(06-03-2020, 12:45 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Well I haven't really paid attention to this because I've started to work nights again, but isn't the expectation that you are wherever you are supposed to be by 7 pm? So if you live 30 minutes away you shouldn't be leaving to go home at 6:50. But I guess thats whatever because we can't know how long/far everyone is going to need to go.

But if they were told to clear an area because the President was coming through and then didn't listen, then what do you expect? I'm just assuming what Bfine said was true. If you're told to leave an area so the President can pass through then you leave the area or submit to the consequences of not leaving the area. 

(06-03-2020, 12:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The curfew wasn’t in effect. It was before 7pm.

Also, it bars people from being in public spaces. If they were on private property, then they were technically fine.

Also, the media is exempt, but that didn’t stop the police yesterday from roughing up that media crew.

(06-03-2020, 12:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The curfew wasn’t in effect. It was before 7pm.

Also, it bars people from being in public spaces. If they were on private property, then they were technically fine.

Also, the media is exempt, but that didn’t stop the police yesterday from roughing up that media crew.

(06-03-2020, 02:13 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They were assaulted about half an hour before the curfew, and this assault included attacking clergy members in front of the church who were tending to the wounded. 

I don't think the president has the authority to order an attack on civilians and force them from a religious site so that he can use the religious site. Sounds unAmerican, but I guess that's the consequence of clergy using churches? 

We've reached a concerning moment in devout Trumpianity when the president's wish to go to a church apparently justifies the violent removal of the clergy at that church.

(06-03-2020, 07:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I've come to this conclusion based on reading some more information. I'm just done talking about it on here because I'm tired of dealing with the bootlickers.

Quote:Attorney General Barr ordered authorities to clear protesters near White House, DOJ official says



Updated 4:36 PM ET, Tue June 2, 2020


Washington (CNN)Attorney General William Barr on Monday evening ordered authorities to clear a crowd of protesters that had gathered near the White House, according to a Justice Department official, minutes ahead of President Donald Trump's televised address from the Rose Garden.


Barr and other top officials from agencies responsible for securing the White House had previously planned to secure a wider perimeter around Lafayette Square, a federally owned green space just north of the building, in response to fires and destruction caused by protestors on Sunday night.

That plan, developed earlier Monday, would have cleared the area later used for the President's walk to the nearby St. John's Episcopal Church for a photo-op by 4 p.m. ET, the official said.


But it never happened. When Barr arrived at Lafayette Square just after 6 p.m. in a scene that was captured on news cameras and elicited heckles from the large, peaceful crowd, the attorney general saw that the area had not been emptied, and told police to clear the area, the official said.

If federal law enforcement was met with resistance by the protesters, crowd control measures should be implemented, Barr had said, according to the official.


The Washington Post first reported Barr's direct involvement.

Barr had been told that police believed protestors were gathering rocks to throw at law enforcement, and while he was in the park, water bottles were thrown in his direction, the official said. CNN did not witness any water bottles being thrown at the attorney general. Camera footage shows him standing and watching the crowd for several minutes, flanked by a security detail and two senior department officials.


[/url]
[url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/02/politics/us-presidents-protests-change/index.html]How past US presidents engaged with activists and mass protests

Just before 6:24 p.m., police broadcast their first warning for the crowd to distance. A CNN correspondent reporting from the rooftop of a nearby hotel heard three warnings broadcast over the next 10 minutes as authorities moved closer to the crowd.

At 6:35 p.m., authorities began charging the crowd in lockstep with their shields raised, some using their batons to strike the protestors as gas canisters were deployed.

Trump walked over to the church shortly after 7 p.m.

Quote:Official resigns from Pentagon advisory board over Esper's perceived support for clearing protest outside White House


(CNN)A former top policy official at the Pentagon, James Miller, resigned from his role on the Defense Advisory Board due to what he said was Secretary of Defense Mark Esper's visible support for law enforcement officers' clearing of protesters from Lafayette Square on Monday.


Miller called what he saw as Esper's support for suppressing the protest a violation of Esper's oath of office. Miller served as the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for policy during the Obama administration.
"When I joined the Board in early 2014, after leaving government service as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, I again swore an oath of office, one familiar to you, that includes the commitment to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same,' " Miller wrote in a resignation letter addressed to Esper, which was published Tuesday in The Washington Post.

"You recited that same oath on July 23, 2019, when you were sworn in as Secretary of Defense. On Monday, June 1, 2020, I believe that you violated that oath," Miller wrote.

"You may not have been able to stop President Trump from directing this appalling use of force, but you could have chosen to oppose it. Instead, you visibly supported it," Miller added.
Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Col. Robert Carver confirmed to CNN that Miller had resigned but declined to comment on the content of the resignation letter.

On Monday, roughly a half hour before a curfew went into effect for Washington, following a weekend of unrest over the death of George Floyd, law enforcement began pushing back the crowd of peaceful protesters gathered outside the White House with tear gas, flash grenades and rubber bullets.

After they were cleared, President Donald Trump and an entourage of administration officials and security personnel walked to nearby St. John's Episcopal Church, a historic house of worship, where the President posed for photos, some of which included Esper and several other top officials. The exterior of the church had been defaced during protests outside the White House on Sunday and there had been a small fire in the parish house basement, but church leaders said in a statement that the structure was largely "untouched."

Esper told NBC on Tuesday that he thought the trip out of the White House was "to see some damage and to talk to the troops."


"I didn't know where I was going," Esper told the network. "I wanted to see how much damage actually happened."


The secretary also addressed the widespread protests in an internal department-wide memo on Tuesday, saying, "I, like you, am steadfast in my belief that Americans who are frustrated, angry, and seeking to be heard must be ensured that opportunity."

Protesters who have taken to the streets in recent days to draw attention to Floyd's case and police violence across America say they want to see charges for all four police officers involved in his death. So far, officials have only charged the officer who was seen in a video with his knee on Floyd's neck with third-degree murder and manslaughter -- charges the protesters believe aren't harsh enough.

The Defense Advisory Board, which was established in the 1950s during the height of the Cold War, comprises nearly 50 retired senior military, government, and industry leaders, and has advised the Pentagon on issues such as acquisition, cyber and communication technology, and weapons of mass destruction.

(06-02-2020, 10:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: What possible reason could there be for a Republican to care about a bathroom?  

"Esper said he believed they were going to observe the vandalized bathroom in Lafayette Park.”https://t.co/K10xR1AzBw

— Sam Stein (@samstein) June 3, 2020

 

Quote:Defense secretary reverses claim that he thought Trump's 'special place' was a bathroom



Secretary of Defense Mark Esper now admits he knew he was going to a church where Trump posed with a Bible for a photo-op on Monday.


Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Wednesday partially walked back his claim that he had no idea he was going to be part of Donald Trump's widely condemned photo-op on Monday night.


In that incident, peaceful protesters in Washington's Lafayette Park were tear-gassed by military police to clear the way for Trump to walk from the White House to a church to hold up a Bible for the cameras.


Esper, one of the administration officials who walked alongside Trump through the park to St. John's Episcopal Church for the stunt, had told NBC News on Tuesday that he thought he was going to view a vandalized bathroom in the park and had had no idea about the photo-op.


But at a briefing with reporters on Wednesday, Esper said he did know he was going to the church, but claimed he hadn't known Trump would use the visit as a photo-op.


"I did know that we were going to the church; I was not aware that a photo-op was happening," Esper told reporters, adding, "My aim is to keep the department out of politics and to stay apolitical."


Esper continues to try to distance himself from the stunt, which has been condemned by religious leaders, Democrats, and a few elected Republicans.


In the interview with NBC News on Tuesday, Esper said he thought he was going to view vandalism by some demonstrators and talk to troops whom Trump had called in to quell violent demonstrations. He also told NBC News that he did not know the protesters near the White House, who were peacefully calling for an end to police brutality against black Americans in the wake of yet another white police killing of an unarmed black man, had been tear-gassed for Trump's photo-op.


"I didn't know where I was going," Esper said then. "I wanted to see how much damage actually happened."


Prior to his stunt on Monday, Trump gave a speech in the White House Rose Garden vowing to end violent protests.


As Trump delivered his speech, the sound of flash-bang grenades used by the military police could be heard in the background. He ended his remarks by saying he was going to visit a "very, very special place" — which turned out to be the church across from the White House.


It's unclear why Esper would've thought a public toilet fit that description.


Trump and his administration continue to insist that the stunt was not a photo-op, and that peaceful protesters were not tear-gassed.


Trump stood at the church for just a few minutes as he held up a Bible for cameras. He did not say a prayer, nor did he offer remarks.


And protesters were tear-gassed: Gregory Monahan, the acting chief of the United States Park Police, confirmed they used "smoke canisters and pepper balls" to disperse the crowd.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention classifies pepper balls as tear gas.

Quote:Trump claims he went to bunker for 'inspection' amid violent protests


(CNN)President Donald Trump sought to explain his presence in an underground White House bunker during clashes outside the residence on Friday as an "inspection," rather than a retreat for his own safety, telling a radio interviewer Wednesday he was only in the safe room for a "tiny" amount of time.


"They said it would be a good time to go down and take a look because maybe sometime you're going to need it," Trump said, casting the episode as an appraisal of his security logistics rather than an emergency.

Multiple people familiar with the matter described a different scenario to CNN. They said Trump was rushed to the bunker for nearly an hour amid intense protests on Friday evening. A law enforcement source and another source familiar with the matter tell CNN that first lady Melania Trump and their son, Barron, were also taken to the bunker.

The second source told CNN that "if the condition at the White House is elevated to RED and the President is moved" to the Emergency Operations Center "Melania Trump, Barron Trump and any other first family members would be moved as well."


Trump, who was enraged when reports emerged he was rushed to the secure location, told Brian Kilmeade on Fox News Radio that in fact he went during the day and not when protests were raging outside his front door.

"I was there for a tiny, short little period of time," he said, adding it was "more for an inspection."

After the initial reports emerged, Trump fumed that he looked weak and insisted he be photographed outside the White House gates, a demand that ultimately led to his visit Monday to St. John's Church across Lafayette Square.

In his interview, Trump said he'd visited the bunker previously. He said he'd been there "two and a half times."
And he added those, too, were more to get a sense of the space rather than to protect himself from harm.

Trump was speaking as he continues to come under criticism for his walk to the church, which was preceded by police and other law enforcement officials clearing the square of peaceful protesters using chemical sprays and flash grenades.

Some of the most intense critics have been clergy at the church itself, one of whom described the visit as a "charade" because he did not stop to pray or even go inside the building.

Other religious leaders echoed those sentiments, suggesting Trump had used a Bible -- which he held up awkwardly outside the church -- as a prop.

Trump, however, insisted his visit had been widely praised.

"The church leaders loved that I went there with the Bible," he said.

"It's only the other side that didn't like it, you know, the opposing -- the opposition party, as the expression goes," he added. "They burned down the church the day before, I heard how nice and wonderful the protesters were over there. Really? Then why did they burn down the church the day before?"

Trump also claimed he was unaware of the tactics used to clear the park ahead of his visit -- even though the explosions from flash grenades could be heard from his address in the Rose Garden and the smell of pepper spray was in the air as he walked over.

"When I said go to the church, I didn't know, protesters or not, nobody tells me that. They say, 'Yes sir, we'll go to the church,' " he said.

(06-02-2020, 09:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You do understand that a curfew is put in place to safeguard folks don't you?

(06-03-2020, 12:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What is the non-military view of civilians disobeying orders? 

(06-02-2020, 11:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Equal tights for everyone!

(06-03-2020, 08:30 PM)grampahol Wrote: C'mon folks..everyone knows that anyone who disagrees with the unstable genius is an enemy of the people? That's right..if you haven't consumed your gallon of pure bleach yet you may be an enemy of the people. Get drinking and be a true patriot! 

Quote:James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution


In an extraordinary condemnation, the former defense secretary backs protesters and says the president is trying to turn Americans against one another.


James Mattis, the esteemed Marine general who resigned as secretary of defense in December 2018 to protest Donald Trump’s Syria policy, has, ever since, kept studiously silent about Trump’s performance as president. But he has now broken his silence, writing an extraordinary broadside in which he denounces the president for dividing the nation, and accuses him of ordering the U.S. military to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens.



“I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled,” Mattis writes. “The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.” He goes on, “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”

In his j’accuse, Mattis excoriates the president for setting Americans against one another.



“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” Mattis writes. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”

He goes on to contrast the American ethos of unity with Nazi ideology. “Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that ‘The Nazi slogan for destroying us … was “Divide and Conquer.” Our American answer is “In Union there is Strength.”’ We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.”

Mattis’s dissatisfaction with Trump was no secret inside the Pentagon. But after his resignation, he argued publicly—and to great criticism—that it would be inappropriate and counterproductive for a former general, and a former Cabinet official, to criticize a sitting president. Doing so, he said, would threaten the apolitical nature of the military. When I interviewed him last year on this subject, he said, “When you leave an administration over clear policy differences, you need to give the people who are still there as much opportunity as possible to defend the country. They still have the responsibility of protecting this great big experiment of ours.” He did add, however: “There is a period in which I owe my silence. It’s not eternal. It’s not going to be forever.”

That period is now definitively over. Mattis reached the conclusion this past weekend that the American experiment is directly threatened by the actions of the president he once served. In his statement, Mattis makes it clear that the president’s response to the police killing of George Floyd, and the ensuing protests, triggered this public condemnation.

“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago,” he writes, “I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”

He goes on to implicitly criticize the current secretary of defense, Mark Esper, and other senior officials as well. “We must reject any thinking of our cities as a ‘battlespace’ that our uniformed military is called upon to ‘dominate.’ At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.

Here is the text of the complete statement.

Quote:IN UNION THERE IS STRENGTH
I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.
When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

Quote:We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.

Quote:Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.
Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

Quote:We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.
Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.

(06-03-2020, 09:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/?fbclid=IwAR1mf3PKtz63DkoQNgUABxgqTrewRMWQfDXxYoRapUQMx1BZc5bq3Fbbmz0




I remember when Trump brought Mattis on and kept going on about how they called him "Mad Dog" and "tough" he had to be get the name.


Anyone wanna guess what DJT says about him now?

(06-04-2020, 05:43 AM)samhain Wrote: In this vein, I wonder what the likelihood is that Bush 43 makes a statement endorsing Biden over Trump.  I don't think it's terribly far-fetched anymore, and would carry some real weight.  He's made some veiled criticisms already and probably doesn't want to damage his party, but I feel like he's itching to go further.  His dad straight up admitted he was voting for Hillary in 2016, so it's not unprecedented.

(06-04-2020, 09:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: And he found time to speak...lol.

...His primary strength was not military, but rather personal public relations. I gave him a new life, things to do, and battles to win, but he seldom “brought home the bacon”. I didn’t like his “leadership” style or much else about him, and many others agree. Glad he is gone!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2020

Quote:As a Navy veteran, I stand with General Mattis in defending the U.S. Constitution against President Trump's threat to deploy active duty military against our citizens. We, the people have one remedy. Let's unite to elect Joe Biden.

(06-04-2020, 09:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: And he found time to speak...lol.

...His primary strength was not military, but rather personal public relations. I gave him a new life, things to do, and battles to win, but he seldom “brought home the bacon”. I didn’t like his “leadership” style or much else about him, and many others agree. Glad he is gone!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2020

 

(06-04-2020, 11:23 AM)hollodero Wrote: Despite all the other obvious awfulness, I always wonder if Trump is not aware who hired all those terrible former employees in the first place.

He hired someone who is "dumb as a rock" as secretary of state, he hired a "dog" as advisor, he hired the "world's most overrated general" as secretary of defense, his chief of staff was "way over his head", his AG had "neither wisdom nor courage", his personal lawyer was someone he would not recommend to anyone who wants a good one, his communication director was "totally incapable" of handling his position, his security advisor has a history of "big mistakes", "bad judgement" and tried to lead him "into world war 6". Who is picking all those horrible poeople??? 

(06-04-2020, 11:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is his thought process on this, though. He hired those people at the behest of the Republican leadership. They weren't people he would have personally chosen because he wants only extremely loyal people to be in his sphere. But he was pushed to hire these people because Republican leadership wanted them in the thick of things.