Robert Evans (2:28)

1. Sign up@mistr.com. 2.

Garrison Davis (2:31)

Consult with a doctor online. 3.

Robert Evans (2:34)

Complete your home test kit and then your prep and doxy pep come right to your door.

Garrison Davis (2:40)

No doctor's office, no needles, no paperwork, easy judgment.

Robert Evans (2:44)

Free and totally online.

Garrison Davis (2:45)

Head to mistr.com and get started today.

Robert Evans (2:50)

Call Zone Media.

Garrison Davis (2:55)

This is It Could Happen Here. A show about things falling apart. I'm Garrison Davis. I'm joined by Robert Evans to discuss the Prairie Land trial.

Robert Evans (3:06)

Yay.

Garrison Davis (3:08)

This month, the Trump administration got their first conviction in an antifa terrorism case. On Friday, March 13, eight people were convicted by a federal jury on charges of riot, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and providing material support to terrorists. One of the defendants was convicted of attempted murder of a police officer and another person was convicted on two counts of concealing documents, bringing the total number of federal defendants to nine. Originally, this federal case had way more defendants, but last year, seven of them pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists, four of whom were later called to testify for the prosecution during the trial.

Robert Evans (3:56)

Have they gotten sentenced yet, the folks who pled out?

Garrison Davis (3:58)

No, they are. They are going to be sentenced later this summer along with all the defendants that were convicted.

Robert Evans (4:03)

Gotcha.

Garrison Davis (4:04)

Though their sentence will be a maximum of 15 years, which is shorter than the defendants who were convicted.

Robert Evans (4:12)

Yeah. Yeah.

Garrison Davis (4:14)

The Prairie Land Defendants Support Committee did ask me to read their names. The defendants are Ainz Soto, Liz Soto, Savannah Batten, Megan Morris, Autumn Hill, Mari Rueda, Benjamin Song or B. Song, Zachary Evitz, and DEZ Estrada. The prosecution tried to argue that this was a coordinated attack on an ICE facility in Prairieland, Texas, while the defense argued this was a noise demonstration protest outside of this detention facility. Last summer, on the night of July 4, after protesters threw fireworks and vandalized property, DHS personnel called local police for assistance. One officer arrived, drew his handgun and yelled stop. At a person in all black clothes who was running away. One of the defendants, B. Song, then yelled, get to the rifles. Before firing toward the officer with an AR15, hitting him in the neck. Song fired 11 times. The officer returned fire three times. Song then fled the scene. Most of the defendants were arrested in the days after the attacks, some that night near the facility, though Song camped out, hiding in the woods overnight and evaded capture for 11 days with the help of others, many of those who assisted Song evade capture after the shooting was pled guilty to providing material support to terrorists. On the first day of this trial, the judge declared a mistrial because one of the defense attorneys wore a shirt featuring civil rights leaders. A week into the trial, U.S. district Court Judge Mark Pittman ruled that defense attorneys could not argue that the defendants, including the accused shooter, were acting in self defense or the defense of others against unlawful force just because the officer had already drawn his handgun before Song fired. The prosecutors compared this to Waco, and Judge Pittman ruled that the officer drawing and pointing his handgun at a fleeing suspect does not qualify as, quote, excessive as a matter of law because the officer did not actually use deadly force or shoot first.

Robert Evans (6:25)

Yeah, that makes sense. Like if this were a civilian on civilian situation, the fact that he had drawn his gun, especially in Texas, would have been enough to at least argue self defense. But absolutely, police officers have the right to pull guns on whoever they want whenever they want. Pretty much. So yeah. Yep. Cool.

Garrison Davis (6:47)

In court, the government argued that based on the situation at the protest, that it was reasonable for the officer to decide to draw his handgun because there was crimes being committed, property damage, the fireworks, even if he did not witness fireworks as he pulled up to the scene. Now, headlines have framed this story as protesters being convicted of terrorism for wearing black clothes or possessing radical political writing, also known as zines. And there is like a kernel of truth to these statements, but they're designed to serve primarily as clickbait rather than useful information. So let's take a closer look at these claims.

Public Investing Ad Voice (7:32)

Sure.

Garrison Davis (7:33)

Let's start by getting into the action planning. So this action was originally planned on the encrypted messaging app Signal, primarily in a group chat called 4th of July party.

Robert Evans (7:46)

Okay.

Garrison Davis (7:46)

The plan was also discussed during an in person meeting the day before the action, referred to during the trial as a gear check. Participants in the planning chat agreed to wear black block and bring armor and rifles. Song advertised the action in a larger group chat of dozens of quote unquote trusted individuals. The event was characterized in this chat as a low risk noise demonstration involving fireworks. A flyer was sent to this larger chat reading Share with trusted folks only. Do not post Mask up, be loud, unquote. According to cooperating witness Susan Kent, in the 4th of July party Signal chat, when asked about bringing guns, Song stated, I'm not going back to prison. I'm not going to jail. I'm bringing guns. Unquote.

Robert Evans (8:34)

Okay. That's a terrible thing to have in writing, boy. Okay. Great.

Garrison Davis (8:41)

This sentiment was also expressed at the gear check meeting on July 3rd where defendants discussed bringing guns and. And Song repeatedly stated that they would be bringing guns because he would not be, quote unquote going to jail. They talked about guns as a deterrent. Yeah, they talked about how in previous instances, the presence of guns deterred police from engaging with protesters. And this is how the presence of guns at the protest was largely framed in these meetings and chats. It does not look good in writing in a court case, though.

Robert Evans (9:17)

Yeah. I mean, this is what the Elmfork John Brown Gun Club had done, like sweep defenses and stuff where they'd shown up armed.

Garrison Davis (9:23)

That incident was brought up. Yeah, that was specifically referenced.

Robert Evans (9:26)

It had, in fact, worked that way more or less. I mean, there's a number of things to drill into here, but one of the issues is just while that's a thing people have used firearms for and have done so in a way that, like, worked in the past, obviously, which is what they were referencing. The problem is that you can't ever lose sight of the fact that, that, like, a gun is a gun. And if you're bringing a gun into

Garrison Davis (9:49)

a situation, there's potential for that gun to be used.

Robert Evans (9:52)

There's potential for that gun to be used. And if you're bringing that gun into a situation around a police station, the odds that you will use that gun in a way that is not going to cause a life ruining legal nightmare for you and everyone else are a lot lower. That's a real issue.

Garrison Davis (10:10)

Yeah. Also at this gear check on the third, Song proposed to free detainees, using, quote, unquote, suppressive fire.

Robert Evans (10:18)

Oh, my God.

Garrison Davis (10:20)

This idea was shut down by other attendees, according to Susan Kent, who testified after entering a guilty plea. Kent testified that after looking over photos of the facility, Song said, quote, this is as easy as it's going to get. We can take the place and free the people inside. Oh, boy. Unquote using, quote, unquote, suppressive fire. This idea was met with, quote, unquote, general disagreement, according to Kent.

Robert Evans (10:46)

Yeah, of course.

Garrison Davis (10:47)

Also saying that it was not seriously planned for or discussed. The support committee writes that Kent also testified that the group, quote, discussed stealing U hauls to move free detainees, but this did not have popular support. Defendant Autumn Hill asked, do we bring our guns? Song replied, yes, I'm not getting arrested. Unquote.

Robert Evans (11:11)

Yeah, just a lot of really horrible things to have read out in a courtroom. Just. Yep.

Garrison Davis (11:17)

Cool.

Robert Evans (11:18)

Okay.

Garrison Davis (11:19)

On signal, song shared a YouTube short about suppressive fire. Another defendant, Rueda, wrote that she didn't want a, quote, unquote fed post. Yeah, someone else wrote that rifles at the action may increase risk. Defendant Evitz sent a timeline for the actions that day, writing, things heat up after sunset. Royeda wrote, quote, if people inside get rowdy, people in this chat would Be charged for conspiracy, question mark. And then after the 4th of July shooting, someone messaged, quote, please delete signal chats. Chats still on phone even if removed from groups, unquote.

Robert Evans (11:59)

Yeah.

Garrison Davis (12:00)

According to support committee notes, some signal messages were recovered from phones using Apple's internal notification system. Though even though signal had been removed, incoming messages were preserved in the internal memory on the phone. Outgoing messages were not preserved because there's no notification system for outgoing messages. You can set your settings on signal to not display the message in notifications. And it seems like that was not the case for these messages that were taken from defendants phones.

Robert Evans (12:30)

Yeah, and this is a known, I mean the, just the, the fact that having notifications on with signal as a privacy issue has been known for a while. But yeah.

Garrison Davis (12:40)

Two defendants, Liz Sojo and Savannah Batten were neither in planning chats nor attended the gear check. But all the defendants who attended the protest did carpool together in two vehicles and brought a total of 11 firearms. Body armor, individual first aid kits, and all these were presented as government exhibits. I'm going to quote the Department of Justice right up about this case. Quote, evidence at trial revealed most of the antifa cell involved in the Prairie Line attack looked to Song as a leader. Song acquired firearms that were distributed to co defendants and recruited members at gun ranges and combat sessions they conducted. Unquote.

Robert Evans (13:24)

Yep. Just as a general rule. Like because the potential consequences of having firearms in a protest are so high, if you are showing up at a protest or organizing one and people are talking about bringing them, it behooves you to pay close attention to how they talk about them. And if someone is talking about for example, suppress a fire, that's not something that is really relevant to a defensive shooting in a legal situation. That's like a combat thing. Like very rarely do self defense shootings involve suppressing fire. I just, you have to be very, very careful.

Garrison Davis (14:05)

Yeah.

Robert Evans (14:06)

And this is like a judgment thing. Like if you hear people talking about guns who are going to be bringing firearms to a protest or another event and they are talking in a way that sounds as if they are like planning or eager to shoot it out with the police or right wing with anyone, that's a thing to be very wary of. That's a real warning sign. Yeah, that's a real red flag.

Garrison Davis (14:31)

Yeah, that's a real red flag. The defense argued that when Song shot at the officer, Song was using suppressive fire, claiming that Song aimed for the ground and the officer was perhaps struck by a ricochet. We don't Know if that is true?

Robert Evans (14:48)

No.

Garrison Davis (14:48)

And there really is no legal precedent for arguing suppressive fire in this way

Robert Evans (14:55)

in a self defense shooting. No.

Garrison Davis (14:56)

If you're shooting the direction of someone. Yeah. They absolutely can start shooting back. Even if absolutely fire is, is intended as being quote unquote suppressive. Right. Like there's, there's really no legal precedent for, for arguing in this way.

Robert Evans (15:10)

And from a legal standpoint, if you were saying I had to shoot at someone in immediate self defense and then you said, but I wasn't actually aiming at them, I was just trying to suppress them that immediately like, I mean I, I don't think they were ever going to be able to argue self defense because this was a cop. But if this had not been, if this had been like you know, a right wing counter protester or something, the fact that you're saying that you were like shooting to try not to hit them is something that can get you in trouble. That's an extremely dangerous thing from a legal standpoint to talk about.

Garrison Davis (15:41)

Especially if you're the one like initiating the use of deadly force.

Robert Evans (15:44)

Yes. If you have. Now if they, if a group of people start shooting at you and you are firing and you're just trying to keep whatever that you're in a say because they've started shooting at you. But like this person started shooting like just from a legal standpoint, this is a nightmare for the defense.

Garrison Davis (15:59)

Yeah.

Robert Evans (16:00)

From the jump. Yeah.

Garrison Davis (16:01)

Some of the defendants attended a daytime protest outside of this facility earlier on July 4th. And after which they then reported back to fellow defendants details regarding the facility's security prior to this nighttime action. I think it's time for a quick break and then we'll return to discuss the antifa terrorism cell aspect of this case.

Robert Evans (16:25)

Great. Well, I hate all of this so far. Garrison. Here's some ads.

Public Investing Ad Voice (16:35)

Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On public, you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index. With AI, it all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year. You can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors, llc. SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com disclosures when

Redfin/Take Five Ad Voice (17:35)

your schedule sounds like this. Are you kidding me? An oil change is the last thing you have time for. So drive into Take five and let our techs change your oil. Check your tires, top off your fluids and have you back on the road pit stop fast. All while you stay in your car. No putting your entire schedule on hold. No upsells, no problem. So you can get back to your to do list or not find your nearest shop@take5.com take5 the stay in your car 10 minute oil change this is

Martha Stewart (18:06)

Martha Stewart from the Martha Stewart Podcast. Ever wonder how to make hosting look effortless? Here's a secret when prepping for cooking and baking, get ahead of the mess with new Reynolds Kitchens countertop prep paper. Just lightly wet the counter so the paper grips. Lay it down and drips and spills stay on the paper, not on your counter. Cleanup is as simple as lifting it away to reveal clean counters. Effortless it is thanks to Reynolds Kitchen's countertop prep paper. Wet it, set it, prep it, done. Available in the Reynolds Wrap aisle at Walmart.

Public Investing Ad Voice (18:47)

Life is full of choices.

Garrison Davis (18:49)

But the choice between getting crispy chicken nuggets or a Crunchwrap slider isn't one

Public Investing Ad Voice (18:53)

you'll have to make. The new Crispy Chicken Crunchwrap Slider at

Robert Evans (18:56)

Taco Bell all white meat chicken nuggets

Public Investing Ad Voice (18:58)

breaded in tortilla chips, wrapped up sauce

Garrison Davis (19:00)

and all inside a slider sized Crunchwrap. Choose from creamy Chipotle or Jalapeno Honey Mustard.

Robert Evans (19:06)

Well, here we go.

Public Investing Ad Voice (19:07)

Life still full of choices.

Garrison Davis (19:09)

The new Crispy Chicken Crunchwrap Slider. A brand new classic only at Taco

Public Investing Ad Voice (19:13)

Bell and participating in those Taco Bell locations for a limited time and while supplies last.

Robert Evans (19:22)

I guess we're back.

Garrison Davis (19:23)

So let's talk about quote unquote antifa.

Robert Evans (19:26)

Yeah, let's talk about quote unquote antifa.

Garrison Davis (19:29)

The government argued that the defendants were members of a quote unquote North Texas antifa cell. The indictment describes antifa as a quote, militant enterprise made up of networks of individuals and small groups, primarily ascribing to revolutionary, anarchist or autonomous Marxist ideology, which explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States government, law enforcement authorities and the system of law, unquote. So basically, they view antifa as left wing, anti authoritarians. Right. That's how we can kind of collapse the use of this term down into it, into like a single sentence. It's left wing anti authoritarianism. Though the defendants never actually organized all together under the antifa name, the prosecution argued that they were linked through a triple Venn diagram of the Socialist Rifle association, the John Brown Gun Club, and the Emma Goldman Book Club. And this all converged on, quote, unquote, direct militant action. I'm assuming people are familiar with the SRA or the John Brown Gun Club in some way.

Robert Evans (20:34)

Yeah.

Garrison Davis (20:35)

The Emma Goldman Book Club was a local zine distributor and publisher that also put on community events from a radical, anti capitalist, usually anarchist friendly perspective. Emma Goldwyn obviously being an anarchist.

Robert Evans (20:51)

Yep. And like the fact that obviously these three organizations aren't actually tied together in any sort of like. Like they're trying to frame it as like, you know, an Al Qaeda and an Al Qaeda affiliate type deal. Right. Which is not accurate to how these organizations work or to what's going on here. But I'm not surprised they went with this line of argument.

Garrison Davis (21:12)

I mean, yeah, the defendants had connections to these groups, right? Sure.

Robert Evans (21:16)

Yeah.

Garrison Davis (21:16)

And because these groups have an ideological underpinning that can be seen as being quite similar in some ways.

Robert Evans (21:23)

Yeah.

Garrison Davis (21:24)

They're viewing that as as part of the connection that connects the individuals who were involved in these sorts of, like, organizations or community events.

Robert Evans (21:33)

Yeah. And I'm not surprised that's how they tried to argue it.

Garrison Davis (21:36)

Sure. A sticky notepad found at the Soto residence contained passwords for the Emma Goldman Book Club Twitter account and an antifa Dallas Fort Worth Twitter account, which prosecution used as evidence linking defendants to, quote, unquote, antifa. The government also called on David Kyle Schidler as an expert witness to testify about antifa.

Robert Evans (22:00)

Yeah.

Garrison Davis (22:01)

Schidler is a member of the center for Security Policy and SPLC designated hate group. He also helped draft the definition of antifa given in this case and used that definition while testifying in front of the Senate last year. The defense missed a deadline to challenge the prosecution's antifa expert qualifications, which would have needed to be filed as a pre trial motion as opposed to an objection during the trial. Prosecutors also cited Trump's antifa executive order, despite this order being signed months after the Prairieland incident. And the prosecutors also claimed that the international antifa Defense fund contributed over $5,000 to the Prairieland defendants Give Send Go crowdfunding page. So much of this case was spent arguing over whether the defendants were in fact antifa and what that even means. Like, what does it mean to be antifa? And if that's actually relevant to the charges that they were facing. And by the end of the trial, it became more clear that the defendants weren't exactly being prosecuted for being members of Antifa. Rather, the government asserted that their proximity to this idea of antifa provided evidence to their motive and preferred tactics. Quoting the support committee courtroom notes, quote, the government's strategy was to display zines, stickers, pamphlets, flags and other political materials. Anarchist, anti fascist, anti ice, animal liberation. And argued that this shared ideology proves conspiracy and motive. FBI case agent Casey Bennett testified that the materials, quote, show a group of people sharing an ideology and that this quote might lead us to intent behind the attack and shows a conspiracy, unquote. Towards the end of the trial, Judge Pitman asked the prosecution, quote, is it necessary to prove this stuff about antifa? The support committee courtroom notes say that. The prosecution responded by saying that antifa ideology, particularly Black Bloc, was how the group operated. The judge pressed, quote, whether it's Antifa or the Methodist Women's Auxiliary, why does it matter? Yep. The prosecution argued that they took, quote, unquote, direct action against the ICE facility and argued Black Block and antifa ideology were central to how the alleged attack was carried out, unquote.

Robert Evans (24:39)

Well, that's. Yeah, that's positive, at least, I guess.

Garrison Davis (24:43)

The government described Black Block for the purposes of this case as, quote, dark clothing with head and face coverings that concealed their identities and designed to hide each individual's identity, but also to aid and abet those members engaged in illegal acts by making members indistinguishable from one another to law enforcement, unquote. The jury was shown clothing from all the defendants as evidence as well as body armor and a, quote, unquote, resist fascism flag. Now, all this does raise the question about whether this prosecution is against the defendant's political ideology or the specific criminal acts of throwing fireworks or shooting at a police officer. Rather than being convicted of being members of antifa, the terrorist group, something that still doesn't really have legal precedent. The prosecutors argued that the antifa ideology, left wing anti authoritarianism, played a role in inspiring the defendants formed the basis of political affinity that brought this collection of individuals together and relate to a collection of security practices, subcultural practices and associated tactics which were employed before, during and after the Criminal acts related to the noise demo, quote unquote. OPSEC practices like, you know, black block or using signal were used as evidence.

Robert Evans (25:55)

Yeah.

Garrison Davis (25:55)

That there was some sort of conspiracy at foot.

Robert Evans (25:59)

Sure. Yeah. I mean, yeah, that makes sense from a prosecutorial standpoint. Right. These people are talking about like just the fact that there are zines talking about the purpose of black bloc and people are having a planning meeting ahead of time where they're like checking their gear and talking about how they're going to come in and block, like. Yeah, yeah, that's, that's, that's unfortunate. Yeah, I can see why the prosecution went with that line of argument.

Garrison Davis (26:23)

But how does this relate to like terrorism? Right. Because.

Robert Evans (26:25)

Right.

Garrison Davis (26:25)

Conspiracy and terrorism are different things.

Robert Evans (26:27)

Yes.

Garrison Davis (26:27)

So to get an idea of the government's own preferred language regarding antifa terrorism, I'll quote from the guilty plea drafted by the government for a former defendant turned government witness, quote, the terrorism was calculated to influence and affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion. Co conspirators adhered to an antifa anarchist ideology and organized cells or affinity groups. Co conspirators began planning direct action at Prairieland. Co conspirators agreed to dress in black bloc to provide cover for each other to commit crimes, including concealing the escape of those who committed destruction of government property, unquote. So this is how it relates to like the actual legal definition of terrorism. Right. Which is certain criminal acts intending to change or influence government policy by intimidation or coercion. Right. That's how the government uses the term terrorism.

Robert Evans (27:24)

Yeah.

Garrison Davis (27:24)

And this, this, this section of the plea written by the government shows how the government is self asserting the terrorism that happened at Prairieland.

Robert Evans (27:33)

Right.

Garrison Davis (27:35)

There's been a lot of headlines talking about the role of zines at this trial. And zines did play a two part rule. Prosecution did argue that the presence of insurrectionary zines is indicative of some alignment with antifa. Even if the possession of these zines itself is not a crime. The government's antifa expert testified that owning political texts does not necessarily indicate group membership or personal allegiance to an ideology. Quote, just because I own a copy of Mein Kampf, does that make me a Nazi? If I own dos capital, does that make me a Marxist? Unquote. Sure. Stunning. Stunning. First example given, given here.

Robert Evans (28:19)

Yeah, interesting call, but base. I mean, but also like a valid argument.

Garrison Davis (28:24)

Yeah, but this is true, right?

Robert Evans (28:25)

Yes. And this is, I've seen people framing the, the verdict as having zines or whatever, like it's an act of terrorism and that's not what was decided here.

Garrison Davis (28:36)

No. What's happening here is a bit more complicated and harder to explain.

Robert Evans (28:40)

Yes.

Garrison Davis (28:41)

The other relevancy of zines to this case relates to the concealing documents charges against DEZ Estrada and his wife, Mari Rauda, based on transporting a box of political zines from his wife's house to a friend's house in Denton, Texas. The government claims that Roeda called Dez from jail on July 6, instructing him to conceal evidence. Now, we don't have access to a full transcript of this call. The full call was given to the jury, but sections of it were read or listened to in court. The most detailed account of the call segments played in court come from notes taken by the Prairieland Defense Support Committee. The actual evidence exhibit is not yet available to be purchased on pacer. Not sure if it will be or if that'll just be after sentencing, but I tried to actually get the. The transcript of the call, and it was not available. DEZ told his wife that he already talked with her mom, who she had previously called the day before. Ruida talked about feds confiscating property. FBI Special Agent Whitworth said in his opinion, Rada was concerned about the evidence. Rueda then voiced concern for her car parked at the 2400 block of 56th street, which had her phone stored inside. This was the staging site. Before she went to the action, she then instructed DEZ to, quote, unquote, tow it. My phone is in the back. Do what you gotta do. Just tow it. Unquote. The support committee wrote that, quote, prosecution replayed this section, characterizing it as Rieda trying to get rid of evidence. Rayta says to, quote, unquote, retrieve her items from the vehicle, does not refer to her items using the word evidence, and does not say hide, destroy, or conceal. DEZ never actually got to this car or the phone. He explained that the vehicle would be repoed. But Roeda also said in this call, quote, move whatever you need to move in the House. The support committee wrote that, quote, prosecution argued this meant moving evidence. Defense noted she was talking about pets at the time, unquote. On the call, DEZ mentioned that he had already been at the house and replied, quote, unquote, we're good in reference to moving stuff from the house. The defense questioned how they could have conspired. Out of order. Right, because the government claims there was a conspiracy to conceal documents. But DEZ here said that he moved things before he actually got on this phone call with his wife. The FBI answered that Des just had already acquired the necessary information to act, just not directly from his wife. Des was found guilty of, quote, corruptly concealing a document or record by transporting a box containing numerous antifa materials such as insurrection planning, anti law enforcement, anti government and anti immigration enforcement documents and propaganda, intending to conceal the box's contents and impair its availability for use in a federal grand jury and federal criminal proceedings. Unquote. That's from the doj. He and his wife Raida were found guilty of conspiracy to conceal documents and other objects that would implicate Rada in the riot and shooting at the Prairieland facility, also according to the Department of Justice. So basically this was an evidence tampering charge, a concealing evidence charge. The actual presence of the zines was not the crime, but the government argued that the zines themselves were evidence or that DEZ suspected they could be evidence and that's why he moved them from his wife's house to this other location. We're gonna go on one more break and then return to discuss two more charges Foreign.

Public Investing Ad Voice (32:42)

Comes from Public the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On public you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to save semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year. You can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors llc. SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com disclosures when

Redfin/Take Five Ad Voice (33:41)

your schedule sounds like this. Are you kidding me? An oil change is the last thing you have time for. So drive into Take five and let our techs change your oil. Check your tires, top off your fluids and have you back on the road. Pit stop fast. All while you stay in your car. No putting your entire schedule on hold. No upsells no problem. So you can get back to your to do list or not. Find your nearest shop@take5.com take5 the stay in your car 10 minute oil change

Martha Stewart (34:11)

this is Martha Stewart from the Martha Stewart Podcast. Ever wonder how to make hosting look effortless? Here's a secret Getting ahead of the mess with new Reynolds Kitchens Countertop Prep Paper Just lightly wet the counter beforehand so the paper grips and stays in place. Then lay down the Reynolds Kitchens countertop prep paper so drips and spills stay on the paper, not all over your kitchen counter. You can roll out dough, prep a party spread, or cook alongside family when you're done. Cleanup is as simple as lifting the paper and revealing that clean counter underneath. Effortless. You can use it for cooking and baking, prep and even crafting, especially when you need extra working space. Because when the mess is already handled, you can focus on what matters the food, the people and the moment. It may look effortless, but now you know. It's Reynolds Kitchens Countertop Prep Paper. Take a tip from me. Wet it, set it, prep it. Done. Make it easy. Make it with Reynolds Kitchens Countertop Prep Paper. Available now in the Reynolds Wrap aisle

Redfin/Take Five Ad Voice (35:23)

in Walmart Kids Pets Life. Your sofa sees it all. But with a washable sofa, stains don't stand a chance. All of our sofa collections come with fully machine washable covers and cushions, making cleanups effortless. Liquid and stain resistant fabrics provide extra protection against everyday messes. Plus, with modular designs, you can rearrange your sofa however you like. Perfect for growing families and changing spaces. Starting at just $699, it's time to upgrade to a stress free mess proof sofa. Visit washablesofas.com today and save offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

Garrison Davis (35:58)

Okay, we're back. Nine of the counts, count one, two, four and five through ten cited Pinkerton versus United States 1946. Okay, the judge explained this to the jury by saying that a defendant can be criminally liable for the offenses committed by another co conspirator if the offense was, quote, reasonably foreseeable and committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. With the judge writing in jury instructions, quote, a defendant can be found guilty and held criminally liable for an offense under Pinkerton co conspirator liability. Even if the defendant was not charged with conspiracy, it is not required that the conspiracy agrees to commit or facilitate each and every part of a substantive offense that is in furtherance of the conspiracy, a defendant must merely reach an agreement with the specific intent that the underlying criminal objective be achieved By. By the conspiracy, unquote. Early in the trial, prosecution argued that Song firing on the officers was, quote, unquote, reasonably foreseeable based on the planning of the action and previous statements made by Song. But this Pickerton liability also applied to the other charges, including riot material, supported terrorism and the explosive charge. The jury found all defendants that were charged with guilty of counts one, two, three and four, that's riot material support and two explosives charges, but did not find the other defendants besides Song guilty of attempted murder or discharging a firearm using the Pinkerton Co conspirator liability. The prosecution wanted the other individuals at the protest to be found guilty of the charges of attempted murder using the liability. And the jury did not do that. Let's talk about two of the charges that now carry some worrying potential to be used against protesters in the future, based on the precedent that this case sets. First, the conspiracy to use and carry an explosive and using and carrying an explosive during a riot. The only quote unquote explosives at this noise demonstration protest were fireworks. And the judge even confirmed that. It was established that the fireworks caused no damage to the ICE facility.

Robert Evans (38:23)

Right.

Garrison Davis (38:23)

Yet Steven Brennaman, an ATS explosives special agent, testified that fireworks meet the statutory definition of explosives under 18 USC section 844ij because the fireworks contain gunpowder as defined in the statute. This could have some pretty wide reaching implications. A lot of protests use fireworks. This was a protest on 4th of July, a day full of the use of fireworks. Robert and I have been to a protest, covered a protest in 2020 outside of a federal government building that also had a lot of fireworks and fireworks shot towards the building.

Robert Evans (39:04)

Yep.

Garrison Davis (39:04)

If that happened now, it's possible that people at this protest could be charged with this conspiracy to use and carry an explosive.

Robert Evans (39:14)

Yeah, yeah. And I mean, they've clearly been wanting, arguing for this ever since 2020. Right. Like fire. Because it wasn't just. Portland was the only place where people were using fireworks. Generally people were using fireworks as kind of a response to the police, using flashbacks.

Public Investing Ad Voice (39:31)

Flashbacks.

Redfin/Take Five Ad Voice (39:31)

Right.

Robert Evans (39:32)

Like it was a. It was a force equalizer. Both were used quite often. But, you know, like, I had so many of those fucking things blow up in my face and they never did. Like, these are not bombs, these are not pipe bombs. Like, it's not fun to have them blow up right next to you. But it's. These are not like deadly explosives.

Garrison Davis (39:51)

Yes, agreed. And even the agents investigating this case mailed materials from these fireworks for testing, using regular FedEx, not labeling them as possibly dangerous. Or explosive. And the government argued that it was because the amount in the FedEx package was just so small that they didn't need to label it as. As being dangerous.

Robert Evans (40:13)

Yeah.

Garrison Davis (40:14)

Now lastly, I need to discuss count two. It's providing material support to terrorists. This is 18 USC 2339. This is the charge that a lot of people are talking about when they're mentioning.

Robert Evans (40:30)

Yeah.

Garrison Davis (40:30)

Someone has been convicted of terrorism for xyz, for. For using signal, for wearing black block, for possessing zines. They're referring to this charge. Now, this statute has two sections. Section B refers to knowingly attempting to, conspiring to, or actually providing material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization. This is not how the government used this statute.

Robert Evans (40:56)

Right.

Garrison Davis (40:56)

They're not considering antifa a foreign terrorist organization for the purposes of this case. That's not how you're using this. The defendants were charged with section A, alleging that they provided and attempted to provide material support and resources and did conceal and disguise the nature of their material support and resources, including property, services, training, communications equipment, weapons, explosives, personnel, including themselves and transportation, knowing and intending that they were to be used in preparation for and in carrying out an offense identified as a federal crime of terrorism or carrying out the concealment of an escape from an offense identified as a federal crime of terrorism. That's a lot.

Robert Evans (41:40)

Yeah, that's.

Garrison Davis (41:41)

That's a long. A long sentence. This is certainly a very confusing charge.

Robert Evans (41:44)

Yeah.

Garrison Davis (41:45)

Now, this statute lists at least 28 possible terrorism offenses. Now relevant to this case are 3.18usc844f. Which is maliciously attempting to damage government property by means of fire or an explosive. For the purposes of this case, that is throwing fireworks at a building. 18 USC 1361. That's willful depredation against any property of the United States exceeding a thousand dollars. For the purposes of this case, this would be damaging government property in other ways, like slashing tires, graffiti, that sort of thing. Right. And finally, 18 USC 114. Killing or attempting to kill an officer or employee of the United States. That's pretty self explanatory.

Robert Evans (42:30)

Yeah.

Garrison Davis (42:31)

So the government accused the defendants of providing material support in furtherance of committing these three crimes of terrorism. Even if each individual defendant themselves did not actually commit one of these three crimes. To quote the jury instructions, quote, the government does not have to prove all of these to you for you to return a guilty verdict on this charge. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt on one is enough. Yeah. Unquote. So the jury does not need to find proof that all of These three terrorism offenses were committed that the explosives charge, the destruction of government property charge, or the attempted killing charge. They just need to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that material support was provided for one of these. Part of what makes this charge kind of dangerous is that we don't know which terroristic crime or crimes the jury found sufficient evidence for or if they used different offenses for different defendants. Nor do we explicitly know what the jury thought qualified as material support. It could have been, you know, driving people to an action, a mere presence at an action, wearing black clothes, providing money to buy fireworks. All those could be considered material support.

Robert Evans (43:48)

Sure.

Garrison Davis (43:49)

But because of how the jury just writes guilty on this charge, we don't actually know what the specific justification they use to find this to be true.

Robert Evans (43:58)

Right.

Garrison Davis (43:58)

Because the discharge is so. Is so broad and can contain a lot of things that qualify as material support, including just being merely present at an action. Like personnel can be material support in furtherance of a federal crime of terrorism.

Robert Evans (44:12)

Right.

Garrison Davis (44:12)

So wearing black block at an action where no crime happens would not constitute terrorism. But wearing black clothes at a protest where someone does an ideologically motivated crime of terrorism could be seen as materially supporting that crime or concealing the escape of the person who committed that crime. I want to quote from the judge's instructions to the jury regarding the First Amendment. Quote, constitutionally protected speech can be properly used as evidence to prove a defendant's motive, intent, and knowledge to commit the offense or further the unlawful purpose of any jointly undertaken criminal activity. Stated another way, if a defendant's speech, expression, or associations were made with the intent to knowingly provide material support or resources to be used to prepare for or carry out a violation of federal law or to carry out the concealment of an escape from such a violation, then the First Amendment would not provide a defense to that conduct. Unquote. So it is possible. Now, using this case as precedent, if you're present at a protest before someone commits a serious crime and you have a tangential link to that person, you could also face similar charges. Yeah, if you're in a group chat with someone and then they commit a crime, you could face similar charges. This is not the first time the government has tried to use this sort of like conspiracy against a large group of protesters. Notably, they tried to do this in Atlanta unsuccessfully. But I think it's worth noting they were only unsuccessful on the RICO charges because of procedural error, not because of actual evidence argued in court. It's that the prosecutor in that case did not actually have justification or the legal justification to bring this charge. So we never actually saw this get argued out in front of a jury and find the jury's verdict. But this is a part of an ongoing strategy the prosecution has done against protesters the past few years, and in this case, successfully.

Robert Evans (46:14)

Yeah. It's also like, as bleak as this is, and this is very bleak, this is not the final say on how any case like this will be adjudicated everywhere. This is a case in Texas. Right. Like, this is not.

Garrison Davis (46:27)

Yes.

Robert Evans (46:27)

This isn't the fucking US Supreme Court. It's not even the Texas Supreme Court. Right.

Garrison Davis (46:31)

Yeah.

Robert Evans (46:31)

Not to minimize how fucking awful this is, but this does not mean this is how cases like this will be adjudicated every time they come to court everywhere in the U.S. yes.

Garrison Davis (46:43)

And the vagueness of the material support charge is like a double edged sword. Right. One, it can be used in cases like this. And we don't actually know how they were exactly able to successfully argue that, because we don't know which specific federal offense of terrorism the jury found material support was provided for, or if it was multiple offenses, nor do we know exactly which things the jury found constituted material support. But because we don't know these things, that means when prosecutors try to argue this charge again in the future, they kind of have to start from the ground floor all over again. It's harder to apply this exact precedent because the specific things that constituted material support and the specific crime that material support was provided for are sort of ambiguous. But the vagueness of this charge certainly leads to a lot of confusion. And you can now look at this case and, and see that, you know, legal possession of firearms or firearms training and possession of political paraphernalia could bolster ideological links between you and defendants, which could be used as evidence for a charge like this, Right?

Robert Evans (47:54)

Yep.

Garrison Davis (47:55)

For. For conspiracy charges. And. And that obviously is worrying. Now, a song faces a minimum penalty of 20 years, a maximum of life in prison. Other defendants of Prairieland face sentences ranging from a minimum of 10 years to up to 60. The husband, convicted of concealing documents, faces up to 40 years in prison, and those who pled guilty face a sentence of up to 15 years in federal prison, though their cooperation may lower that. Another man faces charges for evidence tampering because he allegedly removed Prairieland defendants from Discord chats last year. But this is a state charge which will be going to trial later in April.

Robert Evans (48:36)

Mm. Yeah, that'll be interesting to watch, I guess. Yeah.

Garrison Davis (48:39)

This is bleak.

Robert Evans (48:40)

This is extremely worrying. That's part of the point is to Scare people to make people feel like they can't trust other activists, to make people scared to organize, to make them scared to be in group chats. And yeah, there's very real reason to be concerned as a result of this. However, none of this should be seen as like the final word on all of this stuff. And this certainly is not as simple as just having a zine or wearing black is terrorism. Now, that's not what was adjudicated here.

Garrison Davis (49:10)

No, these things do all relate to, or they're trying to be connected to, you know, actual crimes which did occur.

Robert Evans (49:16)

And that's certainly the goal, by the way, that the right has. But that's not what they've achieved quite yet.

Garrison Davis (49:22)

I mean, it's definitely a way to try to scare people out of organizing in the sense that, yeah, you know, you cannot be found a terrorist just by calling yourself like, antifa. Just. Just by being antifa alone by yourself. Yeah, you're not going to be a terrorist. The same way you can't be put in jail just for being a Nazi. Right, Right. But if you are part of a Nazi group chat where you're planning an action and then a Nazi does something at the. At the action, like shooting a power substation, right, then that Nazi and the other Nazis that he's organizing with, you know, could face terrorism charges. That. That is how those sorts of, like, cases work. And a very similar thing is being done here. It's. It's not the actual, like, political ideology necessarily at trial, but organizing with other people in furtherance of a political ideology is what the government is trying to suppress. Yep.

Robert Evans (50:14)

Cool. Well, I don't have anything else to add at this point, you know.

Garrison Davis (50:19)

No, Wayne, we'll certainly cover this once sentencing happens later this year in June.

Robert Evans (50:25)

Be careful. And if you're in a group chat with somebody who keeps writing shit that you're like, wow, that would be a terrible thing to hear read back in court. Really reconsider staying in a group chat with that person. Just be wary about what you say and what other people say to you online. Not just because, like, of court stuff, because that, like, if somebody is being incredibly reckless with the things that they are putting down in writing, they're probably being reckless in other areas. Just be careful, you know, folks, be careful. It could happen.

Garrison Davis (51:01)

Here is a production of Cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from Cool Zone Media, Visit our website, coolzonemedia.com or check us

Robert Evans (51:09)

out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

Garrison Davis (51:11)

or wherever you listen to podcasts, you can now find sources for it could

Robert Evans (51:15)

happen here, listed directly.

Redfin/Take Five Ad Voice (51:16)

You're listening to a podcast, so you're doing something else, too. Like maybe scrolling home listings on Redfin, saving places you like without thinking you'll get them. Because that's what house hunting has become. But Redfin isn't built for endless browsing. It's built to help you find and own a home. Redfin agents close twice as many deals as other agents, which means when you find a place you love, you've got a real shot at getting it. Redfin helps turn saved listings into real addresses. Get started@redfin.com own the dream did you

Garrison Davis (51:53)

know you can get your prep for free? Mistr provides free prep and doxy pep

Robert Evans (51:58)

prescribed online and delivered right to your door.

Garrison Davis (52:01)

No doctor's office, no needles, no drama.

Robert Evans (52:04)

What are you waiting for?

Garrison Davis (52:06)

Sign up@mistr.com today.

Martha Stewart (52:08)

Ever wonder how to make hosting look effortless? Here's a secret Getting ahead of the mess with new Reynolds Kitchens countertop prep paper Just lightly wet the counter beforehand so the paper grips and stays in place. Then lay down the Reynolds Kitchen's countertop prep paper so drips and spills stay on the paper, not all over your kitchen counter. You can roll out dough, prep a party spread, or cook alongside family. When you're done, cleanup is as simple as lifting the paper and revealing that clean counter underneath. Effortless. You can use it for cooking and baking, prep and even crafting, especially when you need extra working space. Because when the mess is already handled, you can focus on what matters the food, the people, and the moment. It may look effortless, but now you know it's Reynolds Kitchen's countertop prep paper. Take a tip from me. Wet it, set it, prep it. Done. Make it easy. Make it with Reynolds Kitchen's countertop prep paper, available now in the Reynolds Wrap aisle in Walmart.

Redfin/Take Five Ad Voice (53:18)

There's a fire inside you you can't ignore. Stand still. Not a chance. You're a lifelong learner who's come this far. Now we are here to help you keep going further. Capella University what can't you do? Visit capella.edu to learn more.

Garrison Davis (53:33)

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.