Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews - 2/15/24 Leonard Goodman on Biden’s Attempt to Imprison Antiwar Dissidents

Episode Date: February 20, 2024

Scott is joined by Leonard Goodman, an attorney for the Uhuru Movement. The Uhuru Movement, or Uhuru 3, is a group of American black socialist activists who are currently being charged for spreading Russian propaganda and disinformation about the war in Ukraine. Scott and Goodman dig into the details and talk about how flimsy and dangerous the government’s case is. Discussed on the show: Glenn Greenwald’s video about the case Leonard Goodman is a criminal defense lawyer, a columnist and an Adjunct Professor of Law at DePaul. Follow him on Twitter @GoodmanLen This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Moon Does Artisan Coffee; Roberts and Robers Brokerage Incorporated; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; Libertas Bella; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott. Get Scott’s interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show. I'm the director of the Libertarian Institute, editorial director of anti-war.com, author of the book, Fool's Aaron, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and The Brand New, Enough Already, Time to End the War on Terrorism. And I've recorded more than 5,500 interviews since 2004. almost all on foreign policy and all available for you at scothorton dot for you can sign up the podcast feed there and the full interview archive is also available at youtube.com slash scott horton's show all right you guys up next is leonard goodman he's a lawyer from chicago and teaches law at de paul as well and he's representing the uhooro movement another extremely important free speech case uh going on right now uh welcome the show how you doing good how are you scott i'm doing great uh appreciate you joining us today so um this is you know i don't know what it is

part just free speech case but part also russia gate kookery going on here and you know if you think about like the the deflation of all the liberals when the muller report came out and they got nothing, you know? And now here we are years later, and they're like, oh, we got some black leftist. This is like the bastard step-grandson of Russia gay, you know, like long after even Ukraine gate is over and all of that. It's just the craziest thing.

So anyway, I'm already editorializing too much. Can you please tell us what in the world is the African People's Socialist Party and why are they going to prison? Well, well, first of all, hopefully they're not. going to prison. And yeah, there's, you know, I'm one of the lawyers on the case. There's, I think, four other lawyers, really great lawyers that are, you know, I think we're all, you know, working very hard to make sure that our clients are acquitted. And as you say, it's a really, it's a really troubling, dangerous case. It is an outgrowth of Russiagate. There's no question.

It's also directly related to the war in Ukraine because, so the African People Socialist Party has been around since I think 1972. The leader, Amali Eschatela, founded at 1972. Yeah, they're a black leftist group. They're activists. They are opposed to colonialism. They unite with African people all over the globe. And I think what, you know, and they've been on. the target i mean they've had the FBI has had um issues with the african people socialist

party over the years but the thing is they're non-violent um they are they have a pretty large following and they have their own they they have the ability to speak directly to their supporters because they have their own newspaper they have a radio station and so they don't They're harder to censor, I would say, which I think is important. You know, they don't have to speak through Google or, you know, Facebook. So I think that makes them somewhat of a threat. But yes, they've been critics of the U.S. government for 50 years. They, this indictment directly challenges their views in support of the war in Ukraine.

But those views didn't change. So in 2014, for example, the chairman was making speeches and publishing articles in their newspaper, which is called the Burning Speer, about the coup in Ukraine and the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine in 2014 and the involvement of the CIA. And they were harsh critics of that. They were harsh critics of U.S. involvement in arming Ukraine and in NATO expansion throughout the year. So you could look back, you know, five minutes of research in the Burning Spear paper will show you. I mean, this is long-held views. They opposed NATO expanding to the east and provoking Russia. They opposed arming Ukraine and threatening Russia with NATO weapons.

So this is all longstanding beliefs. What the indictment alleges is that, well, first of all, the indictment goes back to 2015, but they were not. The Fed started, got involved after the Russia's invasion in February of 2022, and the chairman and the party were vocal opponents of U.S. support for Ukraine. And in fact, the chairman gave a speech shortly after the war where he described Ukraine as a country armed to the teeth by the white colonizers, a place that Russia could not retreat anymore, and a dagger pointed right at the heart of Russia. So this was a speeches that he gave in February, in March of 2022. In July, their personal homes and their offices are raised. all of their computers and files are taken. They're raided by armed FBI agents, basically a SWAT team with like grenades, splash grenades. And then shortly after that, they're indicted and charged under this obscure statute, Section 18 U.S.C. 951, which charges them with being unregistered Russian agents.

And what the indictment alleges is that after the chairman took a trip to Moscow in 2015, After that, he became a Russian agent and was spreading Russian propaganda and disinformation. Now, of course, as I said, their views didn't change in any way. And the government doesn't even really allege that they changed. They just say that now he's speaking for Russia. And they're spreading Russian disinformation and propaganda. And one very interesting fact is that they've conceded because we said, well, what is the disinformation that they're spreading? Because what they're saying is identical to, you know, what prominent intellectuals in the U.S. are saying, like Jeffrey Sachs or John Meerschimer, about, you know, the U.S. and the NATO expansion and provoking Russia and the danger, which has been understood, you know, as you've talked about for many years, that, you know, Ukraine was really an existential point for Russia.

They can't let Ukraine be a NATO-armed state on their border. So the government's response to that is that, well, when we say disinformation, it doesn't mean false information. It means information that helps Russia. And they cite, in fact, they're going to call at trial, if the case makes it to trial, they're going to call two experts on Russia to talk about Russia tradecraft and how, you know, if you say these things, you're helping Russia, even if they're true. That's hilarious. I mean, did the judge bust out laughing when they said that in court?

Misinformation also includes true things that we just wish that you wouldn't think about, Your Honor? I wish, but no, the judge is, you know, I think, I can't really get into the mind of the judge, but right now this case, the motion to dismiss, so I maybe skipped over that. So we filed a motion to dismiss based on the First Amendment. And my fault, because I asked two broader questions there. But that's the occasion of the interview here is that the case is going ahead, right? Well, so here's where we're at.

We filed a motion to dismiss. And there was really good Supreme Court laws. It's with Supreme Court law on the First Amendment. So for example, probably the case we relied on centrally is a case DeJong. I think it's DeJong versus Orleans. Oregon. It's a 1937 case. And in that case, the Oregon struck, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a citizen who was speaking on behalf of the Communist Party. And the Supreme Court said that the only question to ask is whether the speech transcends the bound of freedom of

speech, which the Constitution protects. So you look at the utterances. And if those are lawful, then the speech is lawful. It doesn't matter if the speaker is connected to the Communist Party or Russia or whatever. You look at the contents of the speech. So that seems to be pretty definitive law from 1937 that said this indictment is unconstitutional. Because there is no argument here that any of their speech was unlawful. So you obviously, you know under the First Amendment. you know it doesn't protect if you incite a riot if you incite you know immediate unlawful

violence that's not protected it doesn't protect obscenity it doesn't protect crime so if you use speech to commit the crime of espionage or fraud that's not protected speech well it's conceded here that nothing that they none of their speeches or their articles transcended the bounds of protected speech So this case is, it really goes right to the heart of the First Amendment. And what, so we filed a motion to dismiss. It was heard by the magistrate judge. It was, we argued it back in September, and he issued his opinion about three weeks ago. Well, the magistrate can only make a recommendation, so it's up to the district judge to decide whether to dismiss the case.

So the magistrate finally issued his recommendation about three weeks ago, and he recommended denying the motion. And his logic was that, yes, free speech is protected, but if you speak on behalf of a foreign government, that is an act and that loses its First Amendment protection. This is a completely unprecedented ruling. There's no Supreme Court case that supports it. And now we filed an objection to the magistrate judge and asked the magistrate judge to reject, I'm sorry. sorry, we asked the district court judge, who is the Article III judge, who has the power to reject the recommendation of the magistrate. So that's where we're at right now, and we'll see, and I'm hopeful that the district judge is not going to want to sign his name to a ruling that really blows a hole in the First Amendment, because if you say we're speaking for, you're speaking on behalf of a foreign

government, you're speaking for Russia, which is, you know, the Russia gate. Well, basically, that, you know, has been going on for five years, as you point out, the Russia Gate hoax. Then you can remove protection. You can remove First Amendment protection from speech. I mean, that simply can't stand. Well, but are so are you really arguing that the Foreign Agent Registration Act itself is unconstitutional? No, because, well, first of all, this isn't a far, it's a little bit different. This statute is worse than FARA.

It's rarely used. But FARA is the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which also has criminal penalties. But the reason why they couldn't charge them under FARA is because FARA has a willfulness requirement. So they would have to show that they're sophisticated people that knew, like, lobbyists or something like that, where they knew they had an obligation to register. So in this case, they're saying that they took some money. But who did they take money from? A Russian or a Russian spy?

Yeah, the allegation and the indictment is, well, after the change. Chairman traveled to Moscow in 2015, participated in a conference. He developed a relationship with a Russian national, a man named Ayanov. And the government alleges that Ayonov is connected to the Kremlin. Like whether that's true or not, we really don't know. It's a matter in dispute, but they allege he's connected to the Kremlin. So basically he took – so when he developed this relationship, it was a relationship with a relationship with the Kremlin.

But in terms of the money, they received over – For six years of their alleged relationship with this guy, Ayanov, they received about $7,000. Most of it was to support a speaking tour in 2016, I believe, on the issue of reparations, which is an issue that they've, which is one of the issues that they've championed since 1972. So, you know, it's pretty absurd, but most of the money that they received was about, yeah, about seven. thousand dollars in in 2016 and it didn't even cover their speaking tour i mean they had you know they had brought witnesses along they had people they went to four different cities so you know their budget i think it was something like 12 13 000 yeah so it didn't even cover their

out-of-pocket expenses for one event um so to say that by receiving this allegedly receiving this money um that they became russian agents is is kind of strange credulity. What about precedent? You know, you mentioned one, I guess, but just how completely crazy is this for them to try to take this case? Do you think, I guess as a secondary question, that they're really trying to make an example out of these people so that they can now do this to others based on flimsier type connections? as you say, a statute with, you know, weaker constraints than even the FARA Act? Yeah. Yeah, because there's no, they don't have to prove, it's basically what they call it general intent statute.

So it doesn't matter what your state of mind was if you knew, because these people would have had no, I mean, the first they ever heard about some requirement to register was when the FBI showed up at their home at 6 a.m. you know and raided rated their home yeah importantly in violent swat raids right correct correct yeah so i i can't say what the intention is but you know it is quite dangerous and you know to get around i mean the absurd it first of all it's well known and we pointed this out to the judge um and he did not mention it and i'm sorry to the magistrate judge He didn't mention it in his recommendation, but, you know, so think tanks in Washington, D.C., it's well reported in papers like the New York Times, they've received tens of millions of dollars from Gulf states, governments, to publish op-eds and to try to influence public opinion about issues that are important to the donors. So, and those people are never charged or asked to register under FARA or have their homes rated with SWAT teams. Right.

Even when they have the most bare exploitation of loopholes where they just hire lawyers to then hire lobbyists or, you know, this kind of thing. And Ben Freeman at the Quincy Institute has done these massive studies of all of that. And you're talking about hundreds and hundreds, thousands of people involved in this. So it's not just like a few favored people. This is how Washington operates. As long as you're advocating for what the UAE wants, then that's fine. Exactly. In this case, what these black leftists are saying is essentially in line with the people of eastern Ukraine rather than the people of Western Ukraine.

And so that makes them the enemy of the state. That's right. And, you know, that's sort of the absurdity of it. So for the magistrate to find that your speech, basically for the magistrate to get around the Dijon case, which I mentioned, which seems to be right on point, what the magistrate said is here, unlike Dijon, this is a content neutral case, according to the magistrate. That means that any suppression of speech is incidental to the prosecution. So it's like a time, place, and manner restriction where you say, no loud noises after 10 o'clock. So you can give your speech, but you have to do it in the afternoon. You can't do it while people are sleeping.

That's a time, place, and manner restriction that is content neutral. It's not designed to stop people because of it. of their message. So he's comparing this case to that, whereas in the Dijon case, the defendants were targeted because they were connected to the Communist Party. So that's basically the fiction that is before the judge right now, to say that the government has no interest in their speech. It's only because they're connected to some foreign government, which is clearly absurd. It says right on the face of the indictment that they're being prosecuted for spreading Russian propaganda and disinformation. And plus, you know, it's well known as we just talked about that think tanks do

it all the time. They take tens of millions of dollars, not 7,000, but tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments to advocate and to influence public opinion and Congress on their behalf. And that's apparently completely fine. So I don't know how. how the district judge could sign off on an order saying that this case is a content-neutral case, and the government is the fact that they're against the war in Ukraine. Now, one of the points that I made in my objection to the district judge is, well, what if they were taking money from a Ukrainian national in order to have pro-war rallies? Do you really think that the federal government would be prosecuting them? Of course not.

I mean, nobody could believe that. They're prosecuted because they are prominent critics of the war in Ukraine. And they were critics right at a time when this government is trying to sell the war to the American public and get the American public to basically consent to their leaders in Congress spending tens of billions of dollars to arm Ukraine and to keep this fuel this war and to keep it going. Yeah. Hey, y'all, Scott here. Let me tell you about Roberts & Roberts Brokerage, Inc. Who knew?

Artificial bank credit expansion leads to price inflation and terribly distorted markets. If you've got any savings left at all, you need to protect them. You need to put some, at least, into precious metals. Well, Roberts and Roberts can set you up with the best deals on silver, gold, platinum, and palladium. And they've been doing this since 1977. Hey, if you just need some sound advice about sound. money. They're there for you too. Call Tim Fry and the guys

at 800-874-9760. That's 800-874-9760 or check them out at R-RBI.co. That's r-r-rbi.co. You'll be glad you did. Hey, y'all, you should sign up for my substack. It's Scott Horton's show.substack.com and if you do that, you'll get the interviews

a day before everybody else. But not only that, They'll be free of commercials. How do you like that? Pretty good, huh? Scott Horton's show.substack.com. Hey, y'all, Libertasbella.com is where you get Scott Horton's show and Libertarian Institute shirts, sweatshirts, mugs, and stickers and things, including the great top lobstas designs as well. See, that way it says on your shirt, why you're so smart. Libertas Bella, from the same great folks who bring you ammo.com for all your ammunition needs, too.

That's Libertasbella.com. Searchlight Pictures presents The Roses only in theaters August 29th From the director of Meet the Parents And the writer of Poor Things Comes The Roses Starring Academy Award winner

Olivia Coleman Academy Award nominee Benedict Cumberbatch Andy Samburg Kate McKinnon and Allison Janney A hilarious new comedy filled with drama excitement and a little bit of hatred

proving that marriage isn't always A Bed of Roses See The Roses Only in Theaters August 29th Get tickets now So, you know, on the Greenwald show, he played a clip of the founder explicitly denouncing the Russia Gate conspiracy theory that it was Russia that was behind the Black Lives Matter movement because they supposedly bought some Facebook ads that encourage people to show up at a Black Lives Matter rally one time or something. And he's talking about the absolute insult and how ridiculous it is and condescending it is that they're going to say, oh, no, American blacks are perfectly happy with this status. quo until the Russians come and make them all uppity again and this kind of thing and then

that's exactly what they're nailing him for and they're saying yeah you're only saying that because the Russians paid you off to say that and meanwhile and look this is extremely relevant although I don't know where you would draw the line but yeah it's important that this guy and his group they go back to SNCC in the 60s and he founded this group in the early 70s and they've been internationalist black communists of you know exactly how you categorize them this whole time longer than i've been alive and man i got a lot of white hair in my beard here so the idea that and then and so what they ran for an election they go oh you're now you're interfering in the election on behalf of russia and now when you complain about being black in america and thinking that you're

being treated unfairly now you're sewing discord on behalf of Russia. Now, I've got to tell you, I mean, as a line of crap, that's fine on MSNBC, and I'm sure all the white liberal women who watch that, believe it. But they're going to try to make that stick in court against a guy? Right. That the same speech he's been given for 50 years is now sowing discord on behalf of a foreign power because he's got $7,000 from a Russian national who it's not even in evidence is a

spy of any kind of. If they say he's tied to the Kremlin, that means they're not saying he's tied to the FSB. He's not tied to the GRU. Oh, he's, what, some he knows a political officer up there somewhere or something, and that's what they're going to hang on this guy? Is it

as nuts as I think, because I'm no lawyer, I don't know, but that's what it sounds like you're telling me here. It is that nuts and I, I mean, the fact is if we lose this motion, I don't see how they could possibly prove this case, because you're raising a lot of very, very good points. But for, it's a legal matter to get a case dismissed at this stage,

you know, to get an indictment dismissed, you basically have to argue that if, okay, the allegations are false. These guys are not Russian agents. It's absurd. They can't prove that at trial. But if it were true, it still would violate the Constitution to go forward with this prosecution. So for a motion to dismiss, you have to say, you have to assume that the allegation, and the complaint are true, it still is an unconstitutional prosecution and a dangerous prosecution. So, yes, it clearly is an absurdity of Russiagate to try to get people to believe that these people are acting on behalf of Russia. And when you say so in discord, that's right in the indictment. I think they use the word, yeah, dissidents or something.

But that's what activists do, right? I mean, Vietnam war activists were sowing discord in the United States. You make people think about their government and question their leaders and question why are we in Vietnam. You know, what is it, are we being told the truth about the progress of the war? Are we being told the truth about why we're there? Are we being told the truth about the reasons we went there? And, you know, that's sowing discord in the United States. You know, if you trip out and think about it, that's a pretty broad term, isn't it, discord?

It sure is. Who says there's anything negative about that at all, in fact? I mean, if you're a good activist, isn't that your goal to get people to think and question? I mean, if you're not causing some sort of discord, then you're probably not doing your job as an activist. Yeah, seriously. Well, and especially if you're a black internationalist revolutionary communist type, then it would seem like that's kind of part of the program. And that's been legal for a long time.

Just look at the Biden White House. They got it going on. Okay, that was the show. It wasn't that funny. But they are kind of commie. But, yeah, no. Just to correct one thing. Sure.

These people are, I don't think they don't identify as communist. They're socialist. Okay. So, I should, that's, thank you for that correction. I should just call them what they call themselves. It's fine because Red Star or whatever. They're, you know, they have their position and it's, uh, people can hear them explain it in their own words, not mine.

You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to disagree with them. Yeah. You know, it's about, it's about pure free speech because, you know, you take away, uh, there. I mean, it's almost even more to the point if they were like, you know, outright, anti-American revolutionary commie whatever because even more to the point we still got to protect them right even if they're Nazis

even if they're that's true you know whatever insane politics they might have if their rights aren't protected then none of ours are and of course like you're talking about the dissident case on Ukraine is the truth the government is wrong and is doing the wrong thing based on a bunch of lies everybody knows that so

I think that's kind of important for the story too, isn't it? You know, that Mearsheimer and Sacks that you quote, they're right. You know? Right. And I think people are starting to starting to, starting to, I think the tide is turning. And I think people are starting to realize that they've been misled, you know, since 2022. I mean, it's kind of shocking. You look at the New York Times and they don't even, when they talk about the Ukraine war, it's an unprovoked invasion. in February of 2022. They don't even talk about the background. They don't try to educate their readers about the context of this war. And that's what these guys are doing. And I think the reason why you're right, I mean, you can under the First Amendment,

advocate in theory, you know, the overthrow of the U.S., I suppose. But that is sort of a fine line because that's how they got around. Some of the only bad Supreme Court cases on free speech use sort of the communist threat. And they talk about hearings in Congress and findings in Congress that the Communist Party has, you know, has at its core the violent overthrow of the United States. And that's sort of how they got around, how some of the bad rulings came out saying that if you are a communist or if you're supporting, the communist ideology, that that could create a national security threat. So even if we go there,

these guys don't do that. There's no question. They're not advocating for the overthrow of the United States government. They're not advocating for violence. Their rallies are peaceful. So this is really a very stark, I think that's why it's going to be very difficult for the district court judge to sign off on this, to say that, yeah, these people are so dangerous. in basically having a political opinion about a war that's different from what the Biden administration opinion is. So I think that's what gives me hope that this case won't proceed to trial. And, you know, the Supreme Court has also been clear that just letting this case stand, having it pending, is quite dangerous for free speech. There's cases, I think the Dombrowski case

basically makes this point very well that says just having the case pending is a message to other activists that you better watch what you say because your home could be rated and you could be on trial in federal court and have to hire lawyers and so you know I think that's why this motion to dismiss is so important even though I'm confident that we're going to beat this case if it goes to trial in front of a jury. I still think it sets a really dangerous precedent to let it go forward. Yeah. Well, I mean, especially when, did I hear this right on the Greenwall show that the founder here, Mr. Yeshitella, is 81 years old? He's in his 80s. I'm not sure it's exact age. He's in his 80s. And he's facing how many years in prison? 15 maximum because

It's the 951 charge is 10, 10 year maximum, and then there's a conspiracy to violate 951, which is another five. And now, all right, listen, I mean, I know that this is stupid and wrong, but I got to pretend here. Are you sure there's nothing in their filings that say that these guys really conspired with Russia to sow discord and hurt our country or something? Like, this really is nothing, but they took some money and kept giving the same speeches. they always gave, and that's the sum of the case that they intend to bring to trial here. That is what they argue. They do argue that they've, well, they don't say they conspire. Yeah, they say they entered, that basically they became Russian agents after he visited Moscow.

But they don't explain that in any way other than saying, well, we have a receipt that says he took some money. And then, but we're filling in the rest with our imagination that they are, they are. But they make the bare allegation. But they don't say, well, Your Honor, we have. have top secret intercepts that show, but we can't tell you, but trust us, or anything like that? What they cite, they track the language of the statute, which says they're under the direction or control of Russia. So after the trip to Russia, all the speeches, which were identical to the

speeches they gave before the trip to Russia, but after the trip to Russia, those speeches are being done at the direction or control of Russia. So that's what the allegation. They don't have any specific allegation that they're making there beyond well he went there and then he came home he took some money and then he had that that doesn't that's an important point because on the indictment it's very bare bones and vague so they don't say well what is this agreement that he entered into with russia what are the terms of it what were his obligations under the agreement what was the compensation they were supposed to get because yeah that's a very important point that you make it's incredibly vague which is why it's so dangerous. I mean, to just say, we say you're speaking for Russia under the direction or

control of Russia. We don't have to go beyond that. We don't have to give you any details as to, you know, when did we sign this agreement? What is this agreement? What are the terms of it? We don't have to tell you that. We're just going to say that you speak for Russia for a foreign government and therefore we can't arrest you. We can raid your offices. We can take all your computers and your files. We can make you stand trial and hire lawyers. So, That's the danger. So just to be clear here, I mean, in terms of the legal process, you should have, at least, already received everything under Brady and all that that they intend to bring in their case against you, right?

Like, they don't... Correct. Okay. So we're not like awaiting the final shipment of documents where they might reveal that they're going a different direction with this evidence than you were aware of before or anything. Like, this is their case. The case is this guy's a... a political activist. He went there. He got some money from a guy that they say, but haven't demonstrated is connected somehow to the Kremlin, which is, again, a funny way of

putting it. And then that's it. And that's all you need to know. And that, Your Honor, amounts to direction. And this guy should get a life sentence now in the penitentiary and his two buddies too. Yeah. That's it. But I just, again, I want to sort of reiterate that right now we're add a motion to the Smith state. So we're not, I'm not talking about what the evidence is, but you're correct. It's an incredibly weak case. There's no question about that. And I'm, you know, willing to say that on the record. But right now, we're saying, even if the allegations are true, even if they were speaking for Russia, which they're not. Right. Even if they were, it is still unconstitutional under Jejong. You can't, you know, just because somebody has a relationship with a foreign country,

which they do all the line and do, which people do all the time, and we mentioned the think tanks. But even Chairman Omali Eschatela, he's probably traveled to 30 foreign government countries and aligned with them on certain issues where they have a similar ideology and they can work together. And maybe they've received financial support. I don't know. But he's traveled to Spain. He's traveled to Ireland and united with Ireland on certain issues that, you know, know, we're of common interest. So is that illegal if you have some sort of connection with a foreign government and you align ideologically with them on a certain issue? So that's really where we're at right now. Oh, all the Israel lobbyists in the audience sweating today. No,

I'm just kidding. Yeah, well, but like you say, I don't think they have anything to worry about because the positions they take are not a threat to the establishment. And to the government, they're not opposing wars and they're not opposing tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money going to fuel foreign conflicts overseas. If they were, they'd probably find themselves in trouble as well. Man, well, these people severely need the presumption of innocence going into this whole thing. I mean, this looks to me like the U.S. government really just lashing out with a vendetta here, trying to make an example out of this group that they take to be. weak enough to not be able to fight back and protect themselves and then to be able to use that precedent against all kinds of different people. You know, I was at a thing one time where a guy

came up to us and said, you know, we're really going to have to start taking money from foreign governments to finance our groups well enough that we can really make a difference here. And I was like, get this guy away from me. I don't even want to know what your name is. And I don't even think what he said was illegal. But man, I think that guy's a federal informant and I don't want nothing to do with whatever kind of weird entrapment scheme he's cooking up against me in fact I'm going outside to smoke I just you know what because

I'm rightfully paranoid about that kind of thing and as far as I know he was a perfectly good guy and he was actually arguing hey everybody else does it why do you think Saudi and Turkey and Israel and UAE get their way all the time it's because they spend so much money in this

town you know right of course so another reason I got on the plane came back to Texas but anyway Yeah. Well, but the thing is, it's really, it is not against the law for an activist group to take money from a foreign government. Now, if you're running for office, if you're running for mayor of St. Petersburg, Florida, you can't take money from a foreign national. But if you're an activist group, you can. There's no law against that. And so that's really not the issue. It's just that what the line is, is that you can't, according to the You can't be a secret spy. So this statute has only ever been used. I mean, this is another thing that we point out in the motion. I mean, this case is unique.

It's never, this statute has never been used to go after political speech ever. It's been used to go after secret lobbyists who, like the Rafikian case. In fact, it went after Flynn, his firm for having a secret deal with Turkey to try to get a Turkish dissident that Erdogan blamed for an attempted coup, and this guy was living in Pennsylvania, and so they hired this firm to use its connections to try and get the government to extradite this person. That's the Rafikian case. So that's a straight action item lobbyist. this our case is is nothing like that this is a pure political speech case these people have no connections they have no insider connections um their clients are they're not being funded by their

clients in any way other than you know what i told you the allegation of receiving trivial amounts of money over six years and as to say there's no connected crime like then they had to launder that money or any kind of thing like that nothing no these people are no there's no no allegation of fraud or any sort of impropriety. These people are pure activists, pure ideological actors. And, you know, the other thing that's, you know, that's important, you know, that you mentioned is, well, why would, I think the government maybe believe that they would be easy pickings.

Part of the reason is that because they're critics of both. the Democrats and the Republicans, I think no one really comes to their aid other than, you know, people like you in the media that will shed some light on this case. But the New York Times has had no interest in it, mainstream media, because they're harsh critics of the Biden administration and harsh critics of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. So they don't, you know, they don't have a lot of real voice and so maybe the government feels like they can shut them down and um stop their um the message that they're trying to spread among their activists yeah well listen it's heroic work that you're doing here and uh you serve as a great example to others that you know what if people

don't do the work it doesn't get done somebody's got to show up and represent these people in court or they're going to get nailed and so it's really important important what you're doing and for all the other lawyers who are helping you and and whoever's helping to contribute to that. It's a big deal. And because it's all of our necks up there on the chopping block, simple as that. We either have a First Amendment or we don't. Well, I say the same same to you, Scott, important work and, you know, shedding light on this because it is an important case. And if you care about the First Amendment, whether you like these people or not, this is a really dangerous precedent that the government would be setting if this case is allowed to go forward.

so thank you for for having me on and your attention to it yep absolutely all right well thanks a lot for coming on appreciate you okay scott bye aren't you guys that is Leonard goodman he is an attorney in chicago and a professor at DePaul representing the uhuru three the scott horton show anti-war radio can be heard on kpfk 90.7 fm in l aps radio dot com antiwar dot com Scott Horton.org and Libertarian Institute.org.