Updated January 18 at 7:57 a.m. EST
The Inauguration Day ad controversy first brought to the public’s attention via the Washington Times has now been labeled a hoax by that same outlet, as they published an article late Tuesday night regarding an interview a man going by the name Dominic Tullipso had on the Fox News channel.
“A man using the alias ‘Dominic Tullipso’ said Tuesday on Fox News Channel — well, it was hard to figure out what he was trying to say, but it was also clear that he wasn’t running a business that involved spending thousands on hiring activists.”
Tullipso was interviewed on Tucker Carlson’s new show, which replaced Megyn Kelly’s time slot a few weeks ago, and he said it was shocking at how easy it was to get noticed by the press, saying nowadays it’s not difficult for your words to be passed along as truth even in the face of no legitimate proof.
It should be noted here that the Washington Times, nor any reputable news outlet, was passing the Inauguration Day ad around as verifiable proof, but rather simply investigating it and reporting the findings. On the surface, it seemed legit, but no one knew for sure.
For the sake of transparency, the Washington Times did specify that the Inauguration Day ad posted on backpage.com was a real ad, but the group that supposedly put the ad there in the first place is not real, despite having a well-organized website. As for where that puts the ads that have recently been seen throughout a couple dozen American cities, there is no clear-cut evidence they were put up by actual activist organizations.
An Inauguration Day ad, which states that would-be protesters can make up to $2,500 to cause mayhem on January 20, the day Donald Trump gets sworn in to serve as president of the United States of America, has been found posted in over 20 U.S. cities, according to the Washington Times.
These specific Inauguration Day ads are also reportedly being used online by the San Francisco-based organization known as Demand Protest starting on January 12. The group has posted the advertisement on the website backpage.com, a site where people can post classifieds (similar to Craigslist).
The Inauguration Day ad headline reads as follows.
“Get paid fighting against Trump!
“We are currently seeking operatives to help send a strong message at upcoming inauguration protests.”
Responders to the ad must go to an “in-person workshop” and “sign a non-disclosure agreement.”
As it turns out, the $2,500 is reportedly an advance payment that individual protesters receive every month as long as they’re an active participant of Demand Protest. The payment listed on this particular Inauguration Day ad is $50 per hour.
In addition to this, the Demand Protest Inauguration Day ad indicates that their so-called “operatives” who work full-time receive benefits in the form of family eligible health insurance, which includes coverage for eye care and dental, “flexible vacations, paid training,” and the costs of travel are “always” covered.
This ad, if it’s indeed real, seems like the perfect formula for motivating jobless, angry Trump haters to go out and wreak havoc, but at what cost to the rest of Inauguration Day attendees, both pro and anti-Trump?
According to WTOP the director of Secret Service, Joseph Clancy, claimed recently that the dangers posed during the 2017 presidential inauguration are “different” in comparison to prior inaugurations.
Clancy says he believes modern-day protesters are open to wreaking the kind of havoc that protesters of the past were not open to wreaking. In essence, he believes the protesters of today are not opposed to taking it to the extreme.
Is there a clear line between expected, legal forms of protest and unexpected, extreme forms of protest?
Joseph referenced incidents that occurred during the presidential campaign season to illustrate his point of demonstrators having the guts that their predecessors did not have.
“He cited several episodes that took place during the campaign, ‘where people jumped over those bike racks or security zones into our buffer. In the past, it was very rare for somebody to do that. Today, in this past campaign, people were willing to do it.’”
Clancy is confident in the Secret Service’s ability to recognize and notice extreme behavior and take the necessary actions if a situation gets out of hand. He did not, however, go into any specifics regarding what their response consists of.
Although terror attacks from ISIS and the like are a big concern on Inauguration Day, some security experts believe the real cause for concern comes from domestic entities.
A photo posted by DisruptJ20 (@disruptj20) on
The discovery of this anti-Trump Inauguration Day ad coincides with the revealing of the #DisruptJ20 coalition by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. #DisruptJ20 is the blanket designation of a number of anti-Trump organizations. The members of these organizations have potent aspirations to, as the name indicates, disrupt the Trump inauguration. Many wish to disrupt it to the degree that authorities will have no choice but to put a permanent stop to the day’s activities.
The home page of the website for #DisruptJ20 says, “Join us for a bold mobilization against the inauguration of Donald Trump. We’re bringing widespread civil resistance to the streets of Washington, DC through protests, direct actions, and even parties and we want you there with us.”
The D.C. Welcoming Committee is directly involved and funding #DisruptJ20. They are “planning a series of massive direct actions” and have the intention of “paralyzing the city” of Washington, D.C., using their physical bodies to protest. They mention the human road blocks done by Black Lives Matter as an example of the type of demonstrations they favor.
The three members of the #DisruptJ20 coterie featured in the Project Veritas video discussed their desire to wreak havoc at an Inauguration Day celebration called the Deploraball. In order to successfully launch mayhem, Luke Kuhn, Collin Dunn, and Scott Green were planning on using butyric acid (stink bomb) to drive everyone out of the building the Deploraball is being held in. If that didn’t work, the men considered finding a way to make all the fire alarms in the facility go off at once, thus activating the interior sprinkler system.
Project Veritas has more to come in regard to #DisruptJ20 and what the anti-Trump organizers intend to do in Washington, D.C., on January 20.
Word is that close to 900,000 people will attend Inauguration Day this coming Friday, and within that number, there are close to 100 groups set to demonstrate, but only the groups who sought permission beforehand are expected, meaning it’s hard to say for sure how many more demonstrators will show up.
The validity of the Inauguration Day ad floating around multiple U.S. cities has yet to be confirmed or disproven. What do you think? Let us know in the comments below.
[Featured Image by mikeledray/Shutterstock]