Categories
Back Door Power Grab Commentary Corruption Links from other news sources. Media Woke Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Trump moves to declare antifa a domestic terrorist group.

Trump moves to declare antifa a domestic terrorist group.

This article originally appeared in the LA Times.

President Trump moved Monday to classify the broad left-wing, anti-fascist movement known as antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, opening up a new front in his battle with political foes and raising legal and ethical questions about how the U.S. government can prosecute a movement.

“Antifa is a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law,” Trump wrote in an executive order. “It uses illegal means to organize and execute a campaign of violence and terrorism nationwide to accomplish these goals.”

Militant activists who identify with Antifa have espoused an uncompromising philosophy of zero tolerance for fascists. Since the Republican president took office in 2017, protesters — concealing their identities with masks, dressing head to toe in black — have sparred with police to block a rightwing provocateur speaking at UC Berkeleyconfronted alt-right demonstrators with sticks, shields and chemical irritants in Charlottesville, Va., stormed a federal courthouse while protesting police brutality in Portland, Ore., and lobbed rocks at law enforcement as federal immigration agents ratcheted up raids in Los Angeles.

But critics warn Trump is utilizing right-wing activist Charlie Kirk’s recent killing to launch a sweeping government crackdown on his political opponents — and crush their constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly.

“I am very concerned that these actions are meant to punish disfavored dissent,” said Brian Levin, founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino.

In his order, Trump instructed all relevant federal departments and agencies to use their authority to “investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any and all illegal operations — especially those involving terrorist actions — conducted by Antifa or any person claiming to act on behalf of Antifa.”

Trump claimed his administration would also investigate and prosecute anyone who funded such an operation.

As justification, Trump cited recent protests that took place in L.A. and across the nation. Antifa, he said, used “coordinated efforts to obstruct enforcement of Federal laws through armed standoffs with law enforcement, organized riots, violent assaults on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement officers, and routine doxing of and other threats against political figures and activists.”

Trump is fixating on left-wing violence even as data show U.S. extremists come from across the ideological spectrum: A 2024 federal report — recently purged from the Department of Justice website — stated that far-right extremists have killed more Americans than any other group and outpace “all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremists.”

To Levin, the administration’s laser focus on antifa, a diffuse movement that does not rely on traditional hierarchies, risks threatening “the civil liberties, not of perpetrators of violence, but the far larger and more visible civil society network of peaceful supporters, messengers and funders.” Experts say some of the groups are highly organized at a local level, but don’t have national or international coordination, as far as we know, or public leaders.

There is no evidence that Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old suspect in Kirk’s murder, was affiliated with antifa or any other network. According to his mother, he had “started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented.” Officials have said that in a text thread with his partner, Robinson said he killed Kirk because he “had enough of his hatred.”

As Kirk’s shooting triggers furious debate on the perils of left versus right political violence, there is little consensus among Americans on what extremism is, who is perpetrating it and when it is justified.

A significant swath of Americans, some experts note, tend to excuse or ignore violence on their side and not recognize it as terrorism if they sympathize with the cause.

“The biggest problem we face is that there’s no agreement on what terrorism is and it’s become completely subjective,” said Bruce Hoffman, senior fellow for counter-terrorism and homeland security at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“Luigi Mangione, for example, is he a terrorist?” Hoffman asked. “I would say yes. … But look, there’s a sold-out musical about him!”

What is antifa?

The term “antifa” — short for antifascist — was coined in Germany nearly a century ago, as shorthand for the Communist Party-affiliated Antifaschistische Aktion (Anti-Fascist Action) group that mobilized against Adolf Hitler and was brutally crushed when he came to power.

According to Mark Bray, a professor of history at Rutgers University, the term was picked up across Europe in the 1980s and ’90s and adopted by a broad swath of leftists, anarchists and anti-authoritarian socialists.

“Antifa is a kind of politics of pan radical left militant opposition to the far right,” said Bray, an ally of the movement and author of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.”

In uniting socialists, anarchists, communists and other leftists to organize against what they perceive as a common threat, Bray said, antifa is like feminism.

“There are feminist groups,” he noted, “but feminism itself is not a group.”

The first U.S. organization to adopt the name was Rose City Antifa, founded in Portland in 2007. It’s goal, according to its website, is “to create a world without fascism” and “ensure that there are consequences for fascists who spread their hate and violence in our city.”

“We are unapologetic about the reality that fighting fascism at points requires physical militancy,” Rose City Antifa said in 2017 before facing off with far-right groups and police at a pro-Trump march.

Other groups across the U.S., such as NYC Antifa and Antifa Sacramento, are part of the same loose anti-fascist network, but many do not explicitly call themselves antifa. There is no central organization, no command, headquarters or formal membership list.

The movement has grown in response to the rise of Trump.

“Suddenly, anarchists and antifa, who have been demonized and sidelined by the wider Left have been hearing from liberals and Leftists, ‘you’ve been right all along,’” the anarchist, antifascist journal, It’s Going Down, said in 2016 after clashes broke out on a Texas campus as protesters tried to cancel an alt-right speaker.

Could Trump designate antifa a terrorist group?

Many national security experts agree that Trump would be cutting a radically new path if he designated antifa as a terrorism organization: The U.S. does not have a domestic terrorism law, and Trump does not have the authority to designate antifa a foreign terrorist organization without approval from Congress.

“While the FBI has confirmed that antifa and other extremists are subjects of ongoing domestic terrorism investigations, it declines to designate any organization a “‘domestic terrorist organization,” a 2020 congressional report said. “Doing so may infringe on First Amendment-protected free speech — belonging to an ideological group in and of itself is not a crime in the United States.”

Trump could try to go after antifa as an international organization, Hoffman said, pointing out that there are antifa cells active abroad. But it would be a stretch to designate antifa an international terrorist group because there’s no known international command, control or coordination.

“It’s not like al Qaeda or ISIS, where you have a command or an emir in charge giving orders,” Hoffman said. “It’s an ideological affinity. Nothing more.”

Is antifa engaged in domestic terrorism?

According to the FBI, terrorism is “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

For the Trump administration, the case is clear.

“Left-wing organizations have fueled violent riots, organized attacks against law enforcement officers, coordinated illegal doxing campaigns, arranged drop points for weapons and riot materials, and more,” a White House spokesperson said in a statement.

“These aren’t protests, these are crimes … where they are throwing bricks at cars of ICE and border patrol,” Trump said last week of the violence committed during demonstrations in Los Angeles over his administration’s immigration crackdown.

“They should be put in jail. What they’re doing to this country is really subversive.”

Bray rejected the idea that antifa is in any way a terrorist organization. “If by terrorists we mean something akin to Al Qaeda or ISIS with murdering people and blowing up buildings, it just is not any of that.”

However, Bray has written, most if not all antifa members “wholeheartedly support militant self-defense against the police and the targeted destruction of police and capitalist property.”

Hoffman argued that any acts of violence committed in pursuit of political goals constituted terrorism.

“Terrorism doesn’t have to be lethal to be terrorism,” he said. “There’s no doubt if violence, or the threat of violence, is being used in pursuit of a political motive, it’s terrorism. You have to call it out.”

2022 study from the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism said U.S. data showed “left-wing radicals were less likely to use violence than right-wing and Islamist radicals.”

While the consortium says antifa poses “a relatively small threat,” it also noted “a recent increase in violent activity by antifa extremists, anarchists and related far-left extremists” — a trend it links to the “concurrent increase in violent far-right activity.”

Should the U.S. enact a law on domestic terrorism?

In the 1990s, when President Clinton tried to enact sweeping domestic terrorism laws, Hoffman said, Republicans raised concerns about 1st Amendment violations.

“The bottom line is back then it was as politicized as it is now,” Hoffman said. “If there’s a meeting, basically one side of the room wants to designate antifa and Black Lives Matter, and the other side of the room wants to designate Atomwaffen [Division] or the Base.”

Ultimately, Hoffman said, the U.S. does need a clear and precise law on domestic terrorism. But now was not the best time, he argued, as emotions are running too high after the Kirk shooting.

“If you’re going to go to these lengths, to change the laws of the United States, you have to have very firm, clear evidence,” he said. “At a time when talk show hosts are being deplatformed, when people are fired from their jobs, this is not the ideal moment to embrace profound changes in how we regard terrorism.”

Share
Categories
Corruption COVID Drugs Reprints from others. The Courts

Fauci Can’t Recall Key Details During Deposition: Louisiana AG

Dr. Anthony Fauci said he could not recall key details about his actions during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to one of the officials who questioned him on Nov. 23.

Fauci, the director National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984 and President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, was deposed by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, both Republicans.

“It was amazing, literally, that we spent seven hours with Dr. Fauci—this is a man who single-handedly wrecked the U.S. economy based upon ‘the science, follow the science.’—and over the course of seven hours, we discovered that he can’t recall practically anything dealing with his COVID response,” Landry told The Epoch Times after leaving the deposition. “He just said, ‘I can’t recall, I haven’t seen that. And I think we need to put these documents into context,’” Landry added.

“It was extremely troubling to realize that this is a man who advises presidents of the United States and yet couldn’t recall information he put out, information he discussed, press conferences he held dealing with the COVID-19 response,” Landry added later.

Fauci and NIAID did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Landry declined to provide specific details about the deposition until it is made public, which will happen at a future date. But he said officials would be able to take some of what they learned to advance their case.

Landry and Schmitt sued the U.S. government in May, alleging it violated people’s First Amendment rights by pressuring big tech companies to censor speech. Documents produced by the government in response bolstered the claims. U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, the Trump appointee overseeing the case, recently ordered Fauci and seven other officials to testify under oath about their knowledge of the censorship.

Doughty concluded that plaintiffs showed Fauci “has personal knowledge about the issue concerning censorship across social media as it related to COVID-19 and ancillary issues of COVID-19.”

While Fauci qualified as a high-ranking official, the burden of him being deposed was outweighed by the court’s need for information before ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction, Doughty said.

Wednesday was the first time Fauci testified under oath about his interactions with big tech firms, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Before the deposition, Landry said in a statement, “We all deserve to know how involved Dr. Fauci was in the censorship of the American people during the COVID pandemic; tomorrow, I hope to find out.”

“We’re going to follow the evidence everywhere it goes to get down to exactly what has happened, to get down to the fact that our government used private entities to suppress the speech of Americans,” Landry told The Epoch Times.

Other Depositions

The government moved to block some of the depositions, but not Fauci’s. It just won an order blocking the depositions of Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly, and Rob Flaherty, a deputy assistant to Biden.

Similar efforts to block the depositions of former White House press secretary Jen Psaki and FBI official Elvis Chan have been unsuccessful.

Chan is scheduled to answer questions next week. Psaki is scheduled to be deposed on Dec. 8.

Chan was involved in communicating with Facebook, LinkedIn, and other big tech firms about content moderation, according to evidence developed in the case and public statements he’s made. Psaki publicly said while still in the White House that platforms should step up against alleged mis- and disinformation.

Plaintiffs have already deposed several officials including Daniel Kimmage, an official at the State Department’s Global Engagement Center.

That center worked with Easterly’s agency to create a coalition of nonprofits called the Election Integrity Partnership, which pushed social media companies to censor speech.

Kimmage was also responsible for meetings during which censorship was discussed, with State Department official Samaruddin Stewart acting on his orders, according to documents produced by LinkedIn.

Motion to Dismiss

Earlier Wednesday, the government asked Doughty to throw out the case, asserting that plaintiffs have not shown the government engaged in coercion against the companies.

Even if government officials “urged social media companies do more to contain misinformation, any content moderation decisions made by social media companies ultimately ‘rested with’ those companies,” U.S. lawyers said.

“Even emphatic requests or strongly worded urging, see … (President Biden saying failing to take action against misinformation results in ‘killing people’), do not plausibly amount to coercion,” the lawyers added.

Plaintiffs are crafting a response to the motion.

Both sides are also preparing briefs regarding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision that blocked the Murthy, Easterly, and Flaherty depositions.

The appeals court said Doughty had not adequately considered whether alternative means of obtaining the information sought exist, such as deposing lower-level officials or seeking written answers from higher-level officials.

Doughty ordered plaintiffs to file a brief by Nov. 29. The government has until Dec. 2 to respond. Plaintiffs may reply to that response by Dec. 5.


Funny how he can’t recall things that are already documented as happening.

Share