Trump photo op was not reason police cleared protesters from Lafayette Park, new report says

Seems to be the most likely explanation.... your post predates my post #100, which is the same basic premise...

Well done!

 

You're right - the story is about some new info coming from the IG. And if you want to gobble it up whole without comparing it to the info given by the Trump administration, you are welcome to do so. And ignoring the questions I'm asking you is your right as well. But it certainly makes 'discussion' on a 'discussion board' difficult. So I guess you and I can just stop now.

 

Good move since you want to move the goalposts.

 

They ate it up like Russia Russia Russia, peeing on hookers, calling the KKK fine people, drinking bleach, Covid coming from bats, Hydroxychloroquine being poison and evil, Trump being responsible for every Covid death, Trump calling ALL Mexicans murderers and rapists, telling people to storm the capital or cause violence or any of the 1000s of leaks from unnamed sources in the White House.

Just one lie after another. But it worked didn’t it?

 

Man, that is SO lame.... is that really the best you have?

I know personally it's not.

Do better.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-c...ruz4oc-Cal7FkkSLf6S2iPtUxNqdRjYlw2yC0PFZ2M0ng

Of course you are not buying it...

BBC is trying to gain some respect back after William trounced on their past misdeeds.

 

No... It didn't work. They had to resort to election fraud.

 

that is all that matters

 

Let's put it this way.... I agree with the BBC that the US park police didn't clear the area for the T**** walk.

I also believe the Norwegians were not responsible for 9/11...

 

False and not the report does not make it clear Barr ignited it all but do quote from the report that stays Barr was the person who ordered the additional fencing and scheduled when it would be installed. And there were warnings issued. The Park Police and Secret Service do not work for Barr they were in charge. Give it up, Trump had nothing to do with the efforts to protect the park and the church from the rioters who had taken it over and were engaged in their insurrections.

 

The truth is not bizarre and your attack on Trump does not refute the facts. It was not about Trump, Barr, Manfort, Flynn, Stone and all the other spaghettis you are throwing hoping something will stick to the wall. I would think you would have learned long ago not to take the MSM fake news as reality.

 

"" "The evidence established that relevant (Park Police) 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."

Greenblatt also found that Barr's physical presence in the park had no impact on the decision to clear the park. Widely circulated video shows Barr entering Lafayette Square after 6 p.m. with his security detail and other White House staff members.""

 

" "The evidence established that relevant (Park Police) 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."

Greenblatt also found that Barr's physical presence in the park had no impact on the decision to clear the park. Widely circulated video shows Barr entering Lafayette Square after 6 p.m. with his security detail and other White House staff members."

 

First paragraph is correct, but incomplete...

Second paragraph is unknown, since he didn't interview Barr or the Secret Service...

You have to know this report is not the whole story, right?? It's told almost exclusively from the standpoint of Park Police, who understandably knew nothing about an unplanned trip by the POTUS...

 

It's as complete as is complete, Barr had no role nor did Trump.

 

We shall see one day via some mechanism.... But today is not that day and that report is not that mechanism...

 

Oh, I learned a long long time ago that thought - terminating clichés are not a competent rebuttal, if the entirety of your rebuttal is premised on it, which it is.

And who planted them in your mind?

Ahhh 'twas none other than one Donald J. Trump.

Circularisms, anyone?


Incompetent rebuttals are arguments where the salient premise is based on: [highlighted pertains to your comment]
non arguments, a non argument isn't really debatable or it's not worthy of debate owing to any of the following types, they come in many different flavors, especially those which contain vacuous declarations and/or allegations (which cannot be substantiated, i.e., 'making stuff up'), rebuttals rife with weasel words ( improper use of generalities such as 'some people are saying' 'everyone knows' 'well-established fact'.) ad hominems, loaded terms & phrases,, off topic/irrelevant deflections, sentiments (words that reveal emotional attitude devoid of fact, logic and reason) off point arguments/deflections (off point is a sibling to off topic, where off topic is attempting to highjack the thread. It's done a lot in internet forums, and if the person to whom you directed the topic change accepts it, then you're off into a new direction, but, as such, of course, doesn't refute the original premise offered), egregious strawman arguments, egregious cynicism, off-the-charts ill-logic, 'kill the messenger" tactics, i.e., attacking the person presenting the argument rather than the argument, itself ( the only time kill the messenger is valid is for a well-established discredited source, such as Alex Jones, David Duke, etc, ), childish remarks, trivialising your opponent's argument -- cheap shot, childish or sophomoric comments/logic arising from ignorance (for example, NYTimes is a 'radical leftist rag' -- that's a remark born out of ignorance, it's also an 'kill the messenger' tactic) and then there is the classic thought-terminating cliché; these are cult-tropes, born out of groups who have a demagogue leader who is the master of implanting them in his flock. See, the demagogue doesn't like dissent, so when anyone challenges someone in his flock, he, being a master mind manipulator, will have planted a number of thought-terminating clichés into the minds of his subjects ( via repetition) so they will toss it up to the opponent in an attempt to kill the conversation ( wrongfully thinking it improves their argument ) so TTCs are simple terms catch phrases or words whose sole purpose is, to kill the conversation, such as 'TDS' "NeverTrumper" "Leftist Loony" "MSM fake news" (noting that the terms are not necessarily devised by the demagogue himself, they could be created by other believers, or have already been around and adopted by and they catch on with the group ) etc., pithy aphorisms assumed to be always true ( aphorisms exist because empirical observations tend to be true, but cannot be used as the salient premise to refute an argument as they are not, nor cannot be, absolute), last, but not least, and a significant debate sin, is posturing; posturing type comments, come in two basic categories, one is where you flaunt, i.e, for example, your military service, but of course if the argument can be improved by your qualifications of expertise in a field, that is okay, what I mean is something like 'I served while you were dodging the draft" whereupon your service doesn't improve your argument about whether dodging the draft was moral, or not, or flaunting your education, or authority of some kind, unless it's pertinent to the argument, and the other type of posturing are those comments which are motivated by puffing oneself up, and this is done by shaming, belittling, mocking, patronizing, 'mansplaining', flaming, where one talks down to ones opponent in order to puff oneself up.

 

So you just want to be argumentative rather than add anything of substance towards the issue here...................gotcha

 

That day has come. You are in denial.

 

We have seen, we saw at the time and this confirms it. Another one bites the dust...............

 

You're the the one premising an argument on a thought-terminating cliché.

You wrote:

The truth is not bizarre and your attack on Trump does not refute the facts. It was not about Trump, Barr, Manfort, Flynn, Stone and all the other spaghettis you are throwing hoping something will stick to the wall. I would think you would have learned long ago not to take the MSM fake news as reality.

That argument is premised on a thought-terminating cliché. I mean, if you are going to criticize someone's lack of substance, then you ought to make sure you are providing arguments of substance, yourself, in other words:

Practice what you preach, before your preach, and then someone might listen.

 

It's Fake News. Yet another pack of lies by the Leftwing Fake News Liars in service of the Democrat Narrative. Trump's right again!

CNN’s Sassy Jim Acosta still peddling fake news after trashing report that cleared Trump over Lafayette Park tear gas crowd-clearing incident.

 

One more new recruit to the blindly believe what the government tells them club.

This thread is going to be so much fun next when when you all go back to saying the government cannot be trusted

 

Yes it was fake news on the part of the MSM who created the false narrative and then set their hair on fire attacking Trump. Have they all apologized yet?

 

For what reason? The vast majority of the reportage on Trump is absolutely factual.

Manafort had been colluding with a russian spy. This idea that Trump didn't know about it is completely and utterly implausible.

The man has betrayed America on so many levels, and needs to be prosecuted. Hell, his incompetence on Covid caused 10s of thousands of needless deaths. His failures on environment have set America back years. the man is an existential threat to national security and the environmental health of the planet, and, not to mention the fact he is an ignoramous boobclown of epic proportions, the laughing stock of the world only to be admired by dictators.

If anything, Republicans should apologize to every human on planet earth for their election of Donald Trump.