it to happen, although it’s not clear he could have stopped anything after the Park Police put it in motion.

      Nor is it clear if the National Guard did anything. They didn’t have any munitions, lethal or not.

      1. You don’t have to be in charge to act against illegal actions of others.

        1. Yep, he didn’t stop it. We will hopefully get a more detailed picture of what happened.

          Is talk about his not stopping the action being used as a pretense here to discount his testimony?

          1. No, its used to plant the idea that the ‘extreme actions’ of the Park Police might not have been considered so extreme by the people there at the time.

  23. based on my previous exposure to tear gas in my training at West Point and later in my Army training,

    Oh dear lord, one of those guys.

    You’re a Major, I would hope by this point in your career that you would have enough experiences from, you know, actually serving, that you’re not going back to your “my training at West Point – did I tell you that I went to West Point? Yes? Well, I just wanted to remind you I went to West Point” days.

    No enlisted I knew would be saying, 10 years in, ‘based on my training in AIT . . . ” – that’s some officer shit right there.

  24. My thanks to the brave Guardsman who exposed the authoritarian lies. Trump needs to pick better people to “serve & protect” his majesty. He will be judged by his henchmen. It’s only logical.

    1. Right on schedule, totally predictably, commenters here have started trying to trash his credibility and character.

      1. How did you react to Tara Reade’s accusations against Joe Biden?

        All the other Leftists trashed her credibility and character.

  25. Park Police also emphatically denied they fired tear gas, claiming that officers instead fired smoke canisters and pepper balls, the latter of which are also a chemical irritant. But DeMarco says that tear gas was indeed used.

    Here’s the thing – DeMarco only seems to know tear gas from his ‘gas chamber’ training. He’s not a reliable witness here. He even says his eyes ‘got a wittle teawy’ – which is actually consistent with the use of pepper in the distance. Your don’t just get a some watery eyes when exposed to tear gas, even from a distance. You get shortness of breath and throat irritation.

    1. Ciaramella is lying. DeMarco isn’t claiming that “tear gas was indeed used” but that he had “effects consistent with CS.” Gonna be interesting to see whose representing him.

    2. Did you read his statement? He also says he saw tear gas canisters on the Federal police.

      1. Probably saw firearms too. That does not mean anyone was shot, does it?

      2. He also doesn’t actually seem to know what tear gas is – except from his training ‘at Westpoint and later in his Army training’. Which basically means he’s never seen a tear gas canister and wouldn’t know the difference between one and a smoke canister by looking at a distance, in a crowd.

  26. Left out that DeMarco ran in a Democratic primary for US House of Representatives in 2018

    https://ballotpedia.org/Adam_DeMarco

  27. When does he throw his ‘medals’ over the White House fence?

  28. Ordering the clearing of the space was lawful, whoever actually ordered it.

    If the clearing used excessive force, that’s not on Trump, it’s on the National Guard and its members.

    1. Was it actually lawful though? A public space is a public space.

  29. Regardless of the facts of the situation, which are clearly in question….

    It is deeply disturbing that a uniformed officer is embracing being as a political prop, in an election year. This is not a good look at all for the US military. Especially when we had all the prior panty-twisting about the military presence simply following Trump to his photo op that same day.

  30. They should have sewn masks instead. Reason.con is a fraud.

  31. Trump didn’t line people up and shoot them personally, so clearly he did nothing wrong.

    Oh, you know what’s funny about Russian spambot style arguments? They presumably get paid to post them and don’t actually believe them. I can think of few humiliations worse than being a dupe of Russian spambots.

  32. So they found a libterd NG. Big whup. (“One NG, drill sergeant!”). He’s probably Alexander Vindman’s brother-in-law.

  33. “…deeply disturbing to me, and to fellow National Guardsmen.”

    So ‘feelings’?

    Who is he, Vindman?

    It would be hilarious, if it was not so dangerous, to see so many of our soldiers talking about their ‘feelings’, as if ‘feelings’ and reality are the same thing.

Please to post comments