WATCH: Protesters at DC parade justify violent tactics 'as long as they don't hurt anyone'
Protesters outside Saturday's military parade in the nation's capital did not explicitly condemn the violent tactics used at anti-Trump protests across the country in recent days, with at least one saying he "fully support[s]" the recent tactics used by protesters in Los Angeles, such as throwing rocks.
"I'm following my constitutional rights, I'm out here just simply saying what I want to feel. No one here is being violent. As you can see, there's been no conflict," said a college-aged protester who declined to identify himself but spoke to Fox News Digital.
"But you're not worried about being conflated with those who are doing violence?" the activist was asked.
"I mean if they want to violate the Constitution, that's on them. I can't worry about that," the protester responded. "I mean, maybe I should [be worried], but I believe in this Constitution, I'm going to live by it, I'm going to support my First Amendment."
A separate protester in attendance outside Saturday's parade said he "fully supported" those activists who "want to throw rocks" as long as they don't hurt anyone in the process.
"Honestly – they have a right to be angry. They have a right to do what they feel like they need to do to stop this issue, to stop fascism," he said. "And, honestly, I fully support that. I fully support if they're angry and they want to go out and they want to throw rocks. As long as they don't hurt anyone, you know, I can understand, I can honestly do."
The anti-Trump protests that coincided with the military parade in D.C. on Saturday saw a few isolated incidents of violence but appeared mostly peaceful. However, the weekend was preceded by violent riots in Los Angeles that spread to other cities like New York and Chicago – reminiscent of the anti-police protests following the death of Minneapolis man George Floyd in the summer of 2020.
Protesters in Los Angeles threw rocks at law enforcement and several fires across the city erupted amid the chaos. There were reports of damage to federal buildings, including both immigration and non-immigration-related offices, that included graffiti threatening the lives of federal officials. At least one community care office for veterans, run by the Department of Veterans Affairs, was forced to shut down and cancel hundreds of appointments amid the violence. Many were arrested for clashing with police and the reverberations of the rioting have resulted in other tense clashes between police and activists across the country.
While no deaths have been directly attributed to political violence at recent protests across the country, including Los Angeles, fatalities have occurred at some protests around the country. In Utah, an innocent bystander was shot by a man who had been a part of the protest's peacekeeping team, according to reports, while in Los Angeles a man was found dead outside a looted T-Mobile store amid the anti-ICE chaos, according to reports.
The peaceful protesters in D.C. suggested they were not in favor of any violence, but they did signal that they understood why protests in recent days across the country have been so intense that they lead to violence against police officers, property and sometimes more.
"I mean, I personally won't do that, but I can understand after all of this, like, people are fed up. People are fed up with how the government has been treating people," a protester told Fox News Digital Saturday. "The Republicans, the people in Congress, they do not care about people here, and so I can understand why people are that angry to do something like that, so, yeah, I fully understand."
"I think it's wrong to create violence, but, like, he said, I mean I think people have been angry for a long time," a second protester added, noting he thinks Trump is the reason to blame for all the aggressive tactics, like throwing rocks, setting fires and vandalism.
"What Trump is doing, he knows the polarization and the anger he's causing, so this is all part of his game plan. The National Guard in L.A., he caused that. He said go out there without Newsom saying anything. I mean, he knows what he's doing, he wants to cause a rise out of people."
Another protester present Saturday, who spoke to Fox News Digital, said she believed "being abrasive" is against the interests of those seeking to make change but that "history has proven that sometimes aggression is needed."
"All respect to them, I think that they are doing what they think is right, but I think being very abrasive is against our interests, actually. I think it drives away a lot of people, it doesn't really foster the conversations that we need," a protester who identified herself as Sophie said. "I don't think being aggressive is the way to go, but I think history has proven that sometimes aggression is needed, so, but I don't want to be abrasive."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hiker's wilderness adventure ends in tragedy at popular park destination
An Illinois man died after falling while hiking at a state park in New York. The 70-year-old tourist, Jack Wersching, was hiking in the Kaaterskill Wild Forest in the Catskills on the evening of Friday, June 20, when he fell from a rock ledge onto stone steps below, according to a statement from New York State Police. Wersching, of Park Ridge, Illinois, was walking along a path near a waterfall when the incident occurred. Park rangers responded quickly to the scene and attempted to stabilize him for an airlift to a hospital, but he died at the scene. Second Missing Hiker Found Dead In Maine As Authorities Conclude Massive Search Operation "DEC sends our condolences to the hiker's family, and thanks the first responders for their efforts," the Department of Environmental Conservation said in a statement, adding that it was investigating. Read On The Fox News App Hiker Found Dead In Maine, Search Continues For 28-Year-old Daughter A witness to the accident told the New York Post that he recalled hearing cries for help and finding Wersching badly injured. Shilo Shalom, who had briefly met Wersching and his family earlier in the day while hiking, told the outlet he had attempted to assist by using shirts to stem the bleeding. Fatal Fall In Washington's North Cascades Kills 3, Leaves 1 Survivor "I just tried to save him, and I couldn't," Shalom told the outlet. Wersching's family also shared a statement with the Post and described him as a "loving husband, father, and grandfather, remembering him as someone who approached life with curiosity and a sense of adventure." "Though we are devastated by this loss, we take comfort in knowing he was doing something he truly loved when he passed," Wersching's family said in the article source: Hiker's wilderness adventure ends in tragedy at popular park destination
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans advance Trump's tax and spending cuts bill after dramatic late-night vote
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans voting in a dramatic late Saturday session narrowly cleared a key procedural step as they race to advance President Donald Trump's package of tax breaks, spending cuts and bolstered deportation funds by his July Fourth deadline. The tally, 51-49, came after a tumultuous night with Vice President JD Vance at the Capitol to break a potential tie. Tense scenes played out in the chamber as voting came to a standstill, dragging for more than three hours as holdout senators huddled for negotiations, and took private meetings off the floor. In the end, two Republicans opposed the motion to proceed, joining all Democrats. There's still a long weekend of work to come. Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks. 'It's time to get this legislation across the finish line,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. Ahead of roll call, the White House released a statement of administrative policy saying it 'strongly supports passage' of the bill. Trump himself was at his golf course in Virginia on Saturday with GOP senators posting about the visit on social media. But by nightfall, Trump was lashing out against holdouts, threatening to campaign against one Republican, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who had announced he could not support the bill because of grave Medicaid cuts that he worried would leave many without health care in his state. Tillis and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voted against. The president was working the phones from the Oval Office late Saturday night, according to a person familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. Pressure was mounting from all sides — billionaire Elon Musk criticized the package as 'utterly insane and destructive.' The 940-page "One Big Beautiful Bill Act was released shortly before midnight Friday, and senators are expected to grind through all-night debate and amendments in the days ahead. If the Senate is able to pass it, the bill would go back to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. With the narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board. A new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the Senate bill would increase by 11.8 million the number of people without health insurance in 2034. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans unveiled the bill 'in the dead of night' and are rushing to finish the bill before the public fully knows what's in it. He immediately forced a full reading of the text late Saturday in the Senate, which would take hours. Make-or-break moment for GOP The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up and has admonished the 'grandstanders' among GOP holdouts to fall in line. The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the cutbacks to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments, which a top Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said would be a 'death sentence' for America's wind and solar industries, are also causing dissent within GOP ranks. The Republicans are relying on the reductions to offset the lost tax revenues but some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts. Tillis said he spoke with Trump late Friday explaining his concerns. Paul of Kentucky had been opposed to the bill's provision to raise the nation's debt limit by $5 trillion. And GOP Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who initially voted no, switched hours later after private talks to agree to advance the bill. As the roll call teetered, attention turned to Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska who was surrounded by GOP leaders in intense conversation. She voted to proceed. A short time later, Thune drew conservative holdouts Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming to his office, with Vance and Johnson also joining. Talks dragged on. Then swiftly, Vance led them all back in to vote. Later, Scott said he had met with the president, adding, 'We all want to get to yes.' Lee said the group "had an internal discussion about the strategy to achieve more savings and more deficit reduction, and I feel good about the direction where this is going, and more to come.' After setbacks, Republicans revise some proposals The release of the bill's draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the measure to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 GOP edge and Democrats unified against Trump's bill. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals, including shifting food stamp costs from the federal government to the states or gutting the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, were deemed out of compliance with the rules. But over the past days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to the Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary hurdles and objections from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. The CBO had said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million more people would go without health care and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The budget office has started releasing initial assessments of the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the package would cost the poorest Americans $1,600, the CBO said. SALT dispute shakes things up The Senate included a compromise over the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states, but the issue remains unsettled. The current SALT cap is $10,000 a year, and a handful of Republicans wanted to boost it to $40,000 a year. The final draft includes a $40,000 cap, but limits it for five years. Many Republican senators say that is still too generous, but House Republicans are not fully satisfied either. House Speaker Mike Johnson sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington. ___ Associated Press writers Ali Swenson, Fatima Hussein, Michelle L. Price and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Deportation Goals Are Unrealistic
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In March, President Donald Trump was preparing to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens. This use of the law, which was passed in 1798 and previously used to intern Japanese Americans during World War II, was unprecedented, and Emil Bove III, a top Justice Department official, was concerned that it was illegal. To be clear, Bove wasn't troubled that the administration might be breaking the law; rather, according to a new whistleblower complaint, he was concerned that the courts might try to block removals. In that case, 'DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such court order,' Bove said, according to the document. The complaint was made by Erez Reuveni, a fired DOJ lawyer, and first reported by The New York Times this week. The administration says that his allegations are falsehoods from a disgruntled former employee, but this is difficult to credit. A career lawyer, he was promoted by the Trump DOJ but says he was fired after he acknowledged in court that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was an administrative error and refused to accuse him of being a terrorist. The complaint details Reuveni's 'attempts over the course of three weeks and affecting three separate cases to secure the government's compliance with court orders, and his resistance to the internal efforts of DOJ and White House leadership to defy them.' It also suggests that Reuveni has emails and texts to back up many of his claims. A top Justice Department official allegedly conspiring to defy court orders would be very dangerous; what makes it darkly amusing, too, is that senators are this week considering Bove's nomination to the federal bench that, according to Reuveni, he wanted to ignore. This led to a sharp exchange in a committee hearing yesterday between Bove and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, two veteran federal prosecutors, in which Bove repeatedly insisted that he did not 'recall' making the comments that Reuveni alleged. 'Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?' Schiff asked. 'Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind,' Bove said. 'Wouldn't you recall, Mr. Bove, if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department lawyers maybe they should consider telling the court, 'Fuck you'?' Schiff replied. 'It seems to me that would be something you'd remember—unless that's the kind of thing you say frequently.' Because no Republicans have yet come out against Bove's nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, he's likely to win confirmation. (By way of reminder, Bove got here by serving as one of Trump's personal lawyers in some of his many criminal cases.) This presents the grim parlor question of whether it's better to have Bove in a lifetime appointment on the bench, where his opinions can be appealed, or at the Justice Department, where he's reportedly been a one-man wrecking crew. The allegations against Bove are what my former colleague James Fallows took to describing during the first Trump administration as shocking but not surprising. Trump himself has said repeatedly that he will abide by court orders, but his deputies have been less circumspect, especially Vice President J. D. Vance, who is a lawyer, and the former DOGE leader and current Trump frenemy Elon Musk. Outside observers, including me, have fretted over what will happen if the White House actually crosses the rubicon of defiance. This is arguably beside the point. Even though the Trump administration continues to deny that it has refused to obey court orders, the reality is that it has already done so. Judge James Boasberg said in April that he'd concluded that probable cause existed to find the administration in contempt of court for removing certain Venezuelan immigrants. (An appeals court has temporarily stayed proceedings on the contempt charge.) In another instance, last month, the administration deported a Salvadoran man despite a court order forbidding it, then blamed 'a confluence of administrative errors.' (These errors seem to be a consistent issue for this presidency!) The administration also insisted in a court filing that Abrego Garcia simply could not be returned as ordered, because the United States 'does not have authority to forcibly extract an alien from the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation.' The DOJ proved that false not long afterward, when it brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. to face charges. In a bizarre move this week, the administration sued every federal judge in Maryland—an attempt to evade an order that bans the government from immediately deporting migrants who are challenging their removal. The fights with courts are ironic, because although Trump has fared poorly in lower courts, the Supreme Court has been willing to let him expand his powers once cases reach it. As Reuters reported earlier this month, the justices, using what's known as the 'shadow docket,' have repeatedly granted emergency requests to proceed, pending full consideration. This week, the Court temporarily lifted an order preventing the executive branch from quickly deporting migrants to countries to which they have no ties. The White House has been seeking to send people—including Laotian, Vietnamese, and Filipino nationals—to extremely perilous countries such as Libya and South Sudan. This would be callous and morally abhorrent under any circumstances, but given the notable cases of the Trump administration deporting people who are legally protected, including Abrego Garcia, it is especially terrifying. The desperation to sidestep court restrictions on deportations is evidence of the shortcomings of the White House's plans. Trump aims to remove 1 million people this year, but as my colleague Nick Miroff reported yesterday, ICE statistics show that the agency has carried out only about 125,000 deportations since Trump took office, with roughly half the year gone. But as Reuveni's story suggests, in this administration, to be honest is to risk being fired. Attacking the courts is much easier than admitting that the president's signature promise is unrealistic. Related: The self-deportation psyop Trump's legal strategy has a name. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Tom Nichols on the president's weapon Humanity is playing nuclear roulette, Jeffrey Goldberg argues. Three ways to find purpose and meaning in a job Today's News The Senate parliamentarian advised rejecting some Medicaid changes that would offset the costs of other key policies in President Donald Trump's tax bill. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran's strike on a U.S. base in Qatar was a 'slap to America's face'; he also warned against further U.S. attacks on Iran. A new Supreme Court decision allows states to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Dispatches Time-Travel Thursdays: Isabel Fattal on how sleeping less became an American value. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read The Blockbuster That Captured a Growing American Rift By Tyler Austin Harper In a cramped, $50-a-month room above a New Jersey furnace-supply company, Peter Benchley set to work on what he once said, half-jokingly, might be 'a Ulysses for the 1970s.' A novel resulted from these efforts, one Benchley considered titling The Edge of Gloom or Infinite Evil before deciding on the less dramatic but more fitting Jaws. Its plot is exquisite in its simplicity. A shark menaces Amity, a fictional, gentrifying East Coast fishing village. Chaos ensues: People are eaten … In June 1975, 50 years ago this month, the movie version of Jaws was released in theaters and became the first-ever summer blockbuster. Though the film retains Benchley's basic storyline—shark eats people; shark dies a bloody death—it turns the book's politics upside down. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib: Pro-Palestine activists fell for Iran's propaganda. Alexandra Petri: Pete Hegseth's guide to war Radio Atlantic: What does Khamenei do now? Culture Break Watch. Thank God for The Bear. Season 4 of the show (streaming on Hulu) is exactly what it—and we—needed, Sophie Gilbert writes. Lean on me. In everyday life, many people are reluctant to ask for and offer help. But milestones such as weddings lower the barriers to relying on other people, Julie Beck writes. Play our daily crossword. Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
