Can Anyone Find Evidence Of This?

[DivineOb]

The pattern seems to be, deny until denial won't fly, then claim it was plot by some liberals to invent the evidence making denial impossible, and when that fails, move on, stop talking about it, find something else to talk about.

The fact that they fight so hard to insist no tear gas was used is their own testimony that it would be wrong for it to have been used. So once this is proven they are duty bound to condemn the government. I won't let them forget that.

[oxmixmudd]

The fact that they fight so hard to insist no tear gas was used is their own testimony that it would be wrong for it to have been used. So once this is proven they are duty bound to condemn the government. I won't let them forget that.

And I'll log the excuses for why it was OK after all ...

(the tear gas thing is a rabbit trail anyway. They were gassed, regardless of the type of gas, shot at with non-lethal rounds, flash banged and otherwise forcefully removed to allow the president to without permission (trespass?) use a church property for a grossly inappropriate photo op. Not only that, military helicoptors flying low to generate powerful rotor wash - a dangerous maneuver -were also used later that night to disperse protesters

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-protests.html

Source: above

There’s a reason cases like these end up being investigated. Flying low to the ground kicks up debris, which poses a risk to pedestrians and property—and the helicopter itself. According to Harmer, it’s “almost certain” in an urban area that some debris would make it into the engine. In an absolute worst-case scenario, the engine or systems could fail, and with so little space left to descend, the helicopter would be unable to find a safe landing spot and struggle to avoid crashing. These problems are magnified in a protest setting, where the crowds would make it difficult for pedestrians to flee. In Chinatown on Monday, where the crowds had been funneled between two blocks of three- and four-story buildings, there was little room to spread.

© Copyright Original Source

)

[Charles]

Should we go through this thread and count of the many, many, many errors and falsehoods spread by RWNJ sources about COVID45? Claims you bought hook, line, and sinker and parroted gleefully? Claims which have resulted in actual deaths?

For the rest of time every time someone wants to whinge about left wing news sources I'm going to bring this up because it's just so egregious that it will never be lived down. And Sean Hannity et al. still have their jobs!

A good example but though the evidence is straight up in their face I would be surprised if they were ready to admit they were wrong.

[Cow Poke]

Should we go through this thread and count of the many, many, many errors and falsehoods spread by RWNJ sources about COVID45?....

Why am I only now seeing the "COVID45" reference?

When I do a search for that, there are only 23 posts, and most of them are you, or people responding to you.

[Sparko]

Yes. Faking a news report about finding a tear gas canister and accusing the government of covering it up is the kind of lie which will end your journalistic career. Just ask Brian Williams. Just ask Tom Brokaw. And neither of those are anywhere near as incendiary of examples as this one.

Where have you been for the last 5 years? NYT and CNN fake news routinely.

[Cow Poke]

Where have you been for the last 5 years? NYT and CNN fake news routinely.

Don't we have a thread somewhere chronicling the series of lies and "mistakes"? Including plagiarism and stories totally fabricated out of thin air?

[Sparko]

The fact that they fight so hard to insist no tear gas was used is their own testimony that it would be wrong for it to have been used. So once this is proven they are duty bound to condemn the government. I won't let them forget that.

As CP pointed out, if they were using tear gas, the cops would have been wearing gas masks. They were not. They would have gassed themselves.

[Cow Poke]

As CP pointed out, if they were using tear gas, the cops would have been wearing gas masks. They were not. They would have gassed themselves.

And I pointed out that was "one picture"*, but I'd love to see any pictures where the police were, indeed, "masked up" for chemical dispersal.


*but it was, indeed, THE picture that was being used as 'proof' that there was gas.

[DivineOb]

Don't we have a thread somewhere chronicling the series of lies and "mistakes"? Including plagiarism and stories totally fabricated out of thin air?

Did the reporters in those instances escape sanction?

[DivineOb]

Why am I only now seeing the "COVID45" reference?

When I do a search for that, there are only 23 posts, and most of them are you, or people responding to you.

I wish I could take credit for coming up with it but, alas, I am not nearly clever enough.

[DivineOb]

So the Park Police are starting to walk things back

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/2128160...ar-gas-protest

A US Park Police spokesperson said in an interview it was a “mistake” to insist in a statement on Tuesday that it didn’t use tear gas the day before in Lafayette Square to disperse a crowd ahead of President Trump’s photo op, explicitly noting that pepper balls shot by officials irritate the eyes and cause tears.

“The point is we admitted to using what we used,” Sgt. Eduardo Delgado said. “I think the term ‘tear gas’ doesn’t even matter anymore. It was a mistake on our part for using ‘tear gas’ because we just assumed people would think CS or CN,” two common forms of tear gas.

And we also have an admission that *some* cops had gas masks on

“If we had shot CS or CN, every [Park Police] officer there would’ve had a gas mask on,” said Delgado, who was present the forced dispersal on Monday. “But what you saw were very few officers with gas masks walking through the quote-unquote tear gas with no effects. Now that would be impossible if that was CS or CN and you had no protection.”

[rogue06]

Nothing about the crowd behavior has surfaced so far can justify the level of force used. Especially given the purpose was a photo op of the president holding a bible like some sort of religious crusader. We are talking about justifying a man that wants to deploy active military into us cities against american citizens exercising their first amendment rights on the anniversary of Tiananmen square.

Keep it up mountain man, and you'll be a captain in a police state yet. A traitor to everything this nation stands for.

What you seemed to miss here was the whole "level of force" narrative is being called into question. If it is true, as now seems to be the case, that tear gas was never used, then what other claims of a similar nature are also untrue?

[Cow Poke]

I wish I could take credit for coming up with it but, alas, I am not nearly clever enough.

Ah, so that's a way of pinning this on Trump, eh?

[rogue06]

And yet stable genius Trump posts a picture of an actual barricade calling it bricks.

THAT is a barricade? If it is it'll go down in history as the most ineffective one ever constructed. It is sitting there, by itself, not blocking anything in any way whatsoever. In fact it is off to the side.

[Sparko]

Did the reporters in those instances escape sanction?

sure.

Here is one I remember where the reporter was exaggerating the wind to sell the seriousness of the hurricane, but you can see people walking casually by in the background

And there was a similar one where some reporters were sitting in a rubber raft, showing how bad the flooding was, and again, people just walked by in the background. And recently you had the reporter making a big deal about how nobody was wearing masks and endangering people, and someone walks by and says "neither is your cameraman"

ETA: vido of the raft fake news