Corrections and Updates for D-Day Reflections
Sidenote: Article Corrections and Updates
Updated June 26, 2021
After posting the article D-Day Reflections over the weekend, an Inspector General report on the Lafayette Park incident released days later, providing more insight into the events of June 1, 2020. According to this report:
The evidence we [investigators] obtained did not support a finding that the USPP [U.S. Park Police] cleared the park to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church. Instead, the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the antiscale fencing in response to destruction of property and injury to officers occurring on May 30 and 31.
My first publication of the D-Day Reflections article includes this sentence in the “Recent Historical Context” section:
Trump then ordered his troops to attack journalists and protestors between the White House and a nearby church so that he could pose for a photo opportunity holding a bible.
Although the report does confirm excessive use of force, often occurring against the policy of various law enforcement agencies, it does not indicate that there is a direct connection between Trump’s church visit and law enforcement clearing the area.
Update – June 26, 2021
After this incident once again made headlines, and more information regarding Trump’s calls for violence surfaced, I reviewed my article again and decided to clarify the passage below regarding the Department of Defense, and provide a link to the relevant article.
The IG report also brought to my attention the testimony of Major Adam DeMarco, a liaison between the D.C. National Guard’s “Task Force Civil Disturbance” and the U.S. Park Police at Lafayette Square. Although National Guard assisted law enforcement near Lafayette Square, the National Guard members may not have engaged in any use of force. According to DeMarco’s testimony, “No National Guard personnel participated in the push or engaged in any other use of force against the demonstrators.” For that reason, I am removing the phrase “and military” from the sentence below, because it appears that only law enforcement personnel may have been involved in the use of force against demonstrators on June 1, 2020.
On a separate note, DeMarco also stated in his conclusions that, “Having served in a combat zone, and understanding how to assess threat environments, at no time did I feel threatened by the protestors or assess them to be violent.” In his opinion, “…the use of force against demonstrators in the clearing operation was an unnecessary escalation of the use of force.” My point is that this testimony and the Inspector General’s report have more information on several aspects of these events, so if you want a more complete understanding of the Lafayette Square incidents beyond what I summarize, reading these and other material linked throughout the original article is highly recommended.
Corrections and Updates
That being said, the article’s passages are now updated as follows:
My article was initially published on June 6, 2021, and the report is dated June 8, 2021; I became aware of the report early June 10, 2021, and immediately began reviewing its findings. I always endeavor to conduct thorough research before publishing articles on a given subject, and try to provide links substantiating any factual claims, but I also try to review new information as it becomes available.
I encourage you to read the report for yourself as well to learn more about the events of June 1, 2020. It is important, however, to keep in mind that they only interviewed law enforcement and military personnel, and did not interview protestors or journalists present near Lafayette Square. Investigators did review some additional material, such as hearings in the House of Representatives and the Black Lives Matter D.C. v. Trump case, but the investigation was primarily focused on law enforcement. While this may be an incomplete accounting of all events, this report provides insight into how government agencies operate and could be improved.
This report should also be analyzed alongside witness testimony and other evidence, both for a more complete picture of events, and to also examine inconsistencies. For example, the Legal Director for the ACLU of the District of Columbia, Scott Michelman, said in a recent statement:
The government has given various conflicting explanations for the shocking attack on civil rights demonstrators at Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020. For instance, the day after the attack, the Justice Department said Attorney General Barr ordered it; now the Department of the Interior says he didn’t. The federal officials’ briefs in our ongoing lawsuit about the attack also offer inconsistent narratives. These shifting explanations cannot distract from the fundamental problem: The force used against the demonstrators at Lafayette Square was grossly excessive in relation to any conceivably legitimate purpose. Given the severity and coordinated nature of the attack, it cannot be chalked up, as the Interior Department now suggests, to confusion or miscommunications. The assault on the civil rights protesters was a clear violation of the Constitution, and the federal officials who ordered it and perpetrated it must be held accountable.
There may still be new information to learn from this incident, but the fact remains that journalists and protestors should not be attacked in such a manner. Hopefully reforms are implemented, both using suggestions in the Inspector General’s report, and suggestions from civil rights groups.
Corrections and Updates for the Economic Justice and Progress Newsletter
This is the first major correction I’ve had to issue for the Economic Justice and Progress Newsletter, and although I always perform thorough research, I doubt it will be the last. I am but one person, without a team of journalists or editors at my disposal, and new information comes out regularly. Still, I am guided by facts and logic, and although I am upfront with my philosophical and political leanings, I will correct misstatements whenever new information comes to light. While I am more accustomed to writing about economics and similar topics, I understand now that I need to take extra caution when venturing outside my area of expertise, because these types of details are important to get right.
I have had to fix broken links in articles, and have cleaned up minor grammatical and phrasing issues – and included transparent changelogs at the end of such articles – but this is the first time I have had to correct a misstatement due to new information becoming available. If you find information from a reputable source which contradicts any claims in current or future articles, feel free to send it my way; I can even credit you with the find, if you would like to be acknowledged in the article. Also, if you feel I should handle this or future corrections differently, feel free to share your thoughts.
I thank you for your patience as I navigate this relatively new profession, and I hope this further proves my commitment to journalistic integrity and informing my readers.
Thank you for reading my newsletter and taking the effort to learn about making the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can make progress towards a more just economy.
-JJ
Updated 6/26/2021 - Updated after news of Trump’s calls for violence surfaced on June 24, 2021.