4 ms·
Your source provides zero evidence that the US Park Police is lying. It's an important distinction.
by creaghpatr 6y ago
Your source provides zero evidence that the US Park Police is lying. It's an important distinction.
- fzeroracer 6y agoA first hand account from a reputable reporter who worked as marine security doesn't count as evidence? Really? Okay then, what would count as evidence in your world? Since apparently veterans actually being there doesn't count. They're either lying or they're sorely mistaken.
- iso1631 6y agoThere has been a lot of effort put into demonising the media over the last 5-10 years. Lügenpresse was used heavily in the 30s to attack enemnies of the party.
- fzeroracer 6y agoNot just that, but there's been a lot of demonizing of any objective fact that goes against whatever narrative they're following. I'm starting to feel like even if you prove something was objectively wrong, that's still not enough to convince people even here on HN.
- splitrocket 6y agoAustralian journalists corroborate the use of tear gas. https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/us-ambassador-responds-to-assault-of-australian-journalists-by-police-outside-white-house-20200602-p54ywn.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/us-ambassador-res...
- evan_ 6y agoYour source provides zero evidence that the Park Police said anything at all. It's not even claiming they did. If it was the park police who said this, wouldn't he have mentioned that? > A source says tear gas was never used "A source says", not "Park Police say" or "A source within the Park Police says"
- evan_ 6y agoquick update on this, the Park Police admits they lied about this and that they did in fact use tear gas https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21281604/lafayette-square-white-house-tear-gas-protest https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21281604/lafayette-square-white...