It Could Happen Here - Prairieland and Antifa Terrorism

Episode Date: March 23, 2026

Garrison and Robert discuss a trial stemming from a protest and shooting outside an ICE facility in Prairieland Texas, how the government secured convictions, and the possible precedent this case sets. Sources: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.410488/gov.uscourts.txnd.410488.367.0.pdf  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.410488/gov.uscourts.txnd.410488.366.0.pdf https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/antifa-cell-members-convicted-prairieland-ice-detention-center-shooting https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/f536e696-072c-4982-bc47-d2dc7f42f766/gov-uscourts-txnd-411041-89-0_1.pdf https://prairielanddefendants.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Superseding-Indictment-2.pdf https://www.keranews.org/criminal-justice/2026-03-03/prairieland-ice-detention-center-shooting-trial-defendants-self-defense-third-party-defense-theory-judge-mark-pittman https://prairielanddefendants.com/court-notes/march-3rd-federal-trial-day-7/ https://prairielanddefendants.com/court-notes/march-6th-federal-trial-day-10/ https://prairielanddefendants.com/court-notes/march-10-federal-trial-day-12/ https://prairielanddefendants.com/court-notes/march-10-federal-trial-day-12/#kyle-shideler-prosecutions-antifa-expert-redirect https://prairielanddefendants.com/court-notes/february-26-federal-trial-day-5/ https://prairielanddefendants.com/court-notes/february-27th-federal-trial-day-6/ https://prairielanddefendants.com/court-notes/march-9th-federal-trial-day-11/ https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41333 https://www.keranews.org/criminal-justice/2026-03-10/dario-sanchez-prairieland-ice-shootingSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Hi, it's Joe Interesting, host of the Spirit Daughter podcast, where we talk about astrology, natal charts, and how to step into your most vibrant life. And today I'm talking with my dear friend, Krista Williams. It can change you in the best way possible. Dance with the change. Dance with the breakdowns.

The embodiment of Pisces' intuition with Capricorn power moves. So I'm like delusionally proud of my charge. Listen to the Spirit Daughter podcast starting on February 24th on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcast. Ready for a different take on Formula One? Look no further than No Grip, a new podcast tackling the culture of motor racing's most coveted series. Join me, Lily Herman, as we dive into the under-explored pockets of F1, including the story of the woman who last participated in a Formula One race weekend, the recent uptick in F-1 romance novels, and plenty of mishap scandals and sagas that have made Formula One, a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years.

Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. In 2023, Bachelor star Clayton Eckerd was accused of fathering twins. But the pregnancy appeared to be a hoax. You doctored this particular test twice, Ms. Ellen, correct? I doctored the test ones. It took an army of internet detectives to uncover a disturbing pattern. Two more men who'd been through the same thing. Greg Gillespie and Michael Marantini.

My mind was blown. I'm Stephanie Young. This is Love Trapped. Laura, Scottsdale Police. As the season continues, Laura Owens finally faces consequences. Listen to Love Trapped podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Good people. What's up?

What's up? It's Questlove. So recently, I had the incredible opportunity to have a real conversation with actors and producer, Jamie Lee Curtis, from routines to recovery. true lies and a certain Jermaine Jackson music video. Jamie Serreal and Raw, and something I really admire about her.

I am so happy that I'm the head bitch in charge at 67, that I have the perspective that I have at my age, to really be able to put all of this into context. Listen to the Questlove show on the Iheart radio

app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Media. This is It Could Happen here. A showboat Things Falling Apart. I'm Garrison Davis. I'm joined by Robert Evans to discuss the Prairie Land trial. Yay!

This month, the Trump administration got their first conviction in an Antifa terrorism case. On Friday, March 13th, 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. Have they gotten sentenced yet, the folks who pled out? No, they are going to be sentenced later this summer, along with all the defendants that were convicted. Gotcha. Though their sentence will be a maximum of 15 years, which is shorter than the defendants who were convicted. Yeah.

Yeah. The Prairie Land Defendants Support Committee did ask me to read their names. The defendants are Ains Soto, Liz Soto, Savana Batten, Megan Morris, Autumn Hill, Mari Rueda, Benjamin Song, or B. Song, Zachary Evitz, and Des 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 4th. After protesters through 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 AR-15 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 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. 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. 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. 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 as being convicted of terrorism for wearing black clothes or possessing radical political writing, also known as zines. 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. Sure.

Let's start by getting into the action planning. This action was originally planned on the encrypted messaging app signal. primarily in a group chat called Fourth of July Party. Okay. 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 Fourth 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. Okay, that's a terrible thing to have in writing. Boy, okay, great. This sentiment was always, also expressed at the gear check meeting on July 3rd, where defundants discussed bringing guns, 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. 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. Yeah. This is what the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club had done, like, sweep defenses and stuff,

where they'd shown up armed. That incident was brought up. Yeah, that was specifically referenced. 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, like, a gun is a gun. And if you're bringing a gun into a situation... There's potential for that gun to be used. There's a 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. Yeah. Also at this gear check on the third,

Song proposed to free detainees using quote-unquote suppressive fire. Oh my God. 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, unquote, using quote-unquote suppressive fire. This idea was meant with, quote, unquote, general disagreement, according to Kent. Yeah, of course. Also saying that it was not seriously planned for or discussed. The support committee writes that Kent also testified that the group, quote, disgust stealing U-halls 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. Yeah, just a lot of really horrible things to have read out in a courtroom. It's just, yep, cool. Okay. On Signal Song shared a YouTube short about suppressive fire. Another defendant, Rada, 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.

Royedo 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. Yeah. According to support committee notes, some signal messages were recovered from phones using Apple's internal notification system. So even though signal had been removed. Yeah. 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 defendant's phones. Yeah. And this is a known. I mean, just the fact that having notifications on with Signal is a privacy issue has been known for a while. but yeah two defendants Liz Sojo and Savannah Baton 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 for state 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 Prairieland 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. Yep. I 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. Yeah. 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 counter with anyone, that's a thing to be very wary of. That's a real warning sign. Yeah, that's a real red flag.

Yeah. That's a real red flag. The defense argued that when saw a 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. No. And there really is no legal precedent for arguing suppressive fire in this way. In a self-defense shooting, no. If you're shooting the direction of someone, they absolutely can start shooting back, even if the fire is intended as being quote-unquote suppressive, right? Like there's really no legal precedent for for arguing in this way. 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 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. Especially if you're the one like initiating the use of deadly force. 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 it, whatever, that you're going to 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 from the jump.

Yeah. Some of the defendants attended a daytime protest outside of this facility earlier on July forth, and after which they then report it 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. Great. Well, I hate all of this so far, Garrison. Here's some ads. Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are at them. And that's why we're thrilled to

introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart and I'm Catherine Clark and in this podcast we interview Canada's most inspiring women entrepreneurs artists athletes politicians and newsmakers all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect then we hope you'll join us listen to the honest talk podcast on iHeart radio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Hi this is joe wintersteen host of the spirit daughter podcast where we talk about astrology, charts and how to step into your most vibrant life. And I just sat down with a mini driver. The Irish traveler said when I was 16, you're going to have a terrible time with men. Actor, storyteller, and unapologetic, Aquarian visionary. Aquarius is all about freedom-loving

and different perspectives. And I find a lot of people with strong placements in Aquarius are misunderstood. A son and Venus and Aquarius in her seventh house spark her unconventional approach to partnership. He really has taught me to embrace people sleeping in different rooms, on different houses and different places, but just an embracing of the isness of it all. If you're navigating your own transformation or just want to chart side view into how a leading artist integrates astrology, creativity, and real life, this episode is a must listen. Listen to the Spirit Daughter podcast starting on February 24th on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcast.

Why hasn't a woman formerly participated in a Formula One race weekend in over a decade? Think about how many skills they have to develop at such a young age? What can we learn from all of the new F1 romance novels suddenly popping up every year? He still smelled of podium champagne and expensive friction. And how did a 2023 event called Wagageddon change the paddock forever? That day is just seared into my memory. I'm culture writer and F1 expert Lily Herman and these are just a few of the questions

I'm tackling on No Grip, a Formula One culture podcast that dives into the under-explored pockets of the sport. In each episode, a different guest and I will go deeper into the wacky mishap, scandals and sagas, both on the track and far away from it, that have made F1 a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years.

Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Good people. What's up? It's Questlove. So recently, I had the incredible opportunity to have a real conversation with actress and producer Jamie Lee Curtis ahead of the release of her new thriller series, Scarpetta. I can honestly say I've never done an interview like that before. You know, at one point I shut my laptop down. And we just started chatting as old friends, recent Oscar recipient. So we have some commonality there. I predicted that, by the way. And you said these words to me, dust off your mantle. Yes. And I looked at you and I said, what?

And you said, dust off your mantle. And then I left and that was it. And then when all of that happened, I remember the next morning, I think I wanted to like write you and go, how did you know? Listen to the Questlove show on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I guess we're back. So let's talk about quote-unquote Antifa. Yeah, let's talk about quote-unquote Antifa. The government argued that the defendants were members of a quote-unquote,

North Texas Antifa cell. Uh-huh. The indictment describes Antifa as a, quote, militant enterprise made up of networks of individuals and small groups primarily ascribing to a 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 like a single sentence. It's left-wing anti-authoritarianism. Though the defendants never actually organized altogether 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. 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. a gold one, obviously being an anarchist. 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. I mean, yeah, the defendants

had connections to these groups, right? Sure. Yeah. And because these groups have an ideological underpinning that can be seen as being quite similar in some ways. Yeah. They're viewing that as part of the connection, that connects the individuals who were involved in these sorts of like organizations or community events. Yeah. And I'm not surprised that's how they try to argue it. Sure.

A sticky notepad found at the Soto residents contained passwords for the Emma Goldman Book Club Twitter account and an Antifa Dallas Fort Worth Twitter account. which prosecution used as evidence, licking defendants to quote-unquote Antifa. The government also called on David Kyle Schidler as an expert witness to testify about Antifa. 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 pretrial 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 Prairie Land Disp. 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 Pittman 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 Block, 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. Well, that's, yeah, that's positive at least.

I guess. The government described Blackblock for the purposes of this case as, quote, dark clothing with head and face coverings that concealed their identities, 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 ideal. 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, op-sec practices like, you know, Black Block are using Signal, were used as evidence that there was some sort of conspiracy at foot. 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 Block 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 a block like yeah yeah that's uh that's that's unfortunate

yeah i can see why the prosecution went with that line of argument but how does this relate to like terrorism right because right conspiracy and terrorism are different things yes 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 address and black block 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. Yeah. And this, this section of the plea written by the government, shows how the government is self-asserting the terrorism that happened at Prairie Land. Right.

There's been a lot of headlines talking about the role of zines at this trial. And zines did play a two-part role. Prosecution did argue that the presence of instructionary 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 text does not necessarily indicate group membership or personal allegiance to an ideology. Quote, just because I own a copy of Mind 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 here. Yeah, interesting call. But also, like, a valid argument, yeah. But this is true, right? Yes. And this is, I've seen people framing the verdict as having zines or whatever, like, it's an act of terrorism. and that's not what was decided here. No, what's happening here is a bit more complicated and harder to explain.

Yes. The other relevancy of zines to this case relates to the concealing documents charges against Des Estrada and his wife, Mari Raiuta, 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 Rueida called Des from jail on July 6th, 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, 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.

Rida talked about feds confiscating property. FBI special agent Whitworth said, in his opinion, Rada was concerned about the evidence. Rueira then voiced concern for her car, parked at the 2,400 block of 56th Street, which had her phone stored inside. This was the staging site before. before she went to the action. She then instructed Dez to, quote, unquote, tow it. My phone is in the back.

Do what you got to do. Just tow it, unquote. The support committee wrote that, quote, prosecution replayed this section, characterizing it as Rida trying to get rid of evidence. Rida 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. Des never actually got to this car or the phone. He explained that the vehicle would be repoed. But Royeda 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, Des mentioned that he had already been at the house and replied, quote, unquote, were 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 Des 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. Now, 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, Rada, 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 Des suspected they could be evidence. and that's why he moved them from his wife's house to this other location.

We're going to go in one more break and then return to discuss two more charges. Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are out of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women. Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers.

all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on IHeartRadio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Hi, this is Joe Winterstein, host of the Spirit Daughter podcast,

where we talk about astrology, natal charts, and how to step into your most vibrant life. And I just sat down with a mini driver. The Irish traveler said when I was 16, you're going to have a terrible time with men. Actor, storyteller, and unapologetic Aquarian visionary.

Aquarius is all about freedom-loving and different perspectives, and I find a lot of people with strong placements in Aquarius are misunderstood. A son and Venus and Aquarius in her seventh house spark her unconventional approach to partnership. He really has taught me to embrace people sleeping in different rooms, on different houses and different places, but just an embracing of the isness of it all.

If you're navigating your own transformation or just want a chart-side view into how a leading artist integrates astrology, creativity, and real life, this episode is a must listen. Listen to the Spirit Daughter podcast, starting on February 24th

on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcast. Why hasn't a woman formally participated in a Formula One race weekend in over a decade? Think about how many skills they have to develop at such a young age. What can we learn

from all of the new F1 romance novels suddenly popping up every year. He still smelled of podium champagne and expensive friction. And how did a 2023 event called Wagageddon change the paddock forever? That day is just seared into my memory. I'm culture writer and F1 expert Lily Herman, and these are just a few of the questions I'm tackling on no grip, a Formula One culture podcast that dives into the under-explored pockets of the sport. In each episode, a different guests and I will go deeper into the wacky mishap, scandals and sagas,

both on the track and far away from it, that have made F1 a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Good people, what's up, what's up? It's Questlove. So recently, I had the incredible opportunity to have a real conversation with actors and producer, Jamie Lee Curtis, ahead of the release of her new thriller series, Scarpetta. I can honestly say I've never done an interview like that before. You know, at one point I shut my laptop down. And we just started chatting as old friends, recent Oscar recipient.

So we have some commonality there. I predicted that, by the way. And you said these words to me, dust off your mantle. Yes. And I looked at you and I said, what? and you said dust off your mantle. And then I left and that was it. And then when all of that happened,

I remember the next morning, I think I wanted to like write you and go, how did you know? Listen to the Questlove show on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Okay, we're back. Nine of the counts, count one, two, four, and five through ten. cited Pinkerton v. 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 the conspiracy." 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 support to terrorism, and the explosive charge. The jury found all defendants that were charged 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 carry 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. Right. Yet, Stephen Brenneman, an ATS explosives, special agent, testified that fireworks meet the statutory definition of explosives under 18 U.S.C. Section 844I.J 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. Yep. If that happened now, it's possible that people at this protest could be charged with this conspiracy to use and carry an explosive. Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, they've clearly been arguing for this ever since 2020, right? Like fire, because it wasn't just Portland was in the only place where people were using fireworks. Generally, people were using fireworks as kind of a a response to the police using flashbacks, right? Like 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. 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 being dangerous. Yeah. 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 someone has been convicted of terrorism for XYZ, for using signal, for wearing black, black, 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, right? 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. Yeah. That's a long sentence. This is certainly a very confusing charge. Yeah. Now, this statute lists at least 28 possible terrorism offenses. Now, relevant to this case are three. 18 U.S. 844F, 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 13161, that's willful depredation against any property of the United States exceeding $1,000. 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 1,000. killing or attempting to kill an officer or employee of the United States. That's pretty self-explanatory. Yeah. 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 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.

But because of how the jury just writes guilty on this charge, we don't actually know what the specific justification they used to find this to be true. Right. Because the discharge 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. Right. 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 offense 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 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 their recode 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 part of an ongoing strategy the prosecution has done against protesters the past few years and in this case successfully. Yeah, and 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, this isn't the fucking U.S. Supreme Court. It's not even the Texas Supreme Court, right? Yeah. 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, 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 in 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 see that, you know, legal possession of firearms, firearms training and possession of political paraphernalia could bolster ideological links

between U and defendants, which could be used as evidence for a charge like this, right? Yep. For conspiracy charges, and that obviously is worrying. Now, a song faces a minimum penalty of 20 years, a maximum of life in prison. Other defendants at Prairie Land face sentences ranging from a minimum of 10 years to up to 6. 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. Yeah, that'll be interesting to watch, I guess. Yeah. This is bleak. 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, 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. No, these things do all relate to, or they're trying to be connected to, you know, actual crimes which did occur. And that's certainly the goal, by the way, that the right has, but that's not what they've

achieved quite yet. I mean, it's definitely a way to try to scare people out of organizing in the sense that, you know, you cannot be found a terrorist just by calling yourself like Antifa, 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 action, like shooting a power substation, then that Nazi and the other Nazis that he's organizing with, you know, could face terrorism charges. That is how those sorts of like cases work and a very similar thing is being done here. It's not the actual like political ideology necessarily at trial.

but organized with other people in furtherance of a political ideology is what the government is trying to suppress. Yep. Cool. Well, I don't have anything else to add at this point, you know? No, we'll certainly cover this one's sentencing happens later this year in June. 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. stay 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 of court stuff, because 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 here is a production of Coolzone Media. For more podcasts from Cool Zone Media, visit our website, Coolzonemedia.com. or check us out on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

You can now find sources for it could happen here listed directly. Hi, it's Joe Interesting, host of the Spirit Daughter podcast, where we talk about astrology, natal charts, and how to step into your most vibrant life. And today, I'm talking with my dear friend, Krista Williams. It can change you in the best way possible. Dance with the change. Dance with the breakdowns. The embodiment of Pisces intuition with Capitals.

Supercorn power moves. So I'm like delusionally proud of my chart. Listen to the Spirit Daughter podcast, starting on February 24th on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcast. Ready for a different take on Formula One? Look no further than No Grip, a new podcast tackling the culture of motor racing's most coveted series. Join me, Lily Herman, as we dive into the under-explored pockets of F1, including the story of the woman who last participated in a Formula One race weekend, the recent uptick in F1. one romance novels and plenty of mishap scandals and sagas that have made Formula One a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. In 2023, Bachelor star Clayton Eckerd was accused of fathering twins, but the pregnancy appeared to be a hoax. You doctored this particular test twice, Ms. Ellen's, correct? I doctored the test ones. It took an army of internet detectives to uncover a disturbing pattern. Two more men who'd been through the same thing. Greg Gillespie and Michael Mancini. My mind was blown. I'm Stephanie Young.

This is Love Trapped. Laura, Scottsdale Police. As the season continues, Laura Owens finally faces consequences. Listen to Love Trapped podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Good people. What's up? What's up? It's Questlove.

So recently, I had the incredible opportunity to have a real conversation. with an actress and producer, Jamie Lee Curtis, from routines to recovery, true lies, and a certain Jermaine Jackson music video, Jamie's surreal and raw, and something I really admire about her. I am so happy that I'm the head bitch in charge at 67, that I have the perspective that I have at my age,

to really be able to put all of this into context. Listen to the Questlove show on The Eyeheart, Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.