![]() ![]() John’s Episcopal Church, which had partly been burned by rioters the night before. The Post reported that “police” had used tear gas, adding that “their actions cleared the way” for Trump’s “photo-op” holding a Bible at the St. This is how the Trump administration violently cleared the path for a photo op: It's a video timeline of the federal law enforcement attack on peaceful protesters at Lafayette Square. This, from the is an extraordinary piece of journalism. Metropolitan Police Department, under the control of Democrat Mayor Muriel Bowser, who used tear gas at a different site nearby, after protesters had already been cleared from the park.Īt the time, the Post‘s 12-minute “ video timeline” was celebrated as an important piece of investigative journalism: The report also confirms that it was the D.C. Park Police had already planned to enlarge the perimeter around the White House after violent attacks by rioters on law enforcement, and cleared the park using pepper balls, not tear gas. Those claims have been definitively debunked by an inspector general’s report from the Department of Interior, which confirmed the Trump administration’s story: that U.S. The Court finds that every reasonable officer would have been aware of such a right on June 1, 2020.A look back at how cable news went all in on the debunked narrative that President Trump gassed peaceful protesters for a "photo op." /4pS4aQ8hpc On the latter claim, Friedrich wrote, “The appropriately tailored question is whether a peaceful protestor right to be free from government violence in retaliation for the message of their protest. The first for “an unconstitutional restriction on protected speech”, and a second claim for First Amendment retaliation. The judge also concluded that Trump, Barr, and other federal officials named in the suits had qualified immunity from civil suits and couldn’t be sued for damages.įriedrich did, however, let two claims against the Metropolitan Police Department and the Arlington Police Department proceed. “Merely alleging that the defendant officials communicated, without alleging any details of those communications that suggest an unlawful agreement, cannot justify inferring the requisite agreement for a. “These allegations, taken as true, do not show sufficient ‘events, conversations, or documents indicating an agreement or meeting of the minds’ amongst the defendants to violate rights based on membership in a protected class,’ ” Friedrich wrote. District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that the allegations posed in the lawsuit were too speculative for the suits to proceed. In a 51-page decision in response to the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss the lawsuits, Judge Dabney Friedrich of the U.S. on June 1, 2020, the ACLU of D.C., Black Lives Matters, and others filed suit against Trump, then-Attorney William Barr, and other federal officials alleging that they conspired to violate demonstrators right to protest when they cleared the park to allow Trump to pose for a photo op in front of a nearby historic church. On June 21st, a federal judge dismissed lawsuits filed against then-President Donald Trump and other federal officials who were being sued for violating the rights of protestors last June.Īfter a group of protestors were forcibly removed from Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |