Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
The four, Benjamin Daley, Thomas Gillen, Michael Miselis and Cole Evan White are facing up to 10 years in prison.
The press has gone into a frenzy of denunciations of the Four and it currently appears as if the defendants are being railroaded in a blatantly political trial. It is the substantially incorrect reporting leveled against politically unpopular people which causes me concern. As a Revisionist, I think facts matter to Justice, to fair reporting, and to History.
A typical example of the media bias is the Huff Post article, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/charlottesville-arrests-unite-the-right-rally_us_5bb3813de4b00fe9f4fac630.
The three Huff reporters are Ryan J. Reilly, Andy Campbell and Christopher Mathias. It is inconceivable to me that journalists writing about a case
where the operative fact is the crossing of state lines with the intent to riot would avoid all the facts which show that the defendants almost certainly could not have had such an intent. The defendants are being represented by brave public defenders but have already been denied bail.
Here are the facts overlooked by the Reporters 3, the Federal Prosecutor, and (so-far) the Court. You can judge for yourselves the probative value of the facts.
The first fact overlooked is that the 4 defendants were going to a legal assembly which had been given a governmental permit. It was as proper and correct as an assembly can be, which weighs against the intent to riot.
The second ignored fact is that the Charlottesville City government had worked closely with the event organizer to secure the event site from possible (illegal) counter-protestors. That is, the defendants all knew the assembly were going to have barricades and police separating them from anyone to riot with.
The third inconvenient fact was the circumstances of the violence; which rose from unexpected events. Approximately 1,000 counter-demonstrators poured into Charlottesville (many crossing state lines) with the announced illegal purpose of disrupting the legal demonstration. Included in this crowd were members of openly violent groups such as Anti-Racist Action, The Revolutionary Communist Party, the Metropolitan anarchist Coordinating Council, and Antifa. Ironically, these people clearly committed exactly the crime the four defendants are charged with.
Despite the announced pledge of the Charlottesville police, police not only failed to keep the the two sides apart but even stood aside as the people clashed. https://www.propublica.org/article/poli ... ottesville The concurrence of violent rioters arriving
and a breach of the police pledge could not have been known the the defendants when they left California and it is highly unlikely that the defendants crossed into Virginia with an intent to riot.
The FBI's own evidence supports this; The Affidavit in support of the arrest warrant makes a point at paragraph 28: The FBI seized bank records which show that the credit card of one of the Defendants was used on August 11, 2017, in Charlottesville, to buy white athletic tape, black spray paint and a folding knife. The FBI claims this shows an intent to riot. Well, maybe, but it shows that the defendants arrived in Virginia without their athletic tape or any other "weapon." This strongly implies that the Defendants had no expectation of a riot prior to arriving in Virginia. The three Huff investigative reporters missed this fact too.
The criticism of factual gaps in the article by Reilly, Campbell and Mathias could go on but the point here is that these guys are using their power as journalists to egg on a criminal prosecution and lie to the public. Obviously they hate the defendants and maybe they are justified in hating these four young men. But Reilly, Campbell and Mathias are writing propaganda not journalism. So are many other media outlets. What is disconcerting is that Justice Department is relying on the media to pursue cases.
U.S. Attorney Thomas Cullen, the prosecuting attorney, has already admitted that "The news organization ProPublica did in my view a fantastic job in piecing together some of the organized activities that occurred on Aug. 11 and Aug. 12, and the work that they did was certainly reviewed by our office as a starting point to understand a little bit about this particular group,”
- Carto's Cutlass Supreme
- Valuable asset
- Posts: 2351
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
- Location: Northern California
https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Be ... 275976.php
And was dismayed that it was packed with lies. And omissions: the fake news media always leaves out the angle of "right to assemble" of the First Amendment.
Similar to how the holocaust myth grew via the government working with the New York Times to spread lies, which then become "in the air" of public consciousness, as in "Nazi Death Factory Shocks Germans on Forced Tour" New York Times, April 18, 1945. Page 1. by Gene Currivan. Where, as I pointed out in my Buchenwald video, the article plagiarizes a government psych warfare movie script.
This press/government/agenda gestalt would be harder to pull off if the holocaust myth broke because people would then have before them the lesson of the holocaust myth, of how fake news happens, and how to spot it, before a world of ramifications ensue.
“We have been working on the ground and behind the scenes leading up to, during, and after the rally."
- Zionist Jew Anita Gray, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League.
must read: http://www.unz.com/article/how-the-jews ... ttesville/
The tide is turning.
Compare the Affidavit with the Propublica expose` at https://www.propublica.org/article/whit ... e-movement Racist, Violent, Unpunished
The most important part of an Affidavit is the Statement of Probable Cause, the facts which indicate that a crime was committed.
The FBI Affidavit begins with a quote from the RAM Twitter page,
Who we Are. RAM is a new organization dedicated to the promotion of an active lifestyle and common values among young people for our future. This is achieved through training, creative thinking, and activism."
The Affidavit admits that RAM promoted "clean living, physical fitness and martial arts. Nothing hateful there!
But then FBI quotes an extremist website article https://nocara.blackblogs.org/2017/07/06/diy-division/ A flavor of this FBI source can be shown in the first lines "Everyday brings us another story of growing far-Right insurgency and violence in defense of the crumbling illegitimacy of the Trump administration and the systems of patriarchy and white supremacy."
"In the face of this reality, Alt-Right trolls and ‘journalists,’ their friends at mainstream outlets like Fox, and the Trump administration itself, have all been quick to jump on anything that reeks of “left-wing” violence as a means of distracting and mobilizing their base."
The Affiant goes on to quote almost directly from the Propublica article but inaccurately describes two brief incidents of violence cited in the Affidavit as defendants "acts of rioting;" a scuffle where two people fell down and the throwing of water bottles back and forth.
Paragraphs 23-25 of Affidavit grossly misrepresents a scuffle that occurred as the United the Right participants from California were walking to the site of the legal assembly. A group of counter-demonstrators blocked the street with the intent of keeping the participants from getting to the assembly. The Unite the Right group tried to bypass the blockers by going up on the sidewalk.
The blockers can be seen rushing to block the sidewalk. Several blockers held on to the street sign and pushed against the UTR people. There was a scuffle and two blockers fell backwards off the sidewalk. While needless light blows were thrown, it was clearly part of an unplanned scuffle. There is a National Geographic video and the incident can be seen at 5:58 et seq. with the UTR group trying to get get past the protestors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDIfPhx-Fm0
The women with cut forehead may have banged against the pole or had her head cut with a shield. None of the defendants carried shields.
Because their case is so bad, the FBI's trying to get someone to "remember" that they were all planning to riot in Charlottesville every time they crossed a State line. BTW the Charlottesville 4 did not all travel together...another inconvenient fact for the Prosecution.
Police have raided the apartment of RAM social organizer Rob Rundo at 4 am on October 2 and seized his personal property. Apparently no warrant was shown to Rob. Rundo was also detained and interrogated in London - British police met him when he got off the airplane, and he was taken to a room and aggressively interrogated by a British officer for several hours, accused of being a "terrorist," which he rightly denied -- but then put on a flight back to the USA. When he landed in NY I believe several Homeland Security and maybe FBI people took him into a room and asked him questions -- Why was he leaving? Where was he going? Would he remember that people were planning to riot if they were easy on him? Rundo basically responded that he had an attorney and did not want to answer questions, but he did say he was not trying to "escape" - from what? he had never been charged, he had purchased a roundtrip ticket to Europe, and he was not a terrorist. After this questioning, the Homeland Security folks told Rundo he was not under arrest and was free to go.
All this because the FBI relied on biased and inaccurate reporters.
PS. Rob has posted a video on Youtube presenting his side of the story but it has been taken down by Youtube.
The government has expanded its claims with an Affidavit by an FBI agent who, prior to joining the FBI was an Infantry Officer trained for counter terrorism related missions across the globe."!! He writes, "I am familiar with terrorist organizations' methods of operation..."
As an aside, one wonders how calling in drones on suspected "terrorist" homes and mosques around the globe, prepares the agent for dealing with the rights of American citizens.
The point for Revisionists is to observe how political show trials can "create history" and how politically unpopular targets can be railroaded into jail.
There is a lot of irony in this trial relating to the Chicago 8...one of the first group of victims tried for violating 18 §2101
18 §2101 was part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. It was passed to deal with anti-War, Civil rights protestors, and other counter-cultural protests.
After the fiasco with the Chicago 8 the law has not been used much.
Prior to the Act, the Federal government stayed out of local fist fights and riot issues. But, using the concept of interstate commerce, the Feds have gotten involved in local scuffles. An example that the FBI cites as creating jurisdiction for prosecution is" defendants...traveled (from LA) ...to Berkeley in a van rented using a Visa card."
Also of concern is the constraints placed on speech by 18 §2101....Stripped of excess verbiage the law criminalizes,
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
What is a riot?
a)As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual. (b)As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests