Is THIS a bridge too far?

Of course the press conference depicted in the video happened. As did, I'm confident, the events to which the police chief refers during his presentation.

Are you aware that Antifa is a movement, NOT an organization? Yes, there are militant aspects to the movement's actions - and I condemn those - but there is no organization called "Antifa."

Are you aware of the work of white nationalist groups in fomenting violence? (see below) Do you acknowledge and condemn these actions of white nationalist groups (by name, please, not by general groups as in your earlier reply to my criticism of Mr Trump's actions)?

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/twitter-takes-down-washington-protest-disinformation-bot-behavior-n1221456

Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.

As of the moment, however, I don't think there's a great deal of evidence that outside groups from either end of the spectrum are a major force in instigating the violence seen at night in our cities. It seems most of that wrong is homegrown.

Videos, threats, but few signs protests have been stoked by 'outsider' extremist groups

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/videos-threats-few-signs-protests-have-been-stoked-outsider-extremist-n1220451

U.S. police officials said Sunday that they are examining both local and out-of-state actors focused on creating damage and inciting violent confrontations.

1. The president planned his comments (it's not a "press conference" when the president refuses to take questions from the press) to coincide with sound and fury of the military actions he ordered against his fellow American citizens who were peacefully protesting across the street from his residence. That is wrong.
2. In his comments, the president vowed to protect Americans' Second Amendment rights, WHILE AT THE VERY SAME TIME the military operation he ordered took violent action against Americans' First Amendment rights outside the White House grounds. That is wrong.
3. The president ended his comments with the advisory that he was about to "pay [his] respects to a very special place," respects he "paid" after a short walk from the White House on streets cleared by the military actions he ordered against his fellow American citizens. That is wrong.
4. Antifa is a movement, not an organization.
5. I know of no evidence that the Antifa movement seeks to "overthrow the country." Please cite some.

And yet again you choose not to name Donald Trump as the subject of your criticism, Wolfgang. You allege, by name, "criminal and corrupt deeds" on the part of Secretary Clinton, Vice-President Biden, and President Obama, but you are not willing by name to level criticism against Mr. Trump. In this latest response, yet again you take pains to exclude Mr Trump from your criticism:

• You say the "current big problem for the USA is not the person Trump." (emphasis added)
• You declare that behind a "takeover of the USA," which you believe "is in full swing," are "higher powers," but NOT powers who are "positioned in the White House."

In my view, your almost-abject refusal in your posts to criticize Donald Trump directly and by name, while you are quite willing to criticize "Clinton, Biden, Obama, etc" in that manner, testifies to the resilience of your support for him. Yesterday the man ordered military action against his own citizens as they peacefully exercised their constitutional rights so that he could stand for a five minute photo op holding a Bible in front of a church, YET YOU CHOSE TO CRITICIZE "THE STATE" FOR THAT ACTION, NOT MR TRUMP HIMSELF. THAT'S resilient support.

AND YET AGAIN you refuse to criticize Mr Trump directly and by name. I think I've more than made my point.

But specific to your response:

• What Mr Trump said "with his speech" had nothing to do with the military operation he ordered to take place as he spoke. The ONLY possible vague allusion to that operation was his concluding spoken intention to pay respects to "a very special place," which of course was the church in front of which for five minutes he posed for photos while holding a Bible, a visit made possible thanks to the military operation he had ordered against his fellow citizens.
• In his brief address, he indeed "made clear distinctions between peaceful demonstrators and rioting groups against whom force would be used." So IF those words have ANYTHING to do with the military operation he executed as he spoke, then you'll be able to prove that the protesters against whom he ordered the operations were members of "rioting groups." If you can't do that - and you can't since there is NO evidence that ANY of those people were "rioting" during that particular protest - then your argument falls apart.... But I could be wrong! Please link to evidence that the protesters against whom the president ordered military action were a "rioting group."

While I suppose it's possible that as the military operation Mr Trump ordered against his fellow citizens unfolded, "globalist liberalist fascist elites (were) behind the scenes... cutting... strings and disposing of players and puppets," such a possibility has no relevance to the fact that said military operation targeted American citizens as they peacefully exercised their rights to assemble and express their opinions. It bothered you that in a different protest, people "mostly just walking about" were by select media outlets lumped together with "a few screaming women," but it DOESN'T bother you that a federal government took military action against its own citizens so that its leader could take five minutes of pictures in front of a church he hardly ever attends while holding a Bible you can bet he hardly ever reads (except, of course, his favorite book, "two Corinthians").

Case closed.

When you revisit my last post, you'll see that I indeed DID distinguish between rioting groups and peaceful demonstrators. Specifically I wrote...

"In his brief address, he indeed 'made clear distinctions between peaceful demonstrators and rioting groups against whom force would be used.' So IF those words have ANYTHING to do with the military operation he executed as he spoke, then you'll be able to prove that the protesters against whom he ordered the operations were members of 'rioting groups.' If you can't do that - and you can't since there is NO evidence that ANY of those people were "rioting" during that particular protest - then your argument falls apart.... But I could be wrong! Please link to evidence that the protesters against whom the president ordered military action were a 'rioting group.'"

In other words, I acknowledged the difference between the two kinds of groups, BUT claimed that there was NO evidence that the group against which the president ordered military action was a "rioting group," and asked YOU to link to that evidence, if any existed. You did not do so.

And then there's the proverbial elephant in this room: You have created six posts in this thread, YET NOT ONCE have you even mentioned the actual reason the president ordered military action against his fellow citizens: To take a walk across the street from the White House to St John's Church, where, for a period of no more than five minutes, he posed for pictures - both by himself and with others - as he held a Bible. As I have noted in three of my five previous posts in this thread, THAT'S why he cleared those streets, THAT'S why he took military action against his fellow citizens. And yet you have chosen not even to mention the photo op in ANY of your six posts.

There is NO evidence - NONE - that the president ordered military action against his fellow citizens as "a mission of assistance to police to re-establish a normal without violent street war situations." There is EVERY BIT OF EVIDENCE - it's on video! - that the president ordered military action so that he could have his picture taken in front of St John's Church while he held a Bible.

PLEASE address the photo op directly, and provide evidence to support your claims about the reason for the president's action and the nature of the group of protesters against which the president ordered military action.

1. The fact that you think it "very plausible" those brick piles reflect preparation for "Antifa riots" proves nothing. They might also be there to build dog houses, mice shelters, or fun houses for the Lilliputians of "Gulliver's Travels," should they ever come to America. It's also "very plausible" that the piles were positioned by city- or construction company workers in advance of projects. Did you notice the orange and white caution cones around the pile in the largest image in the link you provided? the kind of cones to which city- and construction workers have easy access and of which they make daily use?
2. Antifa is an international movement because fascism and far right governments, which Antifa opposes, exist internationally. [I'm not defending the violent tactics Antifa-sympathetic groups use. By the way, in the U.S. some of our right wing friends refer to such tactics as "second amendment remedies."]
3. Whether Antifa has anything to do with George Floyd or America's unresolved racial issues, or Black Lives Matter to you "smells badly from faraway" are each irrelevant to President Trump's decision to take military action against his fellow citizens so that he could have a five minute photo op in front of St John's Church, across the street from the White House.
4. I don't know about the violence you contend has occurred, but I think it's "very plausible" that people in both Germany and the U.K. oppose the murder of George Floyd at the hands of uniformed police officers, and in response to their opposition have taken to the streets in protest. PARTICULARLY if, as you contend, the U.K. and Germany don't have racism problems, I could understand very passionate protests arising in those nations in response to the racism expressed so frequently in America.
5. You have now created nine posts in this thread and yet you STILL have not even mentioned, let alone explained, President Trump's five minute photo op holding a Bible at St John's Church, across the street from the White House, which I claim is self-evidently the reason the president ordered military action against his fellow citizens. This IS your M-O, Wolfgang, displayed now countless times over your years of posting in these forums: When confronted with a question or observation that undermines your argument, you choose not to engage it, in fact, you choose not even to mention it, even when asked multiple times to do so. You are not the only poster in these threads who refuses to respond to or even mention challenging questions or observations, but that can't possibly defend your practice.