Speaker 1: Cool Zone Media.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to it could happen here in a daily
Speaker 2: podcast about the widening cracks in society threatening to swallow
Speaker 2: you whole. I am once again your occasional host, Molly Conger,
Speaker 2: joined today by your friend and mine, Robert Evans him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, friends of all people, how are you doing?
Speaker 1: Molly?
Speaker 2: Billy started things off, I heard my feelings.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, you know, you and I have been buddies
Speaker 3: for a while. We're a special kind of friend that
Speaker 3: can only exist in the era of signal loops because
Speaker 3: we met in twenty twenty and then since then the
Speaker 3: bulk of our socializing has been one or the other
Speaker 3: of us being like, so, this fucked up thing happened
Speaker 3: to me on the internet.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's friends at the end of the.
Speaker 3: World's friends at the end of the world. Yeah, watching
Speaker 3: the long slow slide together.
Speaker 2: Well, today I've got sort of an update on the
Speaker 2: ongoing cases against the Nazis who invaded my local college
Speaker 2: campus seven years ago. I see, it's sort of because
Speaker 2: it's a messy story and the end result is nothing.
Speaker 2: So we finally got a case to trial and nothing changed.
Speaker 2: So for listeners who aren't keeping tabs on my local
Speaker 2: county courts effort to apply an old anti clan law
Speaker 2: to a Nazi rally that happened a lifetime ago. Just
Speaker 2: a quick reminder, Yeah, long time ago. This is about
Speaker 2: the August eleventh, twenty seventeen torch march held at the
Speaker 2: University of Virginia on the eve of the Unite the
Speaker 2: Right rally in Charlottesville. I've done a couple.
Speaker 3: This is not the rally. This is not the precise
Speaker 3: like the rally where there was the James Alexfield did
Speaker 3: his vehicle based terrorist attack. This was the thing that
Speaker 3: happened before that.
Speaker 2: This was the appetizer, right, This was the night before
Speaker 2: they all got together and held their torches. And so
Speaker 2: I've done a couple episodes about these cases, and I've
Speaker 2: been writing about them in my newsletter, The Devil's Advocate.
Speaker 2: So if you want a deeper dive into the cases,
Speaker 2: more generally, that is available elsewhere. So in the year
Speaker 2: in change since these cases started getting filed, we've seen
Speaker 2: eleven guys charged under this sort of obscure Virginia law
Speaker 2: that makes it a felony to burn an object with
Speaker 2: the intent to intimidate. It's based on an old anti
Speaker 2: clan law criminalizing cross burning. But back in nineteen ninety eight,
Speaker 2: a couple of clansmen got into some trouble for burning
Speaker 2: some crosses. And I'm trying to break myself off the
Speaker 2: habit of getting really deep into these sort of tangential
Speaker 2: pieces of history that underlie a story, because it turns
Speaker 2: out that's my special interest and not actually great podcasting.
Speaker 2: But the long and the short of it is, Virginia's
Speaker 2: cross burning statute had to be amended. The original law
Speaker 2: banned it outright, with this sort of built in assumption
Speaker 2: that like, obviously, if you're burning across you're trying to
Speaker 2: communicate a certain kind of threat. But the law didn't
Speaker 2: actually say that, it just made it illegal to do it.
Speaker 2: And so the act itself of burning the cross under
Speaker 2: the old law was prima facia evidence of intent to intimidate,
Speaker 2: and the courts ultimately found that that's unconstitutional. So in
Speaker 2: two thousand and two, the General Assembly amended the law,
Speaker 2: and they just added in some specific language that you
Speaker 2: have to be doue it with a specific intent, right,
Speaker 2: you have to be doing this to intimidate someone. Again,
Speaker 2: that's kind of implied, but the implication was not sufficient,
Speaker 2: so they changed it. I know that sounds like some
Speaker 2: really like C span level, like boring shit, like legislative
Speaker 2: history is not why you're here, But I promise that's
Speaker 2: gonna pay off. Right, So, the law doesn't specify what
Speaker 2: you're burning. It's not just crosses, it's any burning object,
Speaker 2: but it does say you have to be doing it
Speaker 2: with a particular intent and in a way.
Speaker 3: Could you theoretically smoke a cigarette in an aggressive manner
Speaker 3: and violate this law.
Speaker 2: Power The Nazis lawyers keep asking that, and I don't
Speaker 2: know the I feel like the answer is.
Speaker 3: Iry to see great minds think alike.
Speaker 2: I feel like every every one of these guys' lawyers
Speaker 2: has been like, what if I flicked a cigarette at you?
Speaker 4: And it's like, I mean, well.
Speaker 3: Flicking as I would say that that's clearly a sight
Speaker 3: because you can actually hurt someone with it, but like
Speaker 3: just smoking it right, like with that tex.
Speaker 2: Right, Like if I'm smoking a cigarette while harassing you, you.
Speaker 3: Know, yeah, yeah, I'd be like, you're gonna go up
Speaker 3: like this cigarette, bro, and then I light this cigarette?
Speaker 3: Like is that if I violated it?
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess maybe, but it's all sort of contextual, right,
Speaker 2: so the language of the law is what it is.
Speaker 4: You could try to bring that case.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure that it would work, but anyway, so
Speaker 2: you bring an object specifically in a way that would
Speaker 2: make somebody feel like you're gonna hurt them, right, so
Speaker 2: placing someone in fear of injury or death. But since
Speaker 2: that change was made in two thousand and two, nobody's
Speaker 2: ever actually been charged with it. So, like many laws,
Speaker 2: like Virginia's prohibition on trying to incite a race war,
Speaker 2: that is apparently a Class four felony.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Thomas Jefferson might have had a hand in that law.
Speaker 3: That's scance.
Speaker 2: Actually it's from nineteen fifty and I'm really interested in
Speaker 2: the legislative history. I'm gonna ask a law librarian. But
Speaker 2: again I'm lost again, I'm lost again. So this has
Speaker 2: just been sitting on the books for twenty years, waiting
Speaker 2: for somebody to try it, and so last year somebody
Speaker 2: tried it. Last year, somebody finally put the law to
Speaker 2: the test and started charging the guys who participated in
Speaker 2: that torch march. And what better application of this law, right,
Speaker 2: I can't think of a clearer example. They're on fire,
Speaker 2: they're chanting blood and soil, they're throwing Hitler salutes, they're
Speaker 2: attacking people. And of the eleven men charged so far,
Speaker 2: five have already pled guilty. Four of those have already
Speaker 2: been sentenced, all receiving active sentences of a year or less,
Speaker 2: and they've actually already completed those sentences. Only half of
Speaker 2: those guys actually went home from here, though, And then
Speaker 2: the little aside Tyler Dyke served a few months here
Speaker 2: and then he got picked up by the US Marshalls
Speaker 2: on federal charges for the insurrection. William Fears served a year,
Speaker 2: and he actually just got picked up the other day
Speaker 2: by a county in Pennsylvania. It's an old bench warrant.
Speaker 2: He's been in jail so many times in so many
Speaker 2: states for the last twenty years that they've actually been
Speaker 2: having trouble getting a hold of him for violating his
Speaker 2: probation fifteen years ago. They let him off on probation
Speaker 2: for lying on a firearm application in two thousand and five,
Speaker 2: but then he kidnapped a college freshman and stabbed her
Speaker 2: in the face, which I think was a probation violation,
Speaker 2: And by the time they got around to bringing him
Speaker 2: in he was already back in prison for strangling a
Speaker 2: different woman. Again another digression. Sorry, So even though we've
Speaker 2: had five guilty please, we still hadn't actually seen this
Speaker 2: case taken to trial. So we know five defendants looked
Speaker 2: at the evidence and thought, oh, yeah, well that's a
Speaker 2: video of me committing that crime. We still didn't know
Speaker 2: what a jury would make of it. And this month
Speaker 2: Jacob Dix took his case to trial, and we still
Speaker 2: don't actually know what a jury would make of it
Speaker 2: because it ended in a mistrial. After twelve hours of
Speaker 2: deliberation over the course of two days, which was significantly
Speaker 2: longer than they actually spent hearing the evidence, the jury
Speaker 2: was deadlocked. They had eight not guilty votes, three guilty,
Speaker 2: and one person who didn't have an opinion either way.
Speaker 2: A source tells me the jurors all agreed not to
Speaker 2: make any public statements or to discuss what happened in
Speaker 2: the deliberation room, so we don't know for sure what
Speaker 2: the debate was like in there. But I sat through
Speaker 2: the trial, and honestly, I know what kind of case
Speaker 2: I would have put on right, So obviously, obviously I
Speaker 2: believe a guilty verdict is achievable in this case. But
Speaker 2: given what I saw, I'm surprised even a single juror
Speaker 2: voted guilty. There's just there's nothing there. But before I
Speaker 2: tell you about the three days I wasted sitting on
Speaker 2: a wooden bench in a courtroom they used to use
Speaker 2: for clan meetings, let's hear from some advertisers.
Speaker 3: Ah, speaking of the nope, nope for ads. Ah, we're back.
Speaker 3: What a what a time to be alive.
Speaker 4: We are alive.
Speaker 2: The trial started on June fourth, and it did not
Speaker 2: go well. I've written about this at greater length in
Speaker 2: my newsletter if you want some background on why the
Speaker 2: case ended up with a special prosecutor. But basically, the
Speaker 2: judge fell for a Nazi conspiracy theory and that's where
Speaker 2: we ended up. So the case goes to try good. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, I I have a problem with the system
Speaker 2: in Virginia of these substitute judges. So we had to
Speaker 2: bring in a substitute judge. And it's just retired guys.
Speaker 2: So they take cases if they feel like it.
Speaker 3: They don't, yeah, so they just add yeah, just ad
Speaker 3: hoc judging. Sure, that seems good.
Speaker 2: Hey, there's a retirement age for a reason like, I
Speaker 2: don't know that you're keeping up with the case law. Anyway,
Speaker 2: we had a substitute judge and a special prosecutor, so
Speaker 2: the case goes to trial with an out of town prosecutor.
Speaker 2: And because of how late in the game this motion
Speaker 2: was granted. And there's the speedy trial clock, they had
Speaker 2: a pretty limited amount of time to get up to
Speaker 2: speed after being assigned the case to prepare for trial.
Speaker 2: So they didn't know the case. They don't know the
Speaker 2: local cops, they don't know the witnesses, they're not familiar
Speaker 2: with the clerk of court here. Just like basic procedural stuff.
Speaker 2: This is not their home turf, and they don't really
Speaker 2: have any investment in this case. This isn't something that
Speaker 2: they chose to charge. It's just assigned to them. And again,
Speaker 2: this is the first time this law has ever been
Speaker 2: put in front of a jury, So there's no playbook here, right.
Speaker 2: They can't sort of look to how this usually goes
Speaker 2: and just do that. The real problem, though, is something
Speaker 2: that's not unique at all. A prosecutor is desperate for
Speaker 2: a good victim. They want something that is clean and uncomplicated.
Speaker 2: They want to be able to show the jury, a
Speaker 2: little morality play with good guys and bad guys, and
Speaker 2: no messy stuff. They don't want the story to have
Speaker 2: any elements that could snag on a juror's ideas about
Speaker 2: the world. So instead of telling a story about anti
Speaker 2: fascists being attacked by fascists, which is what happened, they
Speaker 2: shaped their case around testimony from a bystander.
Speaker 3: Oh good, the most reliable kind of testimony. Yeah, now, I.
Speaker 2: Remember I promised that boring stuff about the statutory requirement
Speaker 2: of intent would pay off. Right, Well, I'm not sure
Speaker 2: the prosecutor understood that well. And if I were to
Speaker 2: tell you that something was making me feel intimidated, you know, generally,
Speaker 2: sort of colloquially speaking, I'm saying I'm afraid. I'm being
Speaker 2: made to feel timid. Is the root of the word, right,
Speaker 2: I am uncomfortable. I am afraid, But it means something
Speaker 2: really specific here. It doesn't just mean being afraid in
Speaker 2: conjunction with that language about placing someone in reasonable fear
Speaker 2: of bodily injury or death. We're not talking about feeling afraid.
Speaker 2: We're talking about the legal idea of a true threat.
Speaker 2: So a true threat is something that is not free speech.
Speaker 2: It is conduct and expression that is no longer protected
Speaker 2: by the First Amendment. And I'm not going to go
Speaker 2: to bat here for the First Amendment. I'm not going
Speaker 2: to defend this sort of like libertarian idea that actually
Speaker 2: it's good and healthy for a society that people can
Speaker 2: march around playing Junior Stormtrooper. But you know, technically they
Speaker 2: can right love it or hate it.
Speaker 3: That's not what we're talking about it. It's the difference
Speaker 3: between saying I think the government should round up and
Speaker 3: kill this group of people, which is absolutely protected speech,
Speaker 3: and saying I am going to murder you tonight in
Speaker 3: your home at this address, which you theoretically can get
Speaker 3: in trouble for, although a lot of times people don't.
Speaker 2: You know, in my experience, people who see that to
Speaker 2: me don't get in trouble. But I'm not sure that's. Yes,
Speaker 2: it's a legal thing.
Speaker 3: It's mainly they get in trouble with they do that
Speaker 3: to FBI agents, as that one Trump fan did after
Speaker 3: Hunter Biden's conviction.
Speaker 2: Or there's been a rash lately of people getting picked
Speaker 2: up after they leave a voicemail at a congressional office.
Speaker 4: Don't leave a threat in a voice.
Speaker 3: Okay, don't don't that. Yeah, Wyatt, what are you? What
Speaker 3: are you doing? How do you think this is going
Speaker 3: to work out? People are cooked?
Speaker 2: So a lot of people are learning lately what a
Speaker 2: true threat is.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: So, you know, up until that point, there's a lot
Speaker 2: of shit you could do that sucks. You can march
Speaker 2: around and be a little Nazi with your pals, but
Speaker 2: what you cannot do is engage in conduct that constitutes
Speaker 2: a truth threat. And I think drawing that line in
Speaker 2: a really clear way for the jury is what this
Speaker 2: case should have been about.
Speaker 4: I think they.
Speaker 2: Needed to hold the jury's hand through that, you know,
Speaker 2: and say, you know, the defense is making this a
Speaker 2: free speech case. And if it had stopped here, if
Speaker 2: it had stopped at this point, you know, show them
Speaker 2: where it stopped, where it changed. But they didn't do that,
Speaker 2: and they left that line really blurry because the problem
Speaker 2: is the point at which that line was crossed was
Speaker 2: when that march encircled the small group of counter protesters, right,
Speaker 2: So they spent half an hour marching and then they
Speaker 2: got to where they were going, and that's when it
Speaker 2: crossed the line. You know, they lit their torches, they
Speaker 2: marched they chanted. It was obviously intended to evoke Nazi Germany.
Speaker 2: You know, there's same blood and soil. Jews will not
Speaker 2: replace us. It's a real Hitler vibe. And a lot
Speaker 2: of people who are on the fence about the prosecutions
Speaker 2: are looking at that and saying, well, yeah, like that's disgusting,
Speaker 2: But isn't that free speech?
Speaker 4: And it is.
Speaker 2: Most of that was right, So most of that conduct
Speaker 2: was not against the law. You know, if you saw that,
Speaker 2: you might feel afraid. People did, and that makes sense.
Speaker 2: It was very alarming to see. It might make you
Speaker 2: feel unsafe, and it could and definitely did eventually evolve
Speaker 2: into a situation where people are unsafe, But seeing them
Speaker 2: pass by doesn't actually put you in a position where
Speaker 2: you might die. I mean, not right at the moment anyway. Right,
Speaker 2: you know, the law doesn't really extend to the idea
Speaker 2: that this is part of a larger societal shift that
Speaker 2: ends violently. You know, this existential thread of the rise
Speaker 2: of fascism doesn't constitute a true threat in the immediate
Speaker 2: sense under the law. Right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, A guy, a dude in a similar situation in
Speaker 3: DC in twenty twenty stabbed a person and got off
Speaker 3: because it was very clear that he like, when you
Speaker 3: are surrounded.
Speaker 2: That's true threat, right, that you are in imminent danger. Right.
Speaker 4: And it wasn't just a person.
Speaker 2: That was Jeremy I know, Yeah, that was Jeremy Bertino.
Speaker 3: One of my favorite stabbings.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just a weird turn of events for Jeremy because
Speaker 2: the month before he got stabbed it was oh gosh,
Speaker 2: it was one of the other Proud Way rallies in DC.
Speaker 2: I was surrounded by a group of proud boys that
Speaker 2: he was come and so I was in that the
Speaker 2: same position, and I was getting a little nervous because
Speaker 2: they were starting to, you know, get in my face
Speaker 2: and touch me and try and move me around. Jeremy
Speaker 2: actually made them stop. You know, you know, you don't chivalry,
Speaker 2: You don't got a hand it to Jeremy. But I
Speaker 2: think he knew it would have been bad for them
Speaker 2: if they stabbed me.
Speaker 3: Little did he know, Yeah, he would be there, whereas
Speaker 3: the guy who stabbed him was in block and such.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just a strange, strange twist of history for Jeremy.
Speaker 2: Now he states, witness m h anyway, where were we
Speaker 2: we could cut some of that. I'm out of it. Today.
Speaker 2: We're both in a bad way right now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think everyone's always in a bad way these days.
Speaker 3: That's it's worth acknowledging. I can't sleep anymore. You're frazzled,
Speaker 3: like welcome to twenty twenty four. It's fine. We're doing
Speaker 3: as well as either a presidential candidate.
Speaker 2: I had to wait until the recess in the city
Speaker 2: council meeting yesterday to go outside and check on the
Speaker 2: drive by on my block. Likes are going good.
Speaker 3: Yeah, things are things are solid.
Speaker 4: Uh yeah, Should I just take that whole paragraph.
Speaker 3: From the top, sure, yeah, started.
Speaker 2: Because I don't even know where to re start.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: It wasn't until the march encounter the counter protesters that
Speaker 2: there was truly intentional intimidation that placed them in fear
Speaker 2: of injury or death. The people who were trapped, and
Speaker 2: I mean that literally, all avenues of escape were close
Speaker 2: to them. The march formed a circle around them that
Speaker 2: was ten men deep. Those were the victims of this crime.
Speaker 2: They were beaten and punched and kicked and pepper sprayed.
Speaker 2: It were shoved and hit with lit torches. They thought
Speaker 2: they would die. But those people are complicated, aren't they right?
Speaker 2: Those people were Antifa, they were activists, they were believers
Speaker 2: in Black Lives Matter, they were communists, the anarchists, right,
Speaker 2: queer people, trans people, people of color, people who attend
Speaker 2: protests have attended more since there were people who hated Nazis.
Speaker 2: There were people with skin in the game.
Speaker 3: People whose existence is inherently politicized, and thus attempts to
Speaker 3: destroy them can't just be seen as a human being
Speaker 3: being assaulted. They have to be seen as like, well,
Speaker 3: is the thing that they believe and my opinions on
Speaker 3: it as a judge a mitigating factor.
Speaker 2: Right. It's messy, it shouldn't be, but it is right.
Speaker 2: These were people who believe that we have a duty
Speaker 2: to each other to stand in the way of the
Speaker 2: march of fascism, and that night, that's literally what they did.
Speaker 2: And that's murky for a prosecutor. What if the jury
Speaker 2: doesn't like that, What if maybe just a little bit
Speaker 2: they deserved it? Right? Does the law really still protect
Speaker 2: you if you make a choice a jury doesn't understand?
Speaker 2: And so the prosecutor chose to rest this case on
Speaker 2: the shoulders of a young woman whose front door the
Speaker 2: march past that night on its way to the scene
Speaker 2: of the crime. As a young Jewish woman alone in
Speaker 2: her room that night, she was terrified to hear the
Speaker 2: approaching Nazi march. She took off a necklace in a
Speaker 2: ring bearing symbols of her faith and hid them before
Speaker 2: she fled her home in fear. She was absolutely a
Speaker 2: victim of white supremacist terror. But I do not think
Speaker 2: she was a victim under the language of this statute.
Speaker 2: And I want to be so clear about that, right.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying what happened to her was okay, or
Speaker 2: that it's her fault that the case was presented this way.
Speaker 2: She was subpoena, she gave the testimony she was required
Speaker 2: by the law to give, and she gave it well.
Speaker 2: And she's obviously deeply traumatized by this. And so when
Speaker 2: I say she's not a victim of the crime, when
Speaker 2: I say that, you know, the fear that she felt
Speaker 2: does not meet this legal standard, I don't mean anything
Speaker 2: other than that there are far more ways to harm
Speaker 2: a person and a community than have been contemplated by
Speaker 2: our part time General Assembly. But under this statute, being frightened,
Speaker 2: however reasonable, that is, however serious, does she felt that
Speaker 2: fear is not the same as being placed in reasonable
Speaker 2: fear of death or bodily injury. I think her testimony
Speaker 2: could have been really valuable as a supplement to this
Speaker 2: overall presentation because she was very emotional. I think it
Speaker 2: was very moving for the jury, but it didn't move
Speaker 2: the needle legally, and I think it was a really
Speaker 2: perilous foundation on which to try to construct a case.
Speaker 2: But you know, it would not be a perilous course
Speaker 2: of action for you to take Robert Jesus Christ.
Speaker 3: So it would be perilous if I didn't get this
Speaker 3: ad break in because Sophie has a taser now, So
Speaker 3: let's just let's just move right along.
Speaker 4: Does it ever stop feeling dirty to do that?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 3: I mean, you know what doesn't feel dirty these days, Mollie.
Speaker 3: What feels clean probably buying. I pay so much in
Speaker 3: taxes and that always feels dirty. Like I know where
Speaker 3: they're going. I see the celebrities signing the bombs they
Speaker 3: helped pay. I don't feel good about anything. We're back,
Speaker 3: and you know, here's a free ad, Molly. I found
Speaker 3: out where I can buy the really good mace. I
Speaker 3: learned about this mace the right way to learn about mace,
Speaker 3: which is I had it used on me and was like, Wow,
Speaker 3: that mace was much more debilitating than normal mace.
Speaker 4: You've got a free sample, cops.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I got a free sample from two different federal
Speaker 3: agencies and it knocked me at a commission for about
Speaker 3: a half hour each time, which is pretty good for mace.
Speaker 3: It's called silver bullet and it's a like a ten
Speaker 3: percent OC two percent cs. I maybe mixing those up mix,
Speaker 3: but you're not supposed to be able to buy it
Speaker 3: if you're not law enforcement. But it's not illegal. So
Speaker 3: I finally just found a website that doesn't doesn't check,
Speaker 3: and now I've got the good mace. I don't really
Speaker 3: know what to do with it.
Speaker 2: But does it actually have silver in it? Will it
Speaker 2: also kill germs?
Speaker 3: No? No, no, I have to use my anti microbial
Speaker 3: silver wound dressings for that, but I do have some
Speaker 3: of those. Jesus Christ always useful to have, Molly important stuff.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm glad you got yourself a little treat.
Speaker 4: I think that's important these days.
Speaker 3: A little treat, Yeah, sort of.
Speaker 2: One of my guiding principles in this increasingly awful world
Speaker 2: is if you can get a little treat.
Speaker 4: You should get a little treat.
Speaker 3: Yeah. One of my guiding principles is like, whenever I
Speaker 3: decide I'm depressed and I'm going to like do retail therapy,
Speaker 3: just just pick a pick up a new kind of weapon,
Speaker 3: a kind of weapon I don't have already. I got
Speaker 3: a rungu the other day, which is a kind of
Speaker 3: stick that you beat people with. You know, I'm making
Speaker 3: sure that I'm like diversified my portfolio.
Speaker 2: I was thinking more like sometimes at Kroger they have
Speaker 2: a new flavor of chips. But your thing's cool too.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm. It's good. It's good. Chips can be a
Speaker 3: weapon anyway. But let's move back to the subject.
Speaker 2: Back to the courthouse. Right, the defense in this case
Speaker 2: was right about one thing. I mean, they didn't say
Speaker 2: very much. They didn't actually put on a case. They
Speaker 2: put on no evidence and no witnesses. But he spoke
Speaker 2: a few times, right, the attorney. He spoke a few times,
Speaker 2: And in his closing defense attorney Peter Fraser said he
Speaker 2: didn't have to put on a case because the prosecutor
Speaker 2: made his case for him. The counter protesters could not
Speaker 2: be intimidated. Now that means what he said, right, the
Speaker 2: counter protesters in this case, they couldn't be intimidated because
Speaker 2: they opted into this. The protesters brought this on themselves.
Speaker 2: Their mere presence in this public space expressing their right
Speaker 2: to protest was a waiver of their right to safety,
Speaker 2: and they consented to whatever happened after that, and they
Speaker 2: couldn't be victims of anything. Right, They wanted this. They
Speaker 2: chose to be there, they knew the Nazis were coming.
Speaker 2: And the prosecutor's failure to rebut this, to actively push
Speaker 2: back against the idea that entering this space with some
Speaker 2: sort of agreement to mutual combat right, that the failure
Speaker 2: to push back on that at all can only be
Speaker 2: seen an agreement they allowed. The court and the defense
Speaker 2: and the judge himself said, well, no one was hurt,
Speaker 2: and they failed to call witnesses who were hurt because
Speaker 2: people were hurt.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, that seems like a massive, like disqualifying oversight.
Speaker 4: They you know, they could have find sometimes.
Speaker 3: Especially with anarchists defendants, that could be hard to get
Speaker 3: people who are willing to testify that I imagine you
Speaker 3: can find some people in this case.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: So the thing is is I acknowledge that there are
Speaker 2: many of the victims and many of the witnesses who
Speaker 2: have chosen not to participate in this process.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: First of all, I'm not saying it would be good
Speaker 2: if this happened, but technically you can subpoena them anyway.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: There are people in this case who would have cooperated
Speaker 2: had they been called. People like Alan Groves, who in
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen was a dean at UVA who was burned
Speaker 2: by the flames, or UVA librarian Tyler McGill, who suffered
Speaker 2: a catastrophic stroke after being struck in the neck by
Speaker 2: a torch.
Speaker 3: Folks Free advice There.
Speaker 2: Prosecutors they subpoened, but did not call my own friend God,
Speaker 2: one of the counter protesters there that night, whose testimony
Speaker 2: about being pepper sprayed put Christopher Cantwell in jail. They
Speaker 2: did not call Devin Willis or Natalie Romero, who were
Speaker 2: plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit and have already proven their
Speaker 2: ability to testify with incredible courage and clarity about being
Speaker 2: kicked and punched as they were trapped by the wall
Speaker 2: of flames. In the civil trial, Devon recalled the moment
Speaker 2: he realized he had been doused in lighter fluid. He
Speaker 2: thought that they were going to burn him alive. He
Speaker 2: was nineteen years old, and he testified that all he
Speaker 2: could think about was that he had so much to
Speaker 2: live for and he had to find a way out.
Speaker 2: And Natalie, she testified about being trapped, about how small
Speaker 2: she felt at the center of the screaming mob, and
Speaker 2: that she thought she would be burned to death as
Speaker 2: she covered her face and her head from the rain
Speaker 2: of fists, and she described that she didn't really understand
Speaker 2: the effects of pepper spray. She was a college student.
Speaker 2: She'd never been pepper sprayed before. When she got home
Speaker 2: that night, she sat down on her shower to cry,
Speaker 2: just trying to process the experience of nearly being killed
Speaker 2: by a crowd of Nazis, and the hot steam reactivated
Speaker 2: the chemical irritants, burning her eyes and skin all over again.
Speaker 2: They didn't call the people who were hurt, and they
Speaker 2: let the jury think that there were none and the
Speaker 2: only actual witnessed No, you go ahead.
Speaker 3: That's just I just such a dereliction of duty, Like
Speaker 3: it's such a frustrating like it's not hard, like this
Speaker 3: is not secret information that you're privy to because of
Speaker 3: your deep Antifa connections. You can just like google this.
Speaker 3: This is like thirty minutes of reading to have a
Speaker 3: couple of those names.
Speaker 2: At least the federal court transcripts of this testimony exist,
Speaker 2: they're free.
Speaker 4: I already paid for them.
Speaker 2: You know. And at one point when the judge said,
Speaker 2: I mean, this was out side the presence of the
Speaker 2: jury when the judge said it. But the judge said, well,
Speaker 2: you don't at no one was hurt. And I'm sitting
Speaker 2: in the courtroom next to someone who was hurt, right,
Speaker 2: And I'm just like, I embarrassed to be in this
Speaker 2: room with these people who are behaving this way.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: The only actual witness to and victim of this crime
Speaker 2: that they put on the stand at all was Emily Gresenski,
Speaker 2: and this was not her first time on the witness
Speaker 2: stand in that courtroom. She also testified against Christopher can't
Speaker 2: well for pepper spraying her that night, and she handled
Speaker 2: it well, she's testified before. She's good at it, yes, unshakable.
Speaker 2: But a witness can only answer the questions they're asked.
Speaker 2: A witness can't put on their own evidence. A witness
Speaker 2: can't tell you a story. A witness can't do anything
Speaker 2: other than give short answers to questions. Right, So even
Speaker 2: the best witness is only as good as the questions
Speaker 2: they're asked. And they failed to elicit from her the
Speaker 2: most important part of the story, what actually happened at
Speaker 2: the statue. So a lot of the evidence they put
Speaker 2: on with her on this because I don't want to
Speaker 2: get too law in order about this, right, But you
Speaker 2: can't just put on evidence, right, you have to have
Speaker 2: a witness on the stand to testify to it. You
Speaker 2: can't just show stuff.
Speaker 3: It's not a conversation. Like somebody can't just like raise
Speaker 3: their hand in the middle of this and be like,
Speaker 3: well I got actually I actually did get hurt at
Speaker 3: that thing. Like, That's not the way court cases were.
Speaker 2: And so they used much of Emily's time on the
Speaker 2: stand to show two videos. One was a video she shot,
Speaker 2: so it makes sense to have her testify to this
Speaker 2: video that she recorded, right. So she was live streaming
Speaker 2: from the very beginning right down where they were preparing
Speaker 2: and lighting the torches, and then she was following them
Speaker 2: along on the march, just sort of documenting what was occurring.
Speaker 4: And that's what she thought.
Speaker 2: She was there to do, right, She's just documenting that
Speaker 2: this march is taking place. She's thinking, Oh, they're going
Speaker 2: to give some speeches. I'll record the speeches so people
Speaker 2: can sort of see what this event was about. She
Speaker 2: did not go there intending to become trapped and assaulted, right,
Speaker 2: So much of her time on the stand was sort
Speaker 2: of answering questions about this video as it played, But
Speaker 2: they also had her answer questions about a video that
Speaker 2: was recorded from inside the march, and I'm I'm not
Speaker 2: sure how effective it was to just show thirty minutes
Speaker 2: of video of guys walking, and the defense leaned really
Speaker 2: heavily into the idea that, well, obviously she wasn't scared.
Speaker 2: Look at her, right, So she's clearly not intimidated. She's
Speaker 2: really close to this march, recording it. And without a
Speaker 2: concrete theory of the case that establishes that, well, no,
Speaker 2: this isn't where the crime is happening, right these guys
Speaker 2: walking isn't the crime. She's not intimidated yet, that's that's
Speaker 2: not happening right now. So without that sort of concrete
Speaker 2: explanation for the jury that the crime occurs at the end,
Speaker 2: they might take away from that that will, Oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: she doesn't really seem scared here, right, that this whole
Speaker 2: part where she's walking and narrating, she doesn't really seem scared.
Speaker 2: And leaving aside the finer philosophical point that you can
Speaker 2: be brave even if you're scared, her testimony was really
Speaker 2: clear here she wasn't afraid for her life. Then she
Speaker 2: testified that she arrived at the plaza where the statue
Speaker 2: stands before the marchers did. Right, So they are marching
Speaker 2: through UVA grounds and it ends in this sort of
Speaker 2: plaza out in front of the rotunda where a statue is,
Speaker 2: and she got there before the march did, and she
Speaker 2: saw that the group of counterprotesters was very small, and
Speaker 2: she knew what was coming, right. She watched these guys
Speaker 2: get ready. She watched them put on their helmets and
Speaker 2: their weighted gloves and their brass knuckles and lighting their torches,
Speaker 2: and you know, guys are wrapping their hands like they're
Speaker 2: getting ready for an mma fight. So she knows what's
Speaker 2: coming and they don't. And so she looks at this
Speaker 2: small group of young people and she's afraid for them.
Speaker 2: She's afraid for their safety. She feels a duty to
Speaker 2: these people, they're mostly college students, and because you can
Speaker 2: be brave even if you are scared, she stayed with them,
Speaker 2: and once they were surrounded by this increasingly violent mob,
Speaker 2: once she was live streaming her own assault. Of course
Speaker 2: she was in fear of bodily harm. She was being harmed, right,
Speaker 2: There's not a debate about whether someone might be in
Speaker 2: fear of bodily harm. You're watching them get harmed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but if you aren't scared of that, then it
Speaker 3: doesn't like that. That's I guess kind of the problem.
Speaker 3: It should be like, would an average like a normal
Speaker 3: person consider this to be an objectively threatening situation?
Speaker 4: And that is the standard.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is not a crime that actually requires a
Speaker 2: complaining victim to say I did feel this way. It's
Speaker 2: a really it's what's called a reasonable person standard. Right,
Speaker 2: So what a reasonable person in this situation feel this way?
Speaker 2: The answer is yes, okay, right, the reasonable person would
Speaker 2: be afraid, afraid of getting hit in the face.
Speaker 3: Yes, I would say so.
Speaker 2: And there was a lot of argument pre trial in
Speaker 2: this case and some of the others that like, well,
Speaker 2: you know, what does that even mean? What does it
Speaker 2: mean for a reasonable person to be afraid. I mean,
Speaker 2: that is a valid philosophical conversation, but it is not
Speaker 2: a valid rebuttal to the idea of this charge because
Speaker 2: that is the standard for many of the of the
Speaker 2: statutes in our code. Right that like, it's the legal
Speaker 2: standard for assault.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: But again, much of the time she's on the stand,
Speaker 2: they're just showing thirty minutes of people walking, and there
Speaker 2: was so little time spent showing what happened when they
Speaker 2: got there. They could have shown the jury the moment
Speaker 2: of the video where at the top of the steps
Speaker 2: to the rotunda, right, So they're at the top of
Speaker 2: these stairs looking down at that plaza below, and these
Speaker 2: counter protesters are just coming into view to the for
Speaker 2: the first time for the marchers, and Daniel Borden looks
Speaker 2: down and sees them and yells, you're outnumbered, Antifa, watch
Speaker 2: out leftist scum. And now it matters that that's Daniel Borton,
Speaker 2: because Daniel Borden.
Speaker 4: Was with Jacob Dix. They came together.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're friends from back home in Ohio. Daniel bordon
Speaker 2: is a name you might remember because the following day
Speaker 2: he nearly beat a young black man to death. So
Speaker 2: you know, he's looking down into the plaza and seeing
Speaker 2: these people and stating the intent. Right, He's saying, like,
Speaker 2: you know, watch out, Like I see you. There's more
Speaker 2: of us than there are of you. You better watch out.
Speaker 2: That is intimidation, right, Yeah, seems like it.
Speaker 3: If I'm the judge, the case has been made.
Speaker 4: But they did not.
Speaker 2: I'm not though they didn't highlight this portion of the video.
Speaker 2: They just this long, uninterrupted presentation of video evidence without
Speaker 2: any sort of discussion of what any of these moments meant.
Speaker 2: Because moments after that, after Daniel Borden yells you're outnumbered Antifa,
Speaker 2: he shouldered a shoulder with Dix. A few seconds later,
Speaker 2: they're walking clockwise around the statue. They're starting to form
Speaker 2: that circle, that ring that would trap the counter protesters in.
Speaker 2: Borden looks at Dix again and says, why can't we
Speaker 2: confront them? And then they continue to walk side by side,
Speaker 2: taking their place in that ring of men, closing off
Speaker 2: any path to safety. And you can see in photos
Speaker 2: that Jacob Dix is face to face with some of
Speaker 2: the counter protesters. He's not just in this sort of
Speaker 2: mob of people, in this sort of nebulous zone he's
Speaker 2: in the inner ring of people who are choosing to
Speaker 2: physically trap the counter protesters. That is the intent that
Speaker 2: they needed to show the jury, and they didn't rebut
Speaker 2: the conjecture that he was only here because he loves
Speaker 2: Confederate statues, right, he has Confederate heritage, he cares about
Speaker 2: the monuments.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is like prosecuting a drunk driver and having
Speaker 3: having a breathalyzer test and just not introducing it into evidence,
Speaker 3: being like, nah, I'm just going to be like, you know,
Speaker 3: vibes wise, it seems like he was probably drinking. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's what it was. It was so irresponsible.
Speaker 2: The vibes were bad, and they were the vibes were bad,
Speaker 2: but that's not the legal standard.
Speaker 3: Vibes are terrible, but that's not what you should be.
Speaker 3: You have a much better case to make based on
Speaker 3: the evidence easily available to you.
Speaker 2: If there was if none of this evidence existed, if
Speaker 2: this was all they had, maybe don't take it a trial.
Speaker 2: But this evidence was right there for them. The moment,
Speaker 2: the moment where they're looking down the steps that's in
Speaker 2: the video they played.
Speaker 3: I feel like there were at least six different people
Speaker 3: the prosecutor could have just like emailed and they would
Speaker 3: have basically put together the whole case for this person.
Speaker 2: It's just so available, right, you know. So the defense says, well,
Speaker 2: you know he has Confederate heritage, you see here because
Speaker 2: of the statues. They could have rebutted that by showing
Speaker 2: the jury his discord posts where he was helping organize
Speaker 2: housing for at least eighty other Unite the Right attendees
Speaker 2: at a group of airbnbs which he called the Eagles
Speaker 2: Nest and from which he was helping organize rides to
Speaker 2: the rally in what they were calling Nazi uber. That's
Speaker 2: not about your Confederate heritage, is it. The Eagles Nest
Speaker 2: was like Hitler's vacation house for people who aren't up
Speaker 2: on their their Hitler lore.
Speaker 3: Yeah, their hit lower if you will, their hit lore.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, I'm not proud of it. But that happened.
Speaker 2: That took me out for a second, And they didn't
Speaker 2: show him attending the Nazi rally in Pikeville in April
Speaker 2: of that same year. There's a photograph of him standing
Speaker 2: shoulder to shoulder with members of the Traditionalist Worker Party.
Speaker 2: Right arm extended a forty five degree angle, palm down.
Speaker 2: I think that says something about why he was there, right,
Speaker 2: and they didn't show his discord post about how he
Speaker 2: was getting really hyped about the rally, writing nothing can
Speaker 2: replace the feeling you get at a white nationalist rally.
Speaker 2: I don't know the evidence exists, right, and once you
Speaker 2: get to the base of the statue, that intimidation element
Speaker 2: required for the charge is clear. We know people were
Speaker 2: in reasonable fear of bodily harm because their bodies were harmed.
Speaker 2: The evidence of intent is not hard to fight. The
Speaker 2: marchers saw the small group of counter protesters as they
Speaker 2: descended those stairs. They saw them from above, and they
Speaker 2: chose to proceed and surround them, knowing they vastly outnumbered them.
Speaker 2: They hooted and cheered, screaming We're coming for you. As
Speaker 2: they encircled the statue. There were assigned marshals for the march,
Speaker 2: directing people in a clockwise fashion around the statue to
Speaker 2: form the circle. This was not an organic event, and
Speaker 2: as the ring closed, Richard Spencer's bodyguard, a now former Woburn,
Speaker 2: Massachusetts police officer, John Donnelly, can be heard in one
Speaker 2: video saying that we need to fill in over here
Speaker 2: to block these guys off. This was an intentional act.
Speaker 2: The defendant himself is visible in these videos as he
Speaker 2: moves down the steps across the plaza and winds his
Speaker 2: way around the statue, and as the fighting breaks out,
Speaker 2: he holds his position in the inner ring of torch
Speaker 2: bearers who have these people trapped unable to escape the violence.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter that he did not commit these acts
Speaker 2: of violence. He was holding the line that trapped people
Speaker 2: inside of it, and his intent in that moment is inescapable.
Speaker 2: But the jury doesn't know that. It's just an incredible failure.
Speaker 3: Honestly, Yeah, yeah, I'm glad the case got thrown out.
Speaker 3: Is it possible that the next person to be prosecutor
Speaker 3: in this will have an IQ that rises above room temperature?
Speaker 2: So I asked several lawyers about some of the finer
Speaker 2: points of what happens with a mistrial, and I got
Speaker 2: different answers from all of them, because this is sort
Speaker 2: of like everything in this case is just a little
Speaker 2: bit fucked up. Right. We have a substitute judge, we
Speaker 2: have a special prosecutor, we have a mistrial, We have
Speaker 2: just like so many things that kind of mess it
Speaker 2: up a little bit. In the event of a mistrial,
Speaker 2: the prosecutor has the option to try the case again, right,
Speaker 2: that's always the case. There's a mistrial, the prosecutor can say, eh,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna let it go. I'm just gonna let it go.
Speaker 2: Or they can say no, we're gonna bring it again.
Speaker 2: We're gonna bring it again, and they don't have to
Speaker 2: bring it the same way. They can bring in different evidence,
Speaker 2: different witnesses. It's sort of a mulligan for everybody.
Speaker 4: Right. What's not one hundred percent clear is.
Speaker 2: Whether the same special prosecutor tries it again or if
Speaker 2: it sort of goes back to Roulette. Several lawyers agreed
Speaker 2: that it would be the same prosecutor. I believe her
Speaker 2: office is under that impression. So right after the mistrial
Speaker 2: was declared, Shannon Taylor, the special prosecutor, said she does
Speaker 2: plan to try it again. That could just be bravado.
Speaker 2: It's unclear. There's a hearing date set for August for
Speaker 2: there's still some pending motions in the case, and so
Speaker 2: the funniest part is that there's still a pending motion
Speaker 2: to dismiss from the defense. So technically, even if the
Speaker 2: prosecutor says yes, I'm bringing this case again. I'm doing it.
Speaker 2: The judge can be like, actually, I'm dismissing it. So
Speaker 2: it could go a lot of ways right now, But
Speaker 2: at this point I'm not super hung up on the
Speaker 2: particularities of this defendant, right. I think this mistrial teaches
Speaker 2: us something sort of more generally about these cases and
Speaker 2: the other torch cases specifically, obviously, but I think more generally,
Speaker 2: what does it look like for criminal charges to be
Speaker 2: a roadblock in the path of people involved in white
Speaker 2: supremacists organizing. You know, at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: whether or not some guy from Ohio serves four months
Speaker 2: of a six month sentence on a CLASSICX felony, it
Speaker 2: doesn't really matter, right, Like, this isn't this isn't an important.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's whether or not anyone is actually scared off
Speaker 3: from organizing.
Speaker 2: Right, Like not to use the language of the prosecutor,
Speaker 2: you know, the Master's house, the master's tools, this, that,
Speaker 2: and the other.
Speaker 3: But part of part of cott into that logic, right,
Speaker 3: be honest.
Speaker 2: I mean he used those tools for a reason, right,
Speaker 2: But yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean he used those tools for a reason. Like
Speaker 3: if you couldn't bring down the Master's house with the
Speaker 3: master's tools. Then what were all of those formerly Czarist
Speaker 3: troops doing overthrowing the government with rights the Czar gave them?
Speaker 2: You know, you know, part of what prosecutors talk about
Speaker 2: when they talk about charging, maybe not these cases in particular,
Speaker 2: but just generally speaking, is that bringing cases is intended
Speaker 2: as a form of deterrence for everybody. Right, that what
Speaker 2: happens to this guy is not the most important. But
Speaker 2: maybe some other guys see this and think maybe that's
Speaker 2: not a good idea. And so I think in some
Speaker 2: of these cases, though, you can see, you know, maybe
Speaker 2: that this charge is interrupting a more significant pattern of behavior. Right,
Speaker 2: So nailing Thomas Rousseau on a felony would obviously change
Speaker 2: the trajectory for Patriot Front. I don't know if that
Speaker 2: would I don't know what that looks like at the end,
Speaker 2: but it certainly changes the trajectory. So Thomas Rousseau is
Speaker 2: set for trial in the fall. So he has been charged,
Speaker 2: and I think that will be an interesting case to
Speaker 2: follow because he has the same lawyer. And you know,
Speaker 2: if they end up charging Jason Kessler, that would just
Speaker 2: be really funny. You know, there's a lot of possible
Speaker 2: outcomes here. If they'd arrested these guys in real time
Speaker 2: that night, maybe the rally the next day would be different.
Speaker 2: If the cases had been brought six years ago, you know,
Speaker 2: maybe certain arcs of history would have bent differently. It
Speaker 2: would have broken some momentum, or discouraged some movement activity,
Speaker 2: or broken bonds between people who met there. Some of
Speaker 2: the guys who were there and could have been charged
Speaker 2: in real time went on to do some real damage
Speaker 2: in their personal lives and their communities. But I'm not
Speaker 2: sure that's a basket I want to put my eggs into. Right,
Speaker 2: if a court case takes a fascist out of the game, right, right,
Speaker 2: that's some kind of harm reduction, But it's not something
Speaker 2: you could count on, and honestly, it doesn't consistently reduce
Speaker 2: harm in the long run. You just can't get lost
Speaker 2: in the sort of what ifs of you know, what
Speaker 2: if the system worked better to actually help us, because
Speaker 2: it doesn't. That was never on the table. It's not
Speaker 2: like I'm saying, you know, well, we needed a conviction
Speaker 2: in this case because the courts are the ones who
Speaker 2: are going to protect us by putting this man in jail. Briefly, right,
Speaker 2: that's that's not the case. I think the lessons are
Speaker 2: immediately instructive to the prosecutor who tries the next one. Obviously,
Speaker 2: you know, watching the game tapes play better next time.
Speaker 2: You know, if they're going to put these cases on,
Speaker 2: they need to do it properly. I would rather see
Speaker 2: this not happen at all than watch it get fumbled
Speaker 2: like this, because that's just a victory for them.
Speaker 3: Right right, Yeah, And.
Speaker 2: It's a sharp reminder that the courts are not equipped
Speaker 2: to interrupt fascism or rein in white supremacy. That's not
Speaker 2: what they were built for. That, it's not what this
Speaker 2: tool does. You are trying to screw it in with
Speaker 2: a hammer, because faced with a really clear opportunity to
Speaker 2: do that, the prosecutor shied away from them. You know,
Speaker 2: the state is not the secret weapon that is going
Speaker 2: to stop fascism for us or protect us from the
Speaker 2: fascists who want to stop us from stopping them. You know,
Speaker 2: at best, it is a banana peel on their Mario
Speaker 2: Kart track. You know, it is interesting to watch this
Speaker 2: play out, but I don't think it is some I
Speaker 2: don't think this will bring any sort of repair. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but it might ruin some guy's day, and I'll be
Speaker 2: there when it happens.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't think it's worthless obviously. I think
Speaker 3: in fact, one of the things I will point out,
Speaker 3: since this is kind of ending on a doomer, and
Speaker 3: I think the I think the legal onslaught that was
Speaker 3: launched by the survivors, shall we say mm hm at
Speaker 3: Charlottesville against organizers and whatnot is a big part of
Speaker 3: why a lot of that most of that crew stopped
Speaker 3: being relevant, like it did in fact damage them. Now
Speaker 3: did it disrupt and stop fascism Nation? Why? Of course not.
Speaker 3: That was never in the cards, right, Like you're talking
Speaker 3: about trends and forces that are too big for a
Speaker 3: handful of very dedicated leftists to stop by suing some asshole.
Speaker 3: But like, you know, one thing people get wrong a
Speaker 3: lot is saying like, oh, you know, when a fucking
Speaker 3: what's his name got punched, that really knocked him out
Speaker 3: of public life, and it's like, no, Charlottesville came after
Speaker 3: that fucker got punched, Like it was the series of
Speaker 3: court cases that ruined his life really to an extent.
Speaker 2: And I think there's an important conversation to be how
Speaker 2: about what it means to win, Right, Because if you're
Speaker 2: a lawyer, if you're a prosecutor, winning is really black
Speaker 2: and white. You know, win a judgment, you win a conviction.
Speaker 2: But that's not how I view the courts as a
Speaker 2: tool in this process. Right That, like winning a conviction
Speaker 2: or actually getting paid out that judgment, that's not the
Speaker 2: victory we're looking for. Right That, this is a tool
Speaker 2: for sort of chiseling away, and no single step gets
Speaker 2: you there. So I wouldn't say that these cases are
Speaker 2: not useful or they're not interesting. And that's why that
Speaker 2: this isn't a huge disappointment, right that, Like what happens
Speaker 2: to any of these individual people isn't the point.
Speaker 4: This is just part of a process.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So I don't know, keep that in mind as
Speaker 3: you look at this stuff, like, because it's very easy
Speaker 3: to look at one case and just be like, oh,
Speaker 3: it's doomed. There's no point in trying any of this.
Speaker 3: It's like, no, the actual the law fair that people
Speaker 3: have launched in response to Charlottsville has been a successful action, Like,
Speaker 3: if you want to look at it kind of in
Speaker 3: military terms, it has been an offensive that has broadly
Speaker 3: achieved a number of its goals.
Speaker 2: The Signs Becassler lawsuit against the Unit the Right organizers.
Speaker 2: It's sort of established this playbook that's now being used
Speaker 2: by others. There are similar similarly structured lawsuits now being
Speaker 2: filed against other white supremacist groups, against White Lives Matter Ohio,
Speaker 2: against Patriot Front. And it is effective, and again not
Speaker 2: in the sense that the lawsuits will extract money. Judgments
Speaker 2: well that.
Speaker 3: Everyone's going to go to fucking prison, but it makes
Speaker 3: their lives miserable.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I just don't want people to walk away being like, well,
Speaker 3: there's no point in fighting this way, because there actually is.
Speaker 3: It works very well. It's just not a silver bullet.
Speaker 4: It's not a sports ugly.
Speaker 3: And messy and hard. And I will end at least
Speaker 3: by saying, you know, I know we have a lot
Speaker 3: of anti electoralist type people here. The one place you
Speaker 3: absolutely should vote, if that is a thing where you live,
Speaker 3: is elections for local judges, because that is a great
Speaker 3: way to at least reduce the odds that you're friends
Speaker 3: go to prison. I know people I have people I
Speaker 3: love who are not in prison because the judge they
Speaker 3: happened to draw wasn't a piece of shit, and you're
Speaker 3: really just hurting yourself if you don't, if you have
Speaker 3: the option to pick a judge who sucks less, and
Speaker 3: you don't try to. That's that's where I land on
Speaker 3: that shit.
Speaker 2: There's a lot that we can do, and none of
Speaker 2: it's going to do it all. But Yep, in the meantime,
Speaker 2: I will continue spending whole days on that horrible wooden
Speaker 2: bench and I'll let you know how it goes.
Speaker 3: Yep. Thank you Molly for continuing to engage with a
Speaker 3: system that is not very fun to engage with. Necessary too, well, everybody.
Speaker 3: That's the episode. Good to hell, We love you.
Speaker 1: It Could Happen here as a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 1: cool zonemedia dot com, or check us out on the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 1: You can find sources for It Could Happen your updated
Speaker 1: monthly at coolzonemedia dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening.