It's a valid question: large events like this march require considerable coordination among public services and permits are necessary to make sure that police and EMS and public transport can react, and navigating the bureaucratic machine for getting a permit is, by official D.C. guidelines, estimated to take at least 6 months. This march took place only a bit more than a month after the Parkland shooting. If people are to believe that this large march was organically organized in just a month, it must be the case that some public officials pulled strings and made exceptions for them, and that is a story in its own right. Or, on the other hand, it must be the case that this march was planned in advance of the shooting, and was thus not organized organically by student groups, but was perhaps something that was intended to happen anyway, but was repurposed in light of the shooting in Florida, which would change a purportedly grassroots event into something with much less meaning and arguably paints the true organizers as opportunists.

Well, this someone sent an email in search of that question, and got a response, and this website reported on it: they heard that a permit application was received prior to the shooting. I don't see how it's their responsibility to continually check back with the officer that was consulted in order to be sure that he really meant what he said. But, as mentioned, the article contains mention of the fact that the officer has since rescinded his date, and another article is linked that pieces together the timeline.

I don't see how it's fair to label them as liars. They haven't lied. They reported on a response from a public official. They've even edited the article to make mention of the rescinding of the comment. What more should they do, remove the article outright?

(edit: for the record, I feel it is necessary to say that I do not regularly read this blog, I came across the fellowshipoftheminds.com post as a result of seeing the politifact article on reddit, I do not endorse the site in question)

The March for Science, which originated largely from a Reddit thread, happened in 4 months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Science

The Women's March was organized in 2.5 months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women%27s_March

edit: In the "update" post, the blogger of the allegation basically ignores the explanations for the confusion and goes with the conspiracy. At that point, I think it's reasonable for Politifact to say the blogger is acting in bad faith:

> Given the different dates he’s given for when Metro PD received the permit application and when Metro PD issued the permit, we have no reason to believe Officer Scott Earhardt. In all probability, his first email of March 28 to Dammegard’s contact is most likely the truthful one — that D.C. Metropolitan Police Department received an application for a permit for March For Our Lives “several months” before the March. That in turn implies that, contrary to how the March had been presented to the American people, the Parkland school shooting is not the inspiration for March For Our Lives and may even have been planned and contrived.

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2018/04/05/parklathe-curiou...

Even in the followup/correction post, they state both:

"In the March 28th email, Officer Earhardt states:

“In reference to your inquiry concerning the March For Our Lives Demonstration, here in the District of Columbia on March 24, 2018. MPD received a permit application several months prior to the actual event, and there was several months of planning for this large event.”"

and then also says: "we have no reason to believe Officer Scott Earhardt." [regarding his correction]

So they are taking two contradicting quotes from one person, and saying one of them is true and the other is false.

What are you trying to argue here?

But, sure, reckless disregard for basic journalistic norms and fact checking because the story fit their preconceived nsrrstive seems reasonably to warrant “pants on fire”.