Bowser’s About Face: The District Admits Using Tear Gas Against Protesters and Seeks To Dismiss BLM’s Lafayette Park Lawsuit

Below is my column in the Hill on the District of Columbia not only admitting that it used tear gas on June 1 last year near Lafayette Park, but also defending the use as entirely appropriate to enforce the curfew order of Mayor Muriel Bowser. The media has avoided on the story despite Bowser’s previous condemnations of the alleged use of tear gas that night by the federal agencies. (The federal agencies claimed to have use pepper balls but the affect is largely the same). Both the Bowser and Biden Administrations are seeking to dismiss the Black Lives Matter lawsuit. Yet, the host of legal experts and media who condemned the use of tear gas and the clearing  of the Lafayette park area last year are entirely silent on the disclosures.

Here is the column:

A federal judge in Washington is set to decide whether to dismiss a case on behalf of protesters who claim they were injured during the June 1, 2020, protests around Lafayette Park next to the White House. In the course of the arguments, one lawyer stood out in insisting that the use of tear gas against the protesters was entirely reasonable.

What was so striking is that the lawyer, Richard Sobiecki, represents the D.C. government of Mayor Muriel Bowser, who condemned the federal government for its clearing of the area and alleged use of tear gas. Much of the media lionized Bowser for her stance at the time. She received national acclaim for painting “Black Lives Matter” on the street next to the park and renaming it “Black Lives Matter Plaza.”

Now, one year later, Bowser is keeping the BLM plaza but opposing the BLM protesters. Her administration insisted in court that the protesters were legitimately teargassed by the metropolitan police to enforce her curfew that night.

After the park clearing, the media uniformly denounced then-Attorney General Bill Barr for ordering the park to be cleared so that President Trump could hold his controversial photo op in front of the St. John’s Church. The accounts in virtually every news report were quickly contradicted, but few reporters acknowledged the later facts coming out of federal agencies. As I noted in my testimony to Congress on the protest, the clearing of the park raised serious legal questions, particularly the unjustified use of force that night.

However, the repeated claim that Barr ordered the clearing of the area for the photo op was never supported and quickly contradicted. The plan to clear the park was set long before there was any discussion of the photo op, and it was based on the threat posed to the White House compound. Barr said he was unaware of any planned photo op when he approved the plan and that the delay in implementing it was due to the late arrival of needed personnel and fencing. Nevertheless, legal experts like University of Texas professor and CNN contributor Steve Vladeck continued to claim that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.”

The media has also stressed that the clearing and the force used were unjustified because the protests were “entirely peaceful” and there was no “attack on the White House.” That is untrue. As discussed in my testimony, an exceptionally high number of officers were injured during days of continuing protests around the White House complex; some 150 officers were injured, half of those around the White House. That is similar to the level of injuries during the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. And, as with the Capitol riot, authorities decided that a perimeter had to be established around the White House last summer. Indeed, they used the same type of fencing, although the White House perimeter was much smaller than at the Capitol.

While there was less violence that night a year ago, the rioting included the burning of a historic structure, extensive property damage nearby, and the attempted burning of historic St. John’s Church. Indeed, the violence led the Secret Service to move the president into the White House bunker, and officers said they were concerned that the complex might be breached.

That brings us back to the new admission from the D.C. government.

There has long been a dispute as to whether the federal operation employed tear gas. The federal government has maintained that it used pepper balls. As I stated in my congressional testimony, the distinction is really not significant, practically or legally; pepper balls and tear gas can have the same effect on protesters, and both are often referenced together in court orders as “non-lethal riot control devices.”

However, as this debate over the denial of tear gas by the federal operation raged, neither Bowser nor her government stepped forward to say that D.C.’s Metropolitan Police used tear gas in their operations a block or so from Lafayette Park. Instead, Bowser denounced the force used by the Trump administration, including the use of tear gas.

Now, with Trump out of the White House, Bowser’s administration insists there was nothing unreasonable in the use of tear gas to enforce a curfew and is asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit by protesters, including Black Lives Matter DC. The media that spent the past year denouncing the Trump administration over its alleged use of tear gas seems largely silent as Bowser’s administration claims its own use of force was reasonable.

The federal government still apparently denies using tear gas. D.C. police admit to using tear gas nearby to enforce Bowser’s curfew, but she has long insisted that the district did not assist in clearing Lafayette Park, which began before the curfew.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich now must decide if the clearing of the park was done for Trump’s photo op or, as federal agencies claim, to protect the White House as a national security priority.

After the Lafayette Park operation, Bowser declared that “if you are like me, you saw something that you hoped you would never see in the United States of America.” Now, her government is arguing not only that the protesters’ claims should be dismissed but that the district did and can continue to use tear gas in such situations, even to enforce a curfew.

In the meantime, the Biden administration agrees that the case should be dismissed entirely. The Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains that “Presidential security is a paramount government interest that weighs heavily in the Fourth Amendment balance.” The DOJ’s counsel, John Martin, added that “federal officers do not violate First Amendment rights by moving protesters a few blocks, even if the protesters are predominantly peaceful.”

The response to that from the media has been … crickets.

What a difference a year — and a new president — can make.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

61 thoughts on “Bowser’s About Face: The District Admits Using Tear Gas Against Protesters and Seeks To Dismiss BLM’s Lafayette Park Lawsuit”

  1. Well at least they weren’t shot like us white people on January 6th protesting a stolen election.

  2. Unfortunately the hypocrisy rages on all sides, especially when Trump’s name is mentioned. Trump gets castigated for everything he does, while others who do the same thing get a different treatment, if even acknowledged at all. It’s so bad that these days you can say “Trump likes cheeseburgers” is enough for some people to stop eating cheeseburgers altogether. The level of extremes people go to distance themselves from the other side will probably only get worse as time goes on, sadly.

    And as for the tear gas hypocrisy in this article, I fully expect it to get swept under the rug since it doesn’t involve Trump.

  3. Rational people will read the facts of this story and conclude these Democrat politicians have told the most egregious lies to the American people, all for political gain. Only the demoralized, useful idiots of the Left would completely miss Bowser’s 180 degree turn on the facts of the case.

    In the meantime, Biden/Harris will have escaped another day of media scrutiny over Russian hackers, pipelines, southern border invasion, Iran, Hunter, inflation, Fauci, Wuhan Lab, China threat, etc.

    1. Olly, Olly, Olly,

      There IS media scrutiny of ALL the controversies you listed. Ever watch Fox News, NewsMax, OAN, Blaze TV, RTAmerica, InfoWars?

      The Rightwing media is investigating these matters! After all, you wouldn’t trust the mainstream media to investigate these matters in the first place! So what’s the problem?

  4. Natacha said:

    “If Trump hadn’t lied about fraud being the reason for his defeat and hadn’t gone on the “Stop the Steal” tours at taxpayer expense, and if he hadn’t told his followers to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more” does any reasonable person believe that the Trump Insurrection would have happened?”

    Of course not! But for the fact of Turley’s allegiance to Fox News, he would have acknowledged the unassailable fact of Trump’s “Big Lie”- 2 words which he has never uttered to date. His reservation to confront the reality of his network’s complicity in fomenting the “Stop the Steal” narrative may lead to his good name being lumped in with the likes of disgraced Trump lawyers Lin Wood, Sidney Powell and Giuliani. That would be a travesty, but Turley runs that risk unless he goes further than merely denouncing Trump’s speech on 1/6 as “wrong” and “reckless,” by stating that the assault on the Capitol would not have occurred but for Trump’s weeks of unremitting lying and Fox’s reckless broadcasting of his lies to millions of its captive viewers.

    1. Jan 6 is a joke. The only people hurt were the protestors-rioters. I would think there would have been much less of a chance of a riot if there hadn’t been 39+ deaths and over $2 billion in damage over the summer. Damage done to private citizens, not government lackeys. Where is the outrage for them? Of course, you can just turn a deaf ear to the fact that there has been ongoing rioting, death, and destruction, but that does not mean you can remove it from history. Your complicit media has done its best to do that very thing, but the evidence and documentation largely remain. “Firey, but mostly peaceful protests…”

    2. Americans who have little or no emotional intelligence will spin any story to push their communist agenda.

  5. Chemical irritants like tear gas and pepper spray are dangerous, especially to those with respiratory disease. I don’t think it should be used on non combatants.

    1. i don’t think it should be used on non combatants.”

      Figure out what exactly is being debated here and stick with proper analogies.
      Are civil riots war? If not don’t use war analogies, or rules of combat.

    2. A non-lethal response to insurrections and riots where there have abortive Choice(s). Better an irritant than a scalpel or bullet and a Planned Protestor.

  6. Do you get a bonus for today’s little trash piece, Turley? You get to bash non alt-right media and Democrats both at the same time. First of all, we have the word of your good buddy Barr: “Barr said he was unaware of any planned photo op when he approved the plan and that the delay in implementing it was due to the late arrival of needed personnel and fencing”. So all you have is Barr’s word that he was “unaware” of the planned photo op. I don’t believe that any more than I believe his deceitful synopsis of the Mueller Report. Secondly, people need to read carefully exactly what you write because you are sneaky. The prepositions “in” and “near” are not the same. D.C. used tear gas “near” Lafayette Park to enforce the curfew, not “in” the park. That is a huge difference. The feds used tear gas or pepper balls “in” the park just before the photo op. That’s not the same thing.

    As to the level of alleged violence at that particular moment and in that particular place, you claim: “an exceptionally high number of officers were injured during days of continuing protests around the White House complex; some 150 officers were injured, half of those around the White House.” You then attempt to draw a direct comparison to the clearing of the park and the Trump Insurrection. You should be ashamed, Turley. How many officers were injured in Lafayette Park at the specific time that the feds tear gassed the protesters? Was there violence in that place and at that time? Hell no, and you do know better. In addition to peaceful protesters there were Episcopalian clergy and seminarians who were there to pass out water and snacks to the protesters. I saw the video. There was no violence.

    Most of all you should be ashamed for once again going after a Democrat woman of color. They are a frequent target of the alt-right media, and as a member of this group, you are doing the same. You have nothing whatsoever to say about that unhinged Marjorie Taylor Green and her accusations of “Jewish space lasers” causing the California wild fires, her comparison of having proof of vaccination with Jews required to wear the Star of David, or her bat guano crazy display of her mental illness outside AOC’s office, in which she yelled at AOC through the mail slot to “change her diaper” and come out and engage in a debate with her.

    P.S.: “affect” and “effect” aren’t the same thing, Turley.

    1. If Turley IS a GOP shill as you have claimed a 1000x here, why does he allow you to post and “expose” him?

      Natatcha: “Do as the Demonkrautz say, not as we do.”

    2. Natacha, Turley is not asking for us to believe his buddy Barr. He is telling us that the use of tear gas was allowed by the Democratic Mayor of D.C. You know the one known as your buddy Mayor Bowser. For months the MSM and the Democrats screamed from the roof tops that Barr gave the order. Now we find that the Democratic Mayor was the culprit and she would do it again if necessary. They used the BLM for as long as they found them useful. This is not the first evidence of your divorce from reality.

      1. You could use some help with reading comprehension. Mayor Bowser did not tear gas the protesters outside of St. John’s. That was the feds.

    3. Natacha, you say that the feds used tear gas. The Mayor of D.C. admits it was the D.C. police that used the tear gas. The Mayor says it was justified. It’s like you never read the words. Your narrative is so deeply imbedded in your head that you now, in effect, tell us that the Democratic Mayor is now lying. Oh what a tangled web you sieve when such a tangled brain you weave.

      1. No, she didn’t. That was, according to the above piece, a “block away” from the church.

    4. Natacha,

      While Turley has not condemned Marjorie Green for her anti-Semitic statements as you well note, he did manage to post an article on January 14, 2021, denouncing her immediate call to file Articles of Impeachment against Biden. Contrary to the delight of Trumpists here and everywhere who would have supported that call, Turley had this admonition:

      “However, as I often point out in testimony in Congress, it is as important in our constitutional system how you do something as what you do. Impeachment should not be a recreational or retaliatory tool for the opposition. I viewed this second [Trump] impeachment as justifiable but poorly executed. There was an attack on Congress and Trump bore great responsibility in this disgraceful incident. My opposition to the second Trump impeachment was primarily to the use of a snap impeachment without even a hearing or chance to amend the language. I also had serious misgivings over the language of the article while I recognized that Trump’s conduct overall could be legitimately viewed as impeachable. I think that the House could have allowed for a hearing and an opportunity consider the implications of the language which I believe was too sweeping. In the end, the language secured just 10 Republican votes. A more tailored article may have secured even more votes and a motion for censure might have secured a majority of both parties.”

      Turley is not a Trumpist despite his contention that the Democrats did not illicit sufficient evidence to impeach. But had they done so, Turley would have approved the verdict unlike the Trumpists here who believe the Impeachment was a witch-hunt….

      We must remember that on principle, Turley stands with us- not with them.

      1. There is nothing that could have been placed into Articles of Impeachment that would have resulted in any more Republicans voting for impeachment. The problem was not the Articles or how they were written, but the Republicans, who are in lock-step with the most-incompetent and corrupt person ever to occupy the White House. If Trump hadn’t lied about fraud being the reason for his defeat and hadn’t gone on the “Stop the Steal” tours at taxpayer expense, and if he hadn’t told his followers to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more” does any reasonable person believe that the Trump Insurrection would have happened?

    5. Natasha, The Biden DOJ and the lawyers for the DC government both want the BLM lawsuit dismissed. But you know better? Bowser FINALLY admitted she lied by omission and deceived the country. But you know better? Professor Turley is a highly respected constitutional law scholar and expert. He was called to testify in two presidential impeachment trials. But you know better? Self-aggrandisement and delusion, thy name is Natasha.

      1. Turley is not as “highly respected” as he once was because he sold his credibility to Fox. Bowser did not lie by omission or otherwise, and nothing in this piece changes the fact that peaceful protesters were cleared with tear gas or pepper balls by the feds so Trump could have a fake photo op holding a Bible outside of a church. This was allegedly “refuted”, per Turley, by his buddy Bill Barr who claimed he was “unaware” of the photo op in advance. I don’t believe him for lots of reasons, but mostly because phony, orange “macho man” had 35 Secret Service agents hiding in trees and behind bushes, so he could strut his fat ass over to pose in front of the church, but not look like the coward he is by a contingent of heavily-armed Secret Service surrounding him. D.C. used tear gas “a block away” from St. John’s, where some demonstrations were not peaceful. Not the same thing at all, but never let that get in the way of criticizing a Democrat, especially a woman of color.

  7. This lawsuit was brought by a BLM entity? I thought Joe and others told us that no such organization exists.

  8. While i agree about the difference a year — and a new president — can make, i laugh hysterically at the the tear gas/pepper spray tightrope you’ve tried to walk since defending the administration last summer…

    “However, the repeated claim that Barr ordered the clearing of the area for the photo op was never supported and quickly contradicted. The plan to clear the park was set long before there was any discussion of the photo op, and it was based on the threat posed to the White House compound. ”

    The above is just the latest variation of hair splitting, Turley.

    But hey, checkmark for finding a way to drag in the latest entry to the vaunted Turley enemy list, one Steve Vladek. He joins Eric Loomis, Jennifer Rubin, Sally Yates, and Eric Swallwell at the children’s table it appears. Hell hath no fury like a party lawyer who gets called out in public, ay? My guess is there’s a secret wagering pool to see who can get Jonathan Turley to chuck a nutty on his blog by what you can pack into a compressed amount of time on the air or in print.

    Shoulda bailed when your buddy Barr did, JT.

    eb

    1. God you’re an ugly AH.

      Come on as a guest and throw insults at the host.

      Typical Lefty behavior: lob insults from the safety of an anonymous handle.

      Your mother must be proud.

      1. Thank you. Thank you very much. Sidebar: I have much more respect for Turley than you do.

        eb

    2. elvisbug. There is no hair splitting when the D.C. mayor says the D.C. police were the ones who used tear gas. It seems that the one walking the tightrope is you. Well the Democrats falsified the narrative about the tear gas and it got your vote. Looky here EB, Trump bad man and I’m sitting right hear at your kitchen table to pick up your vote. Put your X right here. Bringing in the sheaves, bringing in the sheaves, we will come rejoicing bringing in the sheaves. Democratic harvester to another Democratic harvester, “boy that guy was gullible”.

      1. Well, that boy has had business dealings with the wreckage that is the trump organization dating back a ways so I’ve been familiar with how he works. And the idea that I’d get bamboozled somehow into not voting for trump assumes that there is some possible scenario where I actually would vote for trump — a hilarious proposition on its own.

        Just curious exactly what makes you think I’m missing something on the tear gassing? I watched live coverage of it and saw reporters actively dealing with tear gas. Governments use tear gas to break up demonstrations. They did it there. They did it in Louisville. They did it in Minneapolis. Across the whole country. The dance around it always was on Fox News, and with Turley/Barr et.al. around whether it was a possibility or not. Total s%^t show watching it play out last summer.

        Except, oh yeah, police didn’t use it on 1/6 as people charged the Capitol steps. Hmmm. Wonder what’s up with that? Nor were rubber bullets or offensive baton work. Standard responses in last year’s demonstrations everywhere.

        Like your singing though. Dare you to post a video of you bellowing in song.

        eb

  9. The government lawyers are duty bound to put on the best legal defense that they can, even if it is not politically popular. Also those who ordered the gassing are gone.

    1. List the names of the “those who ordered the gassing” whom “are gone” and the dates of their exit. From what dark place up your alimentary canal did you find this gargantuan piece of garbage?

  10. “Barr said he was unaware of any planned photo op when he approved the plan and that the delay in implementing it was due to the late arrival of needed personnel and fencing.”

    Let him be questioned about it under oath. He should be asked why they didn’t simply wait another half hour until the curfew time.

    “the Biden administration agrees that the case should be dismissed entirely.”

    They’re wrong too.

    “The DOJ’s counsel, John Martin, added that ‘federal officers do not violate First Amendment rights by moving protesters a few blocks, even if the protesters are predominantly peaceful.’”

    But the fact is that they also cleared members of the Church who were on Church property, and any discussion of the events needs too address that too. They had no legal right to force church members off their property with pepperballs.

    1. They had no legal right to force church members off their property

      After 12 months of govt baring members from their churches, and SCOTUS allowing it, the statement is factually wrong.

      1. “the statement is factually wrong.”

        The only error in my statement is that I should have said “clergy” instead of “church members.” Thanks for prompting me to correct this.

        They weren’t inside the church. They were on church property outside the church, where it was entirely legal for them to be. The DC government hadn’t barred anyone from being outside the church (or outside businesses, etc.), SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on people outside, nor is there any SCOTUS ruling saying that clergy can be barred from inside their churches.

        1. They weren’t inside the church. They were on church property outside the church,

          As usual, you miss the point. SCOTUS has ruled the federal govt has to power to control at their whim, the actions and property of churches. The left loves this when the Dems are shutting down Synagogues. When California was threatening to jail Ministers, the left was having orgasms. They always assume the govt stripping citizens of their freedom is great when the left is in power and only does for the good of all. Never thinking far enough into the future for a time they are not in power.
          If the government can shut down churches, then when the President wants a church cleared because he needs to go there for the good of all, then the government has the power to clear that church. Democrats have set the precedent.

          1. “SCOTUS has ruled the federal govt has to power to control at their whim, the actions and property of churches.”

            No, it has not, though apparently you imagine that it did. If you link to the SCOTUS ruling that you imagine did that, we can read what they actually said and why it doesn’t come close to saying that “the federal govt has to power to control at their whim, the actions and property of churches.”

            “he needs to go there for the good of all”

            He didn’t need to go there at all, and it was NOT “for the good of all.” He did it for a self-serving photo op.

  11. Guess it mattered when the chickens came your roost. Why this is not bigger news, well……

  12. A Bowser is a dog from Ireland which doesn’t bark. It can artFay and speaks latin.

  13. Homeland Security Chair Asks Secret Service To Explain Use Of Tear Gas On Protestors Before Trump’s Visit To St. John’s.
    House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson is requesting an immediate briefing on the Secret Service’s use of tear gas on protestors outside the White House before President Donald Trump’s visit to St. John’s Episcopal Church.

    Thompson asked for a briefing “to understand the role of the United States Secret Service in planning, coordinating and executing these actions” to be delivered no later than June 5.
    https://www.newsweek.com/homeland-security-chair-asks-secret-service-explain-use-tear-gas-protestors-before-trumps-visit-1508205

    1. I don’t do it often but just to keep my hand in, I followed the Newsweek link.
      Full of lies and distortion. The same thing keeps comming to mind. If it was so awful, we the need to lie?

  14. Government Use of Tear Gas Is Illegal in War. It Should Be Illegal Here, Too.
    1/2/2018: The U.S. Border Patrol fired tear gas into Mexico for a second time on Tuesday morning in an effort to stop a group of about 150 migrants who were attempting to cross into the United States.

    This piece originally appeared at The Washington Post’s PostEverything.

    Pictures of migrant women and children fleeing in panic as tear gas canisters were fired at them by U.S. border agents this week shocked many Americans, but the Trump administration praised the Border Patrol for responding “admirably and responsibly” in deploying the “accepted use of nonlethal force.”

    But using tear gas on a crowd of unarmed, largely peaceful migrants, including children, is far from “accepted.” Under international human rights law, U.S. border officials may use force only when necessary, and the force used must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the legitimate objective to be achieved — when it is necessary to maintain order and protect lives. By the Border Patrol’s own unverified account, only four of its agents were hit by rocks or other projectiles, and their protective gear ensured that they were not injured. That clearly doesn’t justify hurling Triple-Chaser tear gas grenades against a crowd of a few hundred largely peaceful men, women, and children.
    https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/government-use-tear-gas-illegal-war-it-should-be

  15. I still dont understand the debate about the use of less than lethal means to control crowds.
    The dicotomy of this particular event’s narrative treatment is just mainstream propaganda agents standard exposed. Republican use of tear gas is impeachable, Democrat use of tear gas is smart and compassionate.

    1. I dare you to quote anyone saying “Republican use of tear gas is impeachable, Democrat use of tear gas is smart and compassionate.”

        1. You haven’t presented any evidence that it’s “an accurate summation of the media’s perspective.” Can you quote evidence to back up your claim, or can’t you?

      1. I said it you insufferable moron.

        My conclusion is supported by Incompetent Bowser admitting she ordered the use of tear gas, while at the same time criticized the Feds for using tear gas a few blocks away.
        The use of teargas does not violate any laws.

        1. Thanks for demonstrating that you have no evidence for your claim “Republican use of tear gas is impeachable, Democrat use of tear gas is smart and compassionate.”

          For the record, Richard Sobiecki, NOT Bowser, said that the MPD used tear gas. He did not say that Bowser ordered it, much less did he say anything like “Republican use of tear gas is impeachable, Democrat use of tear gas is smart and compassionate.” Did you falsely claim that Bowser “admitt[ed] she ordered the use of tear gas” on purpose (lying) or only by mistake?

  16. A free pass from the media is not reserved for Democrat-employed cops who fire teargas on protestors. If you happen to be a Democrat-employed cop who shoots and kills an unarmed female military veteran trespassing at the U.S. Capitol, you too are exempt from media inquiry.

        1. Strange that you think “traitor” and “treason” are synonyms. They aren’t. Nor have you demonstrated any double standard.

          1. Who you gonna believe? Anonymous above or your lying eyes?

            Capitol police shot and killed a FEMALE MILITARY VETERAN for trespassing and not one MSM complaint because they painted her as a right wing zealot. When Trump was POTUS Lafayette Park was a GOP maelstrom of mayhem.

            Now that Biden is POTUS Lafayette Park was appropriate and legal. If that woman was a BLM adherent at Lafayette Park we’d have heard 100000000x that Trump murdered her in cold blood, he’s worse than Hitler and Pol Pot, etc.

            You would not admit DNC malevolence and lies if it dropped on your head like a piano. Your very post itself is a malevolent DNC lie.

            I dislike Trump, maybe even hate him. It doesn’t mean the DNC is not worse than Trump because they are.

    1. Strange that you think the US Capitol Police are “Democrat-employed.” The USCP is a federal police force, “overseen by the Capitol Police Board and has Congressional oversight by appropriations and authorizing committees from the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate” (uscp.gov/the-department/oversight). A reminder that on Jan. 6, there was a Democratic majority in the House and a Republican majority in the Senate.

      “an unarmed female military veteran trespassing at the U.S. Capitol”

      She wasn’t simply trespassing. She was attempting to climb into the Speaker’s Lobby, which opens directly onto the floor of the House, and obstructing an official proceeding. Take a look at the charges against some of the other people there with her, like Zachary Alam, the guy who broke the glass in the window that Babbitt tried to climb through, and John Sullivan, who videotaped her: justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

      The officer who killed her hasn’t been exempt from media inquiry. There’s lots of reporting about the shooting, just Google something like officer who shot ashli babbitt

      1. And the house chamber was empty of congressional reps &staffers…the videos prove that…so does killing a protester still valid reason or excuse ?

        1. If you link to the video you’re referring to, I’ll gladly look at it to see if it proves what you say.

  17. “As I noted in my testimony to Congress on the protest, the clearing of the park raised serious legal questions, particularly the unjustified use of force that night.”

    “The media has also stressed that the clearing and the force used were unjustified because the protests were “entirely peaceful” and there was no “attack on the White House.” That is untrue. As discussed in my testimony, an exceptionally high number of officers were injured during days of continuing protests around the White House complex; some 150 officers were injured, half of those around the White House.”
    ******************************
    Most folks would think given the level of outright violence against government institutions and personnel, any level of force short of rolling tanks was warranted. If you wanna see an “insurrection” forget Jan. 6th and look to Lafayette Park. And who cares if it was pepper balls versus tear gas? As you say, it makes no difference to the rioter. Or to me for that matter. Arson would have justified deadly force and spare me the “not everybody was doing it” argument. Aiding and encouraging is the same as doing the crime itself.

    If you live in DC and believe in divine justice, I’d be building an ark about now or leaving DC and not looking back.

  18. Hypocrisy and mendacity are their stock in trade. The worst thing is that the legacy media is quiet and the general public know very little of these actions.

  19. BOWSER is a Radical Left Wing Mayor and one of the worse mayors in the country. She is unqualified and a nut case whichmakes her perfect for a DEM Mayor of DC.

    MEDIA?? they are a joke. They are silent on their allies corruption, abuse of power and etc. If its anti Trump they are silent if Trump did it they are 1000000% against. People are turning them off, just look at their Ratings.

    Lets see what happens, it would not surprise me they still Blame Trump and Barr.

  20. The truth is that politicians are liars.

    They lie without remorse and without consequences.

    When Trump lied, the media (and the posters on this blog) howled in outrage.

    Now Lefty politicians are caught lying and there is little comment.

    Many of the Lefty posters make valid points, but given their moral dishonesty, I rarely pay much attention (other than to note that dishonesty).

Leave a Reply