Can Anyone Find Evidence Of This?

[Whateverman]

I read this report in two places, HuffPost (gag!) and The Independent. Neither provided any video evidence of their claim, which is that Trump had "peaceful protesters" cleared out of his path with tear gas, so he could do a photo op at a church. I looked on YouTube and also found no evidence there.

I know this is old history, but I'd like to make a simple request:

Never look to Youtube for video information about whether certain things did or did not happen.

[Ronson]

I know this is old history, but I'd like to make a simple request:

Never look to Youtube for video information about whether certain things did or did not happen.

I've found confirmation on YouTube for various things before. If not for YouTube, most of the planet wouldn't know the details of George Floyd's death.

[Sparko]

Again, by the Park Police's own admission *some* cops did have gas masks. You can also find pictures of some cops wearing them.

Great, then show me that.

We have video of them deploying gas and we have pictures (maybe video, haven't looked) and a Park Police statement that some cops had gas masks.

smoke not gas, and again, show me that some cops had gas masks on. But how does "some" work? wouldn't the other cops be affected by the tear gas as much as the crowds? How did they stay in formation?

Are you really suggesting that there are used tear gas canisters just lying around in the middle of the street near the White House? Really?

There have been violent protests the day before and tear gas could have been used then. Or the reporter could have just brought it with him. I am just guessing. But unless there is evidence that they actually used tear gas other than that report, I am going to believe the park police.

Do you remember earlier in the thread when you insisted that the protestors were violent and had pre-positioned weapons? Why don't you require pictures and video of that? Why the double standard?

I don't remember me "insisting" that. I have heard the police and authorities claiming it is so. But I have no bone in that argument. You can believe it or not.

[DivineOb]

Great, then show me that.




smoke not gas, and again, show me that some cops had gas masks on. But how does "some" work? wouldn't the other cops be affected by the tear gas as much as the crowds? How did they stay in formation?



There have been violent protests the day before and tear gas could have been used then. Or the reporter could have just brought it with him. I am just guessing. But unless there is evidence that they actually used tear gas other than that report, I am going to believe the park police.

Washington post put up this detailed video yesterday covering the timeline from this incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxYmILDya0A

It confirms the use of gas masks and that CS gas was potentially going to be used (2:40-2:55). The fact that CS was even raised as a possibility is the whole ballgame.

CS gas (2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile) is one of the most commonly used tear gases in the world. Law enforcement agencies have found this agent invaluable when faced with combative suspects, for riot control, and for alleviating hostage and siege situations.

This FNC story confirms that Park Police considers CS to be "tear gas"

[Sparko]

Washington post put up this detailed video yesterday covering the timeline from this incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxYmILDya0A

It confirms the use of gas masks and that CS gas was potentially going to be used (2:40-2:55). The fact that CS was even raised as a possibility is the whole ballgame.

CS gas (2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile) is one of the most commonly used tear gases in the world. Law enforcement agencies have found this agent invaluable when faced with combative suspects, for riot control, and for alleviating hostage and siege situations.

This FNC story confirms that Park Police considers CS to be "tear gas"

Well thanks for finding that. But it showed one or two people wearing a gas mask? And at 7:25 and 7:50 and other places you can clearly see the crowd and the police without gas masks walking through the smoke without choking or keeling over. That is just smoke. There is one bystander claiming that some smoke is tear gas later, but it shuts off right after that so you can't see what reaction it causes.

[DivineOb]

Well thanks for finding that. But it showed one or two people wearing a gas mask? And at 7:25 and 7:50 and other places you can clearly see the crowd and the police without gas masks walking through the smoke without choking or keeling over. That is just smoke. There is one bystander claiming that some smoke is tear gas later, but it shuts off right after that so you can't see what reaction it causes.

The fact that CS was even considered is the whole ballgame.

[Sparko]

The fact that CS was even considered is the whole ballgame.

Why? I am sure they did have CS gas available to use if needed. But the claim is that they used it, on PEACEFUL protestors. Your video shows they were not peaceful.

[DivineOb]

Why? I am sure they did have CS gas available to use if needed. But the claim is that they used it, on PEACEFUL protestors. Your video shows they were not peaceful.

You're just going to keep moving the goalposts. I provided the evidence you asked for (more than you asked for, even). You're not being honest in this dialog, "Sparko."

[Sparko]

You're just going to keep moving the goalposts. I provided the evidence you asked for (more than you asked for, even). You're not being honest in this dialog, "Sparko."

I was asking for evidence that they used CS tear gas like the article you posted said they did and that they found an empty canister of it. Your video didn't show anything new and in fact showed the police without gas masks walking slowly through the "gas" with no ill effects. Same with the crowds. And it showed the crowds were not peaceful like the MSM keeps claiming.

[DivineOb]

I was asking for evidence that they used CS tear gas like the article you posted said they did and that they found an empty canister of it. Your video didn't show anything new and in fact showed the police without gas masks walking slowly through the "gas" with no ill effects. Same with the crowds. And it showed the crowds were not peaceful like the MSM keeps claiming.

Again, the fact that they even considered using tear gas is the whole game. If you don't see this then that's fine but I'm not interested in going further on this. If you are convinced that the crowed was "violent" despite clear evidence to the contrary then fine. If you are convinced that the crowd's behavior warranted the response (which everyone in the WH is running away from as fast as they can, even Barr!) then fine. If you are convinced that the response was warranted despite international condemnation from our allies then fine. The preponderance of the evidence clearly supports my perspective.

[Sparko]

Again, the fact that they even considered using tear gas is the whole game. If you don't see this then that's fine but I'm not interested in going further on this. If you are convinced that the crowed was "violent" despite clear evidence to the contrary then fine. If you are convinced that the crowd's behavior warranted the response (which everyone in the WH is running away from as fast as they can, even Barr!) then fine. If you are convinced that the response was warranted despite international condemnation from our allies then fine. The preponderance of the evidence clearly supports my perspective.

lol. And you accused ME of moving goal posts.

[DivineOb]

lol. And you accused ME of moving goal posts.

What goal posts have I moved? Be specific.

[Sparko]

What goal posts have I moved? Be specific.

From whether they actually used tear gas on the crowd to "the fact that they even considered using tear gas is the whole game"

[DivineOb]

From whether they actually used tear gas on the crowd to "the fact that they even considered using tear gas is the whole game"

It's the whole game because

1) The whole scandal is the concept that the tear gas would be used to clear out protestors for a photo op. Even considering to use tear gas in that circumstance is horrid and unAmerican to the highest degree. And unChristian by any possible definition.
2) Your claim was that LE could not have used tear gas because you were unconvinced that gas masks were used. I provided video evidence that gas masks were employed by some and that it was employed by those people because they were informed that tear gas might be employed. We also have video evidence of LE employing harsh tactics (clearly out of line with what was necessary to clear the protestors) and doing so gratuitously (e.g. beating the Australian reporter with a nightstick *as she fled*, shooting protestors *in the back*). Clearly the best explanation for used tear gas canisters *in the immediate aftermath of an aggressive push to clear the protestors* and *in the exact spot protestors very recently inhabited* is that those shells were *recently fired*. Are you suggesting that they were just lying in the street and no one noticed them when gathering for the protest earlier in the day? You, personally, wouldn't have picked up one and looked it it when you initially arrived on the scene?

I don't have time to waste on someone not interested in following the truth wherever it leads.

[Sparko]

It's the whole game because

1) The whole scandal is the concept that the tear gas would be used to clear out protestors for a photo op. Even considering to use tear gas in that circumstance is horrid and unAmerican to the highest degree. And unChristian by any possible definition.
2) Your claim was that LE could not have used tear gas because you were unconvinced that gas masks were used. I provided video evidence that gas masks were employed by some and that it was employed by those people because they were informed that tear gas might be employed. We also have video evidence of LE employing harsh tactics (clearly out of line with what was necessary to clear the protestors) and doing so gratuitously (e.g. beating the Australian reporter with a nightstick *as she fled*, shooting protestors *in the back*). Clearly the best explanation for used tear gas canisters *in the immediate aftermath of an aggressive push to clear the protestors* and *in the exact spot protestors very recently inhabited* is that those shells were *recently fired*. Are you suggesting that they were just lying in the street and no one noticed them when gathering for the protest earlier in the day? You, personally, wouldn't have picked up one and looked it it when you initially arrived on the scene?

I don't have time to waste on someone not interested in following the truth wherever it leads.

Again,