The Washington Post's False Claim Of The Charlottesville Counter-protesters' Permit

The August 17 Washington Post headline broadcasts: President Trump's false claim that counter-demonstrators lacked a permit. 

The first observation is that the headline and article specify either counter-demonstrators or counter-protestors.  Not once does the reporter mention that these counter-protesters consisted of the group, AntiFa, whose Marxist/Anarchist members have used threats and violence across the country to intimidate and disrupt those with whom they disagree.  For a better understanding of AntiFa, see here and here.

This omission leaves the impression that the counter-protesters were innocent people simply standing against the evil of white supremacy.  The truth is that one hate group (AntiFa) opposed another hate group (Nazis).

This brings us to the question of the validity of Trump's claim that AntiFa did not have a permit.  The Post's analysis concludes:

"President Trump twice claimed that counterprotesters lacked a permit to demonstrate in Charlottesville. But they did have permits for rallies — and they did not need one to go into or gather near Emancipation Park, where white nationalists planned their rally. The president earns Four Pinocchios."

The article produces the permit obtained by AntiFa to refute the President's claim that they "came charging in without a permit":

"Walt Heinecke, a professor at the University of Virginia, told [Washington Post colleague Justin] Moyer that he received a 'special events certificate of approval' for events at McGuffey Park and Justice Park — sites blocks from Emancipation Park, where white nationalists had a permit for a Saturday rally. . . 

Charlottesville spokeswoman Miriam I. Dickler told Moyer that only one permit was issued for Emancipation Park — the one received by white nationalists staging the 'Unite the Right' rally. However, counter-protesters did not need permits to protest that rally, she said. 

'Please bear in mind that people do not need a permit to enter a public park, even when another event is scheduled to take place there, nor are they required to have one to be on streets or sidewalks adjacent to or outside the park,' Dickler said in an email." (emphasis mine)

From this we know that:

1. The Nazis had the only permit for Emancipation Park.
2. AntiFa did have permits for McGuffey and Justice Parks. 
3. McGuffey and Justice Parks are each blocks away from Emancipation Park.
4. The city spokeswoman says a permit is not needed to enter a public park.

This last point raises a question: If a permit is not needed to enter a public park then why did the city issue permits to both the Nazis and AntiFa?

The answer is because both groups were not just entering public parks but engaging in a rally, protest, or demonstration. And for these types of special events, the city requires a permit (see City code Sec 28-29) for, among other reasons, "the preservation of public order and safety".

In fact, that same Standard Operating Procedure defines:

3.1.3 "Demonstration" shall  refer to non-commercial expression protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (such as picketing, political marches, speechmaking, vigils, walks, etc.) conducted on public property, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.  This term does not include casual activity by persons which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers . . ." (emphasis mine)

That is, the only way AntiFa did not need a permit to enter Emancipation Park was if they were engaged in "casual activity" and did not have "intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers".  Neither case was true for AntiFa or the Nazis, which is why the city issued each group permits in the first place. 

In fact, Dickler even referred to AntiFa as "counter-protesters" thereby showing they did not fall under the "casual activity" interpretation. Dickler equivocated on who required a permit.

So both groups required permits which the city issued; one to the Nazis for Emancipation Park and one to AntiFa for McGuffey and Justice Parks.  AnftFa did not have a permit for Emancipation Park which they entered and where violence ensued.

Compare this with the Post's report of Trump's statement:

You had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit, and they were very, very violent. . . . You had a lot of people in that [white nationalist] group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know — I don’t know if you know — they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit.” (emphasis mine)

AntiFa did not have a permit for Emancipation Park which they entered for the purpose of counter-protesting.  That is, they had a permit just not for the park in which they gathered!

Nit-picking that the permits for other parks satisfied the requirement or that they didn't even need a permit paints a false narrative.

The President may deserve Pinocchios for saying things like that the neo-Nazis "were there to innocently protest" or there are "good people on both sides".  The Post gets it wrong. And while they rightfully hold up the evil of the Nazis for condemnation, their manipulative analysis white washes the evils of AntiFa.

The Post earns Four Pinocchios.