Accountability

Bill Barr Gets Away With Busting Heads in Lafayette Square Because He's a Fed

"In lower courts' view, [a] federal badge now equals absolute immunity."

|

A federal judge on Monday partially rejected a group of lawsuits against local police and fully dismissed claims against federal officials who ordered and oversaw the violent clearing of protesters from Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 2020.

The four groups of plaintiffs sued former President Donald Trump, former Attorney General William Barr, several former federal agency heads, as well as representatives from the Metropolitan Police Department and the Arlington County (Virginia) Police Department. The plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief for constitutional violations and claimed that, in violently clearing Lafayette Park with little notice allegedly so that Trump could take a photo in front of St. John's Episcopal Church, he and the other defendants committed conspiracy and violated the Posse Comitatus Act.

A recently released report from the Office of Inspector General for the Interior Department found that law enforcement acted against the protesters so that contractors could install a fence, and that Barr only asked that they expedite the process for Trump.

However, Judge Dabney Friedrich of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia did not dismiss the case because of the OIG report, but rather because her reading of the precedents cited by the plaintiffs led her to grant the federal actors official immunity.

Specifically, Friedrich relied on the Bivens doctrine, a court-constructed avenue that is supposed to provide recourse for people whose rights are violated by the government. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971), the Supreme Court permitted a victim to sue federal cops who conducted a warrantless search of his apartment to look for drugs, shackled him, and strip-searched him in a courthouse. But that standard has become increasingly diluted with subsequent decisions, like the one in Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017), in which the Supreme Court ruled that judges should look for "special factors counseling hesitation" when "the case is different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court."

In other words, if the judiciary pinpoints any highly subjective measure that differentiates a case from those already on the books, then the ruling judge can use his or her discretion in shielding a federal official from accountability. It is essentially a federal and even more rigorous version of qualified immunity, the legal construct which allows state and local government actors to violate your rights unless the exact way they misbehaved has been outlined and published in a previous court precedent.

The "special factor" here, according to Friedrich, was "national security." Because no prior Bivens decision dealt with protesters outside the White House, Trump, Barr, and the other federal defendants of the four lawsuits will not have to face a jury in civil court. She adds that it is of no import whether or not presidential safety was actually under threat. "What [does] matter," Friederich writes, "is whether the claims in this case arise in a similar context to Bivens." Indeed, she even acknowledges later that she "is unable at this time to credit the defendants' assertion that the clearing of the Square was done in the interest of presidential security."

Unless Congress legislates an avenue for plaintiffs to bring civil claims against federal actors who violate our rights in novel ways and circumstances, then future federal officials will also be shielded from responsibility for misconduct. "There's a gaping hole in the Constitution" when it comes to holding federal actors to account, says Scott Michelman, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia and the attorney representing the plaintiffs. "That hole was [just] expanded to encompass the territory of one of the most important sites in the nation for protests, because if anything federal officials do there implicates presidential security, then they can never be sued."

The immunity enjoyed by government employees isn't particularly new, especially when it comes to law enforcement. "In lower courts' view, [a] federal badge now equals absolute immunity," says Anya Bidwell of the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm. "We see it all the time these days. No matter how outrageous the conduct by federal police, they cannot be sued for violations of constitutional rights, even if plaintiffs can overcome qualified immunity."

Last month, the Supreme Court declined to consider a case brought by José Oliva, who, at 70 years old, was placed in a chokehold and slammed to the ground by federal cops at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital because he did not furnish his identification quickly enough. (It was in a metal detector bin.) Those officers were shielded by Bivens, a lower court ruled, giving Oliva no way to bring his claims before a jury in civil court to argue for damages after he sustained a permanent shoulder injury.

D.C. and Arlington County police were only partially so fortunate.

They will not receive the legal protections against protesters' First Amendment claims, Friederich concluded. "The right to be free from government violence for the peaceful exercise of protected speech is so fundamental to our system of ordered liberty that it is 'beyond debate,'" she writes. The order does not provide the plaintiffs with any sort of damages but merely allows them to make their case before a jury.

The saga will not end there. "Unfortunately, one of the many double-standards created by the qualified immunity doctrine is that it gives government officials the ability to appeal non-final rulings like this one, even though ordinary people cannot," says Clark Neily, senior vice president for legal studies at the Cato Institute. "It seems very likely that the DC and Arlington County police defendants will take advantage of that special privilege to appeal the trial court's ruling denying them qualified immunity on the First Amendment claims."

The plaintiffs will also not be able to argue before a jury that police violated their Fourth Amendment rights when they used excessive force to remove them from the square. The police received qualified immunity because such force was used to disperse the protesters and not to restrain the protesters. "Even assuming that the plaintiffs were seized by being forced to leave Lafayette Square," Friedrich adds, "the plaintiffs have not pointed to a case clearly establishing that attempting to move members of a crowd (rather than keep them in a location) can constitute a seizure."

It's a fitting reminder of just how myopic a standard qualified immunity can be, put in place by the government to protect the government.

NEXT: Pro Football Player Carl Nassib’s Coming Out Is a Non-Issue, and That’s Awesome

Accountability Police Police Abuse Supreme Court Qualified Immunity Criminal Justice

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.

Please to post comments

96 responses to “Bill Barr Gets Away With Busting Heads in Lafayette Square Because He's a Fed

  1. I thought the exceptional circumstances here was this was an insurrection.

    1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job DD and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Cntrl F: Capitol Cop Gets Away With Shooting Ashli Babbitt Because He’s a Fed

      Results: O

      My shock:. . . also 0

    3. Please help me find a local Korean spa! Any suggestions on finding a reputable one?
      https://iftekharchy.com

  2. Good lord one of any number of hoaxes and outright lies by opponents of the GOP and Trump during the last 5 years.

    1. Let billy cope with his butthurt.

      1. I bet he finds the pain exquisite because it’s largely self-inflicted.

        1. Now, now. This is all turn on talk for Tony if he reads it. Better be careful.

  3. Jesus Fucking Christ Binion, take the ‘L’ and let it go. Nobody cleared out “peaceful protestors” for a photo-op. Didn’t happen, you lying piece of shit.

    Yet Another Media Tale — Trump Tear-Gassed Protesters For a Church Photo Op — Collapses
    https://greenwald.substack.com/p/yet-another-media-tale-trump-tear

    1. Reason’s ENB was still saying Barr had the Capitol Police fire tear gas when it was only D.C. cops that did, a block or two away.

      1. Because ENB lies about shit that her beard husband is pushing.

      2. That’s what I was going to say: The reason Barr is getting away with busting heads, is because they found that HE hadn’t busted any heads! It was the DC police doing the head busting, on the local government’s orders.

        And Reason is still pretending Barr had something to do with it?

    2. Well said

  4. I believe that the narrative that this was done for a Trump photo op has been debunked. One of the problems with lifting immunity is opening up law enforcement officers to harassment lawsuits for political reasons rather than actual violations of civil rights. It ignores that previous protests in Lafayette Square had devolved into arson and other attempts at property destruction to historic structures in the area.

    1. The peacefulness of a protest is measured by what the protesters target is.

    2. When cops say move along. MOVE along. And then be peaceful about it.

    3. Fine, then I want immunity from “harassment lawsuits” too. In fact I’ll just declare lawsuits against me that I don’t like to be “harassment lawsuits” and demand that judges invalidate them irregardless of the merits of the claims of those suits. Fair is fair right?

      1. You proposed shooting anyone in The Capitol for merely trespassing.

        1. Chemjeff actually advocated for gulags and death squads for Jan 6 protesters, but suddenly he’s Mr. NeTouchePas when it comes to the Lafayette insurrectionists.

          What do you call it when even Jeff’s hypocrisy is hypocritical?

          1. What do you call it when even Jeff’s hypocrisy is hypocritical?

            Tuesday?

      2. By the way… this statement is ironic since you are pro immunity for Silicon Valley against lawsuits. Weird.

      3. I want immunity from “harassment lawsuits” too. In fact I’ll just declare lawsuits against me that I don’t like to be “harassment lawsuits” and demand that judges invalidate them irregardless of the merits of the claims of those suits.

        That’s quite literally what section 230 does. You support section 230 like a good little laptop bootlicker bitch, right cytotoxic?

  5. “A recently released report from the Office of Inspector General for the Interior Department found that law enforcement acted against the protesters so that contractors could install a fence, and that Barr only asked that they expedite (sic) the process for Trump.”

    —-Billy Binion

    I don’t see the evidence for that in the report. Instead, I see this:

    “The evidence we obtained did not support a finding that the USPP cleared the park to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church. Instead, the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the antiscale fencing in response to destruction of property and injury to officers occurring on May 30 and 31. Further, the evidence showed that the USPP did not know about the President’s potential movement until mid- to late afternoon on June 1—hours after it had begun developing its operational plan and the fencing contractor had arrived in the park.”

    —-Office of the Inspector General

    https://www.doioig.gov/reports/review-us-park-police-actions-lafayette-park

    Where does the report say anything about Barr expediting the process for Trump?

    Please quote the statement in question and link to it.

    1. P.S. If Trump or populism returns to America in 2024, those who continued to cling to false media narratives surrounding him–after they’ve been exposed as fraudulent–will be at least partially to blame.

      I’m looking forward to seeing the quote and the link.

      1. Never gonna come Ken.

        1. At some point, inaccuracy becomes something more.

          1. You should know, Ken.

            1. Yes, we’ve read enough of your psychotic blathering to know.

            2. For those that don’t know, chemjeff is a paid commenter, a fifty-center, for a PAC. He is paid to troll, shitpost and lie in order to advance a specific political narrative.

              That’s what makes his weasely insinuation that Ken is dishonest, so mind-blowingly hypocritical and disgusting.

      2. I know, right? We should demand complete scrupulousness when reporting on Trump or anyone that is right-wing. Meanwhile it’s also totally fine to claim that Biden’s environmental plans are no different than AOC’s Green New Deal. Like what you’ve been doing for months and months. Isn’t that right Ken?

        “THEY should be honest. But *I* get to lie about them all I want!”

        1. You mad snowflake?

        2. chemjeff radical individualist
          February.9.2021 at 8:56 am
          Flag Comment Mute User
          What is there to talk about?

          From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers.

        3. Meanwhile it’s also totally fine to claim that Biden’s environmental plans are no different than AOC’s Green New Deal

          They’re not.

          Biden HAS no ‘environmental plans’. He has handlers.

        4. “We should demand complete scrupulousness when reporting on Trump or anyone that is right-wing.”

          Seems like a fair demand, yes.

          “Meanwhile it’s also totally fine to claim that Biden’s environmental plans are no different than AOC’s Green New Deal.”

          Take up your petty bitching with JOE BIDEN who said that.

        5. Meanwhile it’s also totally fine to claim that Biden’s environmental plans are no different than AOC’s Green New Deal. Like what you’ve been doing for months and months. Isn’t that right Ken?

          Since this is the truth and is easily verifiable by perusing Joe Biden’s campaign website, cytotoxic, yeah, that’s totally fine. Telling the truth is not the same as lying. See the difference?

      3. I am too but I’m not holding my breath.

      4. The VA police roughed up a 70 ye old man because he didn’t move fast enough? I really doubt that

    2. He can’t, it was a Twitter driven media lie about the report.

    3. The report seems to say that Barr and Trump inserted themselves into the middle of a pre-planned operation, causing a delay in the fence installation. Somewhat the opposite of the expediting the plan.

      But somewhat of a jerk move to mess with their plans for a photo op to try to shore up Trump’s religious bonafides.

      1. The report does not say that. Instead of using “seems to say” why not actually read the report.

      2. “The report seems to say that Barr and Trump inserted themselves into the middle of a pre-planned operation”

        Here’s the part where White Mike lies about the situation. If challenged he will usually try to dismiss accusations of deliberately lying by saying “Oh, that was just my interpretation at the time”.

      3. Can you quote said report and not your somewhat sketchy impression of it?

        1. No. That would be unfair to his first impressions.

        2. Sure:

          The Park Police had the clearing of the park and installation of the fence planned: “On the morning of June 1, the Secret Service procured antiscale fencing to establish a more secure perimeter around Lafayette Park that was to be delivered and installed that same day. The USPP, in coordination with the Secret Service, determined that it was necessary to clear protesters from the area in and around the park to enable the contractor’s employees to safely install the fence. The USPP planned to implement the operation as soon as the fencing materials and sufficient law enforcement officers arrived at the park.”

          Note that there is nothing in the plan about including a photo op for Trump.

          The report goes on to say: “The operation began at 6:23 p.m. and was completed by 6:50 p.m. Shortly thereafter, at 7:01 p.m., President Trump walked from the White House through Lafayette Park to St. John’s Church. At 7:30 p.m., the contractor began assembling and installing the antiscale fence and completed the work by approximately 12:30 a.m. on June 2.”

          Which implies they would have started working on the fence at 6:50 pm, but instead waited until 7:30 pm.

          1. Except it doesn’t because they hadn’t started erecting the fence by 7:01.

          2. That is not what is implied here.

            What is implied is exactly what happened. They cleared the park. Trump was speaking. They saw an opportunity for a photo and walked down the driveway and across the street to the church that was attacked by an arsonist, probably thinking the religious right would eat it up.

            He looked a bit like an oaf.

            The press fell all over themselves trying to denounce him instead of letting him just look like an oaf.

            Which, of course, backfired and only made Trump look good by comparison. (If this was not your reaction, consider this the telltale sign that you suffer from TDS. The stack of hyperbolic lies tossed out by the media on this one was laughable. If you were cheering instead of laughing.. you were very clearly deranged)

    4. That could be important context. But the core of the case seems to be that the protesters at the time were peaceful and therefore protected by the First Amendment so government agents should be liable for infringing on those rights.

    5. “Please quote the statement in question and link to it.”

      You cannot cite journolist copypasta. It’s in the Reason stylebook.

  6. To be fair, not only could Barr get away with terrible behavior, but it is apparent you can loot and burn in most cities and get away with that too.
    looks like getting away with anything other than attempting an unarmed coup against the US Capitol will be forgotten.

  7. Department found that law enforcement acted against the protesters so that contractors could install a fence, and that Barr only asked that they expedite the process for Trump.

    Dishonest reading of the IG report.

    1. You think?!

      It seems to me that misreading the report is the whole point of the article.

      Maybe Reason should exercise their property rights and do something about the proliferation of “misinformation” on their platform.

      1. “Maybe Reason should exercise their property rights and do something about the proliferation of “misinformation” on their platform”

        Then Rich Uncle Charles Koch will cut off funding. We’re getting what he’s paid for.

        Remember this at the next donation drive.

    2. Look. We all know Trump committed some unspeakable crime that day that he got away with. Billy has to convict him of something, this is Reason after all. OJ got away with killing two people but went to jail for some petty shit years later. Justice served then and now.

  8. Good to see Bozo Billy Binion and Reason in general fighting for violent marxists against society and Western Civilization in general. Congrats.

    1. They think they’ll be eaten last. Maybe they’re right?

      1. Whether they’re eaten last or eaten first, all I know is I won’t be defending them.

        Hell, I’m more than happy to hand them over to the commies…quislings deserve gulags.

  9. So, what? Barr should be able to be sued because the Park Police decided to clear the park?

    *Trump* should be able to be sued because the Park Police decided to clear the park?

    Because the Park Police decided to clear the park – of rioters – in order to put up fencing to protect the park – from rioters. And did so *not* under orders from (or with the knowledge of) Barr or Trump?

    Or did you miss that? The part where the real events were not the same as the narrative and months later the truth comes out? Are you still outraged about the violent attack on that Pride parade – that turned out to be a drunk member of the parade drunkenly screwing up and driving through them because he was drunk?

  10. And the Capitol Police get away with killing trespassers.

    What’s your point? More to the point, why all of the barrels of electronic ink shed over whether or not protesters were cleared from Lafayette Park, and practically none from this worthless rag over the homicide that was committed by a cop on 1/6?

    I thought Reason cared about police use of excessive force?

    1. I though Reason at least cared if we knew the cop’s fucking name after a shoot.

      1. Reason are enemy combatants, and their goal is to take your freedom, property, and life.

    2. Also few concerns about the comically lengthy jail terms that the unarmed protesters on 1/6/21?

      1. It does kinda have a ring of ‘Alice’s Restaurant’ to it.
        Hey Kid. What did you get?

        “I didn’t get nothing. I am being held without bail awaiting charges for the last 5 months”

        Hey, Kid. What are you in for?”

        “Misdemeanor Trespassing”.

        … And they all moved away on the group W bench….

    3. It’s not trespass if the Capitol police let them in. Those cops are on video letting in hundreds of people. One cop said directly “I don’t agree with you but you have a right to do what you’re doing.”

      Shooting a trespasser is one thing (a very sketchy thing). Shooting someone you invited in is just ambush murder.

      1. While I generally agree with the sentiment, Babbit didn’t come in through the front door. She came in by a broken window. With a cop on the other side telling her not to.

        1. With a cop on the other side telling her not to.

          The cop on the other side said absolutely no such thing. He was cowering behind a plant to her left, completely not visible from her vantage point, and did not say one goddamn word when he ran out from behind the plant, placed a pistol directly in her face, and blew her brains out. Mind you she already had a 4-man SWAT team in full body armor standing less than 10 feet behind her, each with a selective-fire military M4 rifle trained on her back. The bullet that traveled through her skull could very well have killed any one of those SWAT officers. I guess that would have been the only way you could be convinced it was a bad shoot. Because you’re a fascist piece of shit bootlicking faggot cocksucker.

    4. I thought Reason cared about police use of excessive force?

      Oh you sweet summer child. Ask them how much they care about the 70 year old man being held without bail in solitary confinement who was beaten nearly to death by 2 black prison guards while being bombarded with racial epithets and is now blind in one eye because of the attack.

  11. Gotta say, I’m getting tired of the copy-and-paste Bivens paragraph every Reason writer feels the need to insert into articles like this.

  12. Holy shit. This is an idiotic article.

    These “peaceful protesters” lit a church on fire, injured more than 50 secret service officers and were assaulting park police. And weapons caches were found nearby.

    I’m ok with security clearing crowds, violent or otherwise, from around the White House.

    1. Look, it was a church of hate so it deserved it. Not at all like the religion of peace that will toss you off a building for liking the wrong sex or the secular religion that will in person you for misgendering someone from their ever expanding list of genders, those things are sacred.

    2. Even funnier they demand that somebody who did not order it and had no say in it to get punished….but do not seem to have much desire for the person WHO GAVE THE DAMNED ORDER to be punished in any way, shape, or form.

  13. “Last month, the Supreme Court declined to consider a case brought by José Oliva, who, at 70 years old, was placed in a chokehold and slammed to the ground by federal cops at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital because he did not furnish his identification quickly enough.”

    They declined to hear it because there was video evidence contradicting Oliva’s account.

    1. Deepfaked. I’m totes sure Binion would have mentioned it otherwise.

  14. A church spontaneously combusted, people rallied in support, and the feds just attacked them for no reason. /sarc

    1. The mysteries of nature shouldn’t be held against mostly peaceful protesters.

  15. Stupidest article Reason has ever published.

    1. That’s pretty strong for a magazine that also has Shikha, Sullum and ENB.

      1. But a reasonable assessment. At some point, the qualities of one individual shit as compared to a different individual shit don’t change that it’s really all just shit.

        And that’s Reason…a festering bowl full of the turds who weren’t cool enough on the cocktail circuit to get a job at the Daily Beast or Vox and weren’t into pedophilia enough to work for the Lincoln Project.

  16. Come on, guys. This is embarrassing.

    Where are you doing your original reporting? Slate? Vox? Maddow?

    As Ken noted, they did an entire report so we could all “learn the facts”… Something that actually was accomplished within the day, if you cared to listen to the park police.

    The story here is that the press flat out lied about this for months on end, getting some dufus riled up enough to file suit against the wrong people for injuries not sustained.

    Well, that and the fact that my flagship publication is floundering badly. I mean if you are going to go down with the TDS ship, at least do some proper reporting and dot those I’s and cross those T’s.

    I am just flabbergasted. You have the train wreck that is Trump, and you guys still bat below the Mendoza line. It is like you went to the same consultant BLM went to for picking their “sure fire” cases of racist police abuse.

  17. You want to know how to spot a propagandist… And a dishonest one at that?

    “conspiracy and violated the Posse Comitatus Act.”

    For those who are not aware, this refers to using the US military for domestic police activity.

    Something that did not happen, that there never was any evidence for, and something that really cannot even be plausibly argued.

    Meanwhile….

    Biden and Pelosi have the armed forces of the US occupying the capital… With a force larger than the force the US has in Afghanistan. Drawn from a military that was explicitly purged of soldiers who had strong opposition to anything Democrat related. Yes, we literally had political purges in the military among non political appointees.

    But sure…. The park police clearing a park under their purview is exactly the same thing as using the US military to enforce domestic policy.

    1. Are we sure that Reason has any editors who understand these big words? How does that claim pass without comment, while long debunked lies get repeated as fact.

      These are big boys, so you are probably safe… But stating factual claims that are known to be untrue is really sniffing around for a libel claim. Failing to comment on a ludicrous claim like violating the Posse Comitatus Act is an editorial decision. Claiming that Barr ordered the military to clear the park at Trump’s behest is not. That is just straight libel, once it has been well established that this is not the case.

      Sure, there is no chance of such a case materializing. But the editorial stance of a publication like Reason should be to avoid such situations in the first place by having a degree of professionalism and diligence in the reporting and editing process.

    2. This. Every dillhole in the MSM said it was Nat Guard troops clearing out protesters when it was obvious from the word go that these were Park Police. Posse Comitatus actually means something and for life if it’s writers, Reason has no idea what that meaning is.

      1. Also, the National Guard has a specific exception from the Posse Comitatus Act, though it is not clear from what I was able to read how the Act applies in a federal jurisdiction like DC.

    3. “Biden and Pelosi have the armed forces of the US occupying the capital…”

      The bestest part is that they’ve refused to appropriate any money to pay for it, so the National Guard is looking at canceling training this year to pay for the shortfall in their budget.

      1. True….but think of the benefits of the lack of mean tweets.

        The writers here are laughable clowns. We know one is one of the more irritating trolls here…I wonder how many others are as well.

      2. They ended the mission and went home last month.

    4. National Guard troops are often called in to provide security and support for domestic issues. It is one of the main things they do. Trump had them at the border to deal with immigration, They also set up security at the Portland riots. It is very common to call in national guard for these kind of situations.

      1. And yet, hilariously, you were shrieking like a histrionic bitch about creeping fascism when the national guard was deployed in each of those situations on state land, called up by the state government, and even blamed Trump for it even though they were called up on state land by state governments. But now a 20,000 strong politically-sorted praetorian guard called up by the federal government on federal lands occupying the entire capital is just good old fashioned American apple pie.

  18. What an embarrassment of an article. Waterboy Binion could not even be bothered to read the deal he was told to put under his name.

    Building an internet albatross hanging from his neck forever.

  19. Meanwhile Guiliani just lost his NY license for spreading the falsehoods about the elections. He is due in court on the Dominion case next week.

    1. The same New York that illegally released Trump’s tax records to the New York Times when the audit they spent 4 years conducting turned up nothing? Sounds serious! I’m glad you brought it up in a completely unrelated thread to deflect from the actual issues under discussion!

  20. Let me understand this. Lafayette Park = innocent protestors whose civil rights were violated by feds. Capitol = violent insurrection. ‘Splain it to me, Lucy.

    And why ‘reason’ pings Bill Barr for this but not for Lon Horiuchi is beyond me too.

    1. B-I-N-G-O!

  21. Notice how Reason didn’t have a peep to say about Bill Barr being a fucking fascist who got off the federal cops that murdered Vicki Weaver during the Ruby Ridge siege. He suddenly becomes the villain when local D.C. cops clear out savagely violent rioters.

  22. Seriously Reason? You are still repeating the already thoroughly disproven assertion of the Trump photo op in order to attempt to legitimize a bunch of violent Antifa and BLM roaches who were already engaged in a violent attack on police in the area between the White House and the Church? You want us to view those “violent but peaceful protesters” as legitimate defenders of the Republic while you regularly call for any punishment short of the death penalty for the people who chose to protest at the Capital on Jan. 6 ? C’mon man, anybody who chooses violence as a tool of protest forfeits his or her right to any protection or consideration by law enforcement. That said, climbing through a broken window or walking down a hallway or chanting political slogans are not acts of violence.

  23. Great post! I appreciate the effort you take to share your knowledge with people. I can find many things that are still unaware of. Thanks for your time and knowledge. Great!In general, this is ok. engagement rings.

Comments are closed.