Riots in Charlottesville ( photo credit) Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The Governor was warned about possible violence in Charlottesville

written by Jeanine Martin August 30, 2017

According to a report in politico.com, the Department of Homeland security warned the city, county, and state officials about the potential for violence when the white supremacists and Antifa met in Charlottesville on August 12th. From Politico:

Charlottesville protest rally, (the DHS warning) saying that an escalating series of clashes had created a powder keg that would likely make the event “among the most violent to date” between white supremacists and anarchists.

“Anarchist extremists and white supremacist extremists online are calling on supporters to be prepared for or to instigate violence at the 12 August rally,” the assessment warned.

So why were the Charlottesville’s police told to stand down and do nothing?

Charlottesville police already have been criticized for their response to the rally, including for failing to show up in riot gear and for failing to deploy in large enough numbers to separate the groups, beginning with a torchlight march held by white supremacists the night before.

Who gave the Charlottesville police this order? Was it coordinated with the Governor? I suspect that it was. Virginia Democrats thought the issue of the Confederate statues would be a winner for them in November. They were wrong. More people support keeping Confederate statues than oppose them. In a nationwide poll, 62% of those surveyed said the Confederate monuments should remain.

State officials had been warned and they did nothing. They should be held responsible for the tragedy that unfolded in Charlottesville.

Jeanine Martin

Also known as Lovettsville Lady, I am a Republican activist in the wilds of western Loudoun County.

Warmac9999

The democrats pit bull Antofagasta ain’t on the leash – how sad.
- T Kane
  
  Might you translate this for those us in the cheap seats? Could you explain what it means? Absent an answer, shall we assume something fell on the keyboard, including the return key?
Downstater

We need a fair poll from just Virginians on the statue issue. Bet it would do better than the national poll in favor of keeping them.
- Salt
  
  Given that when Confederates and the Union army talked about fighting “out west” they meant Kentucky and Mississippi, that’s probably true …
AmyH

Not surprising but maddening nonetheless.
- just a wild and crazy DINO
  
  https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0c348432a3bf267b8d37469115e2f85db8872211c582fceaaeca1d0ed7721653.jpg
Larsele

Pretty obvious, isn’t it? #GovMcAwful saw a golden opportunity to “not let a crisis go to waste” but got more than he bargained for. Likewise, Moran was operating true to the family form.
- Warmac9999
  
  He didn’t let it go to waste, he created it for political purposes. There is nothing subtle about pitting antifa and BLM against neo-Nazis and KKK. It is a guarantee of violence unless the police intervene with sufficient force – which they did not do. Deaths and injuries are simply write-offs to far too many leftist politicians.
Chris k

That sounds crazy enough to be unbelievable, so I guess it must be true!
just a wild & crazy RINO

I wonder where the money to fund antifa and other anarchist extremist Democrats is coming from ?????
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98a7ae8ce552e9856dcc92d2235936c33f6793614865ea762af96958fee26d68.jpg
- SD
  
  so, despite so many reports that this is nonsense, you continue to spread fake news – no wonder so many people simply laugh at you, here and in your workplace. You mother must be so disappointed in herself for raising an idiot
  - just a wild & crazy RINO
    
    ,.., https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e7688f1ca65d4560357809ecedacf46cd1f957d7e31a1ca8e455c460f42baa8f.jpg
- mark Jawsz
  
  this is a fraud picture. An internet hoax. George Schwartz Soros is many things. But a Hitler Youth he was not.
  - just a wild & crazy RINO
    
    You want a non-fraud picture ??
    .
    Not a problem..
    .
    This picture is part of a well known Democrat’s “art collection”. Can you name the Democrat ??
    .
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aae4365b3d8f199690a23bbd479966283a4caa15909cdf9adbac1c3bb76dabcd.jpg
    - Michael Keith Blankenship
      
      Podesta.
      - Mac Swinford
        
        Evidence? And I do mean seriously, do you have evidence of this?
        
        I’ll tell you, I only found inferences on pizzagate sites, and Counselor believe you me you do not want to go there! Why did you? The site I found said A, Podesta likes a named artist and B, That artist made these works, including the above work, but it never said that particular work was in Podesta’s art collection.
        
        So I ask you again directly: Do you have any evidence at all that this particular work of art is in the collection of John Podesta? Are you comfortable with associating yourself with Pizzagate?
        
        I am beginning to wonder about the standard of proof you exhibit here. If you accept the above inference, and the sort of crap Amy swills, it does not speak well of your standards of meeting a burden of proof adequate to support knowing slander. I will remind you he is a fellow member of the bar.
        
        Evidence, MKB. I want it. What proof do you have?
      - T Kane
        
        Cannot read his post, so I can only imagine. He is a Virginia attorney who apparently does work for the state. He has ethical obligations as an officer of the court and so long as he posts with his name online he is considered to be “advertising” or “marketing” his services, according to my read. Conduct unbecoming? A retraction or proof? I know I heard it from him — I said he was removed, which a suspension technically is, but I fully retracted and said “resigned” to avoid doubt and bring extreme clarity. Let’s hear the evidence he offers of whatever claim it is he made.
      - Michael Keith Blankenship
        
        That would be my guess, as he is a fan of this particular artist, whom I see as being creepy, if not downright degenerate. i see Kane is now hinting about my “ethical obligations”. Is that supposed to be a veiled threat? I have every right to express my opinions on who might own a particular piece of art. I hope you are also not “hinting” that by expressing an opinion I am violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. That is far beyond the pale and rather unexpected from you. Further, how would attributing ownership of this piece of art to someone be “slander” ( you mean libel)? This is a well-known artist. Finally, please do not address me in the imperative voice. I am a man, not a dog.
      - Michael Keith Blankenship
        
        I am not offering my services as an attorney to the public by posting a comment. T Kane fails again at intimidation. Please read the Rules of Professional Conduct.
      - Michael Keith Blankenship
        
        Of course one shall be subject to Bar discipline for attributing ownerhip of the wrong Abramovic to Podesta or the wrong Monet to someone else.
      - Warmac9999
        
        There is very strange thing happening with threats and attempts to intimidate via threats now appearing on this site. I am distressed that such things are happening as disagreement, even unreasoned disagreement, is OK.
        
        I spent over a year as a pundit on the HP site and while constantly treated to foul language never experienced anything like a threat or implied threat. I suggest that Kane and Mac knock it off because it is inappropriate.
      - Michael Keith Blankenship
        
        I agree. I am doing my best to remain civil.
      - Warmac9999
        
        But they are not.
      - Michael Keith Blankenship
        
        it is really over the line to accuse me of violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, even implicitly. I don’t thin I will reply to either of them in the future. if they want to file a bar complaint against me, fine. In any case, it makes it hard to have a civil discussion.
      - Warmac9999
        
        I have come to the conclusion that their intention is not to have a civil discussion. I have seen that before. Constant accusative questions followed by misrepresentation of opinion. As you say, it is hard to have a civil discussion.
        
        As far as not responding to them, I have more or less made that decision because my criteria for not responding is threats made. There is no reason for such a thing other than to shutdown discussion. Since this is a blog where opinion is free for all to explore, threats either actual or implied are intended to be oppressive. There can be no other reason.
      - Michael Keith Blankenship
        
        I think he is proud to own Abramovic’s work, which many find creepy stuff. Heck, i even found the fork and knife thing creepy.
      - Michael Keith Blankenship
        
        i inserted a question mark. Satisfied?
  - Michael Keith Blankenship
    
    Soros is odious enough by himself. No need to resort to fraud, when the truth is bad.
  - Warmac9999
    
    The picture may be a fraud but a version of the words is part of an interview he gave.
just a wild & crazy RINO

The Colonial Pipeline is shutting down its gasoline pipeline. This pipeline carries huge amounts of gasoline to Virginia. The Rino will guess that the price of gasoline will skyrocket up just like Obamacare insurance premiums..,
. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a1b54bb0c44890a198ff939a54c48cc5e77a18aa9d399646b9bad1e0b5756bb5.jpg
Mac Swinford

I must say I simply do not understand this opinion piece by you, Jeanine. Perhaps it is that I am slow, so let’s review and you can point out where I am missing something.

1. You say DHS told Virginia the rally was potentially dangerous. Wouldn’t this explain why they cancelled the rally? Was that the right or the wrong call?

2. Given that the warning came from federal authorities, where were they? Given that the order came from a federal judge, where were they? Both the warning and the order came from the federal government, but you blame the state. Why? Shouldn’t the federal government own that which they warned and compelled?

3. I find no proof of a stand down order despite your insistent claims to the contrary. I’ve searched diligently for attributed evidence. I will note you cite no other source for your claim of a stand down order. Indeed, you’ve been asked for proof and remained silent about evidence for your repeated assertion, which is unproven and stands only as parenthetical reference.

4. Charlottesville’s mayor is not elected and apparently has no authority to direct the city’s police. True or false?

5. Throw away 1-4 and above and we are still left without explanation for why you simply will not place the blame squarely at the feet of the demonstrators, as did Mitt Romney, Gary Cohn, John Danforth and many, many other Good Republicans.

Can you name another incident where one side took a life, maimed dozens, carried rifles and was shown on video firing a shot in the crowd and you blamed the incident on law enforcement authorities? Another incident where the organizer the next day wrote he was glad the woman who died was dead, but you blamed the police? Another incident where participants chanted Nazi slogans, carried torches and worse but you blamed those standing in opposition to them?

6. What does this have to do with statues and public art, except that it was the ostensible reason for the demonstrators to gather? Does it really matter why they held such an event? Aren’t we discussing the means, not the ends? When these events occur at the hands of others, do we really excuse and discuss the behavior in the context of the claimed reason for the event? Really?

You leave me confused about this. I am truly interested in dialogue about this, but you assume facts not at all in evidence at this point, even the continued assertion of a stand down order other sources deny as false. My mind is open and ready to receive evidence. Please offer something, anything to justify your claims and insistence on blaming the police, the victims and more — anyone other than those who took and threatened lives.

BTW, as regards the counter-protestors, I am in complete agreement with those who want them arrested. There is video and no reason not to pursue these people, especially on the federal level, where the states and locals make little difference and pale by comparison to the power and force of federal prosecutions. Depriving others of their civil rights, organizing against the US and its constitution are clearly federal issues. Where was the FBI if as you note the DHS warned of bloodshed violence in the face of federally-protected — and federally-ordered — speech?

Why blame the state and local authorities for matters the federal government should own?
- ameri…canwork
  
  On the job site we are saying; where the hell were the water canons?
  Blame all who knew.
  Say no to complicity!!!!
  So much for good samaritan by the elected.
Edward N Virginia

We assure you that many – MANY! – in Charlottesville, and even more in surrounding Albemarle County – consider Charlottesville’s governance to be verging on insane. Only ONE of the current City Councilor’s – Ms Galvin – is broadly recognized as a serious minded Counselor bringing important relevant skills to governance. While we believe Councilor Bellamy to have dis-qualified himself from public service by his years – YEARS! – as an adult – ADULT! – of ranting online with racist and race-baiting, women-hating, sexually harrassing, and gay-baiting beliefs – he does, in the current moment have communications skills to meet important needs of governance. The Others should resign out of embarrassment and shame for their many hypocrisies and inadequacies.
ameri…canwork

Folks,
Let’s not get sidetracked.
Ms. Jeanine has done a good job at saying that the lack of law enforcement was a political move , more than likely as far up as Richmond.
I suspect a such also.
Brownie points before the election.
We all witnessed CNN and Osama Bin Laden, then he attacked.
This is another go figure moment just look at the ANTIFA lynchburg facebook page the confrontation was expected.
Now is this the Feds job?
Is it the States job?
I say revisit history and read the 9/11 Commission report, uh everyone.
How about a little leadership in interagency communication.
And tell the Governor in his words;
“Shame on You”
No free pass for anyone!
- ameri…canwork
  
  PS Ms.Martin,
  McAuliffe has add material for
  1) the flag
  2) the monuments
  3) guns
  4) and they still quietly hold the war on women.
  
  The RPV better have their adds together , that being said look at Ed’s add the part with the Sheriff and The Deputies on illegal immigration. You have to admit not autoritive ( not one bit passionate ) , pretty soft.
Alan

Nicely written piece and spot on! Even though John Fredericks believes that looney democrats are incapable of working together as a team to their perceived political advantage, the current fact pattern supports collusion.

Just look at what we know for sure. The police stood down in the face of mass violence against all of their training and public oaths to defend the laws of the commonwealth. Why? If their natural inclination and duty required action only an opposing force could prevent them from stepping in to end the mayhem. Oh yes excuses can be made – no one in Charlottesville works for the Governor, C’Ville has a city manager form of government – yada yada yada. But that’s just on the surface. It’s almost a certainty that all of the controlling legal authorities are democrats and a large percentage of them are liberal bat crap crazy. Further, dwelling in the liberal bubble they are perfectly comfortable denying the rights of persons who want to express views they don’t agree with – after all the politically incorrect must be suppressed. They think it’s even better to overlook and not even publicly acknowledge that their team actively administered a beating to those who dared transgress the liberal orthodoxy.

By the way – we all know the pattern by now – in city after city the police have stood back while liberal mobs have beaten – not only true undesirables like the nazis and racist white nationalists, but normal everyday people just like us who wanted to express an opinion in a public setting. C’Ville was just more of the same and McAuliffe, Northam, and Stony climbed on their surf boards to ride the political wave.

It’s time for a full investigation. Make public all of the emails, phone records, texts, letters, case files et cetera. The major actors need to publicly testify. Did the liberals want people to die? No – of course not – but they crassly sought a political benefit and that shared desire found expression in a confluence of goulish events leading to three deaths and many more injuries.
- T Kane
  
  “It’s almost a certainty that all of the controlling legal authorities
  are democrats and a large percentage of them are liberal bat crap crazy.”
  
  So you deny that the federal government is in charge? Even though it was a federal judge who ordered the march occur where and when it did? You deny that if the FBI shows up, they are in charge?
  
  Jeanine writes that the DHS knew better than anyone else. Again, a federal agency. Do you deny the event was a product of the very federal First Amendment? Did you think it was a state judge who compelled this speech?
  
  Odd this. It simply contradicts everything we know about the law. We’ve seen feds show up countless times and take charge, yet you seem to pretend they don’t exist. Is there someone whose butt you are protecting, wishing your imaginary notion of legal hierarchy were true against all evidence to the contrary?
  - Steve Albertson
    
    “Everything we know about the law” is apparently not much. I’ve enjoyed your contributions here, and tend to side with you on most of what you’ve written, but I’d love for you to show me a civil disorder situation in recent memory where the Feds have swooped in and taken control. It’s inherently a state and local issue. Your criticism here is simply off the mark…ease off grinding the axe too hard against anyone with a different perspective, please.
    - T Kane
      
      No axe to grind with you. You’ve earned the respect and I’ll give it.
      
      I am willing to go there with you, too, but it comes at a price. If we declare it “inherently a state and local issue” it becomes more petty and denies the assertions that antifa are attacking the US, its constitution and free speech. It means shorter sentences, parole and pleas bargained.
      
      On the other hand, if we concede the validity of the claims, it is federal.
      
      So I ask: Why the contradiction? If they are as bad as some claim — well organized criminal militia organized by Democrats to attack this country and its constitution — then it is federal. If not, it is less serious, less well-organized, not run by Democrats and not bent on undermining our society.
      
      Needless to say, simple assault is state/local and draws much less than a year in jail. Like I wrote above, almost petty. If it is what many claim, there is more at stake and it is federal. Oddly, there are those here who think it half one — very serious, attack on US, etc. — but somehow state/local.
      
      These two views do not square. Actually, I suspect you are right: Simple assault, state/local, the rest is puffed up. Goengo is right: They are actually disorganized, not well-funded, not of a single hive mind. MS13 is far worse, by comparison.
      
      But I have an open mind, believe it or not. I simply want to see these views and claims reconciled for consistency.
    - Michael Keith Blankenship
      
      Thank you!
    - Warmac9999
      
      The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction, and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981.
      
      The Act only specifically applies to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force. While the Act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the Act force with respect to those services as well. The Act does not apply to the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state’s governor. The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act either, primarily because although the Coast Guard is an armed service, it also has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.
      
      The title of the act comes from the legal concept of Posse comitatus, the authority under which a county sheriff, or other law officer, conscripts any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace.
      
      There have been modifications to this act but generally the idea that the state must request help if possible applies to the US Army which would logically be involved if the situation in Charlottesville had gotten unimaginably out of hand.
- Mac Swinford
  
  Nicely written? It’s hard to tell whether more of its words were written by Politico or by Jeanine.
  
  I count three paragraphs Jeanine, three paragraphs lifted from Politico. It was barely written by Jeanine at all. Most modern byline standards would command her to share the byline with Politico.
  
  Of that part written by Jeanine, much of it is a parenthetical assertion that there was a stand down order, the existence of which is unproven and without evidence.
  
  Finally, it ignores the obvious role / non-role of the federal government, which compelled the event’s location and according to Jeanine warned it would turn violent. Still, she blames the state and local authorities. Why?
  
  We know why. Why lose the chance to make political that which is otherwise the product of criminal fascists? To consider the facts lays the blame squarely at the feet of those who kill, maim, shoot into crowds, carry torches and spray lighter fluid while chanting about Jews. Romney knows it and said so. Danforth knows it and said so. Gary Cohn knows it and said so, as did many others.
  
  Whose torch is Jeanine carrying and why?
- Michael Keith Blankenship
  
  It merits investigation. Even if this was not a case of virtue-signaling gone awry, it is clear that the situation got way out of hand, especially given the number of personnel available.
- T Kane
  
  If there is any one thing we can agree is an objective fact, they sought not advantage from the event but to cancel it entirely. A federal judge compelled it to go forward in a sub-optimal location and without obvious rules for peaceful assembly (no sticks, torches, guns, etc.).
  
  Please! Full investigation, aye! Prove the alleged, unproven “stand down” order and ask where were the feds who warned and compelled this event go forward. Indeed, DHS warned specifically that a “white supremacist” issued a “call to arms” to attack antifa (but Jeanine redacted this from her Politico screen scrape).
  
  One fact will remain: Only one side took a life. Only one side maimed. Only one side shot into the crowd. Whatever the investigation, this will be clear.
T Kane

I think Mac asks some pretty good questions. Any interest in dialogue, Jeanine? Any interest in discourse at all? Or do you simply make assertions and have no interest in answering questions raised?
just a wild & crazy RINO

First one to watch. Gives you a feel for all the confusion with the Charlottesville car incident..
..
just a wild & crazy RINO

In this series, person shows why all of this was actually a false flag incident..
.
- Michael Keith Blankenship
  
  I don’t agree that it was a “false flag”, but the video is interesting nonetheless.
Michael Keith Blankenship

One view is that despite 300 members of VSP, CPD, National Guard, and other LEOs, the City and the Governor felt it was more important to signal their virtue by dispersing those in the park. If you go to about the 1:20 in this video, you will see Richard Spencer’s group and allies being squeezed out of the park. Meanwhile, fights, pepper spraying, and club attacks are occurring a few yards away:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCnCRIZbaiw
Mac Swinford

A new appropriate question: Who gave the feds their stand down order?

We’re told this is an attack on the US and its constitution, one of long-standing, a well-organized, well-financed effort, indeed a paramilitary arm of one of two parties in our two-party system.

The DHS issued a serious warning. The state tried to cancel the event, a federal judge compelling it to go forward.

Who told the feds to stand down? Who told them not to defend the First Amendment and its freedom of speech and association? How did it happen that they left this in hands that did want it to occur after clear warnings that white supremacists were taking up arms to put down counter-demonstrators (also permitted for a demonstration nearby)?
- Michael Keith Blankenship
  
  Another view is that C-ville authorities got a lot of criticism over how the previous KKK event was handled, in particular that the counter-protesters were treated too harshly.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LqRcCX4irc
  - Mac Swinford
    
    Good point, well-expressed. Regardless, as a prosecutor yourself, I think you will agree that letting something go is not the same as condoning the behavior involved.
    
    Justice requires balance. It is not a linear pursuit.
- Warmac9999
  
  The DHS issued a serious warning. The state tried to cancel the event, a federal judge compelled it to go forward. The local and state governments deliberately undermined the judicial order. They also refused federal assistance to deal with the violence they knew was likely.
  
  You seem to diminish the significance of the local and state governments in policing their cities and states. The Federal government is only brought in when the locals and the state cannot control things – and the feds have to be asked to help as is currently the case in Texas and Louisiana.
  
  Whether you like it or not, people share opinions that you and I don’t like. They are entitled to speak peaceably regardless of what they are wearing or carrying. At this point, it appears that the police didn’t do their job and that leftist counter-protestors with weapons attacked the people you and I don’t like.
  - Mac Swinford
    
    Undermined the judicial order? Refused federal assistance? Proof, please.
    
    I agree, both sides deserve the permits they received, but I’d’ve added two conditions: No guns, sticks, torches of any kind for anyone on anyside, and I’d’ve separated them in the different parks the city preferred. Peaceful assembly for speech? Agreed.
    
    I’ve reviewed everything MKB kindly sent our way. I saw no counter demonstrator with a gun, but plenty on the other side. I saw no counter demonstrator kill or maim, but there were scuffles. I saw no counter demonstrator shoot a gun. The DHS warned that a white supremacist gave a call to arms to do battle with antifa. They got what they wanted.
    - Michael Keith Blankenship
      
      As regards the role of the militia group in this, I found this a good article:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/15/charlottesville-militia-free-speech-violence
    - Warmac9999
      
      I saw counter demonstrators with make shift flame throwers and bottles of urine. Maybe to you those aren’t weapons but they surely are weapons. As far as sticks, a flag mounted on a pole is a weapon. Finally, antifa and BLM were there, thus weapons of various sorts were in play.
Michael Keith Blankenship

Perhaps some answers will come out of this lawsuit:http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/verona-law-group-to-sue-over-alleged-stand-down-order/article_6950a9d8-8e7e-11e7-bf40-678894cb33d6.html
Michael Keith Blankenship

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235
Michael Keith Blankenship

Go to about the 2:10 in this video to see Antifa being armed at Berkeley. BPD let them take over the park:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niT1BM-gp38
Michael Keith Blankenship

A good recorded livestream of 8/12:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aGuKz2bc58
- Warmac9999
  
  This is great stuff for civil suits against the politicians and the police. No wonder they are pointing fingers at each other. It also provides reasonable evidence for the defense of Mr. Fields who will logically claim panic under extreme duress. The barriers are down and there is no police presence. This is a form of lynching for politically correct purposes.
  - Mac Swinford
    
    Logically claim panic under extreme stress? A guy who drove his car into a crowd of people at high speed with a wanton indifference for human life? You are kidding, right? I mean, hey, this strains credibility, you and Prosecutor Blankenship here discussing the pleas of a man who killed and maimed, even an event organizer who tweets he’s “glad the fat communist (woman) died.” It’s truly conduct unbecoming. It belies your credibility. Not to mention the optics for the Republican Party you claim to support.
    - Michael Keith Blankenship
      
      Why did you include me in this reply? I don’t recall writing about Fields’ pleas, which cannot be entered at this stage of the proceedings. He has not even had a preliminary hearing yet. What do you mean by “conduct unbecoming? I have not written anything about the victim in this case, other than that she appears to have been neither a neonazi or neocommie. She is victim in a tragic homicide case.
    - Warmac9999
      
      Apparently, you don’t understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Fields is entitled to the best defense he can obtain. He is also entitled to his interpretation of what happened. There are numerous examples in the law of people who have killed and maimed others because of panic associated with survival. I understand that you would prefer to lynch the guy but me, I prefer the judicial process to go forward as it will reveal a lot of things about Mr. Fields and also Mr. Mayor and Mr. Governor.
      
      There is evidence that the woman killed was a member of a communist organization but did not die because of that association. I am not glad she died but let’s not turn her into some type of saint. She was there and died as a result of the chaos.
      - Michael Keith Blankenship
        
        Without due process things fall apart. Even those with whom we strongly disagree are entitled to it.
      - Warmac9999
        
        Due process is key. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who prefer rage to reason. Personally, I don’t mind reasoned disagreement. I do mind rage and threats associated with that rage. And, that is why i greatly value the 2nd amendment.
  - Michael Keith Blankenship
    
    As some of both the “left” and the “right” are claiming that they were not protected on 8/12, it is my hope that an investigation will reveal the truth.
    - Warmac9999
      
      Well, if the police stood down, both the left and the right would be correct.
Michael Keith Blankenship
- Warmac9999
  
  What is interesting about this is that it debunks the claim of a second permit. Assuming there was such a permit, it was never used to separate the two groups. The second permit, therefore, was nothing but a sham to create the appearance of legitimacy for antifa, BLM, and other violent leftists. This goes right to the heart of the claims that the mayor and governor were trying to create a crisis, and managed to do so.
  
  We also see the police at a distance and not deployed during this melee. Kind of corroborates the story that police were told to stand down and let it happen. Same as Berkeley.
  - Mac Swinford
    
    We do not need to assume a second permit. We’ve seen a picture of it online and I’ve not seen anyone credibly deny its existence. Indeed, I know you saw it and misread it, falsely claiming it had the city supplying food, water, medics to the counter-demonstrators when in fact it had the party seeking the permit observing that it was part of what they were bringing. And how can you call the counter-groups a sham when you defend the legitimacy of the first group and even assert the need to presume their killing, maiming and worse is to be presumed innocent, a presumption with which I concur, but the imbalance of your finger-pointing is strikingly unequal. The case you make overall is for the feds to intervene, and long ago. Who gave that stand down order and why?
    - Michael Keith Blankenship
      
      I am a slow cooker at times. Are you implying this is Trump’s or Session’s fault? Someone else?
    - Michael Keith Blankenship
      
      There were plenty of personnel and equipment on hand. Do you have proof some federal authority ordered CPD to refrain from separating neonazis and neocommies?
Michael Keith Blankenship

Even WaPo is saying something similar about 8/12:https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-charlottesville-lost-control-amid-deadly-protest/2017/08/26/288ffd4a-88f7-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?utm_term=.b2fbce193ec4

The Governor was warned about possible violence in Charlottesville

Your life will be better if you click one of these