Speaker 1: Alzon Media.
Speaker 2: This is it could happen here I show about things
Speaker 2: falling apart. I'm Garrison Davis. I'm joined by Robert Evans
Speaker 2: to discuss the Prairie Land trial.
Speaker 3: Yay.
Speaker 2: This month, the Trump administration got their first conviction in
Speaker 2: an Antifa terrorism case. On Friday, March thirteenth, eight people
Speaker 2: were convicted by a federal jury on charges of riot,
Speaker 2: conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and providing material
Speaker 2: support to terrorists. One of the defendants was convicted of
Speaker 2: attempted murder of a police officer, and another person was
Speaker 2: convicted on two counts of concealing documents, bringing the total
Speaker 2: number of federal defendants to nine. Originally, this federal case
Speaker 2: had way more defendants, but last year seven of them
Speaker 2: pleaded guilty to providing material support terrorists, four of whom
Speaker 2: were later called to testify for the prosecution during the trial.
Speaker 3: Have they gotten sentenced yet the folks who pled.
Speaker 2: Out, No, They are going to be sentenced later this summer,
Speaker 2: along with all of the defendants that were convicted. Gotcha,
Speaker 2: though their sentence will be a maximum of fifteen years,
Speaker 2: which is shorter than the defendants who were convicted.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: The prairieland Defendants Support Committee did ask me to read
Speaker 2: their names. The defendants are Ains Soto, Liz Soto, Savannah Batton,
Speaker 2: Meg and Morris, Autumn Hill, Mari Rueda, Benjamin Song or
Speaker 2: B Song, Zachary Evitz, and des Estrata. The prosecution tried
Speaker 2: to argue that this was a coordinated attack on an
Speaker 2: ice facility in Prairie Land, Texas, while the defense argued
Speaker 2: this was a noise demonstration protest outside of this detention
Speaker 2: facility last summer. On the night of July fourth, after
Speaker 2: protesters through fireworks and vandalized property, DJs personnel called a
Speaker 2: local police for assistance. One officer arrived, drew his handgun
Speaker 2: and yelled stop at a person in all black clothes
Speaker 2: who was running away. One of the defendants, b Song,
Speaker 2: then yelled get to the rifles before firing toward the
Speaker 2: officer with an Air fifteen, hitting him in the neck.
Speaker 2: Song fired eleven times. The officer returned fire three times.
Speaker 2: Song then fled the scene. Most of the defendants were
Speaker 2: arrested in the days after the attacks, some that night
Speaker 2: near the facility, though Song camped out hiding in the
Speaker 2: woods overnight and evaded capture for eleven days with the
Speaker 2: help of others. Many of those who assisted Song ab
Speaker 2: aide capture after the shooting pled guilty to providing material
Speaker 2: support to terrorists. On the first day of this trial,
Speaker 2: the judge declared a mistrial because one of the defense
Speaker 2: attorneys wore a shirt featuring civil rights leaders. A week
Speaker 2: into the trial, US District Court Judge Mark Pittman ruled
Speaker 2: that defense attorneys could not argue that the defendants, including
Speaker 2: the accused shooter, were acting in self defense or the
Speaker 2: defense of others against unlawful force just because the officer
Speaker 2: had already drawn his handgun before Song fired. The prosecutors
Speaker 2: compared this to Waco, and Judge Pittman ruled that the
Speaker 2: officer drawing and pointing his handgun at a fleeing suspect
Speaker 2: does not qualify as quote excessive as a matter of
Speaker 2: law because the officer did not actually use deadly force
Speaker 2: or shoot first.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that makes sense. Like if this were a civilian
Speaker 3: on civilian situation, the fact that he had drawn his gun,
Speaker 3: especially in Texas, would have been enough to at least
Speaker 3: argue self defense. But absolutely police officers have the right
Speaker 3: to pull guns on whoever they want, whenever they want
Speaker 3: pretty much, so yeah, yep cool.
Speaker 2: In court, the government argued that, based on the situation
Speaker 2: at the protest, that it was reasonable for the officer
Speaker 2: to decide to draw his handgun because there was crimes
Speaker 2: being committed to property damage the fireworks, even if he
Speaker 2: did not witness fireworks as he pulled up to the scene.
Speaker 2: Now headlines have framed this story as protesters being convicted
Speaker 2: of terrorism for wearing black clothes or possessing radical political
Speaker 2: writing also known as zines. There is like a kernel
Speaker 2: of truth to these statements, but they're designed to serve
Speaker 2: primarily as clickbait rather than useful information. So let's take
Speaker 2: a closer look at these claims. Sure, but let's start
Speaker 2: by getting into the action planning. This action was originally
Speaker 2: planned on the encrypted messaging app Signal, primarily in a
Speaker 2: group chat called Fourth of July Party Okay. The plan
Speaker 2: was also discussed an in person meeting the day before
Speaker 2: the action, referred to during the trial as a gear
Speaker 2: check preticipense in the planning chat agreed to where black
Speaker 2: block and bring armor and rifles. Song advertised the action
Speaker 2: in a larger group chat of dozens of quote unquote
Speaker 2: trusted individuals. The event was characterized in this chat as
Speaker 2: a low risk noise demonstration involving fireworks. A flyer was
Speaker 2: sent to this larger chat, reading share with trusted folks only,
Speaker 2: do not post mask up be loud quote. According to
Speaker 2: cooperating witness Susan Kent, in the fourth of July Party
Speaker 2: Signal chat, when asked about bringing guns, Song stated, I'm
Speaker 2: not going back to prison. I'm not going to jail.
Speaker 2: I'm bringing guns unquote.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's a terrible thing to have in writing. Boy,
Speaker 3: Okay great.
Speaker 2: This sentiment was also expressed at the gear Check meeting
Speaker 2: on July third, where the fundan's discuss bringing guns and
Speaker 2: Song repeatedly stated that they would be bringing guns because
Speaker 2: he would not be quote unquote going to jail. They
Speaker 2: talked about guns as a deterrent.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: They talked about how in previous instances the presence of
Speaker 2: guns deterred police from engaging with protesters. And this is
Speaker 2: how the presence of guns at the protest was largely
Speaker 2: framed in these meetings and chats. It does not look
Speaker 2: good in writing in a court case, though.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And this is what the ELM Fork John Brown
Speaker 3: Gun Club had done like sweep defenses and stuff where
Speaker 3: they'd shown up armed.
Speaker 2: That incident was brought up. Yeah, that was specifically referenced.
Speaker 3: It had in fact worked that way more or less.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's a number of things to drill into here,
Speaker 3: but one of the issues is just while that's a
Speaker 3: thing people have used firearms for and have done so
Speaker 3: in a way that worked in the past obviously, which
Speaker 3: is what they were referencing, the problem is that you
Speaker 3: can't ever lose sight of the fact that, like, a
Speaker 3: gun is a gun, and if you're bringing a gun
Speaker 3: into a situation.
Speaker 2: There's potential for that gun to be used.
Speaker 3: There's a potential for that gun to be used. And
Speaker 3: if you're bringing that gun into a situation around a
Speaker 3: police station, the odds that you will use that gun
Speaker 3: in a way that is not going to cause a
Speaker 3: life ruining legal nightmare for you and everyone else, Yeah,
Speaker 3: are are a lot lower. That's a real issue. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Also at this gear Check on the third song proposed
Speaker 2: to free detainees using quote unquote suppressive fire.
Speaker 3: Oh my god.
Speaker 2: This idea was shut down by other attendees. According to
Speaker 2: Susan Kent, who testified after entering a guilty plea. Kent
Speaker 2: testified that after looking over photos of the facility, Song said, quote,
Speaker 2: this is as easy as it's going to get. We
Speaker 2: can take the place and free the people inside. Oh
Speaker 2: quote using quote unquote suppressive fire. This idea was meant
Speaker 2: with quote unquote general disagreement, according to Kent, yeah, of course,
Speaker 2: also saying that it was not curiously planned for or
Speaker 2: discussed the support committee rights that. Kent also testified that
Speaker 2: the group quote discussed stealing U hauls to move free detainees,
Speaker 2: but this did not have popular support. Defendant Autumn Hill
Speaker 2: asked do we bring our guns? Song replied yes, I'm
Speaker 2: not getting arrested.
Speaker 3: Unquote yeah, just a lot of really horrible things to
Speaker 3: have read out in a courtroom. Just yep, cool okay.
Speaker 2: On signal, Song shared a YouTube short about suppressive fire.
Speaker 2: Another defendant, Rueda, wrote that she didn't want to quote
Speaker 2: unquote fed post Yeah. Someone else wrote that rifles that
Speaker 2: the action may increase risk. Defendant Evitts sent a timeline
Speaker 2: for the actions that day, writing things heat up after sunset.
Speaker 2: Roeda wrote quote if people inside get rowdy, people in
Speaker 2: this chat would be charged for conspiracy. Question Mark, and
Speaker 2: then after the fourth of July shooting, someone messaged, quote,
Speaker 2: please delete signal chats. Chats still on phone even if
Speaker 2: removed from groups unquote Yeah. According to Support committee notes,
Speaker 2: some signal messages were recovered from phones using Apple's internal
Speaker 2: notification system, though even though signal had been removed YEA,
Speaker 2: incoming messages were preserved in the internal memory on the phone.
Speaker 2: Outgoing messages were not preserved because there's no notification system
Speaker 2: for outgoing messages. You can set your settings on signal
Speaker 2: to not display the message in notifications, and it seems
Speaker 2: like that was not the case for these messages that
Speaker 2: were taken from defendants phones.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and this is a known I mean, the just
Speaker 3: the fact that having notifications on with signal as a
Speaker 3: privacy issue has been known for a while.
Speaker 2: But yeah, two defendants, Liz Sojo and Savannah Batton, were
Speaker 2: neither in planning chats nor attended the gear check. But
Speaker 2: all the defendants who attended the protest did carpool together
Speaker 2: in two vehicles and brought a total of eleven firearms,
Speaker 2: body armor, individual first aid kits, and all these were
Speaker 2: presented as government exhibits. I'm going to quote the Department
Speaker 2: of Justice right up about this case. Quote. Evidence at
Speaker 2: trial revealed most of the ANTIFA cell involved in the
Speaker 2: Prairie Line attack looked to Song as a leader. Song
Speaker 2: acquired firearms that were distributed to co defendants and recruited
Speaker 2: members that gun ranges and combat sessions they conducted unquote yep.
Speaker 3: Just as a general rule, like because the potential consequences
Speaker 3: of having firearms in a protest are so high. If
Speaker 3: you are showing up at a protest or organizing one
Speaker 3: and people are talking about bringing them, it behooves you
Speaker 3: to pay close attention to how they talk about them.
Speaker 3: And if someone is talking about, for example, suppressed fire,
Speaker 3: that's not something that is really relevant to a defensive
Speaker 3: shooting in a legal situation. That's like a combat thing.
Speaker 3: Like very rarely do self defense shootings involve suppressing fire.
Speaker 3: I I just you have to be very very careful. Yeah,
Speaker 3: And this is like a judgment thing, Like if you
Speaker 3: hear people talking about guns who are going to be
Speaker 3: bringing firearms to a protest or another event, and they
Speaker 3: are talking in a way that sounds as if they
Speaker 3: are like planning or eager to shoot it out with
Speaker 3: the police or right wing count with anyone. That's a
Speaker 3: thing to be very wary of. That's a real warning sign. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's a real red flag.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a real red flag. The defense argued that
Speaker 2: when Songs shot at the officer, Song was using suppressive fire,
Speaker 2: claiming that Song aimed for the ground and the officer
Speaker 2: was perhaps struck by a ricochet. We don't know if
Speaker 2: that is true now, And there really is no legal
Speaker 2: precedent no arguing suppressive fire in this way.
Speaker 3: In a self defense shooting.
Speaker 2: No, if you're shooting the direction of someone, yeah, they
Speaker 2: absolutely can start shooting back, even if that absolute fire
Speaker 2: is intended as being quote unquote suppressive. Right, Like, there's
Speaker 2: there's really no legal precedent for arguing in this way.
Speaker 3: And from a legal standpoint, if you were saying I
Speaker 3: had to shoot at someone in immediate self defense, and
Speaker 3: then you said, but I wasn't actually aiming at them.
Speaker 3: I was just trying to suppress them that immediately. Like,
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't think they were ever going to
Speaker 3: be able to argue self defense because this was a cop.
Speaker 3: But if this had not been, if this had been like,
Speaker 3: you know, a right wing counter protester or something, the
Speaker 3: fact that you're saying that you were like shooting to
Speaker 3: try not to hit them is something that can get
Speaker 3: you in trouble. That's an extremely dangerous thing from a
Speaker 3: legal standpoint to talk about.
Speaker 2: Especially if you're the one like initiating the use of
Speaker 2: deadly force.
Speaker 3: Yes, if you have Now if they if a group
Speaker 3: of people start shooting at you and you are firing
Speaker 3: and you're just trying to keep it whatever that you're
Speaker 3: in a say, because they've started shooting at you, but
Speaker 3: like this person started shooting, Like just from a legal standpoint,
Speaker 3: this is a nightmare for the defense. Yeah, from the jump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, some of the defendants attended a daytime protest outside
Speaker 2: of this facility earlier on July fourth, and after which
Speaker 2: they then reported back to fellow defendants details regarding the
Speaker 2: facility security prior to this nighttime action. I think it's
Speaker 2: time for a quick break and then we'll return to
Speaker 2: discuss the Antifa terrorism cell aspect of this case.
Speaker 3: Great, well, I hate all of this so far, Garrison,
Speaker 3: here's some ads.
Speaker 2: I guess we're back, So let's talk about quote unquote Antifa.
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's talk about quote end quote Antifa.
Speaker 2: The government argued that the defendants remembers of a quote
Speaker 2: unquote North Texas Antifa cell. The indictment describes ANTIFA as
Speaker 2: a quote militant enterprise made up of networks of individuals
Speaker 2: and small groups, primarily ascribing to a revolutionary, anarchist or
Speaker 2: autonomous Marxist ideology which explicitly calls for the overthrow of
Speaker 2: the United States government, law enforcement authorities, and the system
Speaker 2: of law unquote. So basically they view ANTIFA as left
Speaker 2: wing anti authoritarians, right, That's how we can kind of
Speaker 2: collapse the use of this term down into like a
Speaker 2: single sentence, it's left wing anti authoritarianism. Though the defendants
Speaker 2: never actually organized altogether under the Antifa name, the prosecution
Speaker 2: argued that they were lanked through a triple ven diagram
Speaker 2: of the Socialist Rifle Association, the John Brown Gun Club,
Speaker 2: and the Emma Goldman book Club, and this all converged
Speaker 2: on quote unquote direct militant action. I'm assuming people are
Speaker 2: familiar with the SRA or the John Brown Gun Club
Speaker 2: in some way. The Emma Goldman Book Club was a
Speaker 2: local Zene distributor and publisher that also put on community
Speaker 2: events from a radical, anti capitalist, usually anarchist friendly perspective
Speaker 2: and mc goldwyn obviously being an anarchist yep.
Speaker 3: And like the fact that obviously these three organizations aren't
Speaker 3: actually tied together in any sort of like like they're
Speaker 3: trying to frame it as like, you know, an al
Speaker 3: Qaeda and an all Kainda affiliate type deal, right, which
Speaker 3: is not sure accurate to how these organizations work or
Speaker 3: what's going on here. But I'm not surprised that they
Speaker 3: went with this line of argument.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, the defendants had connections to these groups, right, Yeah,
Speaker 2: And because these groups have an ideological underpinning that can
Speaker 2: be seen as being quite similar in some ways, they're
Speaker 2: viewing that as as part of the connection that connects
Speaker 2: the individuals who were involved in these sorts of like
Speaker 2: organizations or community events.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I'm not surprised that's how they tried to argue. Sure.
Speaker 2: A sticky notepad found at the Soto residence contained passwords
Speaker 2: for the Emma Goldman book Club Twitter account and an
Speaker 2: Antifa Dallas fort Worth Twitter account, which prosecution used his
Speaker 2: evidence linking defendants to quote unquote Antifa. The government also
Speaker 2: called on David Kyle Shittler as an expert weitness to
Speaker 2: testify about Antifa.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Shittler is a member of the Center for Security Policy
Speaker 2: and SBLC designateed hate group. He also helped draft the
Speaker 2: definition of Antifa given in this case, and used that
Speaker 2: definition while testifying in front of the Senate last year.
Speaker 2: The defense missed a deadline to challenge the prosecutions antifa
Speaker 2: expert qualifications, which would have needed to be filed as
Speaker 2: a pre trial motion as opposed to an objection. During
Speaker 2: the trial, prosecutors also cited Trump's Antifa Executive Order, despite
Speaker 2: disorder being signed months after the Prairie Land incident, and
Speaker 2: the prosecutors also claimed that the International Antifa Defense Fund
Speaker 2: contributed over five thousand dollars to the Prairie Land defendants
Speaker 2: give Send Go crowd funding page. So much of this
Speaker 2: case was spent arguing over whether the defendants were in
Speaker 2: fact Antifa and what that even means, like what does
Speaker 2: it mean to be Antifa and if that's actually relevant
Speaker 2: to the charges that they were facing. And by the
Speaker 2: end of the trial it became more clear that the
Speaker 2: defendants weren't exactly being prosecuted for being members of Antifa. Rather,
Speaker 2: the government asserted that their proximity to this idea of
Speaker 2: Antifa provided evidence to their motive and preferred tactics. Quoting
Speaker 2: the Support Committee courtroom notes, quote, the government's strategy was
Speaker 2: to display zines, stickers, pamphlets, flags, and other political materials anarchist,
Speaker 2: anti fascist, anti ice, animal liberation, and argued that this
Speaker 2: shared ideology proves conspiracy and motive. FBI case agent Casey
Speaker 2: Bennett testified that the materials quote show a group of
Speaker 2: people sharing an ideology and that this quote might lead
Speaker 2: us to intent behind the attack and shows a conspiracy unquote.
Speaker 2: Towards the end of the trial, Judge Pittman asked the prosecution, quote,
Speaker 2: is it necessary to prove this stuff about Antifa? The
Speaker 2: Support Committee courtroom notes say that the prosecution responded by
Speaker 2: saying that Antifa ideology, particularly black block, was how the
Speaker 2: group operated. The judge pressed, quote, whether it's Antifa or
Speaker 2: the Methodist Women's Auxiliary, why does it matter?
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: The prosecution argued that they took quote unquote direct action
Speaker 2: against the ICE facility and argued black block and Antifa
Speaker 2: ideology were central to how the alleged attack was carried out.
Speaker 3: Quote well, that's yeah, that's positive. At least I guess.
Speaker 2: The government described Black Block for the purpose of this
Speaker 2: case as quote dark clothing with head and face coverings
Speaker 2: that concealed their identities, designed to hide each individual's identity,
Speaker 2: but also to aid and those members engaged in illegal
Speaker 2: acts by making members indistinguishable from one another to law
Speaker 2: enforcement unquote. The jury was shown clothing from all the
Speaker 2: defendants as evidence, as well as body armour and a
Speaker 2: quote unquote resist fascism flag. Now, all this does raise
Speaker 2: the question about whether this prosecution is against the defendant's
Speaker 2: political ideology or the specific criminal acts of throwing fireworks
Speaker 2: or shooting at a police officer, rather than being convicted
Speaker 2: of being members of Antifa, the terrorist group, something that
Speaker 2: still doesn't really have legal precedent. The prosecutors argued that
Speaker 2: the Antifa ideology, left wing anti authoritarianism played a role
Speaker 2: in in spe firing the defendants formed the basis of
Speaker 2: political affinity that brought this collection of individuals together and
Speaker 2: relate to a collection of security practices, subcultural practices, and
Speaker 2: associated tactics which were employed before, during, and after the
Speaker 2: criminal acts related to the noise demo quote unquote opsec
Speaker 2: practices like you know, Black Block are using signal were
Speaker 2: used as evidence, Yeah, that there was some sort of
Speaker 2: conspiracy at foot.
Speaker 3: Sure, yeah, I mean, yeah, that makes sense from a
Speaker 3: prosecutorial standpoint, Right, these people are talking about like just
Speaker 3: the fact that there are zines talking about the purpose
Speaker 3: of black block and people are having a planning meeting
Speaker 3: ahead of time where they're like checking their gear and
Speaker 3: talking about how they're going to come in and block.
Speaker 3: Like yeah, yeah, that's that's that's unfortunate. Yeah, I can
Speaker 3: see why the prosecution went with that line of argument.
Speaker 2: But how does this relate to like terrorism, right, because right,
Speaker 2: conspiracy and terrorism are different things. Yes, So to get
Speaker 2: an idea of the government's own preferred language regarding Antifa
Speaker 2: terrorism all quote from the guilty plea drafted by the
Speaker 2: government for a former defendant turned government witness. Quote the
Speaker 2: terrorism was calculated to influence and affect the conduct of
Speaker 2: government by intimidation or coercion. Co conspirators adhered to an
Speaker 2: antifa anarchist ideology and organized cells or affinity groups. Co
Speaker 2: conspirators began planning direct action at prairieland co conspirators agreed
Speaker 2: to address in black bloc to provide cover for each
Speaker 2: other to commit crimes, including concealing the escape of those
Speaker 2: who committed destruction of government property unquote. So this is
Speaker 2: how it relates to like the actual legal definition of terrorism, right,
Speaker 2: which is certain criminal acts intending to change or influence
Speaker 2: government policy by intimidation or coercion. Right. That's how the
Speaker 2: government uses the term terrorism. And this this section of
Speaker 2: the plea written by the government shows how the government
Speaker 2: is self asserting the terrorists and that happened at Prairie Land.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: There's been a lot of headlines talking about the role
Speaker 2: of zines at this trial, and zines did play a
Speaker 2: two part role. Prosecution did argue that the presence of
Speaker 2: insurrectionary zines is indicative of some alignment with Antifa, even
Speaker 2: if the possession of these zines itself is not a crime.
Speaker 2: The government's Antifa expert testified that owning political text does
Speaker 2: not necessarily indicate group membership or personal allegiance to an ideology. Quote.
Speaker 2: Just because I own a copy of mind komf does
Speaker 2: that make me a Nazi? If I own the Capital,
Speaker 2: does that make me a Marxist? Unquote?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 2: Stunning? Stunning A first example given here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, interesting call, but base, I mean, but also like
Speaker 3: a valid argument.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but this is true, right, Yes, And this is.
Speaker 3: I've seen people framing the verdict as having zene or whatever,
Speaker 3: like it's an act of terrorism, and that's not what
Speaker 3: it was decided here.
Speaker 2: No, what's happening here is a bit more complicated and
Speaker 2: harder to explain.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: The other relevancy of zines to this case relate to
Speaker 2: the concealing documents charges against des Estrata and his wife,
Speaker 2: Mari Rayuda, based on transporting a box of political zines
Speaker 2: from his wife's house to a friend's house in Denton, Texas.
Speaker 2: The government claims that Roeda called Dez from jail on
Speaker 2: July sixth, instructing him to conceal evidence. Now, we don't
Speaker 2: have access to a full transcript of this call. The
Speaker 2: full call was given to the jury, but sections of
Speaker 2: it were read or listened to in court. The most
Speaker 2: detailed account of the call segments played in court come
Speaker 2: from notes taken by the prairieland Defense Support Committee. The
Speaker 2: actual evidence exhibit is not yet available to be purchased
Speaker 2: on PACER. Not sure if it will be or if
Speaker 2: that'll just be after sentencing. But I tried to actually
Speaker 2: get the transcript of the call, and it was not available.
Speaker 2: Des told his wife that he already talked with her mom,
Speaker 2: who she had previously called the day before. Rida talked
Speaker 2: about fed's confiscating property. FBI Special Agent Whitworth said in
Speaker 2: his opinion, Raeda was concerned about the evidence. Rieda then
Speaker 2: voiced concern for her car parked at the twenty four
Speaker 2: hundred block of fifty sixth Street, which had her phone
Speaker 2: stored inside. This was the staging site before she went
Speaker 2: to the action. She then instructed Dez to quote unquote
Speaker 2: toe it. My phone is in the back. Do what
Speaker 2: you got to do. Just toe it unquote. The Support
Speaker 2: Committee wrote that quote. Prosecution replayed this section, characterizing it
Speaker 2: as Rida trying to get rid of evidence. Rada says
Speaker 2: to quote unquote retrieve her items from the vehicle, does
Speaker 2: not refer to her items using the word evidence, and
Speaker 2: does not say hide, destroy, or conceal. Des never actually
Speaker 2: got to this car or the phone. He explained that
Speaker 2: the vehicle would be repoed, But Royta also said in
Speaker 2: this call, quote move whatever you need to move in
Speaker 2: the house. The Support Committee wrote that quote. Prosecution argued
Speaker 2: this meant moving evidence. Defense noted she was talking about
Speaker 2: pets at the time. Quote on the call, Des mentioned
Speaker 2: that he had already been at the house and replied,
Speaker 2: quote unquote, were good in reference to moving stuff from
Speaker 2: the house. The defense questioned how they could have conspired
Speaker 2: out of order right because the government claims there was
Speaker 2: a conspiracy to concealed documents, but Des here said that
Speaker 2: he moved things before he actually got on this phone
Speaker 2: call with his wife. The FBI answered that Des just
Speaker 2: had already acquired the necessary information to act, just not
Speaker 2: directly from his wife. Now, des was found guilty of
Speaker 2: quote corruptly concealing a document or record by transporting a
Speaker 2: box containing numerous ANTIFA materials such as insurrection planning, anti
Speaker 2: law enforcement, anti government, and anti immigration enforcement documents and propaganda,
Speaker 2: intending to conceal the box's contents and impair its availability
Speaker 2: for use in a federal grand jury and federal criminal
Speaker 2: proceedings unquote. That's from the DOJ. He and his wife,
Speaker 2: Rita were found guilty of conspiracy to conceal documents and
Speaker 2: other objects that would implicate Rada in the riot and
Speaker 2: shooting at the Prairie Land Facility. Also, according to the
Speaker 2: Department of justice. So basically this was an evidence tampering
Speaker 2: charge of concealing evidence charge. The actual presence of the
Speaker 2: zines was not the crime, but the government argued that
Speaker 2: the zines themselves were evidence, or that des suspected they
Speaker 2: could be evidence, and that's why he moved them from
Speaker 2: his wife's house to this other location. We're gonna go
Speaker 2: and rumber break and then return to discuss two more charges. Okay,
Speaker 2: we're back nine of the counts, count one, two, four,
Speaker 2: and five through ten cited Pinkerton versus United States, nineteen
Speaker 2: forty six.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: The judge explained this to the jury by saying that
Speaker 2: a defendant can be criminally liable for the offenses committed
Speaker 2: by another co conspirator if the offense was quote reasonably
Speaker 2: foreseeable and committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, with the
Speaker 2: judge writing in jury instructions, quote, a defendant can be
Speaker 2: found guilty and held criminally liable for an offense under
Speaker 2: Pinkerton co conspirator liability even if the defendant was not
Speaker 2: charged with conspiracy. It is not required that the conspiracy
Speaker 2: agrees to commit or facilitate each and every part of
Speaker 2: a substantive offense that is, in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Speaker 2: A defendant must merely reach an agreement with the specific
Speaker 2: intent that the underlying criminal objective be achieved by the
Speaker 2: conspiracy unquote. Early in the trial, prosecution argued that song
Speaker 2: firing on the officers was quote unquote reasonably foreseeable based
Speaker 2: on the planning of the action and previous statements made
Speaker 2: by Song, But this Pickerton liability also applied to the
Speaker 2: other charges, including riot material sport terrorism, and the explosive charge.
Speaker 2: The jury found all defendants that were charged guilty of
Speaker 2: counts one, two, three, and four that's riot material support
Speaker 2: and to explosive charges, but did not find the other
Speaker 2: defendants besides Song, guilty of attempted murder or discharging a
Speaker 2: firearm using the Pinkerton co conspirator liability. The prosecution wanted
Speaker 2: the other individuals at the protest to be found guilty
Speaker 2: of the charge of attempted murder using the liability, and
Speaker 2: the jury did not do that. Let's talk about two
Speaker 2: of the charges that now carry some worrying potential to
Speaker 2: be used against protesters in the future based on the
Speaker 2: precedent that this case sets. First, the conspiracy to use
Speaker 2: and carry in explosive and using n carry an explosive
Speaker 2: during a riot. The only quote nquote explosives at this
Speaker 2: noise demonstration protest were fireworks, and the judge even confirmed
Speaker 2: that it was established that the fireworks caused no damage
Speaker 2: to the ice facility. Yet Steven Brennemann Atis Explosives Special
Speaker 2: Agent testified that fireworks meet the statutory definition of explosives
Speaker 2: under eighteen USC. Section eight four four IJ because the
Speaker 2: fireworks contain gunpowder as defined in the statute. This could
Speaker 2: have some pretty wide reaching implications. A lot of protests
Speaker 2: u fireworks. This was a protest on fourth of July,
Speaker 2: a day full of the use of fireworks. Robert and
Speaker 2: I have been to a protest, covered a protest in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty outside of a federal government building that also
Speaker 2: had a lot of fireworks and fireworks shot towards the building. Yep,
Speaker 2: if that happened, now, it's possible that people at this
Speaker 2: protest could be charged with this conspiracy to use and
Speaker 2: carry an explosive.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, And I mean they've clearly been wanting arguing
Speaker 3: for this ever since twenty twenty, right like fire Well,
Speaker 3: because it wasn't just Portland wasn't the only place where
Speaker 3: people were using fireworks. Generally, people were using fireworks as
Speaker 3: kind of a response to the police using flash flashbacks, right,
Speaker 3: like it was, it was a force equalizer. Both were
Speaker 3: used quite often. But you know, like I had so
Speaker 3: many of those fucking things blow up in my face
Speaker 3: and then every day, like, these are not bombs, These
Speaker 3: are not pipe bombs. Like it's not fun to have
Speaker 3: them blow up right next to you, but it's these
Speaker 3: are not like deadly explosives.
Speaker 2: Yes, agreed. And even the agents investigating this case mailed
Speaker 2: materials from these fireworks for testing using regular FedEx, not
Speaker 2: labeling them as possibly dangerous or explosive, and the government
Speaker 2: argued that it was because the amount in the FedEx
Speaker 2: package was just so small that they didn't need to
Speaker 2: label it as being dangerous.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Now, lastly, I need to discuss count two. It's providing
Speaker 2: material support to terrorists. This is eighteen USC. Two three
Speaker 2: three nine. This is the charge that a lot of
Speaker 2: people are talking about. When they're mentioning someone has been
Speaker 2: convicted of terrorism for XYZ, for using signal, for wearing
Speaker 2: black block, for possessing zines. They're referring to this charge. Now,
Speaker 2: this statute has two sections. Section B refers to knowingly
Speaker 2: attempting to, conspiring to, or actually providing material support or
Speaker 2: resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization. This is not
Speaker 2: how the government used this statute, right, They're not considering
Speaker 2: Antifa a foreign terrorist organization for the purposes of this case.
Speaker 2: That's the how are using this. The defendants were charge
Speaker 2: receection a alleging that they provided and attempted to provide
Speaker 2: material support and resources and did conceal and disguise the
Speaker 2: nature of their material support and resources including property, services, training,
Speaker 2: communications equipment, weapons, explosives, personnel including themselves, and transportation, knowing
Speaker 2: and intending that they were to be used in preparation for,
Speaker 2: and in carrying out an offense identified as a federal
Speaker 2: crime of terrorism, or carrying out the concealment of an
Speaker 2: escape from an offense identified as a federal crime of terrorism.
Speaker 2: That's a lot. Yeah, that's a long sentence. This is
Speaker 2: certainly a very confusing charge.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Now, this statute lists at least twenty eight possible terrorism offenses.
Speaker 2: Now relevant to this case are three eighteen Usc. Eight
Speaker 2: four four F, which is maliciously attempting to damage government
Speaker 2: property by means of fire or an explosive for the
Speaker 2: purpose of this case, that is throwing fireworks at a building.
Speaker 2: Eighteen USC. One three sixty's one. That's wilful depredation against
Speaker 2: any property of the United States exceeding one thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: For the purposes of this case, this would be damage
Speaker 2: to government property in other ways like slashing tires, graffeiti
Speaker 2: that sort of thing, right. And finally, eighteen USC one
Speaker 2: one four killing or attempting to kill an officer or
Speaker 2: employee of the United States. That's pretty self explanatory. Yeah,
Speaker 2: So the government accused the defendants of providing material support
Speaker 2: in furtherance of committing these three crimes of terrorism, even
Speaker 2: if each individual defendant themselves did not actually commit one
Speaker 2: of these three crimes. To quote the jury instructions, quote,
Speaker 2: the government does not have to prove all of these
Speaker 2: to you for you to return a guilty verdict on
Speaker 2: this charge. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt on one is
Speaker 2: enough unquote. So the jury does not need to find
Speaker 2: proof that all of these three terrorism offenses were committed.
Speaker 2: That the explosives charge, the destruction government property charge, or
Speaker 2: the attempt at killing charge. They just need to find
Speaker 2: proof beyond a reasonable doubt that material support was provided
Speaker 2: for one of these. Part of what makes this charge
Speaker 2: kind of dangerous is that we don't know which terroristic
Speaker 2: crime or crimes the jury found sufficient evidence for, or
Speaker 2: if they used different offenses for different defendants, Nor do
Speaker 2: we explicitly know what the jury thought qualified as material support.
Speaker 2: It could have been driving people to an action, a
Speaker 2: mere presence at an action, wearing black clothes, providing money
Speaker 2: to buy fireworks, all those could be considered material support.
Speaker 2: But because of how the jury just writes guilty on
Speaker 2: this charge, we don't actually know what the specific justification
Speaker 2: they used to find this to be true. Because the
Speaker 2: discharges so is so broad and can contain a lot
Speaker 2: of things that qualify as material support, including just being
Speaker 2: merely present at an action like personnel can be material
Speaker 2: support in furtherance of a federal crime of terrorism. So
Speaker 2: wearing black block at an action where no crime happens
Speaker 2: would not constitute terrorism, but wearing black clothes at a
Speaker 2: protest where someone does an ideologically motivated crime of terrorism
Speaker 2: could be seen as materially supporting that crime or concealing
Speaker 2: the escape of the person who committed that crime. I
Speaker 2: want to quote from the judge's instructions to the jury
Speaker 2: regarding the First Amendment. Quote, Constitutionally protected speech can be
Speaker 2: properly used as evidence to prove a defend motive, intent,
Speaker 2: and knowledge to commit the offense or further the unlawful
Speaker 2: purpose of any jointly undertaken criminal activity. Stated another way,
Speaker 2: if a defendant's speech, expression, or associations were made with
Speaker 2: the intent to knowingly provide material support or resources to
Speaker 2: be used to prepare for or carry out a violation
Speaker 2: of federal law, or to carry out the concealment of
Speaker 2: an escape from such a violation, then the First Amendment
Speaker 2: would not provide a defense to that conduct unquote. So
Speaker 2: it is possible now, using this case as precedent, if
Speaker 2: you're present at a protest before someone commits a serious crime,
Speaker 2: and you have a tangential link to that person, you
Speaker 2: could also face similar charges. If you're in a group
Speaker 2: chat with someone and then they commit a crime, you
Speaker 2: could face similar charges. This is not the first time
Speaker 2: the government has tried to use this sort of like
Speaker 2: conspiracy against a large different group of protesters. Notably, they
Speaker 2: tried to do this in Atlanta unsuccessfully. But I think
Speaker 2: it's worth noting they were only unsuccessful on their reco
Speaker 2: charges because of procedural error, not because of actual evidence
Speaker 2: argued in court. It's that the prosecutor in that case
Speaker 2: did not actually have justification or the legal justification to
Speaker 2: bring this charge. So we never actually saw this get
Speaker 2: argued out in front of a jury and find the
Speaker 2: jury's verdict. But this is a part of an ongoing
Speaker 2: strategy the prosecution has done against protesters the past few years,
Speaker 2: and in this case successfully. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And it's also like as bleak as this is, and
Speaker 3: this is very bleak, this is not the final say
Speaker 3: on how any case like this will be adjudicated everywhere.
Speaker 3: This is a case in Texas, right like, this is
Speaker 3: not Yes, this isn't the fucking US Supreme Court. It's
Speaker 3: not even the Texas Supreme Court. Right, Yeah, Not to
Speaker 3: minimize how fucking awful this is, but this does not
Speaker 3: mean this is how cases like this will be adjudicated
Speaker 3: every time they come to court everywhere in the US.
Speaker 2: Yes, And the vagueness of the material support charge is
Speaker 2: like a double edged sword, right one. It can be
Speaker 2: used in cases like this, and we don't actually know
Speaker 2: how they were exactly able to successfully argue that because
Speaker 2: we don't know which specific federal offense of terrorism the
Speaker 2: jury found material support was provided for, or if it
Speaker 2: was multiple offenses, Nor do we know exactly which things
Speaker 2: the jury found constituted material support. But because we don't
Speaker 2: know these things, that means when prosecutors try to argue
Speaker 2: this charge again in the future, they kind of have
Speaker 2: to start from the ground floor all over again. It's
Speaker 2: harder to apply this exact precedent because the specific things
Speaker 2: that constituted material support and the specific crime that material
Speaker 2: support was provided for are sort of ambiguous. But the
Speaker 2: vagueness of this charge certainly leads to a lot of confusion.
Speaker 2: And you can now look at this case and see
Speaker 2: that legal possession of firearms or firearms training and possession
Speaker 2: of political paraphernalia could bolster ideological links between you and
Speaker 2: defendants which could be used as evidence for a charge
Speaker 2: like this right yep, or for conspiracy charges, and that
Speaker 2: obviously is worrying. Now. A Song faces a minimum penalty
Speaker 2: of twenty years a maximum of life in prison. Other
Speaker 2: defendants of Prairie Land face sentences ranging from a minimum
Speaker 2: of ten years to up to sixty The husband convicted
Speaker 2: of concealing documents faces up to forty years in prison,
Speaker 2: and those who pled guilty face the sentences of up
Speaker 2: to fifteen years in federal prison, though their cooperation may
Speaker 2: lower that. Another man faces charges for evidence tampering because
Speaker 2: he allegedly removed Prairie Land defendants from discord chats last year.
Speaker 2: But this is a state charge which will be going
Speaker 2: to trial later in April.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that'll be interesting to watch, I guess. Yeah, this
Speaker 3: is bleak. This is extremely worrying. That's part of the
Speaker 3: point is to scare people, to make people feel they
Speaker 3: can't trust other activists, to make people scared to organize,
Speaker 3: to make them scared to be in group chats. And yeah,
Speaker 3: there's very real reason to be concerned as a result
Speaker 3: of this. However, none of this should be seen as
Speaker 3: like the final word on all of this stuff. And
Speaker 3: this certainly is not as simple as just having a
Speaker 3: zine or wearing black is terrorism. Now, that's not what
Speaker 3: was adjudicated here.
Speaker 2: No, these things do all relate to, or they're trying
Speaker 2: to be connected to, you know, actual crimes which did occur.
Speaker 3: And that's certainly the goal by the way that the
Speaker 3: right has, but that's not what they've achieved quite yet.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's definitely a way to try to scare
Speaker 2: people out of organizing in the sense that you know,
Speaker 2: you cannot be found a terrorist just by calling yourself
Speaker 2: like Antifa, just by being Antifa alone by yourself, Yeah,
Speaker 2: you're not going to be a terrorist. The same way
Speaker 2: you can't be put in jail just for being a Nazi,
Speaker 2: right right. But if you are part of a Nazi
Speaker 2: group chat where you're planning an action, and then a
Speaker 2: Nazi does something at the at the action, like shooting
Speaker 2: a power substation, then that Nazi and the other Nazis
Speaker 2: that he's organizing with, you know, could face terrorism charges.
Speaker 2: That That is how those sorts of like cases work,
Speaker 2: and a very similar thing is being done here. Mm hmm.
Speaker 2: It's it's not the actual like political ideology necessarily at trial,
Speaker 2: but organized with other people in furtherance of a political
Speaker 2: ideology is what the government is trying to suppress. Yep.
Speaker 3: Cool, Well, I don't have anything else to add at
Speaker 3: this point.
Speaker 2: You know, no when will certainly cover this. One's sentencing
Speaker 2: happens later this year in June be careful.
Speaker 3: And if you're in a group chat with somebody who
Speaker 3: keeps writing shit that you're like, wow, that would be
Speaker 3: a terrible thing to hear read back in court. Really
Speaker 3: reconsider saying in a group chat with that person. Just
Speaker 3: be wary about what you say and what other people
Speaker 3: say to you online, not just because of court stuff,
Speaker 3: because that like, if somebody is being incredibly reckless with
Speaker 3: the things that they are putting down and writing, they're
Speaker 3: probably being reckless in other areas. Just be careful, you know, folks,
Speaker 3: Be careful.
Speaker 1: It could happen Here is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 1: coolzonmedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can
Speaker 1: now find sources for it could Happen here listed directly