Turley: Barr Argues That Clearing Lafayette Park Was Unrelated To Photo Op

I trust both Barr and Turley, so this is of interest to me.

   Currently, I'm inclined to believe Barr and agree with Turley. So, forced to bet, I'd bet that the left's account of the events is less right than the administration's account. But I might not bet a lot.

   I agree somewhat with this point by Turley:

Here is where I disagree with Barr. If the park was to be cleared, it should have been done before the protesters appeared. Barr earlier said that he wanted it done in the morning for that reason. It was delayed waiting for reinforcements. In my view, it was mistake not to either clear the park in the morning or wait for the next morning. Barr’s position is that 150 federal officers had been injured and the park had to be cleared. He also insisted that the level of force was warranted. I again disagree. The move escalated the tension. We have seen the same decisions by District police and state police across the country. Indeed, a federal judge today issued an order to restrict state and local police in Oregon in the use of such means.

   OTOH, I'd say: after the arson committed against historic sites the night before, it would seem kind of nuts for Barr to allow the crowd to remain for another night. And "the crowd" is a collection of individuals--and which particular individuals make it up changes a lot from time to time. I'm not sure, but I think it's a closer call than Turley seems to think. 

   As for the level of force: I don't know anything about crowd control, but it does look like a lot to a layperson. OTOH, I suppose I'm under the impression that it's supposed to seem like a lot. Applying the absolute minimum of force invites resistance. One wants to give the appearance of overwhelming force, while not actually applying such. Also: it's impossible for each officer to apply exactly the right degree of force in each case. Which might simply be an argument against using force unless absolutely necessary. I expect experts could look at this and give us a better idea about whether the degree of force used was appropriate--i.e. in line with common practice in such cases.

   I completely agree with this bit from Turley:

However, there continues to a common narrative being promulgated on the photo op. There are various investigations being demanded and we will likely get more information on whether Barr is outright lying on these details. However, it would be perfectly insane to do so when you are citing Park Police plans that will be available to Congress and the public in time.

They know they're being videoed by several hundred people, that their story can be checked against official records, and that a rabid media will rip them to shreds even if they do absolutely everything right and tell the truth at every point--let alone if they use excessive force and lie. If they did do those things, then they're nuts.

   Again: I'm not very objective. I think we're screwed if the radical left wins, and not necessarily screwed if the red team wins (and I don't just mean in November, but, in some rather unspecific sense: overall).