U.S. swoops down on Portland protesters after Trump order to protect monuments

[simple1]

59 minutes ago, Logosone said:

‘Anarchists’ provoke tear gas use during Portland protests, police tell Oregon lawmakers

 

High-ranking Portland police officials told state lawmakers they’ve tried to de-escalate violence at nightly downtown protests but a small group of anarchists intentionally try to injure officers and require them to use tear gas and other munitions that affect entire crowds.

 

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/anarchists-provoke-tear-gas-use-during-portland-protests-police-tell-oregon-lawmakers.html

thanks for the link which provides some good info rather than the overblown hyperbole from some posters. From the article a quote below, doesn't sound like a huge mob of 'anarchists destroying the city as some have alluded.

 

In their testimony, the pair characterized a small group of protesters who gather downtown each night as harboring “a very criminal element.”

 

 

[simple1]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

It was a less than lethal impact round. The officers saw the guy throwing a canister back at officers. The guy wasn't seriously injured as first reported by major.

It is well known non lethal rounds do cause death. To shoot someone in the head when not representing a threat to life I would have thought would be illegal - sound like not so in the US if you're to be believed, I assume one of the issues at the core of current protests i.e. undue force. by law enforcement I would be interested to read the link that the guy has now recovered (good news) as it was clearly stated he was previously critically injured and being treated in hospital 

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, wwest5829 said:

There is no Governor of Portland. Your reading gives sole authority to the President of the US. The US Attorney in Oregon has called for an investigation. The precedent and recent ruling by SCOTUS has determined no POTUS is above the law. Sorry, I cannot find your profile information listed. Are you a Constitutional Law Professor like President Obama? So, it is off to court and an election to see if the citizens, rising up across the country, agree with your opinion. Needless to say, I disagree with your interpretation.

Even the anti-Trump New York times has conceded that Trump's actions do not violate US law. On the contrary they had to concede:

 

Were the Actions of Federal Agents in Portland Legal?

 

The Department of Homeland Security’s deployment of federal agents to Portland, Ore., has shown the broad legal authority an agency created to protect the United States from national security threats has to crack down on American citizens.

 

Customs and Border Protection, which sent tactical border agents to Portland, cited 40 U.S. Code 1315, which under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 gives the department’s secretary the power to deputize other federal agents to assist the Federal Protective Service in protecting federal property, such as the courthouse in Portland.

 

But the lack of any consent from local officials just means federal agents cannot rely on state and local laws to justify the arrests. Federal agents can still detain the demonstrators away from federal property if they can assert probable cause that a federal crime was violated, according to Peter Vincent, a former top lawyer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has also sent agents to cities across the United States.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/federal-agents-portland-arrests.html

 

The supposed requirement of the governor of Oregon supposedly having to request intervention wasn't even mentioned, because it's not necessary.

 

Of course civil liberties people and the incompetent administrations of Portland and Oregon will be up in arms. Of course there will be a legal challenge because everyone can start a legal case at any time. It's very easy. 

 

Even when Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock  he was challenged in the courts, alas, unsuccessfully.

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Logosone

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Even the anti-Trump New York times has conceded that Trumps actions do not violate US law. On the contrary they had to concede:

 

Were the Actions of Federal Agents in Portland Legal?

 

The Department of Homeland Security’s deployment of federal agents to Portland, Ore., has shown the broad legal authority an agency created to protect the United States from national security threats has to crack down on American citizens.

 

Customs and Border Protection, which sent tactical border agents to Portland, cited 40 U.S. Code 1315, which under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 gives the department’s secretary the power to deputize other federal agents to assist the Federal Protective Service in protecting federal property, such as the courthouse in Portland.

 

But the lack of any consent from local officials just means federal agents cannot rely on state and local laws to justify the arrests. Federal agents can still detain the demonstrators away from federal property if they can assert probable cause that a federal crime was violated, according to Peter Vincent, a former top lawyer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has also sent agents to cities across the United States.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/federal-agents-portland-arrests.html

 

The supposed requirement of the governor of Oregon wasn't even mentioned, because it's not necessary.

 

 

"The supposed requirement of the governor of Oregon wasn't even mentioned, because it's not necessary."

Absolutely incorrect. Looks like you only read the explanation from the departments involved, and missed out on some other information:

"whether they stretched the law would be up to a judge.", which is from the headline;

"“An interpretation of that authority so broadly seems to undermine all the other careful checks and balances on D.H.S.’s power because the officers’ power is effectively limitless and all encompassing,” said Garrett Graff, a historian who studies the Department of Homeland Security’s history and development."

 

And if you want to send in people and have the authority, at least make sure they're properly trained for the task, as provided earlier already but conveniently ignored by you and others, www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/us/portland-protests.html "Federal Officers Deployed in Portland Didn’t Have Proper Training, D.H.S. Memo Said".

Edited July 19, 2020 by stevenl

[Phoenix Rising]

42 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

Funny how fast our lefty non-brothers locate and interpret the 4th amendment 100% literally when a lunatic antifa member gets detained (never mind it’s completely in line with laws as we know them today) yet show them the second amendment and watch them hyperventilate at the thought and cry for the feds to go after “right wingers”. 

Which "lunatic antifa member" are you referring to my non-sister?

[Logosone]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"The supposed requirement of the governor of Oregon wasn't even mentioned, because it's not necessary."

Absolutely incorrect. Looks like you only read the explanation from the departments involved, and missed out on some other information:

"whether they stretched the law would be up to a judge.", which is from the headline;

"“An interpretation of that authority so broadly seems to undermine all the other careful checks and balances on D.H.S.’s power because the officers’ power is effectively limitless and all encompassing,” said Garrett Graff, a historian who studies the Department of Homeland Security’s history and development."

 

And if you want to send in people and have the authority, at least make sure they're properly trained for the task, as provided earlier already but conveniently ignored by you and others, www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/us/portland-protests.html "Federal Officers Deployed in Portland Didn’t Have Proper Training, D.H.S. Memo Said".

No, it is not "incorrect", nowhere does the NYT article mention any requirement that the governor of Oregon has to require assistance. That is because there is ample law that authorises Trump to use federal troops in certain circumstances. He can take his pick. The governor of Oregon does not need to ask for the assistance, since Trump can rely on federal laws, not state laws. Indeed the troops, as the article makes clear can arrest people on federal laws, they don't even require state laws to make arrests.

 

The historian is merely saying that a broad interpretation of the DHS's authority undermines checks and balances on DHS in his view because he concededs indeed their power is "effectively limitless and all encompassing". That's the law of the land, and the historian does not like it, but nevertheless he recognises that is the law.

 

Agree on the training point, obviously the troops should be properly trained for the task.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Logosone

[Mama Noodle]

Just peaceful protesters peacefully protesting. Every day for 50 something days now... Peaceful of course. 
 

 

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No, it is not "incorrect", nowhere does the NYT article mention any requirement that the governor of Oregon has to require assistance. That is because there is ample law that authorises Trump to use federal troops in certain circumstances. He can take his pick. The governor of Oregon does not need to ask for the assistance, since Trump can rely on federal laws, not state laws. Indeed the troops, as the article makes clear can arrest people on federal laws, they don't even require state laws to make arrests.

 

The historian is merely saying that a broad interpretation of the DHS's authority undermines checks and balances on DHS in his view because he concededs indeed their power is "effectively limitless and all encompassing". That's the law of the land, and the historian does not like it, but nevertheless he recognises that is the law.

 

Agree on the training point, obviously the troops should be properly trained for the task.

The requirement was mentioned, so this sentence ""The supposed requirement of the governor of Oregon wasn't even mentioned, because it's not necessary."" from Logosone is not correct. The people defending the feds actions even said there was no requirement, so it was clearly mentioned.

 

And agan no, that is not what the historian said as well.

[Mama Noodle]

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The governor of Oregon does not need to ask for the assistance, since Trump can rely on federal laws, not state laws. Indeed the troops, as the article makes clear can arrest people on federal laws, they don't even require state laws to make arrests.

It is rather funny watching the usual suspects twist themselves all up about what the presidents powers are or are not considering the topic they are discussed in. 
 

End of the day Portland is a state whithin the republic. Not it’s own autonomous country. Federal laws still apply and the president has the power to make sure they are enforced. 

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

Just peaceful protesters peacefully protesting. Every day for 50 something days now... Peaceful of course. 
 

So Portland police was taking action, no need for the feds then.

[Outbackjack]

Thank you Mr President. Rather odd the headline photo doesn't show the destruction to the park the protesters caused. The gov and major should face charges of dereliction of duty. 

 

I somehow think that some Americans have things a little mixed up. Last year Trump sent troops to the Mexican border to fight off an invasion of refugees.  The most armed country with the largest military but its people live in constant fear.

[Mama Noodle]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So Portland police was taking action, no need for the feds then.

If the Portland police were taking action, this wouldn’t have been going on for over 50 days with the politicians ham stringing them. 
 

But I’m glad you’re finally seeing that they aren’t peaceful protesters. 

[wwest5829]

52 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Even the anti-Trump New York times has conceded that Trump's actions do not violate US law. On the contrary they had to concede:

 

Were the Actions of Federal Agents in Portland Legal?

 

The Department of Homeland Security’s deployment of federal agents to Portland, Ore., has shown the broad legal authority an agency created to protect the United States from national security threats has to crack down on American citizens.

 

Customs and Border Protection, which sent tactical border agents to Portland, cited 40 U.S. Code 1315, which under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 gives the department’s secretary the power to deputize other federal agents to assist the Federal Protective Service in protecting federal property, such as the courthouse in Portland.

 

But the lack of any consent from local officials just means federal agents cannot rely on state and local laws to justify the arrests. Federal agents can still detain the demonstrators away from federal property if they can assert probable cause that a federal crime was violated, according to Peter Vincent, a former top lawyer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has also sent agents to cities across the United States.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/federal-agents-portland-arrests.html

 

The supposed requirement of the governor of Oregon supposedly having to request intervention wasn't even mentioned, because it's not necessary.

 

Of course civil liberties people and the incompetent administrations of Portland and Oregon will be up in arms. Of course there will be a legal challenge because everyone can start a legal case at any time. It's very easy. 

 

Even when Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock  he was challenged in the courts, alas, unsuccessfully.

 

I think we understand each other’s position clearly so there is no need for us to belabor the use of DHS or Border Patrol personnel in US cities. Martin vs Mott (1827) determined the President could use the militia ... So that raises the question as there is no longer a “militia” and would call into question, once again the meaning of a “Well regulated militia ...” being spoken about. That will be settled by the courts and the court of public opinion, currently and in November. You are quite wrong with Eisenhower using forces in Little Rock in enforcing the ruling by the SCOTUS in the Brown vs The Board of Education decision. But I did enquirer of your profile information. Would you share your background, a bit so that others might understand you better? There are so many hackers out there among us ...

Edited July 19, 2020 by wwest5829

[Logosone]

16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The requirement was mentioned, so this sentence ""The supposed requirement of the governor of Oregon wasn't even mentioned, because it's not necessary."" from Logosone is not correct. The people defending the feds actions even said there was no requirement, so it was clearly mentioned.

 

And agan no, that is not what the historian said as well.

They didn't mention the governor of Oregon specifically, do you perhaps mean the sentence:

 

"Detaining demonstrators away from federal properties has also raised questions. Former officials at the Department of Homeland Security said it would normally only dispatch agents to assist with local incidents if the state or municipal governments asked for help and deputized that responsibility. In Portland, local leaders have done the opposite."?

 

If so, you will note that the author of the NYT piece immediately concedes thereafter:

 

"But the lack of any consent from local officials just means federal agents cannot rely on state and local laws to justify the arrests. Federal agents can still detain the demonstrators away from federal property if they can assert probable cause that a federal crime was violated, according to Peter Vincent, a former top lawyer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

 

“Homeland security’s authorities are so extraordinarily broad that they can find federal laws that they are authorized to enforce across the spectrum, so long as it has some national security, public safety, human trafficking, criminal street gang conspiracy,” Mr. Vincent said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/federal-agents-portland-arrests.html

 

In law there is absolutely no doubt, Trump has the law of the US on his side. He clearly has the authority to send federal troops.

 

Of course there will be legal challenges by interested parties who do not like it. Anyone can start a legal action. It's very easy. Even when Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock was the intervention questioned in court, however, it was found that he had the authority to send federal troops.

 

Trump has US law on his side. This is no dictatorship. This is a response to violent crimes from a small minority which the administrations of Portland and Oregon have not stopped from committing violence, and therefore have failed in protecting the rights of the citizens of Oregon and the United States.

 

Trump is defending the rights of the majority of citizens in Portland against a small violent ANTIFA minority.

 

 

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

I think we understand each other’s position clearly so there is no need for us to belabor the use of DHS or Border Patrol personnel in US cities. That will be settled by the courts and the court of public opinion. You are quite wrong with Eisenhower using forces in Little Rock in enforcing the ruling by the SCOTUS in the Brown vs The Board of Education decision. But I did enquirer of your profile information. Would you share your background, a bit so that others might understand you better?

For someone who claims he is not a trump supporter he sure spends a lot of energy defending him.

[wwest5829]

1 hour ago, Mama Noodle said:

Funny how fast our lefty non-brothers locate and interpret the 4th amendment 100% literally when a lunatic antifa member gets detained (never mind it’s completely in line with laws as we know them today) yet show them the second amendment and watch them hyperventilate at the thought and cry for the feds to go after “right wingers”. 

Finding the US Constitution and being fairly familiar with US HistoryI’d not a problem for me. I cannot seem to find your public profile information can you give a bit of your background? There are so many hackers out there who will not state any background.

[wwest5829]

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

For someone who claims he is not a trump supporter he sure spends a lot of energy defending him.

Could you edit your reply here so that others do not think you are referring to me as supporter of The Donald? I oppose his words, his policies, and his actions. As a Professor Emeritus of History, I am fairly certain the Trump and his supporters will not be happy with the document internationally available personal and POTUS history.

[stevenl]

59 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

If the Portland police were taking action, this wouldn’t have been going on for over 50 days with the politicians ham stringing them. 
 

But I’m glad you’re finally seeing that they aren’t peaceful protesters. 

I never said anything about the protesters being peaceful or not.

And you seeing that in my post says a lot more about how you read others posts, with your own twist in it, than about me.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

They didn't mention the governor of Oregon specifically, do you perhaps mean the sentence:

 

"Detaining demonstrators away from federal properties has also raised questions. Former officials at the Department of Homeland Security said it would normally only dispatch agents to assist with local incidents if the state or municipal governments asked for help and deputized that responsibility. In Portland, local leaders have done the opposite."?

 

If so, you will note that the author of the NYT piece immediately concedes thereafter:

 

"But the lack of any consent from local officials just means federal agents cannot rely on state and local laws to justify the arrests. Federal agents can still detain the demonstrators away from federal property if they can assert probable cause that a federal crime was violated, according to Peter Vincent, a former top lawyer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

 

“Homeland security’s authorities are so extraordinarily broad that they can find federal laws that they are authorized to enforce across the spectrum, so long as it has some national security, public safety, human trafficking, criminal street gang conspiracy,” Mr. Vincent said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/federal-agents-portland-arrests.html

 

<snip>

 

This is a problem, reading capabilities of posters here.

E.g., nowhere does the NYT piece concede anything, it is the opinion of mr. Vincent you quote as NYT opinion.

 

And repeating the same information over and over again does not make it more convincing.

Edited July 19, 2020 by stevenl

[ThaiFelix]

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

So you think you know better than I what I was referring to.

Sure mate.

No but I know what you wrote.  Maybe you should rewrite it so it more accurately reflects what you really mean....but I wont go there lol!

[Logosone]

44 minutes ago, stevenl said:

This is a problem, reading capabilities of posters here.

E.g., nowhere does the NYT piece concede anything, it is the opinion of mr. Vincent you quote as NYT opinion.

 

And repeating the same information over and over again does not make it more convincing.

The only reading capability problem appears to be your own, Stevenl. At the very start of the NYT piece the author concedes:

 

"The Department of Homeland Security’s deployment of federal agents to Portland, Ore., has shown the broad legal authority an agency created to protect the United States from national security threats has to crack down on American citizens."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/federal-agents-portland-arrests.html

 

They then consider alternative views, but the tenor of the article is very clear, they know very well Trump has federal law authority to send in troops.

 

As do you, I suspect.

 

If Eisenhower sent in federal troops to enforce US law so now Trump sent in federal troops to enforce US law.

 

The law in the US allows for this.

[cantata]

Feds, right-wing media paint Portland as ‘city under siege.’ A tour of town shows otherwise

Many people who live in Portland, including Alexander, heard over the past few days from worried relatives in other states who feared that their loved ones in Portland might have been affected by fires or caught in police crossfire as they went about their day.

The images that populate national media feeds, however, come almost exclusively from a tiny point of the city: a 12-block area surrounding the Justice Center and federal courthouse.

And they occur exclusively during late-night hours in which only a couple hundred or fewer protesters and scores of police officers are out in the city’s coronavirus-hollowed downtown.

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/feds-right-wing-media-paint-portland-as-city-under-siege-a-tour-of-town-shows-otherwise.html

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The only reading capability problem appears to be your own, Stevenl. At the very start of the NYT piece the author concedes:

 

"The Department of Homeland Security’s deployment of federal agents to Portland, Ore., has shown the broad legal authority an agency created to protect the United States from national security threats has to crack down on American citizens."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/federal-agents-portland-arrests.html

 

They then consider alternative views, but the tenor of the article is very clear, they know very well Trump has federal law authority to send in troops.

 

As do you, I suspect.

 

If Eisenhower sent in federal troops to enforce US law so now Trump sent in federal troops to enforce US law.

 

The law in the US allows for this.

Now read again and quote exactly please. And then also the rest of the intro, in which it is stated a judge will decide if they stretched their authority.

[simple1]

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The only reading capability problem appears to be your own, Stevenl. At the very start of the NYT piece the author concedes:

 

"The Department of Homeland Security’s deployment of federal agents to Portland, Ore., has shown the broad legal authority an agency created to protect the United States from national security threats has to crack down on American citizens."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/federal-agents-portland-arrests.html

 

They then consider alternative views, but the tenor of the article is very clear, they know very well Trump has federal law authority to send in troops.

 

As do you, I suspect.

 

If Eisenhower sent in federal troops to enforce US law so now Trump sent in federal troops to enforce US law.

 

The law in the US allows for this.

You are misrepresenting the context of the article. The writer is talking to claims of authority among other matters pertaining to events in Portland, the claims are being disputed, it is not a settled issue. No doubt the claims and counter claims will be sorted out in a Court one way or the other.

[Logosone]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Now read again and quote exactly please. And then also the rest of the intro, in which it is stated a judge will decide if they stretched their authority.

Please, that is an exact quote of the first sentence.

 

You know very well the article from the NYT makes clear the federal law basis for Trump sending federal troops.

 

Of course a judge always decides if a president overshot his authority in a case like this. Precisely because the USA is NOT a dictatorship but a country with the rule of law. This happened when Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock when interested parties also questioned the authority in court, and it will happen now. Because starting a legal case is very easy, anyone can do it any day of the week. However, back then it was found that Eisenhower had the authority to send federal troops to enforce US law in Little Rock, and of course it will be the same result with Portland.

 

The NYT mentioning that a judge will decide does not mean that the author believes there is no federal law authority for Trump to send federal troops, indeed he repeatedly outlines that authority. 

 

The tenor of that article is very clear. If there were any serious doubt about whether Trump has the legal authority to send troops you can be sure the anti-trump NYT would have come up with a rather more fiery and passionate article about it, however, you can see they are resigned to the fact that Trump has authority to send in federal troops.

[Logosone]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You are misrepresenting the context of the article. The writer is talking to claims of authority among other matters pertaining to events in Portland, the claims are being disputed, it is not a settled issue. No doubt the claims and counter claims will be sorted out in a Court one way or the other.

Not at all, Stevenl and you are misrepresenting the context of the article. From the very first sentence the author makes clear that he believes there is authority for the troops to go in.

 

Without a request by the governor of Oregon. 

 

It is very much a settled issue, even if Rosenblum goes to court, even if civil liberty lawyers are up in arms, even if the governor of Oregon doesn't like it. Even if there is a court case.

 

The fact is, there is AMPLE federal authority for Trump to send in federal troops. He can take his pick from a variety of options.

 

And btw, Trump is not an idiot, he has gone through this in Washington, when the mayor of Washington refused him authority to use the Washington police. So when Trump turns to the DHS you can see he does so for a reason and has done his homework, or rather his lawyers. 

[simple1]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Not at all, Stevenl and you are misrepresenting the context of the article. From the very first sentence the author makes clear that he believes there is authority for the troops to go in.

 

Without a request by the governor of Oregon. 

 

It is very much a settled issue, even if Rosenblum goes to court, even if civil liberty lawyers are up in arms, even if the governor of Oregon doesn't like it. Even if there is a court case.

 

The fact is, there is AMPLE federal authority for Trump to send in federal troops. He can take his pick from a variety of options.

 

And btw, Trump is not an idiot, he has gone through this in Washington, when the mayor of Washington refused him authority to use the Washington police. So when Trump turns to the DHS you can see he does so for a reason and has done his homework, or rather his lawyers. 

Whatever, the claims are disputed as are trumps actions and will end up in Court.

Edited July 19, 2020 by simple1

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Please, that is an exact quote of the first sentence.

 

You know very well the article from the NYT makes clear the federal law basis for Trump sending federal troops.

 

Of course a judge always decides if a president overshot his authority in a case like this. Precisely because the USA is NOT a dictatorship but a country with the rule of law. This happened when Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock when interested parties also questioned the authority in court, and it will happen now. Because starting a legal case is very easy, anyone can do it any day of the week. However, back then it was found that Eisenhower had the authority to send federal troops to enforce US law in Little Rock, and of course it will be the same result with Portland.

 

The NYT mentioning that a judge will decide does not mean that the author believes there is no federal law authority for Trump to send federal troops, indeed he repeatedly outlines that authority. 

 

The tenor of that article is very clear. If there were any serious doubt about whether Trump has the legal authority to send troops you can be sure the anti-trump NYT would have come up with a rather more fiery and passionate article about it, however, you can see they are resigned to the fact that Trump has authority to send in federal troops.

It is not an exact quote. Unfortunately I can't quote myself since I am on a phone plus I can't open the article anymore without opening an account.

 

I disagree with your interpretation of the article, your quote is not correct, your comparison with the Arkansas situation is not justified due to different circumstances, you keep on repeating the same over and over again. I'm sure by now you believe it yourself.

 

I'm out of here.

[Logosone]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

It is not an exact quote. Unfortunately I can't quote myself since I am on a phone plus I can't open the article anymore without opening an account.

 

I disagree with your interpretation of the article, your quote is not correct, your comparison with the Arkansas situation is not justified due to different circumstances, you keep on repeating the same over and over again. I'm sure by now you believe it yourself.

 

I'm out of here.

Yes, it's an exact quote. I copied and pasted it. It cannot be anything else. 

 

Kindly point out the inaccuracy of that quote with the first sentence in the article.

 

Of course you take flight, because you know very well that article makes clear the federal law basis for Trump's intervention.

 

The comparison with Eisenhower sending federal troops to enforce US law in Little Rock is perfectly valid, Trump sent federal troops to enforce US law in Portland.

 

 

[Logosone]

12 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Whatever, the claims are disputed as are trumps actions and will end up in Court.

That's perfectly normal. When Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock that was also argued about in court.

 

Back then the court upheld Eisenhower's decision as lawful and exactly the same result will happen with Trump's sending of federal troops to Portland.

 

US law allows the US president to send federal troops to uphold US law.