Let's talk about Portland and manuals...

[OlNate]

Alright, so, I enjoyed the last conversation that was had around this guy's videos, so I thought I'd give it another go. I'm putting it in this part of the forum again, because what he says isn't really partisan, so the folks who like to blow up threads with talking points aren't going to have that much to say here...so more interesting conversations can be had... Plus, if you're going to get into it here, you're going to need to be at least invested enough to watch the videos, so there's that...hehe....

In this series, he does a comparison of how things are going in Portland, versus what the actual military manuals have to say about the subject. I will link to the actual manuals, straight from FAS and Rand, below. If you really wanna nerd out on this, or fact check, there you go.

Full disclosure, this is an academic criticism of how the administration is handling Portland, followed by a call to action in the final video.

I actually watched the last video in the series as I was pulling links for this post, and debated on whether or not to include it, because honestly, I'm too Canadian for that kind of excitement...lol... I'm not an activist, per se...I'm not an evangelist either, for the same reason, if that make sense. I by no means am attempting to drive any kind of activism with this thread, I'm just submitting it for a discussion on the validity of the contents. If I had left off the last video, I'd feel like I was being sneaky...hehe...

Here are the videos. (EDIT: lol...max video limit of three per post, will link to the final video below)







Here are the manuals.

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR291z1/RAND_RR291z1.pdf


What do you guys think?

 

[OlNate]

 

[Oborosen]

Given the evidence presented. There is very little to be upset with the federal agents on. Aside from some uses of rubber rounds and one account of what I still believe is still considered mistaken identity among the rioters.

Though the interpretation of the rules and regulations to such have some abstaining guidelines. It's still up to the purview of the federal agents to do most of this.

 

[swing_voter]

I get the feeling it will all die down here over the next few weeks.

Nobody died, far as I know.

 

[DiAnna]

Well, that was sobering.

I listened to all four clips, but to those who can't spare that much time, please-please-please listen to this one. It's only seven minutes long, and if it doesn't set you on your heels about where we are heading and what we will see when we finally get there, then nothing will.

 

[Chomsky]

Alright, so, I enjoyed the last conversation that was had around this guy's videos, so I thought I'd give it another go. I'm putting it in this part of the forum again, because what he says isn't really partisan, so the folks who like to blow up threads with talking points aren't going to have that much to say here...so more interesting conversations can be had... Plus, if you're going to get into it here, you're going to need to be at least invested enough to watch the videos, so there's that...hehe....

In this series, he does a comparison of how things are going in Portland, versus what the actual military manuals have to say about the subject. I will link to the actual manuals, straight from FAS and Rand, below. If you really wanna nerd out on this, or fact check, there you go.

Full disclosure, this is an academic criticism of how the administration is handling Portland, followed by a call to action in the final video.

I actually watched the last video in the series as I was pulling links for this post, and debated on whether or not to include it, because honestly, I'm too Canadian for that kind of excitement...lol... I'm not an activist, per se...I'm not an evangelist either, for the same reason, if that make sense. I by no means am attempting to drive any kind of activism with this thread, I'm just submitting it for a discussion on the validity of the contents. If I had left off the last video, I'd feel like I was being sneaky...hehe...

Here are the videos. (EDIT: lol...max video limit of three per post, will link to the final video below)







Here are the manuals.

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR291z1/RAND_RR291z1.pdf


What do you guys think?

A modern day classic example of the third video might be Kent State, 1970.

 

[Chomsky]

Well, that was sobering.

I listened to all four clips, but to those who can't spare that much time, please-please-please listen to this one. It's only seven minutes long, and if it doesn't set you on your heels about where we are heading and what we will see when we finally get there, then nothing will.

This all is encompassed in Bannon's playbook, the Fourth Turning:

(Amazon) The Fourth Turning

 

[Chomsky]

I get the feeling it will all die down here over the next few weeks.

Nobody died, far as I know.

Yeah, but now Trump is sending his forces to other cities, like Chicago. 75K, according to the latest report. He's going to war with Liberals & Dems.

 

[Taylor]

Well he's wrong of course. "Wait and hope it burns out" serves only to embolden a riot, and I don't know how you "bring them to the table" when there's no leader or set of leaders that speaks for everyone.

Most cities handled this by simply setting a curfew and enforcing it. Largely peaceful protestors got their time during the day, and at night, when most of the trouble occurs, you give people the choice of going home or going to jail.

"Wait and hope it burns out" is why there's still a problem in Portland.

 

[MaryP]

He's good at what he does, but I wonder if I just listened to 40 minutes of pure propaganda. Some of what he described--the five elements of a movement, who they are and what they do--sounds right. I'm not going to read hundreds of pages of manuals; I'll trust that what he said is accurate. It's common sense that when you want to deescalate angry people, you give them as little to push against as possible. But then he lost me.

He says "YOU DO NOTHING" You talk, you listen to their demands. Well, that's what the officials have been doing for two months, isn't it? So why did this movement stay so adamant? It's too late for the "no masks, no shields, no batons" advice. I agree a heavy handed approach just made things worse, but it's where we are. I think both sides need to take responsibility for the logger heads in Portland. It isn't just the evil cops and administration, and pretending that it is won't have a good outcome either.

I'm glad I don't live in Portland.

But anyone who is a Curious George fan can't be all bad. He is a good spokesman for the protesters.

 

[Xilnik]

He's good at what he does, but I wonder if I just listened to 40 minutes of pure propaganda. Some of what he described--the five elements of a movement, who they are and what they do--sounds right. I'm not going to read hundreds of pages of manuals; I'll trust that what he said is accurate. It's common sense that when you want to deescalate angry people, you give them as little to push against as possible. But then he lost me.

He says "YOU DO NOTHING" You talk, you listen to their demands. Well, that's what the officials have been doing for two months, isn't it? So why did this movement stay so adamant? It's too late for the "no masks, no shields, no batons" advice. I agree a heavy handed approach just made things worse, but it's where we are. I think both sides need to take responsibility for the logger heads in Portland. It isn't just the evil cops and administration, and pretending that it is won't have a good outcome either.

I'm glad I don't live in Portland.

But anyone who is a Curious George fan can't be all bad. He is a good spokesman for the protesters.

To me, the reason things have not died down is because demands have not been met, and I see no way for them to be met. The demands vary from person to person, leader to leader, etc. There is no real leadership, and each city has a different leader; some even have multiple different leaders who show up on any given night with all of them expressing different demands. While the Black Lives Matter webpage has goals in mind, it does not really have plans in place to achieve those goals. The plans it does have, many of the Black Lives Matter chapters disagree with and define new ways they want to settle grievances.

This has been extremely frustrating for me to watch. I agree with what Black Lives Matter wants to accomplish, but I have disagreed at multiple turns with how people have acted who claim to support them. I disagree with trying to make all change happen in one foul swoop too. Without knowing what works and what does not, there is no way to know whether any of the demands will fix anything or make matters worse. I am starting to think the GOP bill is closer to what should happen by making small changes and seeing how those impact law enforcement, conducting studies, and then making more changes based on actual evidence.

 

[MaryP]

To me, the reason things have not died down is because demands have not been met, and I see no way for them to be met. The demands vary from person to person, leader to leader, etc. There is no real leadership, and each city has a different leader; some even have multiple different leaders who show up on any given night with all of them expressing different demands. While the Black Lives Matter webpage has goals in mind, it does not really have plans in place to achieve those goals. The plans it does have, many of the Black Lives Matter chapters disagree with and define new ways they want to settle grievances.

This has been extremely frustrating for me to watch. I agree with what Black Lives Matter wants to accomplish, but I have disagreed at multiple turns with how people have acted who claim to support them. I disagree with trying to make all change happen in one foul swoop too. Without knowing what works and what does not, there is no way to know whether any of the demands will fix anything or make matters worse. I am starting to think the GOP bill is closer to what should happen by making small changes and seeing how those impact law enforcement, conducting studies, and then making more changes based on actual evidence.

I don't know what the GOP bill says, but otherwise, you have summed up exactly how I feel about the situation.

 

[Xilnik]

I don't know what the GOP bill says, but otherwise, you have summed up exactly how I feel about the situation.

Many BLM leaders have said they want to ban chokeholds, end no knock warrants, and end qualified immunity. The GOP bill disincentivizes chokeholds, monitors no knock warrants, and does nothing about qualified immunity. I think something in between those two extremes would work well.

Beau, from the videos in this thread, actually talked a bit about chokeholds in another video and how many officers do not do them correctly, which is why they can be dangerous. I am all for them finding safer methods to restrain people in either case. Anything that makes people who are restrained feel a bit safer and uses or at least has a perception of using less force would go a long way toward building more trust with police officers.

I do think no knock warrants should be banned. It seems like they cause too much chaos, and they are prone to violent encounters due to the people inside not realizing it is the police barging in and those citizens trying to defend their homes. Breonna Taylor was not the first and probably will not be the last to die tragically due to police not properly announcing themselves and allowing those inside time to respond/react to the situation.

I also think qualified immunity needs to be reformed to create more in-depth investigations and hold officers accountable to a much higher level, especially when officers are found guilty of a crime. I am not in favor of removing qualified immunity altogether because I do think we need something in place that does not result in officers spending more time in court than out in the community. I would also propose renaming it since it should not provide immunity to the degree it does, and the current term has become stigmatized.

Senate Republicans''' police reform bill fails on test vote amid Dem opposition | Fox News
‘Justice Act’: What’s in the Senate Republican police reform bill | Fox News

 

[MaryP]

Many BLM leaders have said they want to ban chokeholds, end no knock warrants, and end qualified immunity. The GOP bill disincentivizes chokeholds, monitors no knock warrants, and does nothing about qualified immunity. I think something in between those two extremes would work well.

Beau, from the videos in this thread, actually talked a bit about chokeholds in another video and how many officers do not do them correctly, which is why they can be dangerous. I am all for them finding safer methods to restrain people in either case. Anything that makes people who are restrained feel a bit safer and uses or at least has a perception of using less force would go a long way toward building more trust with police officers.

I do think no knock warrants should be banned. It seems like they cause too much chaos, and they are prone to violent encounters due to the people inside not realizing it is the police barging in and those citizens trying to defend their homes. Breonna Taylor was not the first and probably will not be the last to die tragically due to police not properly announcing themselves and allowing those inside time to respond/react to the situation.

I also think qualified immunity needs to be reformed to create more in-depth investigations and hold officers accountable to a much higher level, especially when officers are found guilty of a crime. I am not in favor of removing qualified immunity altogether because I do think we need something in place that does not result in officers spending more time in court than out in the community. I would also propose renaming it since it should not provide immunity to the degree it does, and the current term has become stigmatized.

Senate Republicans''' police reform bill fails on test vote amid Dem opposition | Fox News
‘Justice Act’: What’s in the Senate Republican police reform bill | Fox News

Thanks for the info.

 

[OlNate]

Yeah, but now Trump is sending his forces to other cities, like Chicago. 75K, according to the latest report. He's going to war with Liberals & Dems.

Yeah, I mean, we are looking at the start of this cycle right now. My concern would be the willingness to let things escalate this far...I don't generally engage in fear mongering or slippery slope logic, but this descent into fascism does appear to be part of a trajectory. Remember when it was just the press that were the enemy of the people. Now the people are the enemy of the people. And that enemy is being dragged into vans and being met by the military.

I'm very concerned for you guys. If I'm honest, I'm not sure you're ready to meet the challenge of your time. You're far too divided. This is one of the rare times I truly and sincerely hope to be wrong.

 

[OlNate]

To me, the reason things have not died down is because demands have not been met, and I see no way for them to be met. The demands vary from person to person, leader to leader, etc. There is no real leadership, and each city has a different leader; some even have multiple different leaders who show up on any given night with all of them expressing different demands. While the Black Lives Matter webpage has goals in mind, it does not really have plans in place to achieve those goals. The plans it does have, many of the Black Lives Matter chapters disagree with and define new ways they want to settle grievances.

This has been extremely frustrating for me to watch. I agree with what Black Lives Matter wants to accomplish, but I have disagreed at multiple turns with how people have acted who claim to support them. I disagree with trying to make all change happen in one foul swoop too. Without knowing what works and what does not, there is no way to know whether any of the demands will fix anything or make matters worse. I am starting to think the GOP bill is closer to what should happen by making small changes and seeing how those impact law enforcement, conducting studies, and then making more changes based on actual evidence.

If you look at the part of the video that discusses this, it does not recommend giving into all grievances at once. The manual speaks to first hearing the grievances, then addressing a portion of them, to prevent the situation from escalating. This is followed by the Build phase of the plan, where meaningful improvement of life takes place to win hearts and minds.

I think the hearing the grievance phase would do a lot for the organization, in terms of forcing them to come up with a unified list of grievances. If the government were to sit down with BLM leadership with the goal of deescalation, it is highly likely that the list of random demands will be distilled into something more tangible and coherent.

In terms of major impact, I think simply addressing the issue of inappropriate police violence, against anyone, with some sort of zero tolerance policy that removes dangerous law enforcement from interaction with the public, would serve to avoid further escalation - well, that, and remove the gestapo from the streets. Both of these could be implemented within days of announcement - Trump could issue an EO on the former, and snap his fingers to accomplish the latter. Doing these two things would show that the administration is listening, and neither of these measures should be a problem for anyone.

 

[OlNate]

He's good at what he does, but I wonder if I just listened to 40 minutes of pure propaganda. Some of what he described--the five elements of a movement, who they are and what they do--sounds right. I'm not going to read hundreds of pages of manuals; I'll trust that what he said is accurate. It's common sense that when you want to deescalate angry people, you give them as little to push against as possible. But then he lost me.

He says "YOU DO NOTHING" You talk, you listen to their demands. Well, that's what the officials have been doing for two months, isn't it? So why did this movement stay so adamant? It's too late for the "no masks, no shields, no batons" advice. I agree a heavy handed approach just made things worse, but it's where we are. I think both sides need to take responsibility for the logger heads in Portland. It isn't just the evil cops and administration, and pretending that it is won't have a good outcome either.

I'm glad I don't live in Portland.

But anyone who is a Curious George fan can't be all bad. He is a good spokesman for the protesters.

I think with a grievance based movement, where the grievance is deemed to be valid (in this case, there is plenty of evidence to support the grievance, no matter which way you slice it), the onus is on the folks responsible for the conditions outlined in the grievance to make it right. This didn't evolve in a vacuum, we are not at the beginning of a cycle, people don't engage in demonstration or violence as a first reaction - in other words, all of this could have been avoided if government had acted before it was clear that these folks weren't going to be listened to without escalating.

As for whether or not it's propaganda - to be honest, I'm not done reading the actual manuals yet, there's hundreds of pages of material there. But you'll see some of what he's referencing even going through the table of contents. I would suggest, based on his other videos, that he understands that his success dies with his credibility - the reason I like him is that he's extremely disciplined in how he views things.

I think the important part to consider is that it's moved beyond the reasonable stage, on both sides. Before they can take your reasonable approach, things need to be simmered down. At that point meaningful discussion can be had, but right now that's impossible, and if I gotta blame someone, I'm probably going to blame the folks that allowed the situation to get out of hand in the first place. One should not have to burn down a building in order to make the point that police violence needs to be fixed. Not in a civilized society. And yet, this is what we're seeing today in America.

This YouTuber is not a BLM spokesperson. In fact, in his final video he speaks out strongly against violent revolution - his statement about it being "PR with violence" kind of makes that point. He wants to avoid this, not as a BLM member (though he supports them), but as an American citizen. And he wants to do it in a way that will work, which is why he references the manuals - and points out the Trump is essentially doing everything wrong, according to those manuals.

I agree, it's a mess, I'm glad I don't live in Portland either. But the promised Gestapo Road Show could turn many other cities into Portland - should this problem land on your doorstep, it's probably good to have some idea of how it works, so you can advocate for the right thing, instead of the "Iron Fist" approach Trump is attempting. This really isn't about root cause anymore, this is about methodologies that will deescalate the situation so that you can avoid turning your country into a warzone. I agree with you, it's never really a binary situation, but that conversation comes later...at least, that's what the manuals appear to say.

 

[MaryP]

I think with a grievance based movement, where the grievance is deemed to be valid (in this case, there is plenty of evidence to support the grievance, no matter which way you slice it), the onus is on the folks responsible for the conditions outlined in the grievance to make it right. This didn't evolve in a vacuum, we are not at the beginning of a cycle, people don't engage in demonstration or violence as a first reaction - in other words, all of this could have been avoided if government had acted before it was clear that these folks weren't going to be listened to without escalating.

Well said. First, I should probably have used a word other than propaganda. Beau gives a very persuasive argument, carefully cherry picking only those parts of reality that further his argument. I didn't mean to imply he was being dishonest. It just seems to me he ignores a lot that truly needs to be taken into consideration.

How do we get things to "simmer down," again? I forget that part. I recall Beau saying something about "you give them things" (like aid). Okay, so in this case our black communities don't need food, water, roads, like in a lot of impoverished third world countries. The activists here are demanding justice reform, particularly at the policing level. In June, the Portland City Council approved cutting 15 mil from the Portland Police budget. The activists had asked for $50 mil, but the PPB had already had to make a cut to their budget a few months before because of the loss of tax $ due to the Covid shutdowns. This is an informative article, if you haven't seen it:

“I want to speak now directly to the people that are outraged that we didn’t have the audacity to cut $50 million out of the police budget,” Hardesty said. “I want to be clear that $50 million number was based on nothing. There was no analysis done.”
She went on to say that she believed the more dramatic-sounding changes promised in cities like Los Angeles, which has proposed cutting up to $150 million from their budget, and Minneapolis, where a majority of the city council has pledged to disband the police force, may not be as transformational as they appear. The Los Angeles police department, she noted, had a billion dollar budget, which means the $150 million could be considered “petty cash.” And she predicted Minneapolis has a long legal fight in front of them with the city’s police union.
“And while that court fight is taking place, the city of Portland will be fundamentally changing how community safety happens,” she said.
The budget approved Wednesday will eliminate three PPB specialty units, which many in the community say disproportionately target people of color. This means armed officers will be pulled from schools, Portland police will no longer be used as law enforcement on TriMet, and the Gun Violence Reduction Team will be disbanded. The city will also cut eight positions from the Special Emergency Reaction Team and stop cannabis tax money from going to the police bureau.
Nearly $5 million from the police bureau will go to the Portland Street Response, a new program by the city to dispatch unarmed first responders to answer calls for people experiencing homelessness. There will also be money previously earmarked for the police that will now go to a fund to develop black youth leadership, a tribal liaison position within the city’s Office of Governmental Relations, and additional funding for the Civil Rights Title VI Program in the Office of Equity and Human Rights, among other uses.

Portland City Council Approves Budget Cutting Additional $15M
| OPB

(to be continued--I'm too wordy lol)

 

[MaryP]

The above approval of funding cuts/reallocation of the police budget happened a month ago. Perhaps that is what the mayor was hoping would "simmer things down." It certainly doesn't seem to have helped much. Of course, the federales coming to town uninvited, in military troop uniforms and acting independently of the police (because the mayor ordered the police not to work with them), shooting rubber bullets and tear gas to manage the crowds and then chasing down the people they thought were responsible for the violence, certainly got everyone's back up. It is being reported by observers that the protest crowds have doubled. And Beau is right, they aren't there protesting police brutality anymore. This has entered the next phase, and the agitators are there to fight. Before they pick up their muskets (as Beau darkly hints) how does Portland put on the brakes?

First off, removing the feds seems the right thing to do. President Trump is now saying he won't send troops to other cities unless they're invited. (Maybe he does learn?) But with the protesters at such a pitch, what happens next when they're gone? Can the police handle the situation or does it go back to the local PD trying to control a situation where they have not been very effective?

The Mayor, Ted Wheeler, seems to be on board with Beau's theory of management. He had already banned the use of tear gas in all but the most extreme situations, and he has wanted to give the activists as little to push against as possible until the City can satisfy these people that justice will be done. He did not close the parks across from the federal courthouse and another federal facility until the feds arrived and escalated the standoff. Neither has he ordered a curfew, knowing the fight that would ensue enforcing it.

The Police Commissioner seems genuinely interested in reform, not just shifting funds around in the budget. She is looking at pilot programs that send social services rather than police into situations involving homelessness and mental illness (without threats of violence, as determined by 911 dispatch). Those make sense. The larger issue of accountability and the police policing their own bad apples will have to be taken up with the Union, and that'll be a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Maybe all of us who are outsiders are spending too much energy on trying to solve another city's problems. It's interesting, yes, to see if police reform can actually work. It will also be interesting to see what approach works--now that OP has been good enough to give it a clear framework for me. The media will continue to focus on Portland and Seattle and other cities with ongoing protests because it's drama, and it's also become tremendously politicized. Left v. Right. To call myself a liberal, I need to support the activists at all costs, or I have to hand in my leftie card. If any of us have tensions in our hometowns or nearby cities, it might be best to turn our gaze there, though.

 

[OlNate]

Snip, cuz I'm wordy too.

First of all, never apologize for being wordy...I'm Canadian, I already apologize for too much, so adding this to the list would ensure I never stop apologizing... :lol:

It's hard to say if the measures the mayor took would have simmered things down, because the actions of the Trump administrations immediately heated things back up again. There could be no worse optics than sending in "military goons" in full military gear, and have them throw people into unmarked vans. That's some next level stuff right there, straight out of some low budget dystopian movie. I have to wonder, as I've wondered about so many things lately, how the most powerful man in the world, and his team, fail to realize this. It seems unbelievable that they do. I can't really go too far down that rabbit hole, as I'm not a fan of conspiracy theory, but sometimes you find that certain questions being asked at all become concerning, irrespective of their answer.

I would like to comment on your concerns around the partisan nature of this discussion, and the pressure you feel. I can relate. I identify as a progressive, a Christian, and a supporter of gun rights - and I'm Canadian. lol... Basically I am living proof that issues can be looked at one at a time, and that it's possible to hold an opinion outside of what folks would assume one's political stance would fall in lock step with. Just because other people have made this political (these things are always political, if you think about it), doesn't mean I have to reject it OR embrace it entirely. I can say I abhor the violence while supporting the cause, because the grievance is supported by fact. While I cannot imagine myself taking up rocks and molotov cocktails, I can imagine that if it were me that lived in constant fear of the police, I'd be pissed off too. Certainly I can, from a place of common sense and simple decency rather than partisanship, support the notion that police should not use inappropriate violence against anyone they are sworn to serve and protect, and that if they do, they must be stopped immediately. Maybe it's because I refuse to be defined by partisanship that I can't understand why this is even controversial.

Finally, I don't think it's necessary for BLM to have all the answers. It's why governments exist. They are supposed to be the experts - if not, why have representation at all? Why not simply make everything a matter of referendum? The reason is that most citizens do not have the expertise required, nor the resources, to solve every problem a nation faces. For example, if you live on a road that is in need of desperate repair, do you provide the responsible branch of government with a construction plan, blueprints, a procurement list, a work schedule, a cost analysis, etc? Or do you just tell them to fix the damn road, and expect them to do the job you're paying for? BLM is not made up entirely of civil engineers and policy analysts. They are made up of people who are sick of cops using inappropriate violence. They are angry. They are scared. They are exhausted, and some of them are likely grieving, having been a victim of police violence, or knowing someone who was. That they have mixed messaging shouldn't be surprising...and it certainly doesn't invalidate a grievance that is supported by statistics. The appropriate response from the government should be to fix the problem...that's why they get paid the big bucks.

 

[Chomsky]

Yeah, I mean, we are looking at the start of this cycle right now. My concern would be the willingness to let things escalate this far...I don't generally engage in fear mongering or slippery slope logic, but this descent into fascism does appear to be part of a trajectory. Remember when it was just the press that were the enemy of the people. Now the people are the enemy of the people. And that enemy is being dragged into vans and being met by the military.

I'm very concerned for you guys. If I'm honest, I'm not sure you're ready to meet the challenge of your time. You're far too divided. This is one of the rare times I truly and sincerely hope to be wrong.

Morning, buddy.

Actually the feedback on the first federal arrests yesterday (fed gun crimes), was pretty positive. The feds are co-coordinating with CPD & Lightfoot, and apparently are involved in support operations having nothing to do with protests (which are minimal, anyway).

If Lightfoot is to be believed, she claims she spoke to Trump firstly, and agreed to allow the feds in only if they co-ordinate with CPD. She used to work in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and claims the assets will be controlled locally from that office.

So far, so good. But we shall see.

 

[Rexedgar]

Morning, buddy.

Actually the feedback on the first federal arrests yesterday (fed gun crimes), was pretty positive. The feds are co-coordinating with CPD & Lightfoot, and apparently are involved in support operations having nothing to do with protests (which are minimal, anyway).

If Lightfoot is to be believed, she claims she spoke to Trump firstly, and agreed to allow the feds in only if they co-ordinate with CPD. She used to work in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and claims the assets will be controlled locally from that office.

So far, so good. But we shall see.

That used to be called, “getting one foot in the door.”

 

[Chomsky]

That used to be called, “getting one foot in the door.”

Agreed. What remains to be seen is whether Lightfoot & the CPD genuinely want the fed assistance, or not. Chicago cops have never been fond of feds. Not in the least.

 

[Chomsky]

...

Did you see this?

(The Fifth Column) Why I put down the gun and picked up the pen

 

[OlNate]

Did you see this?

(The Fifth Column) Why I put down the gun and picked up the pen

Heya, Chom. Nope, hadn't seen it, thank you for this. I have heard him talk about parts of this in his videos, but never saw this article. It confirms a fair bit of what I've come to understand through bits and pieces.