theamericanconservative--2020-06-04--The Worse the Better: Why Antifa Wants Trump to Win

They figure four more years will move the U.S. to even higher levels of chaos—and get them closer to power .
Many thoughtful observers on the right—including Ross Douthat , Rod Dreher , and Dan McCarthy—have pointed out that the current protesting and rioting is likely to help Donald Trump and the Republicans .
That is , the ongoing violence , fomented by leftist elements , including Black Lives Matter and Antifa , could boomerang against Joe Biden and his Democrats .
However , the planted assumption here is that the vandals and looters want Joe Biden to win .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , maybe the truth is just the reverse .
To be sure , the protesters and looters all hate Donald Trump .
And yet actions speak louder than words , and their actions on the street suggest a kind of anti-matter affection for the Bad Orange Man .
That is , each act of violence obscures the memory of George Floyd , who died at the knee of a Minneapolis policeman , and raises the prospect of a national backlash against both peaceful protestors and violent looters , offering a ray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Douthat quotes Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow , whose research shows that back in the 1960s , peaceful civil rights protests helped the Democrats , while violent protests ( also known as riots ) hurt the Democrats .
In Wasow ’ s words , “ proximity to black-led nonviolent protests increased white Democratic vote-share whereas proximity to black-led violent protests caused substantively important declines.
” And that ’ s how Republican Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968 .
We might add that Humphrey was a lot like Biden .
Both were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as reliable liberals , not as hard-edged leftists .
So now we ’ re starting to see where Biden , a pillar of the smug liberal establishment—he once told a group of donors that if he ’ s elected , “ nothing would fundamentally change ” —veers away from the far-left ideologues amidst the mobs .
Let ’ s let Andy Ngo–who has shed blood , literally , while chronicling bullyboy leftists—define the ideology of Antifa and Black Lives Matter : “ At its core , BLM is a revolutionary Marxist ideology .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cullors , BLM ’ s founders , are self-identified Marxists who make no secret of their worship of communist terrorists and fugitives , like Assata Shakur .
They want the abolition of law enforcement and capitalism .
They want regime change and the end of the rule of law .
Antifa has partnered with Black Lives Matter , for now , to help accelerate the breakdown of society.
” We can observe that by “ regime change , ” these revolutionary leftists don ’ t mean replacing Trump with Biden—they mean replacing capitalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if one looks at a Twitter feed identified by Ngo as an Antifa hub , It ’ s Going Down , one sees plenty of anti-Trump rhetoric , along with general hard leftism , but nothing in support of Biden .
However , here ’ s something interesting : The Biden campaign shows no small degree of support for the street radicals .
As Reuters reported on May 30 , “ At least 13 Biden campaign staff members posted on Twitter on Friday and Saturday that they made donations to the Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cash bail , or making people pay to avoid pre-trial imprisonment .
The group uses donations to pay bail fees in Minneapolis.
” We might observe that these 13 employees posted their pro-rioter sympathies on Twitter ; in other words , not only did they make no effort to hide their donations , but they also actively bragged about them .
It could be argued , of course , that these are just 13 vanguard employees out of a campaign staff that numbers in the hundreds , maybe even thousands .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Team Biden is not practicing political distancing from its in-house radicals : “ Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement to Reuters that the former vice president opposes the institution of cash bail as a ‘ modern day debtors prison.
’ ” When pressed by Reuters—which is not exactly Fox News in its editorial stance—the official spox for Middle Class Joe was unwilling to say more : “ The campaign declined to answer questions on whether the donations were coordinated within the campaign , underscoring the politically thorny nature of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see : The Biden campaign is trying to maintain its equipoise between liberals and mobs , even as the former is bleeding into the latter .
Indeed , a look at Biden ’ s Twitter feed shows the same port-side balancing act .
On May 30 , for instance , he tweeted , “ If we are complacent , if we are silent , we are complicit in perpetuating these cycles of violence .
None of us can turn away .
We all have an obligation to speak out.
” There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his other tweets , to leave everyone parsing , and guessing , as to what , exactly , Biden is saying—except , as he said on June 2 , that he opposes the use of chokeholds to restrain violent suspects , and also opposes more equipment for the police .
The only other thing we know for sure is that he hasn ’ t tweeted an iota of specific sympathy for the people other than George Floyd who have died in the recent violence .
One such is Patrick Underwood , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Service ; he was shot and killed in Oakland , Calif. on May 29 .
Yet while the Biden campaign attempts to keep its relationship with Antifa and its ilk fuzzy , other Democrats have made themselves clear .
For instance , in 2018 , then-Congressman Keith Ellison tweeted out a photograph of himself holding a copy of a book , Antifa : The Anti-Fascist Handbook , which the radical-chic types at The New Yorkerdescribed as “ A how-to for would-be activists , and a record of advice from anti-Fascist organizers past and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general for the state of Minnesota .
And on May 31 , Ellison ’ s son , Jeremiah , a Minneapolis city councilman , tweeted , “ I hereby declare , officially , my support for ANTIFA.
” Still , if the Democrats can ’ t quite quit Antifa , most are smart enough to recognize the danger of being too closely associated with hooligans and radicals .
Moreover , they need some theory of the case they wish to make , which is that they loudly support the protests , even as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats have found their favored argument—the one that conveniently takes them off the hook .
Indeed , it ’ s an argument they increasingly deploy to explain everything bad that happens : The Russians did it .
Thus on May 31 , former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice said on CNN of the tumult , “ In my experience , this is right out of the Russian playbook.
” We might allow that it ’ s possible , even probable , that the Russian government has been taking delight in this spate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s similarly probable that the governments of China , Iran , and Venezuela , too , have been pleased , to say nothing of varying portions of the public in every country .
And so sure , more than a few tweets and Facebook posts have probably resulted—after all , stories ripping the U.S. were right there , for instance , on the front page of China ’ s Global Times .
Still , it ’ s ridiculous to think that hundreds of thousands—maybe millions—of Americans are taking their cues from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plenty of home-grown radicalism and anger .
Yet even so , the Democrats have persisted in their Russia-dunnit narrative , because it serves their political , and perhaps psychological , need—the need to externalize criminal behavior .
In other words , don ’ t blame us for the killings and lootings—blame Moscow .
Okay , so back to Antifa and Black Lives Matter .
The left wing of the Democratic Party—including elements within the Biden campaign—might like them , but there ’ s no evidence that they like Democrats back .
Indeed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will become obvious that the leftist radicals are not trying to help Biden .
To put it another way , the rads would become the objective allies ( a political science term connoting an ironic congruence of interest ) of … Trump .
To be sure , right now , Trump is running five or six points behind Biden in the RealClearPoliticspolling average .
And yet , just as Dreher , Douthat , and McCarthy suggest , if the violence continues and Trump goes firm while Biden stays mushy , that could change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genuine radicalism , we would do well to look beyond the parochial confines of American politics , Democrat vs. Republican .
Instead , we might ponder the epic panorama of leftist history , which offers radicals so much more inspiration than historically centrist America .
For instance , we might look to Russia .
But not to the Russia of Vladimir Putin , but rather , to the Russia of Vladimir Lenin .
In the early 20th century , Lenin ’ s Bolsheviks , awaiting their revolutionary moment , operated according to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better.
” That is , the enemy of Bolshevism was incremental reform , or progress of any kind ; the reds wanted conditions to get so bad as to “ justify ” a communist revolution .
And that ’ s what Lenin and his comrades got in October 1917 , when they seized power in the midst of the calamities of World War One .
Yes , of course , the communists made conditions worse , not better , for ordinary Russians .
And yet things weren ’ t worse for Lenin and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So today , that ’ s the sort of dream that inspires Antifa radicals .
To be sure , an America dominated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter is a distant prospect .
But radicals figure that four more years of Trump in the White House will move the nation to even higher levels of chaos—and thus move them closer to power .
With all that in prospect for radicals—that is , the worse , the better—the prospect of Joe Biden losing this year is a small price to pay .
Actually , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price at all .
In the meantime , for America , there is no better .
Only worse .

Many thoughtful observers on the right—including Ross Douthat, Rod Dreher, and Dan McCarthy—have pointed out that the current protesting and rioting is likely to help Donald Trump and the Republicans. That is, the ongoing violence, fomented by leftist elements, including Black Lives Matter and Antifa, could boomerang against Joe Biden and his Democrats.
However, the planted assumption here is that the vandals and looters want Joe Biden to win. And that’s not so obvious. Indeed, maybe the truth is just the reverse.
To be sure, the protesters and looters all hate Donald Trump. And yet actions speak louder than words, and their actions on the street suggest a kind of anti-matter affection for the Bad Orange Man. That is, each act of violence obscures the memory of George Floyd, who died at the knee of a Minneapolis policeman, and raises the prospect of a national backlash against both peaceful protestors and violent looters, offering a ray of hope for Trump.
Indeed, Douthat quotes Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, whose research shows that back in the 1960s, peaceful civil rights protests helped the Democrats, while violent protests (also known as riots) hurt the Democrats. In Wasow’s words, “proximity to black-led nonviolent protests increased white Democratic vote-share whereas proximity to black-led violent protests caused substantively important declines.” And that’s how Republican Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
We might add that Humphrey was a lot like Biden. Both were gabby senators turned vice presidents, regarded as reliable liberals, not as hard-edged leftists.
So now we’re starting to see where Biden, a pillar of the smug liberal establishment—he once told a group of donors that if he’s elected, “nothing would fundamentally change”—veers away from the far-left ideologues amidst the mobs.
Let’s let Andy Ngo–who has shed blood, literally, while chronicling bullyboy leftists—define the ideology of Antifa and Black Lives Matter: “At its core, BLM is a revolutionary Marxist ideology. Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors, BLM’s founders, are self-identified Marxists who make no secret of their worship of communist terrorists and fugitives, like Assata Shakur. They want the abolition of law enforcement and capitalism. They want regime change and the end of the rule of law. Antifa has partnered with Black Lives Matter, for now, to help accelerate the breakdown of society.”
We can observe that by “regime change,” these revolutionary leftists don’t mean replacing Trump with Biden—they mean replacing capitalism and the Constitution. In the meantime, if one looks at a Twitter feed identified by Ngo as an Antifa hub, It’s Going Down, one sees plenty of anti-Trump rhetoric, along with general hard leftism, but nothing in support of Biden.
However, here’s something interesting: The Biden campaign shows no small degree of support for the street radicals. As Reuters reported on May 30,
“At least 13 Biden campaign staff members posted on Twitter on Friday and Saturday that they made donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which opposes the practice of cash bail, or making people pay to avoid pre-trial imprisonment. The group uses donations to pay bail fees in Minneapolis.” We might observe that these 13 employees posted their pro-rioter sympathies on Twitter; in other words, not only did they make no effort to hide their donations, but they also actively bragged about them. It could be argued, of course, that these are just 13 vanguard employees out of a campaign staff that numbers in the hundreds, maybe even thousands. And yet as the Reuters piece adds, Team Biden is not practicing political distancing from its in-house radicals: “Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement to Reuters that the former vice president opposes the institution of cash bail as a ‘modern day debtors prison.’” When pressed by Reuters—which is not exactly Fox News in its editorial stance—the official spox for Middle Class Joe was unwilling to say more: “The campaign declined to answer questions on whether the donations were coordinated within the campaign, underscoring the politically thorny nature of the sometimes violent protests.” So we can see: The Biden campaign is trying to maintain its equipoise between liberals and mobs, even as the former is bleeding into the latter. Indeed, a look at Biden’s Twitter feed shows the same port-side balancing act. On May 30, for instance, he tweeted, “If we are complacent, if we are silent, we are complicit in perpetuating these cycles of violence. None of us can turn away. We all have an obligation to speak out.” There’s enough ambiguity here, as well as in his other tweets, to leave everyone parsing, and guessing, as to what, exactly, Biden is saying—except, as he said on June 2, that he opposes the use of chokeholds to restrain violent suspects, and also opposes more equipment for the police. The only other thing we know for sure is that he hasn’t tweeted an iota of specific sympathy for the people other than George Floyd who have died in the recent violence. One such is Patrick Underwood, an African American employee of the Federal Protective Service; he was shot and killed in Oakland, Calif. on May 29. Yet while the Biden campaign attempts to keep its relationship with Antifa and its ilk fuzzy, other Democrats have made themselves clear. For instance, in 2018, then-Congressman Keith Ellison tweeted out a photograph of himself holding a copy of a book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, which the radical-chic types at The New Yorker described as “A how-to for would-be activists, and a record of advice from anti-Fascist organizers past and present.” Ellison is now the attorney general for the state of Minnesota. And on May 31, Ellison’s son, Jeremiah, a Minneapolis city councilman, tweeted, “I hereby declare, officially, my support for ANTIFA.” Still, if the Democrats can’t quite quit Antifa, most are smart enough to recognize the danger of being too closely associated with hooligans and radicals. Moreover, they need some theory of the case they wish to make, which is that they loudly support the protests, even as they mumble about the violence. And Democrats have found their favored argument—the one that conveniently takes them off the hook. Indeed, it’s an argument they increasingly deploy to explain everything bad that happens: The Russians did it. Thus on May 31, former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice said on CNN of the tumult, “In my experience, this is right out of the Russian playbook.” We might allow that it’s possible, even probable, that the Russian government has been taking delight in this spate of violence in America. And it’s similarly probable that the governments of China, Iran, and Venezuela, too, have been pleased, to say nothing of varying portions of the public in every country. And so sure, more than a few tweets and Facebook posts have probably resulted—after all, stories ripping the U.S. were right there, for instance, on the front page of China’s Global Times. Still, it’s ridiculous to think that hundreds of thousands—maybe millions—of Americans are taking their cues from a foreign power; we’ve got plenty of home-grown radicalism and anger. Yet even so, the Democrats have persisted in their Russia-dunnit narrative, because it serves their political, and perhaps psychological, need—the need to externalize criminal behavior. In other words, don’t blame us for the killings and lootings—blame Moscow. Okay, so back to Antifa and Black Lives Matter. The left wing of the Democratic Party—including elements within the Biden campaign—might like them, but there’s no evidence that they like Democrats back. Indeed, if the violence keeps up, it will become obvious that the leftist radicals are not trying to help Biden. To put it another way, the rads would become the objective allies (a political science term connoting an ironic congruence of interest) of … Trump. To be sure, right now, Trump is running five or six points behind Biden in the RealClearPolitics polling average. And yet, just as Dreher, Douthat, and McCarthy suggest, if the violence continues and Trump goes firm while Biden stays mushy, that could change. Indeed, as we think of genuine radicalism, we would do well to look beyond the parochial confines of American politics, Democrat vs. Republican. Instead, we might ponder the epic panorama of leftist history, which offers radicals so much more inspiration than historically centrist America. For instance, we might look to Russia. But not to the Russia of Vladimir Putin, but rather, to the Russia of Vladimir Lenin. In the early 20th century, Lenin’s Bolsheviks, awaiting their revolutionary moment, operated according to a simple slogan: “The worse the better.” That is, the enemy of Bolshevism was incremental reform, or progress of any kind; the reds wanted conditions to get so bad as to “justify” a communist revolution. And that’s what Lenin and his comrades got in October 1917, when they seized power in the midst of the calamities of World War One. Yes, of course, the communists made conditions worse, not better, for ordinary Russians. And yet things weren’t worse for Lenin and his Bolsheviks—they were now in power. So today, that’s the sort of dream that inspires Antifa radicals. To be sure, an America dominated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter is a distant prospect. But radicals figure that four more years of Trump in the White House will move the nation to even higher levels of chaos—and thus move them closer to power. With all that in prospect for radicals—that is, the worse, the better—the prospect of Joe Biden losing this year is a small price to pay. Actually, for them, it’s no price at all. In the meantime, for America, there is no better. Only worse.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-04--Bill Barr and the Justice Department Send In Their Own Troops

Members of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and other law enforcement block 16th Street , NW near the White House as protests over the death of George Floyd continue June 3 , 2020 , in Washington , DC .
( Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images ) Writing in The New York Times on Wednesday , and in the midst of growing public protests over the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis , Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton decried America ’ s “ anarchy ” and “ orgy of violence , ” saying that local law enforcement officials “ in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protests .
Cotton ’ s solution was that President Trump invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act to deploy the military to quell the demonstrations .
“ Send in the Troops , ” the headline to the Cotton op-ed blared .
“ The military stands ready.
” In fact , as recent events show , Cotton got it wrong : the military doesn ’ t stand ready and it certainly doesn ’ t want to “ send in the troops.
” Far from it .
How do we know ?
Because in the hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposal , retired Marine General James Mattis ( who served as Donald Trump ’ s first secretary of defense ) and retired Marine General John Allen published articles saying otherwise .
The power of their voices should not be underestimated : during their careers , Mattis and Allen were two of the most celebrated officers in uniform , and since the end of their careers , they ’ ve become icons of the retired military community .
“ We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers , ” Mattis wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values….
” Mattis went on to criticize Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and J.C.S .
Chairman Mark Milley for appearing alongside Trump during the president ’ s Monday stroll ( “ a bizarre photo-op , ” as Mattis described it ) from Lafayette Park to St. John ’ s Episcopal Church .
“ We must reject any thinking of our cities as a ‘ battlespace ’ that our uniformed military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Mattis intoned .
“ 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.
” Writing in Foreign Policy , Allen followed suit , in a pointed response to Cotton .
“ Right now , the last thing the country needs — and , frankly , the U.S. military needs —is the appearance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s intent by descending on American citizens , ” he wrote .
Mattis and Allen weren ’ t alone in expressing their views .
The day before their articles appeared , former J.C.S .
chairman Admiral Michael Mullen wrote a scathing critique of the Trump administration ’ s use of pepper balls and flash bangs against protesters just prior to Trump ’ s stroll .
“ I remain confident in the professionalism of our men and women in uniform , ” Mullen wrote .
“ They will obey lawful orders .
But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the orders they will be given by this commander in chief , and I am not convinced that the conditions on our streets , as bad as they are , have risen to the level that justifies a heavy reliance on military troops .
Certainly we have not cross the threshold that would make it appropriate to invoke the provisions of the Insurrection Act.
” The views of this military triumvirate shocked the Trump administration .
Inside the Pentagon , however , senior officers were less surprised with Mattis ’ , Allen ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than with those expressed by former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Martin Dempsey , who is not only known for his reticence in offering his views on political issues , but has been outspoken when other retired officers have done so .
That changed on Monday : “ America is not a battleground , ” Dempsey tweeted .
“ Our fellow citizens are not the enemy.
” While it seems likely that the rising chorus of retired military voices had a sobering impact at the Pentagon , it also simply accelerated a process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior Pentagon civilian told me .
Esper , this Pentagon official claims , was intent to back off his comment within hours of it becoming public and regretted that he ’ d been included in Monday ’ s “ bizarre photo op ” when he stood alongside Trump in front of St. John ’ s Episcopal Church .
While Esper ’ s explanation for his Monday appearance with Trump was muddled , his statement about the use of the military to “ dominate the battlespace ” was not .
“ The option to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role should only be used as a matter of last resort , ” Esper told the press during a hastily called briefing on Wednesday afternoon , “ and only in the most urgent and dire of situations .
We are not in one of those situations now .
I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.
” Esper then added that he regretted making the statement : “ In retrospect , I would use different wording so as not to distract from the more important matters at hand or allow some to suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the wake of Esper ’ s appearance , rumors swept through the corridors of the Pentagon that the defense secretary was either planning to resign—or that Trump would fire him .
As of Thursday morning , both options are still in play , with contradictory rumors swirling through the Pentagon that Esper will soon be shown the door—or that , alternatively , his friendship with fellow West Point graduate Mike Pompeo could save him .
Reports that Esper was embarrassed by his trot-with-Trump hold true also for J.C.S .
Chairman Mark Milley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Milley not only followed in Trump ’ s wake during Monday ’ s Lafayette Park-St. John ’ s walk , but was then videotaped on the streets of Washington that same night .
“ Freedom of speech , that ’ s perfectly fine , ” Milley told a group of reporters who tracked him down .
“ We support that .
We took an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America to do that , to protect everyone ’ s rights .
That ’ s what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D.C. National Guard out here and I ’ m just checking their , seeing how well they ’ re doing , that ’ s all.
” That Milley looked uncertain reflected his discomfort with appearing on the streets of Washington , D.C. in camouflage , a senior retired U.S. Army officer who knows him says .
“ He was chagrined , ” this officer told me .
“ And frankly , this isn ’ t who he is .
He ’ s a decent guy .
He ’ s not someone who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior retired officer had a similar , if more pointed , take .
“ He ’ s walking a really delicate line , ” this officer said .
“ He answers to the president .
He can ’ t just go out and have a press conference , like Esper .
So when I look at Milley I feel for him .
And you can almost read his mind .
I mean at one point Trump says he had put Milley ‘ in charge.
’ And Milley was probably thinking , ‘ in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , the person that Trump appears to have made the field general of the federal response to the demonstrations , and particularly those in Washington , D.C. , is Attorney General William Barr , who is not only not in the chain of command , he ’ s not even in uniform .
If the presence of uniformed officers monitoring the demonstrations in Washington , D.C. is any indication , then Barr has responded to Trump ’ s desire that the military deal harshly with the demonstrators by flooding the streets with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prisons , units of which were flown into the city as early as Tuesday night from Texas and other locations .
Included among the contingent were Crisis Management Teams ( CMT ) and Special Operations Response Teams ( Sort ) that are normally deployed to put down prison riots .
According to a BOP spokesperson , the teams have been dispatched to Washington , D.C. and Miami , Florida , “ per the request of the Attorney General.
” Photographs of the teams began appearing on social media on Wednesday afternoon , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and who they answered to .
“ DOJ , ” one of the team members told a demonstrator .
The teams were not wearing identifying badges , because while all law enforcement officials are required to do so by D.C. law , that statute does not include federal law enforcement forces .
While the BOP “ Sort ” teams did not have identity badges or military markings , some demonstrators assumed they were military police , or even members of the notorious right-wing “ boogaloo boys.
” The report , and a raft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown that tattoos sported by Sort team officers appeared to mimic those featured in “ The Punisher , ” a popular Marvel Comics and Netflix series about a vigilante who appears with a facsimile of a “ Totenkopf ” or “ deaths head ” insignia worn by the Nazi military in World War II .
The deaths head logo remains controversial , and sparked controversy in local communities when it was stenciled on police cars .
A number of states , including New York , have established their own Sort Teams , mimicking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the website of Spec Ops Magazine , a typical “ Sort team ” is armed with “ Sig Sauer P228s , Glock 19 pistols , Colt 9mm SMGs , Benelli M1 Super 90 shotguns , McMillan M86 SR Sniper Rifles , 37 mm gas guns , diversionary devices and chemical munitions.
” Why such weapons would be needed now on the streets of Washington , D.C. is not clear .
The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment , but Justice Department officials told a local television @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could not be provided “ for safety and security reasons.
” But the senior Pentagon official with whom I spoke had his own theory : “ Makes sense , ” he said .
“ As the military has stepped back , the Justice Department has stepped in.
” But when shown a photo of a Bureau of Prisons “ Sort Team ” deployed in downtown Washington , D.C. , a senior retired military officer had a much different take .
“ These are more Delta wannabes .
Now , every law enforcement agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he told me in an email .
“ This is not good.
” Mark Perry is a journalist , author , and contributing editor at The American Conservative .
His latest book is The Pentagon ’ s Wars .
He tweets @ markperrydc .

Writing in The New York Times on Wednesday, and in the midst of growing public protests over the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton decried America’s “anarchy” and “orgy of violence,” saying that local law enforcement officials “in some cities” are being overwhelmed by the protests. Cotton’s solution was that President Trump invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act to deploy the military to quell the demonstrations. “Send in the Troops,” the headline to the Cotton op-ed blared. “The military stands ready.”
In fact, as recent events show, Cotton got it wrong: the military doesn’t stand ready and it certainly doesn’t want to “send in the troops.” Far from it. How do we know? Because in the hours following the publication of Cotton’s proposal, retired Marine General James Mattis (who served as Donald Trump’s first secretary of defense) and retired Marine General John Allen published articles saying otherwise. The power of their voices should not be underestimated: during their careers, Mattis and Allen were two of the most celebrated officers in uniform, and since the end of their careers, they’ve become icons of the retired military community.
“We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers,” Mattis wrote in a statement published in The Atlantic. “The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values….”
Mattis went on to criticize Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and J.C.S. Chairman Mark Milley for appearing alongside Trump during the president’s Monday stroll (“a bizarre photo-op,” as Mattis described it) from Lafayette Park to St. John’s Episcopal Church. “We must reject any thinking of our cities as a ‘battlespace’ that our uniformed military is called upon to ‘dominate,” Mattis intoned. “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.”
Writing in Foreign Policy, Allen followed suit, in a pointed response to Cotton. “Right now, the last thing the country needs — and, frankly, the U.S. military needs —is the appearance of U.S. soldiers carrying out the president’s intent by descending on American citizens,” he wrote.
Mattis and Allen weren’t alone in expressing their views. The day before their articles appeared, former J.C.S. chairman Admiral Michael Mullen wrote a scathing critique of the Trump administration’s use of pepper balls and flash bangs against protesters just prior to Trump’s stroll. “I remain confident in the professionalism of our men and women in uniform,” Mullen wrote. “They will obey lawful orders. But I am less confident in the soundness of the orders they will be given by this commander in chief, and I am not convinced that the conditions on our streets, as bad as they are, have risen to the level that justifies a heavy reliance on military troops. Certainly we have not cross the threshold that would make it appropriate to invoke the provisions of the Insurrection Act.”
The views of this military triumvirate shocked the Trump administration. Inside the Pentagon, however, senior officers were less surprised with Mattis’, Allen’s, and Mullen’s views than with those expressed by former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Martin Dempsey, who is not only known for his reticence in offering his views on political issues, but has been outspoken when other retired officers have done so. That changed on Monday: “America is not a battleground,” Dempsey tweeted. “Our fellow citizens are not the enemy.”
While it seems likely that the rising chorus of retired military voices had a sobering impact at the Pentagon, it also simply accelerated a process that was already underway, as a senior Pentagon civilian told me. Esper, this Pentagon official claims, was intent to back off his comment within hours of it becoming public and regretted that he’d been included in Monday’s “bizarre photo op” when he stood alongside Trump in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church.
While Esper’s explanation for his Monday appearance with Trump was muddled, his statement about the use of the military to “dominate the battlespace” was not. “The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort,” Esper told the press during a hastily called briefing on Wednesday afternoon, “and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.”
Esper then added that he regretted making the statement: “In retrospect, I would use different wording so as not to distract from the more important matters at hand or allow some to suggest that we are militarizing the issue.” In the wake of Esper’s appearance, rumors swept through the corridors of the Pentagon that the defense secretary was either planning to resign—or that Trump would fire him. As of Thursday morning, both options are still in play, with contradictory rumors swirling through the Pentagon that Esper will soon be shown the door—or that, alternatively, his friendship with fellow West Point graduate Mike Pompeo could save him.
Reports that Esper was embarrassed by his trot-with-Trump hold true also for J.C.S. Chairman Mark Milley, according to a senior Pentagon official. Milley not only followed in Trump’s wake during Monday’s Lafayette Park-St. John’s walk, but was then videotaped on the streets of Washington that same night.
“Freedom of speech, that’s perfectly fine,” Milley told a group of reporters who tracked him down. “We support that. We took an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America to do that, to protect everyone’s rights. That’s what we do. We’ve got the D.C. National Guard out here and I’m just checking their, seeing how well they’re doing, that’s all.”
That Milley looked uncertain reflected his discomfort with appearing on the streets of Washington, D.C. in camouflage, a senior retired U.S. Army officer who knows him says. “He was chagrined,” this officer told me. “And frankly, this isn’t who he is. He’s a decent guy. He’s not someone who has trouble talking to people.” A second senior retired officer had a similar, if more pointed, take. “He’s walking a really delicate line,” this officer said. “He answers to the president. He can’t just go out and have a press conference, like Esper. So when I look at Milley I feel for him. And you can almost read his mind. I mean at one point Trump says he had put Milley ‘in charge.’ And Milley was probably thinking, ‘in charge of what?’”
In fact, the person that Trump appears to have made the field general of the federal response to the demonstrations, and particularly those in Washington, D.C., is Attorney General William Barr, who is not only not in the chain of command, he’s not even in uniform. If the presence of uniformed officers monitoring the demonstrations in Washington, D.C. is any indication, then Barr has responded to Trump’s desire that the military deal harshly with the demonstrators by flooding the streets with law enforcement officers of the Bureau of Prisons, units of which were flown into the city as early as Tuesday night from Texas and other locations.
Included among the contingent were Crisis Management Teams (CMT) and Special Operations Response Teams (Sort) that are normally deployed to put down prison riots. According to a BOP spokesperson, the teams have been dispatched to Washington, D.C. and Miami, Florida, “per the request of the Attorney General.” Photographs of the teams began appearing on social media on Wednesday afternoon, with demonstrators asking them where they were from and who they answered to. “DOJ,” one of the team members told a demonstrator. The teams were not wearing identifying badges, because while all law enforcement officials are required to do so by D.C. law, that statute does not include federal law enforcement forces.
While the BOP “Sort” teams did not have identity badges or military markings, some demonstrators assumed they were military police, or even members of the notorious right-wing “boogaloo boys.” The report, and a raft of rumors, escalated when it was shown that tattoos sported by Sort team officers appeared to mimic those featured in “The Punisher,” a popular Marvel Comics and Netflix series about a vigilante who appears with a facsimile of a “Totenkopf” or “deaths head” insignia worn by the Nazi military in World War II. The deaths head logo remains controversial, and sparked controversy in local communities when it was stenciled on police cars.
A number of states, including New York, have established their own Sort Teams, mimicking the federal Bureau of Prisons template. According to the website of Spec Ops Magazine, a typical “Sort team” is armed with “Sig Sauer P228s, Glock 19 pistols, Colt 9mm SMGs, Benelli M1 Super 90 shotguns, McMillan M86 SR Sniper Rifles, 37 mm gas guns, diversionary devices and chemical munitions.” Why such weapons would be needed now on the streets of Washington, D.C. is not clear. The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment, but Justice Department officials told a local television reporter that specific information on the teams could not be provided “for safety and security reasons.”
But the senior Pentagon official with whom I spoke had his own theory: “Makes sense,” he said. “As the military has stepped back, the Justice Department has stepped in.” But when shown a photo of a Bureau of Prisons “Sort Team” deployed in downtown Washington, D.C., a senior retired military officer had a much different take. “These are more Delta wannabes. Now, every law enforcement agency has its own SWAT team,” he told me in an email. “This is not good.”
Mark Perry is a journalist, author, and contributing editor at The American Conservative. His latest book is The Pentagon’s Wars. He tweets @markperrydc.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-05--Liberal Mush From Mattis

Liberal Mush From Mattis

It looks like the general has just defected to the resistance .
Retired Gen. and former Secretary of Defense James Mattis on Marine Corps Base Quantico , Sept. 25 , 2019 .
( U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl .
Piper A. Ballantine ) In his statement to The Atlantic magazine , former Defense Secretary General James Mattis says of the events of the last 10 days that have shaken the nation as it has not been shaken since 1968 : “ We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers.
” Is “ a small number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wilding mobs who have showered cops with bottles , bricks and rocks in 40 cities , looted stores in the hundreds , torched police cars , and injured dozens of Secret Service personnel defending the White House ?
Is “ a small number of lawbreakers ” the way a patriot would describe anti-American anarchists who desecrated the Lincoln Memorial , the World War II Memorial on the Mall and the Korean War Memorial and tried to burn down the Church of the Presidents in Lafayette Square ?
Was the sacking of Georgetown , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in New York and 40 city centers , the work of a few “ lawbreakers ” ?
Is that a good description of the people who gravely wounded that cop in Las Vegas and shot four cops and murdered that retired black police chief in St. Louis ?
The protesters , says Mattis , are “ rightly demanding … Equal Justice Under Law.
” This is a “ wholesome and unifying demand — one that all of us should be able to get behind.
” But what does the general think of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have used—the massive civil disobedience , the blocking of streets , the vilification of police , the contempt for curfews .
What does the general think of protesters who provide moral cover for insurrection ?
“ Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people , ” says Mattis .
Trump “ doesn ’ t even pretend to try .
Instead he tries to divide us.
” But it was not Trump who divided America in this racial crisis .
The nation was united @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led to George Floyd ’ s death .
The nation was united in backing an enraged people ’ s right to protest that atrocity .
What divided America were the methods and means protesters began using in the first hours of the Minneapolis riot—the attacks on cops with bottles , bricks and Molotov cocktails .
In Mattis ’ statement , one finds not a word of sympathy or support for the police bearing the brunt of mob brutality for defending the communities they serve , while defending the constitutional right of the protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cops .
“ Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them , ” not to the military , says the general .
Correct .
But what happens when mobs run wild to where a governor of New York is denouncing the NYPD for failing to protect the city from anarchy and is threatening to replace the mayor for failing to put down the insurrection .
In July 1967 , the 82nd Airborne was sent into Detroit to put down the riot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troops in D.C. to stop the rioting in the wake of Dr. King ’ s assassination .
In the violent protests of the Nixon era , U.S. airborne troops were brought into the basement of the Executive Office Building .
The general quotes James Madison : “ America united with a handful of troops , or without a single solider exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign invaders than an America disunited.
” And how , General , did that work out for Madison when the “ foreign invaders ” arrived in Maryland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Road , and burned the Capitol and White House and Alexandria , while “ Little Jimmy ” fled out the Brookville Road ?
If memory serves , it was Gen. Andrew Jackson and the troops he pulled together for the Battle of New Orleans who defeated the British and saved the Union .
“ Society can not exist , ” wrote Edmund Burke , “ unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere ; and the less of it there is within , the more there must be without .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitution of things , that men of intemperate minds can not be free .
Their passions forge their fetters.
” That is where we are now .
Society and civilization are on the line .
If mob tactics are now how we change laws and alter public policy , the democratic republic is dead and we have gone full Third World .
Some of us do not believe America is a racist society or that the nation ’ s police , numbering a million men and women , are shot through with anti-black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police are the last line of defense we have against that “ small number of lawbreakers ” Mattis tells us are no problem .
Did the general actually produce this pile of mush that reads like something out of Ramsey Clark in the 1960s ?
My guess : Mattis , an obedient servant of President Trump for two years , has been persuaded that the wind is blowing the other way and his “ place in history ” demands that he get himself on the correct side .
The general has just defected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .

In his statement to The Atlantic magazine, former Defense Secretary General James Mattis says of the events of the last 10 days that have shaken the nation as it has not been shaken since 1968:
“We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers.”
Is “a small number of lawbreakers” an apt description of wilding mobs who have showered cops with bottles, bricks and rocks in 40 cities, looted stores in the hundreds, torched police cars, and injured dozens of Secret Service personnel defending the White House?
Is “a small number of lawbreakers” the way a patriot would describe anti-American anarchists who desecrated the Lincoln Memorial, the World War II Memorial on the Mall and the Korean War Memorial and tried to burn down the Church of the Presidents in Lafayette Square?
Was the sacking of Georgetown, Rodeo Drive in LA, 5th Avenue in New York and 40 city centers, the work of a few “lawbreakers”?
Is that a good description of the people who gravely wounded that cop in Las Vegas and shot four cops and murdered that retired black police chief in St. Louis?
The protesters, says Mattis, are “rightly demanding … Equal Justice Under Law.” This is a “wholesome and unifying demand — one that all of us should be able to get behind.”
But what does the general think of the methods and means the “protesters” have used—the massive civil disobedience, the blocking of streets, the vilification of police, the contempt for curfews. What does the general think of protesters who provide moral cover for insurrection?
“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people,” says Mattis. Trump “doesn’t even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us.”
But it was not Trump who divided America in this racial crisis.
The nation was united in revulsion at the criminal cruelty that led to George Floyd’s death. The nation was united in backing an enraged people’s right to protest that atrocity.
What divided America were the methods and means protesters began using in the first hours of the Minneapolis riot—the attacks on cops with bottles, bricks and Molotov cocktails.
In Mattis’ statement, one finds not a word of sympathy or support for the police bearing the brunt of mob brutality for defending the communities they serve, while defending the constitutional right of the protesters to curse them as racist and rogue cops.
“Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them,” not to the military, says the general.
Correct. But what happens when mobs run wild to where a governor of New York is denouncing the NYPD for failing to protect the city from anarchy and is threatening to replace the mayor for failing to put down the insurrection.
In July 1967, the 82nd Airborne was sent into Detroit to put down the riot. In 1968, there were federal troops in D.C. to stop the rioting in the wake of Dr. King’s assassination. In the violent protests of the Nixon era, U.S. airborne troops were brought into the basement of the Executive Office Building.
The general quotes James Madison: “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single solider exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign invaders than an America disunited.”
And how, General, did that work out for Madison when the “foreign invaders” arrived in Maryland in August 1814, marched up Bladensburg Road, and burned the Capitol and White House and Alexandria, while “Little Jimmy” fled out the Brookville Road?
If memory serves, it was Gen. Andrew Jackson and the troops he pulled together for the Battle of New Orleans who defeated the British and saved the Union.
“Society cannot exist,” wrote Edmund Burke, “unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.
“It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
That is where we are now. Society and civilization are on the line.
If mob tactics are now how we change laws and alter public policy, the democratic republic is dead and we have gone full Third World.
Some of us do not believe America is a racist society or that the nation’s police, numbering a million men and women, are shot through with anti-black racism.
Some of us believe the police are the last line of defense we have against that “small number of lawbreakers” Mattis tells us are no problem.
Did the general actually produce this pile of mush that reads like something out of Ramsey Clark in the 1960s?
My guess: Mattis, an obedient servant of President Trump for two years, has been persuaded that the wind is blowing the other way and his “place in history” demands that he get himself on the correct side.
The general has just defected to the resistance.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-05--Joe Biden, Due Process Hypocrite

Joe Biden, Due Process Hypocrite

The recent controversy surrounding Tara Reade ’ s sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden has been rather embarrassing for many Democrats .
Feminists , # MeToo activists , various prominent name-brand journalists , and other ostensible progressives have all taken awkwardly skeptical positions that contradict their previously stated commitments to Believing All Women .
Biden ’ s own hypocrisy in this area ( saying that when a woman accuses a man of sexual assault , “ the essence of what she is talking about is true ” in 2018 , then proceeding to categorically deny that Reade ’ s allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a challenge for his campaign .
One would therefore imagine that the former vice president would want to avoid any further discussion of his record on issues of due process and sexual assault .
Instead his campaign recently released a statement excoriating the new Title IX rule issued by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos .
The rule aims to increase basic due process protections for those accused of sexual assault on college campuses .
Accusing Devos of trying to “ shame and silence ” victims of sexual assault , his statement reads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for me , but not for thee .
Biden ’ s statement goes on to boast of his direct involvement in weakening due process protections for college students accused of sexual assault during the Obama presidency .
This is an odd aspect of his record to highlight , given that the presumption of innocence standard that Biden helped destroy ( and that Secretary DeVos is attempting to reinstate ) is exactly the one that he and his allies demand he be given in the Tara Reade allegations .
At least when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suddenly ( and conveniently ) rediscovered the importance of due process and presumed innocence .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told journalists that she has “ complete respect for the whole # MeToo movement…but there ’ s also due process.
” Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer cautioned that “ we have a duty to vet ” sexual assault allegations because “ not every claim is equal.
” And leading # MeToo activist Alyssa Milano recently reaffirmed her support of Biden in the name of “ giving men their due process and investigating situations.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t it ?
Yet despite their newfound zeal for due process , many of these partisans are still unwilling to extend such protections to college students .
The Obama administration policy that Biden defends—and promises to reinstate—required college administrators to use a “ preponderance of evidence ” standard ( also known as “ 50 percent plus a feather ” ) to evaluate campus sexual assault allegations .
Biden touts this as one of his greatest achievements during his tenure as VP , and he was indeed instrumental in pushing for its implementation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ enabled by the Obama administration would almost certainly have been inhospitable to Biden ’ s own claim that Tara Reade ’ s story “ never , never happened.
” Amid his weaponization of Title IX tribunals to “ change the culture ” on college campuses , Biden created an abominably unjust system of smoke-and-mirrors adjudication that often hurt both the victims and the accused perpetrators of sexual assault .
Presided over by unaccountable college administrators and governed by arbitrary regulations and murky definitions of wrongdoing , the Biden-led Title IX revisions were both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he expects for himself and offensive to basic notions of justice .
In a 2018 report on the state of due process at the country ’ s top universities , the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education ( FIRE ) found that nearly three quarters of these institutions didn ’ t provide a presumption of innocence until proof of guilt .
Almost half didn ’ t require impartial judges and/or juries and more than two thirds didn ’ t guarantee that “ each party may see and hear the evidence being presented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a result , in the years following Biden ’ s assault on due process rights , young men were tried and found guilty en masse for ambiguous sexual encounters that had occurred months and even years in the past .
It was not unusual for the accused to never get to see the specific allegations made against him or to be afforded the opportunity to defend himself .
This is not to suggest that the conditions that preceded Biden ’ s revisions to the Title IX sexual assault proceedings were perfect : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be , a serious issue on college campuses .
But replacing one egregious injustice with another is not a viable solution .
In his heart , Biden knows better : as it pertains to his own life , he is a vocal defender of due process .
He should be so kind as to extend that privilege to his fellow Americans .
Nate Hochman is a rising senior at Colorado College and a Young Voices contributor .
You can follow him on Twitter @ njhochman .

The recent controversy surrounding Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden has been rather embarrassing for many Democrats. Feminists, #MeToo activists, various prominent name-brand journalists, and other ostensible progressives have all taken awkwardly skeptical positions that contradict their previously stated commitments to Believing All Women.
Biden’s own hypocrisy in this area (saying that when a woman accuses a man of sexual assault, “the essence of what she is talking about is true” in 2018, then proceeding to categorically deny that Reade’s allegations are at all true) has undoubtedly been a challenge for his campaign.
One would therefore imagine that the former vice president would want to avoid any further discussion of his record on issues of due process and sexual assault. Instead his campaign recently released a statement excoriating the new Title IX rule issued by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. The rule aims to increase basic due process protections for those accused of sexual assault on college campuses. Accusing Devos of trying to “shame and silence” victims of sexual assault, his statement reads:
It’s wrong. And, it will be put to a quick end in January 2021, because as president, I’ll be right where I always have been throughout my career — on the side of survivors, who deserve to have their voices heard, their claims taken seriously and investigated, and their rights upheld.
In other words: due process for me, but not for thee.
Biden’s statement goes on to boast of his direct involvement in weakening due process protections for college students accused of sexual assault during the Obama presidency. This is an odd aspect of his record to highlight, given that the presumption of innocence standard that Biden helped destroy (and that Secretary DeVos is attempting to reinstate) is exactly the one that he and his allies demand he be given in the Tara Reade allegations.
At least when it comes to Biden, progressives seem to have suddenly (and conveniently) rediscovered the importance of due process and presumed innocence. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told journalists that she has “complete respect for the whole #MeToo movement…but there’s also due process.” Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer cautioned that “we have a duty to vet” sexual assault allegations because “not every claim is equal.” And leading #MeToo activist Alyssa Milano recently reaffirmed her support of Biden in the name of “giving men their due process and investigating situations.”
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Yet despite their newfound zeal for due process, many of these partisans are still unwilling to extend such protections to college students. The Obama administration policy that Biden defends—and promises to reinstate—required college administrators to use a “preponderance of evidence” standard (also known as “50 percent plus a feather”) to evaluate campus sexual assault allegations. Biden touts this as one of his greatest achievements during his tenure as VP, and he was indeed instrumental in pushing for its implementation. But ironically, the campus kangaroo courts enabled by the Obama administration would almost certainly have been inhospitable to Biden’s own claim that Tara Reade’s story “never, never happened.”
Amid his weaponization of Title IX tribunals to “change the culture” on college campuses, Biden created an abominably unjust system of smoke-and-mirrors adjudication that often hurt both the victims and the accused perpetrators of sexual assault. Presided over by unaccountable college administrators and governed by arbitrary regulations and murky definitions of wrongdoing, the Biden-led Title IX revisions were both contrary to the standard of due process that he expects for himself and offensive to basic notions of justice. In a 2018 report on the state of due process at the country’s top universities, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) found that nearly three quarters of these institutions didn’t provide a presumption of innocence until proof of guilt. Almost half didn’t require impartial judges and/or juries and more than two thirds didn’t guarantee that “each party may see and hear the evidence being presented to fact-finders by the opposing party.”
As a result, in the years following Biden’s assault on due process rights, young men were tried and found guilty en masse for ambiguous sexual encounters that had occurred months and even years in the past. It was not unusual for the accused to never get to see the specific allegations made against him or to be afforded the opportunity to defend himself.
This is not to suggest that the conditions that preceded Biden’s revisions to the Title IX sexual assault proceedings were perfect: sexual assault was, and continues to be, a serious issue on college campuses. But replacing one egregious injustice with another is not a viable solution. In his heart, Biden knows better: as it pertains to his own life, he is a vocal defender of due process. He should be so kind as to extend that privilege to his fellow Americans.
Nate Hochman is a rising senior at Colorado College and a Young Voices contributor. You can follow him on Twitter @njhochman.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-04--Chicago Pastor: This Week’s Violence Has Set Our Black Community Back Decades

We worked tirelessly to turn around the city 's most violent neighborhood , only to see it burned and looted .
Protesters loot a 7-11 store during protests for George Floyd , May 30 , 2020 in Chicago .
( John J. Kim/Chicago Tribune/TNS ) Martin Luther King famously noted that violence “ destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible .
It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue.
” This week ’ s violent looting has produced a deafening monologue .
On the south side of Chicago , where I pastor a church and lead a ministry , Project H.O.O.D.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ building dialogue as the way of rebuilding our community .
We help build community leaders and we equip our neighbors—especially young black men who are exiting gangs—to build their own character and to help rebuild the streets .
We build self-esteem and respect for our fellow man .
And we build stronger families with firmer foundations .
The destructive violence , rioting , and looting of the last few days , however , have quickly erased years of our dialogue .
When I began New Beginnings Church on the south side of Chicago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of having one of the nation ’ s highest homicide rates .
Over the years , we have changed that statistic .
We have built a thriving church with an average of 600 to 750 people at our services each Sunday .
We have a community center with a free gym , a career center that offers advice and assistance with interviews , and a high-impact jobs training program that has helped people build successful careers in fields such as construction or landscaping .
Our work has paid off , and we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I have seen the excitement of young men who have turned away from violent gangs to embark on their own new beginning and get fitted for construction boots for their new jobs .
Where despair once reigned , we have replaced it with hope and opportunity .
The riots of this past week , however , have set us back in our ministry work and have done incalculable damage to our community .
The physical damage to property pales in comparison to the damage done to our morale .
George Floyd ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police officer in Minneapolis sparked understandable outrage .
How could another black man have died because of police brutality ?
The protests began as a natural outpouring of grief , as white and black Americans were united in their horror at this senseless act .
But these protests turned violent , and the victims of this widespread looting are often the black community leaders and business owners .
How does it advance our cause of racial harmony to wreck the black communities ?
We are still surveying the damage on our streets .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ were looted .
The result is that we no longer have a pharmacy in our neighborhood .
Church members are shuttling members of our community out to the suburbs to get their prescriptions and basic goods .
The grocery stores were also looted , leaving us without options to purchase local food .
The question lingers on many of our minds : Will these stores and pharmacies—so essential for daily living here—ever come back ?
It ’ s challenging enough in normal times to lure stores and businesses to rough neighborhoods ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult to entice business owners to set up shop in our beleaguered communities now .
Liberal politicians in Illinois and across the country have fanned the flames of anger over the past several years .
Their policies and worldview emphasize government as the solution to all problems , except , paradoxically , when we need police .
Our mayor , Lori Lightfoot , has been unable or unwilling to put a stop to the violence in the streets of our home city , in part because she has been unable to offer a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing the necessary work of making our neighborhoods livable .
Lost in the liberal messaging is the reality that the foundation of our society is the rule of law .
The tragic killing of George Floyd reminds us that we need better training and screening for police officers .
But the vast majority of the law enforcement agents in our nation advance racial equality , and help black Americans participate in the American dream .
No one , after all , wants to live in an un-policed and lawless neighborhood .
Thriving neighborhoods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precisely because of the rule of law and the police officers upholding it .
Lawless neighborhoods , by contrast , are a turn-off for parents and business owners .
Violence is rampant in Chicago , and it has nothing to do with isolated incidents of police brutality .
Over Memorial Day weekend , ten African-Americans were shot and killed in drive-by shootings .
I ’ ve given funeral sermons for victims of drive-by shootings in the past , and those victims ’ deaths are each a senseless tragedy .
On the south side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need police stepping back and retreating because of political agendas .
The logical extension of liberal police reform is for law enforcement agents to retreat from their duties , but this is exactly wrong and will weaken our neighborhoods .
We need justice in the George Floyd case , and we need assurances that these hateful acts will not take place again .
At the same time , we need partnerships with the police so they will help us re-establish law and order in our neighborhoods .
Democrats , however , cling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the destruction of our homes .
It is no coincidence that the most violent looting and destruction took place this past week in cities heavily controlled by Democrats .
I ’ ve been attacked , been robbed , life has been threatened .
Black Americans deserve better than this .
Pastor Corey Brooks is the founder and Senior Pastor of New Beginnings Church of Chicago and founder and CEO of Project H.O.O.D Communities Development Corporation .

Martin Luther King famously noted that violence “destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue.” This week’s violent looting has produced a deafening monologue.
On the south side of Chicago, where I pastor a church and lead a ministry, Project H.O.O.D., we are in the business of building dialogue as the way of rebuilding our community. We help build community leaders and we equip our neighbors—especially young black men who are exiting gangs—to build their own character and to help rebuild the streets. We build self-esteem and respect for our fellow man. And we build stronger families with firmer foundations.
The destructive violence, rioting, and looting of the last few days, however, have quickly erased years of our dialogue.
When I began New Beginnings Church on the south side of Chicago, the neighborhood held the sad distinction of having one of the nation’s highest homicide rates. Over the years, we have changed that statistic. We have built a thriving church with an average of 600 to 750 people at our services each Sunday. We have a community center with a free gym, a career center that offers advice and assistance with interviews, and a high-impact jobs training program that has helped people build successful careers in fields such as construction or landscaping.
Our work has paid off, and we have witnessed the power of a changed life. I have seen the excitement of young men who have turned away from violent gangs to embark on their own new beginning and get fitted for construction boots for their new jobs.
Where despair once reigned, we have replaced it with hope and opportunity.
The riots of this past week, however, have set us back in our ministry work and have done incalculable damage to our community. The physical damage to property pales in comparison to the damage done to our morale.
George Floyd’s death at the hands of a police officer in Minneapolis sparked understandable outrage. How could another black man have died because of police brutality? The protests began as a natural outpouring of grief, as white and black Americans were united in their horror at this senseless act.
But these protests turned violent, and the victims of this widespread looting are often the black community leaders and business owners. How does it advance our cause of racial harmony to wreck the black communities?
We are still surveying the damage on our streets. All of the CVS and Walgreens buildings were looted. The result is that we no longer have a pharmacy in our neighborhood. Church members are shuttling members of our community out to the suburbs to get their prescriptions and basic goods.
The grocery stores were also looted, leaving us without options to purchase local food.
The question lingers on many of our minds: Will these stores and pharmacies—so essential for daily living here—ever come back? It’s challenging enough in normal times to lure stores and businesses to rough neighborhoods; it’s going to be far more difficult to entice business owners to set up shop in our beleaguered communities now.
Liberal politicians in Illinois and across the country have fanned the flames of anger over the past several years. Their policies and worldview emphasize government as the solution to all problems, except, paradoxically, when we need police. Our mayor, Lori Lightfoot, has been unable or unwilling to put a stop to the violence in the streets of our home city, in part because she has been unable to offer a strong defense for good law enforcement agents doing the necessary work of making our neighborhoods livable.
Lost in the liberal messaging is the reality that the foundation of our society is the rule of law. The tragic killing of George Floyd reminds us that we need better training and screening for police officers. But the vast majority of the law enforcement agents in our nation advance racial equality, and help black Americans participate in the American dream.
No one, after all, wants to live in an un-policed and lawless neighborhood. Thriving neighborhoods are able to attract businesses and families precisely because of the rule of law and the police officers upholding it. Lawless neighborhoods, by contrast, are a turn-off for parents and business owners.
Violence is rampant in Chicago, and it has nothing to do with isolated incidents of police brutality. Over Memorial Day weekend, ten African-Americans were shot and killed in drive-by shootings. I’ve given funeral sermons for victims of drive-by shootings in the past, and those victims’ deaths are each a senseless tragedy.
On the south side of Chicago, we don’t need police stepping back and retreating because of political agendas. The logical extension of liberal police reform is for law enforcement agents to retreat from their duties, but this is exactly wrong and will weaken our neighborhoods.
We need justice in the George Floyd case, and we need assurances that these hateful acts will not take place again. At the same time, we need partnerships with the police so they will help us re-establish law and order in our neighborhoods.
Democrats, however, cling to wrongheaded rhetoric that does nothing to stop the destruction of our homes. It is no coincidence that the most violent looting and destruction took place this past week in cities heavily controlled by Democrats.
I’ve been attacked, been robbed, life has been threatened. Black Americans deserve better than this.
Pastor Corey Brooks is the founder and Senior Pastor of New Beginnings Church of Chicago and founder and CEO of Project H.O.O.D Communities Development Corporation.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-03--Trump’s Finger on the Martial Law Trigger

Members of the Air National Guard and the 129th Security Forces Squadron participate in confrontation management training at Moffett Federal Airfield , Calif. , June 7 , 2015 .
( U.S. Air National Guard photo/Staff Sgt .
Kim E. Ramirez ) President Trump may be veering closer to declaring martial law in response to rioting in many cities across the nation .
On Saturday , Trump warned “ the Federal Government will step in and do what has to be done , and that includes using the unlimited power of our Military and many arrests.
” On Monday , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficiently defend the life and property of their residents , “ I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.
” Even the Washington Post concedes that Trump “ has the legal authority to deploy active-duty military personnel to states to help quell violent protests ” though experts warn such a move “ would probably generate strong pushback from some state and local officials.
” According to a survey released Tuesday by Political Polls , Americans support “ calling in the U.S. military to supplement city police forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent margin .
But any support could quickly vanish if deploying troops resulted in significant casualties of innocent civilians .
Trump could send in U.S. troops under the Insurrection Act if a governor requested aid .
Prior to sending in troops , Trump would be required to issue a proclamation to “ immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time , ” according to the law .
Many frenzied activists presume that there is no difference between the Insurrection Act and martial law .
Under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still be assisting in enforcing laws under state and local authority .
A formal declaration of martial law , on the other hand , effectively suspends civil liberties and gives all authority to the military .
The current round of rioting would be much more constitutionally perilous if not for one intransigent U.S. senator during the Bush administration .
Amazingly , Congress passed a law 14 years ago that made martial law practically a push-button perk of presidents .
In 2006 , Congress voted almost unanimously to entitle President George W. Bush and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law largely as a matter of bureaucratic convenience .
Many of the current Democratic leaders in the House and Senate were part of that surrender-without-a-fight civil liberties debacle .
After the Federal Emergency Management Agency ’ s disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 , the Bush administration pushed Congress to make it far easier for a president to declare martial law to avoid similar public relations debacles .
An August 2006 White House press release decried “ the equivalent of a weapon of mass effect being used on the city of New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” sounded like the rhetorical equivalent of computer-generated images in a low-budget movie .
But that vaporous phrase helped stampede cowardly congressmen facing reelection a few months later .
On September 30 , 2006 , Congress passed the Defense Authorization Act of 2006 , a $ 500 billion , 591-page bill that included a few paragraphs razing a key constraint on presidential power .
Almost 200 years earlier , Congress had passed the Insurrection Act to severely curtail the president ’ s ability to deploy the military within the U.S. , a law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Comitatus Act of 1878 .
But there was a loophole : the Posse Comitatus Act was waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act .
Section 1076 of that 2006 law deleted the name “ Insurrection Act ” and replaced it with “ Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.
” The 2006 “ reform ” effectively authorized martial law declarations in response to a “ natural disaster , epidemic , or other serious public health emergency , terrorist attack or incident , or other condition ” —and such “ condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A smattering of pipe bomb explosions could satisfy the “ other condition ” —as could the bomb explosions used last night to rob up to 10 ATM machines in Philadelphia .
The 2006 law also empowered the president to commandeer the National Guard of any state to send to another state for up to 365 days—part of the reason why every governor in the nation opposed the “ reform.
” Liberal Democrats heartily supported this frontal assault on the Rule of Law : the provision was co-written by Sen. Carl Levin ( D-MI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kennedy ( D-MA ) .
The only senator to vigorously protest the bill was Patrick Leahy ( D-VT ) , who warned that “ we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law.
” He groused in the Congressional Record : “ Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.
” “ Martial law ” is a euphemism for military dictatorship—a situation where anyone who disobeys soldiers ’ orders can be shot .
Martial law effectively waives constitutional rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill ignored or cheered Section 1076 when it was enacted .
( The American Conservative was one of the few places to howl about the law . )
Five months later , a New York Times editorial criticized the new law for “ making martial law easier.
” The editorial implied that the law had “ been passed in the dead of night ” —as if 50 governors , a senior senator from Vermont , and a bevy of activists had never voiced their opposition .
In early 2008 , after Democrats recaptured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through a provision repealing Section 1076 and restoring prior safeguards .
But it was astounding that almost all congressional Democrats signed off on conferring such power on Bush at the same time that liberals were routinely denouncing him as a dictator .
Unfortunately , that is standard operating procedure on Capitol Hill where most members are grossly negligent on almost all constitutional issues , despite their press releases to the contrary .
Trump may be threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act to browbeat governors to deploy more National Guard units and to sway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The rampages last night were lighter in most locales compared to the weekend , excepting a few places such as New York City .
( Governor Andrew Cuomo condemned Mayor Bill de Blasio today for failing to curb looting last night and again sought permission to send in National Guard troops . )
Private citizens in some places are stepping up to fill the void left by AWOL police , creating a rising peril that pillagers will be shot .
And the rioters may finally be realizing that iPhones they plundered are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zaps stolen phones .
The Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992 by President George H.W .
Bush in response to Los Angeles riots that , as Kelley Vlahos noted here yesterday , had left 60 people dead , burnt down 3,700 buildings , and inflicted a billion dollars in damage .
The carnage in recent days in has ravaged many entrepreneurs and some neighborhoods but there will likely be a hundred times more businesses that perish because of the pandemic shelter-in-place orders imposed by governors than by the rioters .
If Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. troops into states and cities across the nation , he will “ own ” any subsequent carnage that the military fails to prevent .
Formally invoking the Insurrection Act risks spurring renewed or fresh uprisings in many places that have simmered down .
That could lead to greater pressure for a formal declaration of martial law .
As Joseph Nunn of the Brennan Center for Justice explained , “ The concept of ‘ martial law ’ is not well understood , let alone defined , in American law .
It usually refers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ordinary civilian government .
The key words are ‘ taking over.
’ ” Will the Trump administration be so foolish as to presume that their military commanders could miraculously take over and maintain order in cities that have not enjoyed good governance for decades ?
Martial law would be a political nuclear bomb that would provoke far more of the vehement protests that the Trump administration is seeking to quell .
Perhaps even worse , martial law would be an “ Antifa Relief Act ” that spurred far more valorizing of vicious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Lost Rights , Attention Deficit Democracy , and Public Policy Hooligan .
He is also a USA Today columnist .
Follow him on Twitter @ JimBovard .

President Trump may be veering closer to declaring martial law in response to rioting in many cities across the nation. On Saturday, Trump warned “the Federal Government will step in and do what has to be done, and that includes using the unlimited power of our Military and many arrests.” On Monday, Trump declared that if cities or states refuse sufficiently defend the life and property of their residents, “I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”
Even the Washington Post concedes that Trump “has the legal authority to deploy active-duty military personnel to states to help quell violent protests” though experts warn such a move “would probably generate strong pushback from some state and local officials.” According to a survey released Tuesday by Political Polls, Americans support “calling in the U.S. military to supplement city police forces” by a 58 percent to 30 percent margin. But any support could quickly vanish if deploying troops resulted in significant casualties of innocent civilians.
Trump could send in U.S. troops under the Insurrection Act if a governor requested aid. Prior to sending in troops, Trump would be required to issue a proclamation to “immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time,” according to the law.
Many frenzied activists presume that there is no difference between the Insurrection Act and martial law. Under the Insurrection Act, U.S. troops would still be assisting in enforcing laws under state and local authority. A formal declaration of martial law, on the other hand, effectively suspends civil liberties and gives all authority to the military.
The current round of rioting would be much more constitutionally perilous if not for one intransigent U.S. senator during the Bush administration. Amazingly, Congress passed a law 14 years ago that made martial law practically a push-button perk of presidents.
In 2006, Congress voted almost unanimously to entitle President George W. Bush and any subsequent president to effectively declare martial law largely as a matter of bureaucratic convenience. Many of the current Democratic leaders in the House and Senate were part of that surrender-without-a-fight civil liberties debacle.
After the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Bush administration pushed Congress to make it far easier for a president to declare martial law to avoid similar public relations debacles. An August 2006 White House press release decried “the equivalent of a weapon of mass effect being used on the city of New Orleans.” “Weapon of mass effect” sounded like the rhetorical equivalent of computer-generated images in a low-budget movie. But that vaporous phrase helped stampede cowardly congressmen facing reelection a few months later.
On September 30, 2006, Congress passed the Defense Authorization Act of 2006, a $500 billion, 591-page bill that included a few paragraphs razing a key constraint on presidential power. Almost 200 years earlier, Congress had passed the Insurrection Act to severely curtail the president’s ability to deploy the military within the U.S., a law that was further buttressed by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. But there was a loophole: the Posse Comitatus Act was waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.
Section 1076 of that 2006 law deleted the name “Insurrection Act” and replaced it with “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” The 2006 “reform” effectively authorized martial law declarations in response to a “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition”—and such “condition” was neither defined nor limited. A smattering of pipe bomb explosions could satisfy the “other condition”—as could the bomb explosions used last night to rob up to 10 ATM machines in Philadelphia. The 2006 law also empowered the president to commandeer the National Guard of any state to send to another state for up to 365 days—part of the reason why every governor in the nation opposed the “reform.”
Liberal Democrats heartily supported this frontal assault on the Rule of Law: the provision was co-written by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and openly endorsed by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). The only senator to vigorously protest the bill was Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who warned that “we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law.” He groused in the Congressional Record: “Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.” “Martial law” is a euphemism for military dictatorship—a situation where anyone who disobeys soldiers’ orders can be shot. Martial law effectively waives constitutional rights.
The media and most of Capitol Hill ignored or cheered Section 1076 when it was enacted. (The American Conservative was one of the few places to howl about the law.) Five months later, a New York Times editorial criticized the new law for “making martial law easier.” The editorial implied that the law had “been passed in the dead of night”—as if 50 governors, a senior senator from Vermont, and a bevy of activists had never voiced their opposition.
In early 2008, after Democrats recaptured control of Congress, Sen. Leahy pushed through a provision repealing Section 1076 and restoring prior safeguards. But it was astounding that almost all congressional Democrats signed off on conferring such power on Bush at the same time that liberals were routinely denouncing him as a dictator. Unfortunately, that is standard operating procedure on Capitol Hill where most members are grossly negligent on almost all constitutional issues, despite their press releases to the contrary.
Trump may be threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act to browbeat governors to deploy more National Guard units and to sway mayors to more effectively suppress looting rampages. The rampages last night were lighter in most locales compared to the weekend, excepting a few places such as New York City. (Governor Andrew Cuomo condemned Mayor Bill de Blasio today for failing to curb looting last night and again sought permission to send in National Guard troops.) Private citizens in some places are stepping up to fill the void left by AWOL police, creating a rising peril that pillagers will be shot. And the rioters may finally be realizing that iPhones they plundered are little more than paperweights since Apple easily zaps stolen phones.
The Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush in response to Los Angeles riots that, as Kelley Vlahos noted here yesterday, had left 60 people dead, burnt down 3,700 buildings, and inflicted a billion dollars in damage. The carnage in recent days in has ravaged many entrepreneurs and some neighborhoods but there will likely be a hundred times more businesses that perish because of the pandemic shelter-in-place orders imposed by governors than by the rioters.
If Trump uses the Insurrection Act to send in U.S. troops into states and cities across the nation, he will “own” any subsequent carnage that the military fails to prevent. Formally invoking the Insurrection Act risks spurring renewed or fresh uprisings in many places that have simmered down. That could lead to greater pressure for a formal declaration of martial law. As Joseph Nunn of the Brennan Center for Justice explained, “The concept of ‘martial law’ is not well understood, let alone defined, in American law. It usually refers to military forces taking over the functions of ordinary civilian government. The key words are ‘taking over.’”
Will the Trump administration be so foolish as to presume that their military commanders could miraculously take over and maintain order in cities that have not enjoyed good governance for decades? Martial law would be a political nuclear bomb that would provoke far more of the vehement protests that the Trump administration is seeking to quell. Perhaps even worse, martial law would be an “Antifa Relief Act” that spurred far more valorizing of vicious vandals.
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public Policy Hooligan. He is also a USA Today columnist. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.


theamericanconservative--2020-06-02--Chaos in D.C.: Protesters, Helicopters, and Arson as Another Night Brings More Riots

Amid riots in Washington , D.C. on Monday night , law enforcement chased protesters through the city with a low-flying helicopter , emitting sand and what appeared to be at least one flash-bang grenade as protesters tried to make it to the Capitol building .
After dispersing the demonstrations near the White House and arresting those involved for violating the 7 p.m. curfew , a few hundred people formed a crowd more than a mile north and began to walk southeast towards the Capitol building .
By the time protesters got to Chinatown , police were employing unique measures to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following the protesters and trying to contain them , they used a military helicopter to fly 40 to 50 feet overhead , emitting sand and spraying it in the eyes of protesters with the propeller .
The extremely close range caused traffic cones to fly through the streets and knocked port-a-potties off balance in a work zone .
Police also set up barricades on both sides of the protesters , following them from behind and using tear gas against them .
At least one flash-bang grenade was used during the chase , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In one instance , when protesters stopped near the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces , the chopper hovered over their heads , not moving for several minutes .
After it flew away , protesters continued marching toward the Capitol .
With the Capitol building visible , police barricades surrounded protesters and forced them to go in the opposite direction after hitting them with tear gas .
As the demonstrators began to run away , police continued to hit them with tear gas from multiple angles and emit sand from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into different directions .
During the chase , protesters caused some damage , including to the Teamsters building , which had several windows broken .
Some also vandalized the Court of Appeals for Armed Forces building with graffiti that said “ Fuck 12 , ” which means “ fuck the police.
” Protests from the previous night near the White House had led to a lot of looting in the area , which included convenience store chains and small businesses .
The protesters also committed arson , even setting fire to the historic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump later urged police to be more aggressive .
Similar demonstrations have erupted nationally over the death of George Floyd , who was killed in the custody of a police officer .
The officer , who is white , held his knee on the neck of Floyd , who was black , for several minutes , including after he was visibly unconscious .
Tyler Arnold is a writer based in the Washington , D.C. area .
His work can be seen in the Associated Press , Business Insider , National Review , @ @ @ @

Amid riots in Washington, D.C. on Monday night, law enforcement chased protesters through the city with a low-flying helicopter, emitting sand and what appeared to be at least one flash-bang grenade as protesters tried to make it to the Capitol building.
After dispersing the demonstrations near the White House and arresting those involved for violating the 7 p.m. curfew, a few hundred people formed a crowd more than a mile north and began to walk southeast towards the Capitol building.
By the time protesters got to Chinatown, police were employing unique measures to make them disperse. Along with cruisers following the protesters and trying to contain them, they used a military helicopter to fly 40 to 50 feet overhead, emitting sand and spraying it in the eyes of protesters with the propeller.
The extremely close range caused traffic cones to fly through the streets and knocked port-a-potties off balance in a work zone. Police also set up barricades on both sides of the protesters, following them from behind and using tear gas against them. At least one flash-bang grenade was used during the chase, which appeared to have come from the helicopter.
In one instance, when protesters stopped near the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the chopper hovered over their heads, not moving for several minutes. After it flew away, protesters continued marching toward the Capitol.
With the Capitol building visible, police barricades surrounded protesters and forced them to go in the opposite direction after hitting them with tear gas. As the demonstrators began to run away, police continued to hit them with tear gas from multiple angles and emit sand from the helicopter, eventually causing protesters to disperse into different directions.
During the chase, protesters caused some damage, including to the Teamsters building, which had several windows broken. Some also vandalized the Court of Appeals for Armed Forces building with graffiti that said “Fuck 12,” which means “fuck the police.”
Protests from the previous night near the White House had led to a lot of looting in the area, which included convenience store chains and small businesses. The protesters also committed arson, even setting fire to the historic St. John’s Church. President Donald Trump later urged police to be more aggressive.
Similar demonstrations have erupted nationally over the death of George Floyd, who was killed in the custody of a police officer. The officer, who is white, held his knee on the neck of Floyd, who was black, for several minutes, including after he was visibly unconscious.
Tyler Arnold is a writer based in the Washington, D.C. area. His work can be seen in the Associated Press, Business Insider, National Review, and other outlets.