CNN Skeptical of Report Absolving Trump Over D.C. Anti-Riot Actions


CNN journalists are so bitten by Trump Derangement Syndrome that the release of an inspector general’s report disproving the liberal media’s anti-Trump narrative on the clearing of Lafayette Park has had them struggling to salvage their anti-Trump theories.

After last week’s report by the U.S. Department of the Interior found that President Donald Trump did not order that protesters be forcibly removed so he could stage a photo-op last June, CNN’s Jim Acosta joined Thursday’s New Day to react with skepticism, with Acosta suggesting that the inspector general was trying to get a job working for Trump.

Additionally, CNNers tried to blame Trump for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department using teargas near Lafayette Park even though the MPD was under the control of the local Democratic-controlled D.C. government. Last year, the same CNN show had likened the operation to the Tiananmen Square massacre.

When co-host Brianna Keilar brought up the topic, she asked if the report “raises more questions than it answers,” leading Acosta to respond:

 

 

Well, I certainly think it raises more questions than it answers. I mean, you know, the IG report is saying that the Park Police cleared the park with the purpose of setting up this fence because obviously the protesters needed to be moved back from this area where they were defacing statues and potentially pulling down the Andrew Jackson statue and so on.

Acosta did not mention that a large number of officers were injured in the Lafayette Park area in the first week of protests, which was more than the number injured in the January 6 Capitol riots.

The liberal CNN journalist soon added: “They were violently pummeling protesters, tear gassing protesters. Remember, at the time, the White House was telling us, ‘we didn’t use teargas.’ The D.C. Police were using teargas.'”

The report concluded that Federal officers did not use teargas because they were ordered not to do so, but the D.C. Police — which was still under local control — used CS gas relatively nearby when some protesters violently attacked officers.

Acosta then clung to the idea that there must still be a Trump scandal in there somewhere that’s still being covered up:

The other thing that is not clear about all of this is, you know, “What did the White House team know at this time?” According to the inspector general’s report, they did not speak to senior White House officials — they did not speak to the Secret Service. So this certainly raises more questions. And I have to say, you know, as I read through this report, it sounded as if this inspector general was auditioning to become the inspector general at Mar-a-Lago because, I mean, this is almost a whitewash of what occurred on June 1st.

Again, not acknowledging that there had been a lot of violence by protesters violating curfew in the first few nights, and that the crowds were reportedly getting larger instead of smaller as the 7 p.m. curfew approached, Acosta described the protesters as peaceful as he complained:

These protesters were largely demonstrating peacefully and were violently cleared from that park. It was just a huge blow to the First Amendment, I think, in this country. You can’t have protesters pummeled by police officers when they’re trying to make a statement about racial justice in this country.

Co-host John Berman then jumped in to suggest other scandalous information is being covered up.

By contrast, CNN law enforcement correspondent Whitney Wild was more of a straight journalist in reporting the facts when the story broke on Wednesday afternoon, and again which she appeared on CNN Tonight.

 

 

And just a week earlier, after the D.C. Metro Police admitted that it had used teargas on that evening, Keilar gave a commentary on New Day in which she tried to blame Trump for the activities of the agency even though it was operating under the local control of D.C.’s Democratic mayor and city council.

Thursday’s New Day show was sponsored in part by Lexus. Their contact information is linked.

Transcripts follow:

CNN’s New Day
June 10. 2021
7:13 a.m. Eastern

BRIANNA KEILAR: I want to turn now and talk to you a little bit about this IG report, this inspector general’s report about a very key day, which was when Lafayette Square was cleared, and then we saw President Trump with his photo op in front of the church there. Tell us what we’re learning, and tell us what this means. Tell us if this raises more questions than it answers. What do you think?

JIM ACOSTA: Well, I certainly think it raises more questions than it answers. I mean, you know, the IG report is saying that the Park Police cleared the park with the purpose of setting up this fence because obviously the protesters needed to be moved back from this area where they were defacing statues and potentially pulling down the Andrew Jackson statue and so on.

I was in the Rose Garden that day when Trump gave that speech and said, “I’m going to this special place,” talking about the church, and you could hear the Park Police and other federal forces, D.C. Police, clearing the park. They were violently pummeling protesters, tear gassing protesters. Remember, at the time, the White House was telling us, “We didn’t use teargas.” The D.C. Police were using teargas. 

The other thing that is not clear about all of this is, you know, what did the White House team know at this time? According to the inspector general’s report, they did not speak to senior White House officials, they did not speak to the Secret Service. So this certainly raises more questions. And I have to say, you know, as I read through this report, it sounded as if this inspector general was auditioning to become the inspector general at Mar-a-Lago because, I mean, this is almost a whitewash of what occurred on June 1st.

These protesters were largely demonstrating peacefully and were violently cleared from that park. It was just a huge blow to the First Amendment, I think, in this country. You can’t have protesters pummeled by police officers when they’re trying to make a statement about racial justice in this country.

BERMAN: The IG report didn’t so, though, that it didn’t happen. What it really specifically said was that the Park Police and only the Park Police — not necessarily the Secret Service or other law enforcement agencies — but the Park Police didn’t clear those protesters so that the President could go hold up the Bible. That’s a very specific narrow finding.

ACOSTA: And — but what we don’t know is what the White House was plotting at the same time. Remember — if you look at this inspector general’s report — there’s one part where a Park Police commander talks to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General says — this is in the IG report — “are these protesters still going to be here when the President comes out?” So, clearly, they had this intent to use the clearing of the park to stage this photo opportunity even if that was not the original intent of the Park Police. And so, you know, I think that there are other investigations going on up on Capitol Hill, inside the Interior Department, over at the Justice Department. We need more answers than this. This doesn’t go nearly far enough to explain what happened that day.

KEILAR: Yeah, what did — we don’t know what the AG said. We also didn’t hear from a lot of folks who would have known that as well —

ACOSTA: Yeah.

KEILAR: — in this report.

————————————————–

CNN Newsroom with Ana Cabrera
June 9, 2021
1:35 p.m. Eastern

ANA CABRERA: We have this breaking news. A brand new government report is just out on this controversial moment involving former President Trump last June where police teargassed a crowd of protesters in Lafayette Square before Trump walked to this nearby church for a photo op with a Bible. CNN law enforcement correspondent Whitney Wild joins us now with what this report says. Whitney, what can you tell us?

WHITNEY WILD: Well, Ana, this report, dropping just a few minutes ago, says that U.S. Park Police did have the authority to clear Lafayette Park when they did. There was a big question about whether or not they should have waited until the D.C. curfew went into effect — that was at 7:00 because we know Park Police began clearing that area around Lafayette Park around 6:00. So here’s what the report says. They did have the authority to clear it when they did. They did not need to wait for the curfew. There were also questions about chemical irritants that were deployed — was it teargas? Was it not teargas?

What we’ve learned from this report, Ana, is that Park Police did not deploy teargas. Instead, they did deploy this white chemical irritant, this white — I’m sorry, a white smoke non-irritant white smoke. That’s an important distinction because they felt like their operational plan did not specify that they should be using teargas.

So Park Police decided early on they were not going to use teargas — they did not. The report says that it was the Metropolitan Police Department that later on in another location used teargas. So the white sort of smoke that you see deployed by Park Police and its law enforcement partners, that is a nonirritant white smoke. So an important distinction there. 

This was also not cleared for the President’s visit to this church. It was actually sort of a — I — I wouldn’t use the term “happenstance” — but it’s not clear why — well, let me back up — let me explain the whole process here because it was a — it was sort of a day-long thing that led up to this confrontation. Park Police earlier on in the day had decided that they were going to clear the area outside Lafayette Park because, by June 1st, after days of civil unrest in D.C., they needed a contractor to come in and put up a fence around the White House.

It was at the contractor’s request that this happen under two conditions — one, during daylight hours; and two, with a police presence. So Park Police had decided to create this operational plan — they always planned to clear the area for the purpose of getting the fence up safely — not for the purpose of allowing the President to go to the church. That decision was made — the report doesn’t opine on why the decision was made, but the timing here — although it looks, you know, at first blush, perhaps looked like that was the reason. The report says that explicitly was not the reason, Ana.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *