AN investigation has determined the decision to forcibly clear racial justice protesters from an area in front of the White House last summer was not influenced by then-president Donald Trump’s plan to stage a photo opportunity at that spot.
The report, released by the Interior Department’s inspector general, concludes that the protesters were cleared by US Park Police last June 1 so that a contractor could start installing new fencing.
The demonstrators were protesting over the death of George Floyd, who died after a then-Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck and pinned him to the ground for more than nine minutes.
A half-hour after the Washington protesters were forced from the area with pepper pellets and flash-bangs, Trump walked across Lafayette Park amid the lingering scent of pepper spray and delivered a short speech while holding a Bible in front of St John’s Church.
Park Police officials had already planned to clear the area and “had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential presidential visit to the park,” Inspector General Mark Lee Greenblatt said in a statement.
“We determined that the evidence did not support a finding that the USPP cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then-president Trump could enter the park.”
The report determined that the decision to clear the protesters was justified, but that law enforcement agencies on the scene failed to effectively communicate with each other and failed to communicate warnings to the protesters about the impending crackdown.
The conclusions, which deny any political influence on decisions and cite fog of war confusion for any missteps, are likely to be dismissed as insufficient by critics of last summer’s crackdown.
Lafayette Park, the Washington nexus of the last summer’s national wave of racial justice protests, is under Park Police jurisdiction; that agency falls under the Interior Department.
The new report focuses on the Park Police decision-making and its complicated interactions with various law enforcement entities, including the Secret Service and the Metropolitan Police Department.
It points out that “the USPP and the Secret Service did not use a shared radio channel to communicate” and determines that “weaknesses in communication and coordination may have contributed to confusion during the operation”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here