THREAD-HUGELY IMPORTANT: While without seeing the transcript, I can only be 99% sure, but I am 99% sure this is 100% FALSE. SO, journalists, and "jouralists" before retweeting or writing an article parroting this claim, READ. THIS. THREAD.
https://twitter.com/nicholaswu12/status/1398668394782769157
2/ Here's the lede. BUT what exactly did the attoney say? First, the reporters paraphrase and then the actual words: 
3/ What the attorney said IS NOT--REPEAT--is NOT an admission that the DC Police used tear gas. And here it's important to understand both the law and court procedures: The DC Police Officers were sued and the Plaintiffs ALLEGED tear gas was used:
4/ Rather than answer the complaint (and deny using tear gas) and then allowing the lawsuit to continue, the D.C. Police Officers filed a motion to dismiss. And at the motion to dismiss stage the court MUST accept the allegations in the complaint as true:
5/ So 99% DC Police Officers' attorney did not admit tear gas was used, but instead, as the law required, proceeded as if it were true, arguing that even if true there was not constitutional violation OR if there were, it was not clearly established (i.e. qualified immunity).
6/ In fact, check out this footnote saying the allegations are unbelieveable, but okay, we'll accept them as true.
7/ Here's the D.C. Police's brief doing exactly that--assuming tear gas was used and arguing that still not a violation of the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights:
8/ Continuing & moving to qualified immunity:
9/ Now contrast the lede/Tweet versus the actual in-court quote. Did the DC Police admit using tear gas? 99% NO. But how many "journalists" will parrot the claim while mocking conservatives?
10/ Let's start with:
12/ Now Molly's more predictable:
13/ And this how fake news becomes an ingrained narrative:
15/ OMgosh....I want to scream......Stop. Just. Stop.
17/ Seriously!
18/ And Molly with a double-take:
19/ Nope.
20/ And yet it continues:
21/ ...still continuing:
22/ et cetera:
23/ Here's the Tweet with the reporter whose has the byline for the article:
24/ Yet another one:
25/ A related THREAD which corrects one point: D.C. Officials (as far as I can divine as of now), have never said they did NOT use tear gas outside Lafayette Park on June 1. I wrongly believed they had and thus had there been an admission, it would mean they had lied.
26/ But now I'm intrigued: Why have district officials REFUSED to answer that question and, if motion to dismiss is granted, will avoid being forced to answer it by a court????
https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1399709391188865024
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
