Soft-on-crime Democrats let rioters run free, Part II

On Sunday, I took USA Today to the proverbial woodshed for its extensive use of euphemisms to soften the reporting on the L.A. Riots. I highlighted Bart Jansen's use of phrases like "undocumented immigrants", "one of the most serious confrontations yet" and "agents carrying out Trump’s directives on mass arrests and deportations, and local officials who oppose the stricter enforcement measures." The rioters in the street hurtled broken cement blocks at police officers and National Guardsmen. Further, based on the arrests of these rioters and the footage shot at the scene of the crime, this wasn't a protest. This was a full-scale riot. Period.

Trey Gowdy's Sunday Night in America program highlighted a retired L.A. County sheriff. This sheriff told Gowdy that the original call for additional help went to the current sheriff. That sheriff turned the police down.

Further, the retired sheriff said that he didn't know whether the current sheriff had been ordered to do this or whether this was the current sheriff's decision.

Check out this report frfom Saturday:

President Trump posted this to Truth Social: Ed Morrissey wrote this of the riot (my word, not Ed's):

Meanwhile, just like CNN and every single £$%^&% Protection Racket Media outlet did with Joe Biden's cognitive incapacity for the last four years, they are going to tell you to trust them rather than your own eyes and ears. They will flat-out ignore the violence as long as they can't use that violence to damage Republicans, and pretend that nothing's happening as the city (or cities) burn. They want to paint the decision by Donald Trump to send in the National Guard to protect federal agents as somehow illegitimate, just in the same way these same media outlets told us that the evidence of Joe Biden's senility was really just his "childhood stutter," when it wasn't "cheap fakes" and vicious Republicans making up stuff about President Sharp-As-A-Tack, Ring-Runner Around Youthful Aides.

When rioters throw broken cement blocks at law enforcement officers and set vehicles ablaze, that isn't a protester. That's a rioter. How anyone can call that protesting is unfathomable.

To protest is "an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid." To riot is "a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets." To dissent or disapprove is dramatically different than staging "a violent public disorder."

Finally, the purpose behind softpedalling the descriptions of the L.A. Riots is apparent. They're used to a) make it seem like President Trump's decisions are overreactions and b) make it seem like this isn't that big of a deal. Nothing is further from the truth.