Jump to content

ATTENTION ALL TDS-ers!


Recommended Posts

From NPR:

 

The U.S. Park Police did not clear protesters from a park outside the White House so then-President Donald Trump could take a photo-op at a nearby church, an Interior Department inspector general's report found.

"[T]he evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day," Interior Department Inspector General Mark Greenblatt wrote in a statement with the report's release Wednesday. "As such, we determined that the evidence did not support a finding that the USPP cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then President Trump could enter the park."

 

The report noted that the Park Police made the decision "to allow a contractor to safely install antiscale fencing in response to destruction of Federal property and injury to officers."

 

The report, however, "does not clear law enforcement on use of force and acknowledges problem with its response. ... This report does not address allegations of individual use-of-force incidents, as those are the subject of separate inquiries as well as ongoing lawsuits."

Two of the problems it pointed to included:

  • "the U.S. Secret Service's deployment before the USPP had begun its dispersal warnings, and
  • "the USPP's failure to provide dispersal warnings that were loud enough for everyone to hear and that told protesters where to exit before the clearing operation began."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Libswatter said:

From NPR:

 

The U.S. Park Police did not clear protesters from a park outside the White House so then-President Donald Trump could take a photo-op at a nearby church, an Interior Department inspector general's report found.

"[T]he evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day," Interior Department Inspector General Mark Greenblatt wrote in a statement with the report's release Wednesday. "As such, we determined that the evidence did not support a finding that the USPP cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then President Trump could enter the park."

 

The report noted that the Park Police made the decision "to allow a contractor to safely install antiscale fencing in response to destruction of Federal property and injury to officers."

 

The report, however, "does not clear law enforcement on use of force and acknowledges problem with its response. ... This report does not address allegations of individual use-of-force incidents, as those are the subject of separate inquiries as well as ongoing lawsuits."

Two of the problems it pointed to included:

  • "the U.S. Secret Service's deployment before the USPP had begun its dispersal warnings, and
  • "the USPP's failure to provide dispersal warnings that were loud enough for everyone to hear and that told protesters where to exit before the clearing operation began."

But even if they HAD cleared it for a Trump photo-op, that would have been perfectly OK.

 

Vermin deserve NO RESPECT, and ALL LIBERALS ARE VERMIN!

 

 

  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, crazyhole said:

It's somewhat hard to believe that the timing is just a coincidence.   I can't fault anyone for thinking the two were connected.   

Why didn't you ask for a link? How do you know the four paragraphs of text wasn't fabricated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, FredH said:

Of course you don't you want to keep up your persona of a stupid bitch!

 

No.  I just tend to doubt versions of events that are "confessed" nearly a year later.

 

Were the 'new and improved' version true, the Park Service would have admitted it last summer.

 

You should give us some reasons why we would  decide to believe this second tale over the first.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scout said:

 

No.  I just tend to doubt versions of events that are "confessed" nearly a year later.

 

Were the 'new and improved' version true, the Park Service would have admitted it last summer.

 

You should give us some reasons why we would  decide to believe this second tale over the first.

 

Confessed? You mean you are surprised the media was able to create a story and keep it alive by muting the source? Do you suppose maybe a Park service run by Democrats would really jump out in front of this lie? WTH is wrong with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...