Texas
8 accused of antifa ties convicted on terrorism charges
DALLAS (AP) — A federal jury on Friday convicted eight people on terrorism charges over a shooting at a Texas immigration facility that federal prosecutors tied to antifa, the decentralized far-left movement that has become a target of the Trump administration.
One person was also found guilty of attempted murder after prosecutors say he opened fire last summer outside the Prairieland Detention Center outside of Fort Worth, wounding a police officer. The Justice Department called the violence an attack plotted by antifa operatives but attorneys for the accused denied that characterization, saying there were no antifa associations and that it was merely a demonstration with fireworks before gunshots broke out.
U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, an appointee of President Donald Trump, presided over the nearly three-week trial in Fort Worth. It was closely followed by legal experts and critics who called the proceedings a test of the lengths the government can go to punish protesters.
FBI Director Kash Patel had said the case was the first time charges of providing material support to terrorists had targeted people accused of being antifa members.
Short for “anti-fascists,” antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.
Defense attorneys told jurors that there was no plan for violence on July 4 outside the facility in Alvarado.
There were nine defendants on trial in all, eight of whom faced the charge of providing material support to terrorists, among other charges. The ninth defendant, Daniel Sanchez Estrada, was charged with corruptly concealing a document and conspiracy to conceal documents. He was found guilty of both.
Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said he can’t believe jurors “came to this conclusion.” Weinbel said he has deployed as a member of the Army several times in the defense of the U.S. and he’d hoped what he sacrificed “meant something.”
“But I feel like it turned its back on justice with this. ... The U.S. lost today with this verdict,” Weinbel said.
Prosecutor Shawn Smith told jurors during closing arguments that the group’s actions — including bringing firearms, first aid kids and wearing body armor — were all signals of the group having a nefarious intent. He said they practiced “antifa tactics,” and were “obsessed with operational security.”
Attorneys for the defendants have said there was no planned ambush and that protesters who brought firearms only did so for their own protection.
The terrorism charges followed Trump’s order last fall to designate antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. Those charges did not require a tie to any organization, and there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department’s list of foreign terror organizations. That’s in part because organizations operating within the United States are protected by broad First Amendment rights.
Critics of the Justice Department’s case have said the outcome could have wide-reaching effects on protests.
“That opposition is something that the government wants to squash so a case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” said Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, a progressive legal group.
Attorneys for the defendants have said most protesters began leaving when two guards from the center came outside. That was before any shots were fired.
Prosecutors said Benjamin Song, a former U.S. Marine Corps reservist, yelled “get to the rifles” and opened fire, striking one police officer who had just pulled up to the center.
Though it was Song who opened fire, prosecutors charged several other protesters with attempted murder of an officer and discharging a firearm as well but they were found not guilty. The prosecution had argued that from the group’s planning, it was foreseeable to those others that a shooting could happen.
The officer who was shot, Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross, testified that when responding to the scene he saw a person clad in all-black with their face covered and carrying a rifle. He told jurors he was shot with a round that went into his shoulder and out of his neck.
Song’s attorney, Phillip Hayes, told jurors during closing arguments that there wasn’t a call to arms before Gross arrived on the scene and “aggressively” pulled out his firearm. Hayes suggested that Song’s shots were “suppressive fire” and that a ricochet bullet is what hit the officer.
Leading up to the trial, several people pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists after being accused of supporting antifa. They face up to 15 years in prison at sentencing.
Some of them testified for the prosecution, including Seth Sikes, who said he went to detention center because he wanted to bring some joy to those held inside.
“I felt like I was doing the right thing,” he said.
London
BBC asks U.S. court to dismiss Trump’s $10B defamation suit
LONDON (AP) — The BBC filed a motion Monday asking a U.S. court to dismiss President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against it.
The British national broadcaster said that the Florida court where the case is expected to be heard does not have jurisdiction over it. It also argued that Trump could not show that it intended to misrepresent him.
Trump filed a lawsuit in December over the way a BBC documentary edited a speech he gave on Jan. 6, 2021. The claim seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and a further $5 billion for unfair trade practices.
Last month a judge at the federal court for the Southern District of Florida provisionally set a trial date for February 2027.
The BBC argued that the case should be thrown out because the documentary was never aired in Florida or the U.S.
In a 34-page document, the BBC also argued that Trump failed to “plausibly allege facts showing that defendants knowingly intended to create a false impression.”
Trump’s case “falls well short of the high bar of actual malice,” it added.
The documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — was aired days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
The program spliced together three quotes from two sections of a speech Trump made on Jan. 6, 2021, into what appeared to be one quote, in which Trump appeared to explicitly encourage his supporters to storm the Capitol building.
Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.
The broadcaster’s chairman has apologized to Trump over the edit of the speech, admitting that it gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action.” But the BBC rejects claims it defamed him. The furor triggered the resignations of the BBC’s top executive and its head of news last year.
8 accused of antifa ties convicted on terrorism charges
DALLAS (AP) — A federal jury on Friday convicted eight people on terrorism charges over a shooting at a Texas immigration facility that federal prosecutors tied to antifa, the decentralized far-left movement that has become a target of the Trump administration.
One person was also found guilty of attempted murder after prosecutors say he opened fire last summer outside the Prairieland Detention Center outside of Fort Worth, wounding a police officer. The Justice Department called the violence an attack plotted by antifa operatives but attorneys for the accused denied that characterization, saying there were no antifa associations and that it was merely a demonstration with fireworks before gunshots broke out.
U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, an appointee of President Donald Trump, presided over the nearly three-week trial in Fort Worth. It was closely followed by legal experts and critics who called the proceedings a test of the lengths the government can go to punish protesters.
FBI Director Kash Patel had said the case was the first time charges of providing material support to terrorists had targeted people accused of being antifa members.
Short for “anti-fascists,” antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.
Defense attorneys told jurors that there was no plan for violence on July 4 outside the facility in Alvarado.
There were nine defendants on trial in all, eight of whom faced the charge of providing material support to terrorists, among other charges. The ninth defendant, Daniel Sanchez Estrada, was charged with corruptly concealing a document and conspiracy to conceal documents. He was found guilty of both.
Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said he can’t believe jurors “came to this conclusion.” Weinbel said he has deployed as a member of the Army several times in the defense of the U.S. and he’d hoped what he sacrificed “meant something.”
“But I feel like it turned its back on justice with this. ... The U.S. lost today with this verdict,” Weinbel said.
Prosecutor Shawn Smith told jurors during closing arguments that the group’s actions — including bringing firearms, first aid kids and wearing body armor — were all signals of the group having a nefarious intent. He said they practiced “antifa tactics,” and were “obsessed with operational security.”
Attorneys for the defendants have said there was no planned ambush and that protesters who brought firearms only did so for their own protection.
The terrorism charges followed Trump’s order last fall to designate antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. Those charges did not require a tie to any organization, and there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department’s list of foreign terror organizations. That’s in part because organizations operating within the United States are protected by broad First Amendment rights.
Critics of the Justice Department’s case have said the outcome could have wide-reaching effects on protests.
“That opposition is something that the government wants to squash so a case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” said Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, a progressive legal group.
Attorneys for the defendants have said most protesters began leaving when two guards from the center came outside. That was before any shots were fired.
Prosecutors said Benjamin Song, a former U.S. Marine Corps reservist, yelled “get to the rifles” and opened fire, striking one police officer who had just pulled up to the center.
Though it was Song who opened fire, prosecutors charged several other protesters with attempted murder of an officer and discharging a firearm as well but they were found not guilty. The prosecution had argued that from the group’s planning, it was foreseeable to those others that a shooting could happen.
The officer who was shot, Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross, testified that when responding to the scene he saw a person clad in all-black with their face covered and carrying a rifle. He told jurors he was shot with a round that went into his shoulder and out of his neck.
Song’s attorney, Phillip Hayes, told jurors during closing arguments that there wasn’t a call to arms before Gross arrived on the scene and “aggressively” pulled out his firearm. Hayes suggested that Song’s shots were “suppressive fire” and that a ricochet bullet is what hit the officer.
Leading up to the trial, several people pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists after being accused of supporting antifa. They face up to 15 years in prison at sentencing.
Some of them testified for the prosecution, including Seth Sikes, who said he went to detention center because he wanted to bring some joy to those held inside.
“I felt like I was doing the right thing,” he said.
London
BBC asks U.S. court to dismiss Trump’s $10B defamation suit
LONDON (AP) — The BBC filed a motion Monday asking a U.S. court to dismiss President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against it.
The British national broadcaster said that the Florida court where the case is expected to be heard does not have jurisdiction over it. It also argued that Trump could not show that it intended to misrepresent him.
Trump filed a lawsuit in December over the way a BBC documentary edited a speech he gave on Jan. 6, 2021. The claim seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and a further $5 billion for unfair trade practices.
Last month a judge at the federal court for the Southern District of Florida provisionally set a trial date for February 2027.
The BBC argued that the case should be thrown out because the documentary was never aired in Florida or the U.S.
In a 34-page document, the BBC also argued that Trump failed to “plausibly allege facts showing that defendants knowingly intended to create a false impression.”
Trump’s case “falls well short of the high bar of actual malice,” it added.
The documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — was aired days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
The program spliced together three quotes from two sections of a speech Trump made on Jan. 6, 2021, into what appeared to be one quote, in which Trump appeared to explicitly encourage his supporters to storm the Capitol building.
Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.
The broadcaster’s chairman has apologized to Trump over the edit of the speech, admitting that it gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action.” But the BBC rejects claims it defamed him. The furor triggered the resignations of the BBC’s top executive and its head of news last year.
