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.
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?
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????
Another point re @NathanBacaTV article: wusa9.com/article/news/i… The distinction b/w clearing Lafayette Park and other areas is blurred. And from his article D.C. officials still haven't said whether tear gas used outside of Lafayette Park. Why not?
The more I think about this, the more this seems an important question: D.C. Police continue to say they did not participate in clearing of Lafayette Park, but from article D.C. officials have yet to say whether they used tear gas to clear areas outside Park. Instead, D.C. cops
2/ are trying to get the case dismissed WITHOUT that fact being disclosed, but arguing no violation of constitutional rights EVEN IF THEY used tear gas. Why is that? Why won't D.C. officials say whether tear gas used outside Lafayette Park by D.C. Police???
THREAD: My 92-year-old mom was talking in her sleep last night: "Charles, where's Rose?" she asked. Charles was her brother who, after Pearl Harbor, claimed he was 18 so he could enlist--as his mom, my grandmother refused to agree. He trained in Washington state. 1/
2/ My grandmother hitchhiked there from Michigan for Christmas b/c "my boy's not going to spend Christmas alone." He was Army, infintry, originally, but after discovering his superior swimming skills he became a Ranger.
3/ He earned a Silver Star for volunteering to swim ashore ahead of the landing at Anzio to mark the landing site. He succeeded and survived, only months later to be killed by shrapnel while eating with his unit outside. My grandmother refused to believe he died for years,
THREADETTE: Discussing today in Employment Law for Manager's class legality of mandatory vaccination policies by private employers. Two contrary perspectives statnews.com/2021/02/23/fed…
2/ statnews.com/2021/04/05/aut… Focus is on the "emergency use" of COVID vaccine (not normal at-will principles/accommodation.) Until case law addresses, it will be impossible to know how courts will rule. BUT
3/3 I believe better argument is that emergency use vaccines cannot be mandated because of federal preemption and specifically a conflict in objective based on Geier analysis. That is all.