Podcast Summary: It Could Happen Here

Episode: Prairieland and Antifa Terrorism

Date: March 23, 2026
Hosts: Garrison Davis & Robert Evans
Podcast by: Cool Zone Media and iHeartPodcasts

Episode Overview

This episode explores the landmark "Prairieland" trial—the first federal conviction of alleged "antifa terrorism" under the Trump administration. Garrison Davis and Robert Evans break down what actually happened at the July 4th, 2025 protest outside a Texas ICE facility, how the defendants were prosecuted, legal strategies from both sides, and the disturbing precedents this case might set for protest actions nationwide. The hosts critically examine media narratives, dissect the practical use of "antifa" in court, and warn listeners about the broader implications for activism and protest in the United States.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background and Charges (02:55–06:47)

Incident: On July 4th, at Prairieland, Texas, a protest outside an ICE detention center escalated into violence after fireworks were thrown and property was vandalized. Police arrived, leading to an exchange of gunfire; one officer was shot in the neck by a protester with an AR-15.
Convictions: Eight people were found guilty of riot, conspiracy to use/carry explosives, and material support for terrorism. One was convicted of attempted murder; another for evidence concealment—nine defendants total.
Legal process: Some had pled guilty earlier to material support; others testified for the prosecution.
Sentencing: Maximum sentences differ for those who pled out (up to 15 years) and those convicted at trial (potentially far longer).

Quote:

Garrison Davis (05:01): "The prosecution tried to argue 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."

2. The Planning and Evidence (07:33–12:40)

Action planning: Coordination was mainly on encrypted Signal chats ("4th of July party"); "gear checks" and in-person discussions preceded the protest.
Weapons: 11 firearms, body armor, first aid kits brought. Song, described as group leader, distributed rifles and organized range sessions.
Problematic language: In chats, Song was explicit about not wanting to go to jail and suggested bringing guns; even ideas about using "suppressive fire" to free detainees arose but were mostly dismissed.
Signal’s privacy failed: Crucial evidence came from push notification logs left on iPhones—highlighting opsec risks.

Quote:

Robert Evans (09:52): "If you're bringing a 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... are a lot lower. That's a real issue."

3. Self-Defense Arguments and Suppressive Fire (13:24–15:59)

Defense claim: Song shot at police as "suppressive fire," not intent to kill.
Legal rejection: The judge barred "self-defense" and "defense of others" arguments because the officer had not used deadly force yet.
Hosts’ view: Even as protest tactics, talking about "suppressive fire" and "not going to jail" is perilous—both legally and practically.

Quote:

Robert Evans (15:10): "If you're saying 'I had to shoot at someone in immediate self-defense' and then say 'but I wasn't actually aiming at them, I was just trying to suppress them', that immediately... can get you in trouble."

4. The Government's 'Antifa Cell' Narrative (19:22–24:39)

Prosecution narrative: Defendants were an "antifa cell," linked via Socialist Rifle Association, John Brown Gun Club, and Emma Goldman Book Club.
Expert witness: Government expert Schidler (from a hate group, per SPLC) defined antifa as a "militant enterprise" and drafted the case's definition.
Defense failures: Missed procedural deadlines hindered their ability to challenge this framing.
Ideological links used: Zines, stickers, pamphlets, and social media evidence admitted to assert conspiracy/motive.

Quote:

Judge Pittman (24:16): "'Whether it’s Antifa or the Methodist Women’s Auxiliary, why does it matter?' ... The prosecution argued that they took 'direct action' against the ICE facility and Black Bloc and antifa ideology were central to how the attack was carried out."

5. Zines, Evidence Tampering, and Charges of Concealment (27:35–32:35)

Zines: Prosecution showed radical literature as evidence of motive/intent, not as a crime itself.
Evidence tampering: Two defendants charged for moving a box of political zines; government argued this was to hide evidence.
Legal nuance: The actual possession of radical materials wasn’t criminalized—but their movement served as a basis for evidence tampering charges.

Quote:

Expert Witness (28:11): "'Just because I own a copy of Mein Kampf, does that make me a Nazi? If I own Das Kapital, does that make me a Marxist?'"

6. Pinkerton Liability and Chilling Precedent (35:58–39:04)

Pinkerton rule: Co-conspirators can be held responsible for actions of others if "reasonably foreseeable" and in furtherance of the conspiracy—even if not directly involved.
Jury outcome: All convicted of riot/material support/explosives charges, but only Song guilty of attempted murder.
Precedent: The use of Pinkerton to tie all present at a protest to acts committed by one can chill protest activity broadly.

7. Fireworks = Explosives, and Expanding Terrorism Charges (38:23–44:12)

Fireworks: Treated as "explosives" under federal law, leading to possibly wide application at other protests.
Material support for terrorism: Broadly used. To be convicted, the jury only needed to find material support was provided for any one of several possible "terrorism" crimes (property damage, using explosives, attempted murder).
Ambiguity: Law is so broad that mere presence, giving a ride, or being in the same chat can be construed as "material support."

Quote:

Garrison Davis (43:49): "Because the discharge is so broad and can contain a lot of things ... including just being merely present at an action ... personnel can be material support in furtherance of a federal crime of terrorism."

8. First Amendment & Legal Boundaries (44:12–47:54)

Judge’s instruction: Constitutionally protected speech can be evidence of motive/intent—but speech/association offering material support to a federal crime isn’t protected.
Implications: Organizers, group chat members, even those with indirect involvement could potentially face severe charges if present at an action where a crime occurs.

Quote:

Robert Evans (46:14): "As bleak as this is ... this is not the final say on how any case like this will be adjudicated everywhere."

9. Sentencing and Consequences (47:55–End)

Ranges: Song faces at least 20 years, up to life. Other main defendants: 10–60 years. Evidence tampering defendants: up to 40 years. Plea deals: up to 15 years, possibly lower with cooperation.
Other legal fallout: A state trial is pending for another defendant over Discord evidence tampering.
Chilling effect: The case is intended to scare activists away from collective action and organizing.

Quotes:

Robert Evans (48:40): "That's part of the point: to scare people ... make people feel like they can't trust other activists, ... scared to be in group chats."
Garrison Davis (50:14): "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."

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

Robert Evans (06:25): "Police officers have the right to pull guns on whoever they want whenever they want. Pretty much. So yeah. Yep. Cool."
Garrison Davis (10:46): "[The suppressive fire plan] was met with, quote, unquote, general disagreement, according to Kent."
Robert Evans (15:10): "If you're saying ... 'I wasn't actually aiming at them, I was just trying to suppress them' that immediately... can get you in trouble."
Garrison Davis (24:39): "The government described Black Bloc ... as 'dark clothing with head and face coverings ... designed to hide each individual's identity ... to aid and abet those members engaged in illegal acts by making members indistinguishable from one another.'"
Expert witness (28:11): "Just because I own a copy of Mein Kampf, does that make me a Nazi? If I own Das Kapital, does that make me a Marxist?"
Garrison Davis (38:23): "The only 'explosives' at this noise demonstration protest were fireworks. And the judge even confirmed that."
Robert Evans (46:14): "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."

Timestamps for Key Discussions

[02:55] — Main episode content begins, overview of case/charges
[07:33] — Breakdown of action planning and group chat evidence
[13:24] — Firearms, "suppressive fire," and legal self-defense
[19:22] — Antifa narrative, expert witness, and organizational links
[27:35] — Zines, evidence tampering, and concealment charges
[35:58] — Pinkerton conspiracy liability explained
[38:23] — Fireworks considered legal explosives
[40:30] — Detailed explainer: material support for terrorism charges
[44:12] — First Amendment, speech as evidence, and organizational risks
[47:55] — Sentencing, chilling effect, and closing reflections

Context & Tone

The hosts, in their signature acerbic, skeptical, and analytical style, underscore not just the legal details but also the perils for activists in a rapidly shifting legal environment. Sarcasm and gallows humor thread through the episode, especially as they grapple with the case’s bleak implications for protest and direct action in the U.S.

Final Thoughts & Warnings

Activist Caution: Both hosts strongly advise: if you're organizing or involved in protests, be extremely cautious about what you say, especially in writing or group chats.
Legal Precedent: This case, while Texas-specific, could serve as a dangerous template for federal prosecutions of protest activity elsewhere.
Not the End: The outcome is dire but not definitive for activist prosecution nationwide; future cases may differ, but the trend is worrying.

Final Quote:

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 careful, you know, folks, be careful.”

For more episodes and resources, visit Cool Zone Media.

Podcast Summary: It Could Happen Here

Episode: Prairieland and Antifa Terrorism

Date: March 23, 2026
Hosts: Garrison Davis & Robert Evans
Podcast by: Cool Zone Media and iHeartPodcasts

Episode Overview

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background and Charges (02:55–06:47)

Incident: On July 4th, at Prairieland, Texas, a protest outside an ICE detention center escalated into violence after fireworks were thrown and property was vandalized. Police arrived, leading to an exchange of gunfire; one officer was shot in the neck by a protester with an AR-15.
Convictions: Eight people were found guilty of riot, conspiracy to use/carry explosives, and material support for terrorism. One was convicted of attempted murder; another for evidence concealment—nine defendants total.
Legal process: Some had pled guilty earlier to material support; others testified for the prosecution.
Sentencing: Maximum sentences differ for those who pled out (up to 15 years) and those convicted at trial (potentially far longer).

Quote:

Garrison Davis (05:01): "The prosecution tried to argue 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."

2. The Planning and Evidence (07:33–12:40)

Action planning: Coordination was mainly on encrypted Signal chats ("4th of July party"); "gear checks" and in-person discussions preceded the protest.
Weapons: 11 firearms, body armor, first aid kits brought. Song, described as group leader, distributed rifles and organized range sessions.
Problematic language: In chats, Song was explicit about not wanting to go to jail and suggested bringing guns; even ideas about using "suppressive fire" to free detainees arose but were mostly dismissed.
Signal’s privacy failed: Crucial evidence came from push notification logs left on iPhones—highlighting opsec risks.

Quote:

Robert Evans (09:52): "If you're bringing a 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... are a lot lower. That's a real issue."

3. Self-Defense Arguments and Suppressive Fire (13:24–15:59)

Defense claim: Song shot at police as "suppressive fire," not intent to kill.
Legal rejection: The judge barred "self-defense" and "defense of others" arguments because the officer had not used deadly force yet.
Hosts’ view: Even as protest tactics, talking about "suppressive fire" and "not going to jail" is perilous—both legally and practically.

Quote:

Robert Evans (15:10): "If you're saying 'I had to shoot at someone in immediate self-defense' and then say 'but I wasn't actually aiming at them, I was just trying to suppress them', that immediately... can get you in trouble."

4. The Government's 'Antifa Cell' Narrative (19:22–24:39)

Prosecution narrative: Defendants were an "antifa cell," linked via Socialist Rifle Association, John Brown Gun Club, and Emma Goldman Book Club.
Expert witness: Government expert Schidler (from a hate group, per SPLC) defined antifa as a "militant enterprise" and drafted the case's definition.
Defense failures: Missed procedural deadlines hindered their ability to challenge this framing.
Ideological links used: Zines, stickers, pamphlets, and social media evidence admitted to assert conspiracy/motive.

Quote:

Judge Pittman (24:16): "'Whether it’s Antifa or the Methodist Women’s Auxiliary, why does it matter?' ... The prosecution argued that they took 'direct action' against the ICE facility and Black Bloc and antifa ideology were central to how the attack was carried out."

5. Zines, Evidence Tampering, and Charges of Concealment (27:35–32:35)

Zines: Prosecution showed radical literature as evidence of motive/intent, not as a crime itself.
Evidence tampering: Two defendants charged for moving a box of political zines; government argued this was to hide evidence.
Legal nuance: The actual possession of radical materials wasn’t criminalized—but their movement served as a basis for evidence tampering charges.

Quote:

Expert Witness (28:11): "'Just because I own a copy of Mein Kampf, does that make me a Nazi? If I own Das Kapital, does that make me a Marxist?'"

6. Pinkerton Liability and Chilling Precedent (35:58–39:04)

Pinkerton rule: Co-conspirators can be held responsible for actions of others if "reasonably foreseeable" and in furtherance of the conspiracy—even if not directly involved.
Jury outcome: All convicted of riot/material support/explosives charges, but only Song guilty of attempted murder.
Precedent: The use of Pinkerton to tie all present at a protest to acts committed by one can chill protest activity broadly.

7. Fireworks = Explosives, and Expanding Terrorism Charges (38:23–44:12)

Fireworks: Treated as "explosives" under federal law, leading to possibly wide application at other protests.
Material support for terrorism: Broadly used. To be convicted, the jury only needed to find material support was provided for any one of several possible "terrorism" crimes (property damage, using explosives, attempted murder).
Ambiguity: Law is so broad that mere presence, giving a ride, or being in the same chat can be construed as "material support."

Quote:

Garrison Davis (43:49): "Because the discharge is so broad and can contain a lot of things ... including just being merely present at an action ... personnel can be material support in furtherance of a federal crime of terrorism."

8. First Amendment & Legal Boundaries (44:12–47:54)

Judge’s instruction: Constitutionally protected speech can be evidence of motive/intent—but speech/association offering material support to a federal crime isn’t protected.
Implications: Organizers, group chat members, even those with indirect involvement could potentially face severe charges if present at an action where a crime occurs.

Quote:

Robert Evans (46:14): "As bleak as this is ... this is not the final say on how any case like this will be adjudicated everywhere."

9. Sentencing and Consequences (47:55–End)

Ranges: Song faces at least 20 years, up to life. Other main defendants: 10–60 years. Evidence tampering defendants: up to 40 years. Plea deals: up to 15 years, possibly lower with cooperation.
Other legal fallout: A state trial is pending for another defendant over Discord evidence tampering.
Chilling effect: The case is intended to scare activists away from collective action and organizing.

Quotes:

Robert Evans (48:40): "That's part of the point: to scare people ... make people feel like they can't trust other activists, ... scared to be in group chats."
Garrison Davis (50:14): "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."

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

Robert Evans (06:25): "Police officers have the right to pull guns on whoever they want whenever they want. Pretty much. So yeah. Yep. Cool."
Garrison Davis (10:46): "[The suppressive fire plan] was met with, quote, unquote, general disagreement, according to Kent."
Robert Evans (15:10): "If you're saying ... 'I wasn't actually aiming at them, I was just trying to suppress them' that immediately... can get you in trouble."
Garrison Davis (24:39): "The government described Black Bloc ... as 'dark clothing with head and face coverings ... designed to hide each individual's identity ... to aid and abet those members engaged in illegal acts by making members indistinguishable from one another.'"
Expert witness (28:11): "Just because I own a copy of Mein Kampf, does that make me a Nazi? If I own Das Kapital, does that make me a Marxist?"
Garrison Davis (38:23): "The only 'explosives' at this noise demonstration protest were fireworks. And the judge even confirmed that."
Robert Evans (46:14): "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."

Timestamps for Key Discussions

[02:55] — Main episode content begins, overview of case/charges
[07:33] — Breakdown of action planning and group chat evidence
[13:24] — Firearms, "suppressive fire," and legal self-defense
[19:22] — Antifa narrative, expert witness, and organizational links
[27:35] — Zines, evidence tampering, and concealment charges
[35:58] — Pinkerton conspiracy liability explained
[38:23] — Fireworks considered legal explosives
[40:30] — Detailed explainer: material support for terrorism charges
[44:12] — First Amendment, speech as evidence, and organizational risks
[47:55] — Sentencing, chilling effect, and closing reflections

Context & Tone

Final Thoughts & Warnings

Activist Caution: Both hosts strongly advise: if you're organizing or involved in protests, be extremely cautious about what you say, especially in writing or group chats.
Legal Precedent: This case, while Texas-specific, could serve as a dangerous template for federal prosecutions of protest activity elsewhere.
Not the End: The outcome is dire but not definitive for activist prosecution nationwide; future cases may differ, but the trend is worrying.

Final Quote:

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 careful, you know, folks, be careful.”

For more episodes and resources, visit Cool Zone Media.