Declaring Antifa A Terrorist Organization Could Achieve Its Anti-Free Speech Agenda

Antifa_The_Anti-Fascist_HandbookBelow is my column in The Los Angeles Times on President Donald Trump’s declaration that Antifa would be designated as a terrorist organization. I have explained that such a designation would ordinarily be made for “foreign terrorist organizations” by the State Department.  It is also unnecessary. As I wrote recently, there is a case in New York that could be the perfect framing prosecution for treating rioting as domestic terrorism.

Ironically, Antifa is a vehemently anti-free speech organization and it could achieve that purpose if it is declared a terrorist organization.  Such a designation of the entire movement could prove highly damaging to free speech in this country.

Here is the column:


President Trump tweeted that his administration will designate “antifa,” a term used by some self-described anti-fascists, a “terrorist organization.”

We still do not have a clear idea of what groups are involved in these protests. As a long-standing critic of antifa, which has been a plague of college campuses, I have no sympathy for this militant, anti-free-speech movement. But President Trump’s declaration is legally dubious and constitutionally dangerous.

A president does not have power to declare an entity to be a terrorist organization. Such a designation under federal law is confined to “foreign terrorist” organizations — and for that reason, these designations are made through the U.S. State Department.

While many have dismissed the possibility of a terrorist designation for antifa because it is a domestic movement, the administration could make a slim, if highly challengeable, claim that antifa has international reach with supporters in other countries. It would be a stretch, but people should not assume that such a designation is impossible.

The administration could also move to bar travel and entry of those associated with the movement, including foreign associates. Most worrisome, such a designation can allow a broader crackdown, and even criminal charges, for those deemed to offer “material support” to the movement.

That, of course, raises serious constitutional concerns. This terrorist designation would raise chilling implications for free speech in the United States.

First, antifa is not a traditional organization. Indeed, it is designed not to have any specific leadership or structure that could be targeted by the government. It is an informal and amorphous collection of individuals and groups who hold militant and anarchist views. The designation of such an ambiguously defined group would allow the government to trigger criminal investigative and prosecution powers over a vaguely defined range of political activists.

Second, many people in the antifa movement engage in traditional acts of civil disobedience, from blocking roads to chaining themselves to doors. Many organizations have had members who have been investigated and prosecuted for criminal activity without being declared terrorist entities, ranging from hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan to more traditional political groups like Greenpeace.

If the government can designate a terrorist organization based on the conduct of some members, the criminalization of political speech could be virtually unlimited.

Finally, what we’ve seen across the country is spontaneous looting and rioting caused by pent-up anger and, in some cases, opportunistic crime. To suggest that antifa members are driving this damage overstates their importance and understates the problem.

We do not need to use the designation of terrorist organizations to curb acts of violence in this country.  When antifa members or others engage in criminal acts, we have ample criminal laws to use against them. Indeed, cases currently being prosecuted by the Justice Department for throwing Molotov cocktails in New York, including charges against two young attorneys, are likely to be framed as domestic terrorism without any formal designation.

As for the movement itself, all we all need to oppose antifa’s anti-free speech agenda with the strongest weapon in our arsenal: free speech itself.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a CBS and BBC legal analyst.


139 thoughts on “Declaring Antifa A Terrorist Organization Could Achieve Its Anti-Free Speech Agenda”

  1. This is rich. All the Trump snowflakes quaking in their boots over Antifa should finally be able to get a night’s rest and AG Barr fan quit spreading his BS.

    “For all the implications by President Trump and Attorney General William Barr that “Antifa” “terrorists” have hijacked protests against institutional police racism, none of the 22 criminal complaints representing the first wave of protest charges mention Antifa in any way.

    One case references anarchism as a motivating ideology, not anti-fascism. Another high-profile one in Las Vegas references the so-called “Boogaloo” far-right trend of provoking a race or civil war. ….”

  2. A striking letter from the Washington Supreme Court:

    “Dear Members of the Judiciary and the Legal Community:
    “We are compelled by recent events to join other state supreme courts around the nation in addressing our legal community.
    “The devaluation and degradation of black lives is not a recent event. It is a persistent and systemic injustice that predates this nation’s founding. But recent events have brought to the forefront of our collective consciousness a painful fact that is, for too many of our citizens, common knowledge: the injustices faced by black Americans are not relics of the past. We continue to see racialized policing and the overrepresentation of black Americans in every stage of our criminal and juvenile justice systems. Our institutions remain affected by the vestiges of slavery: Jim Crow laws that were never dismantled and racist court decisions that were never disavowed.
    “The legal community must recognize that we all bear responsibility for this on-going injustice, and that we are capable of taking steps to address it, if only we have the courage and the will. The injustice still plaguing our country has its roots in the individual and collective actions of many, and it cannot be addressed without the individual and collective actions of us all. …”

    1. What a crock. The Washington State Supreme Court shifted into left leaning activism awhile ago.

      Blacks are not overrepesented in prison. Their incarceration is in direct proportion to their criminal activity.

      1. You believe that “Blacks are not overrepesented in prison. Their incarceration is in direct proportion to their criminal activity,” but is it true?

        (Also, their claim about “overrepresentation of black Americans in every stage of our criminal and juvenile justice systems” was not solely about imprisonment.)

        There’s quite a bit of research about these issues, for example: (or you can choose other search terms if

        1. Sorry for the bad editing on my part. That should have ended “(or you can choose other search terms if you prefer)”

        2. Committed:
          Scholarship, when it comes to leftists, is a thing of the past. Lying to advance the cause is all that matters, What you fail to grapple with is that in each case, the perp was tried and convicted by judges and juries that heard the evidence and rendered the decision.The cops were not involved in that. So to make your theory work, every person involved — even the blacks on the juries and the bench — is complicit in overt racism. That sounds just so much bullshark that an intelligent ought to blush before suggesting it.

          1. The racism is mostly covert now and still systemic. It is a fact that blacks receive more harsh sentences for the same crime and that crimes with a white victim are punished more harshly than those with a black victim.

          2. In other words, you have no interest in reading and discussing the research, and you assume and assert “lying” without presenting a shred of evidence of it.

            You also make false assumptions in your own reasoning. As a simple example, if black judges didn’t assign longer sentences to blacks than whites for the same crimes, but some white judge assigned longer sentences to blacks than whites for the same crimes, you’d see longer sentences on average for blacks than whites for the same crimes without “blacks on … the bench [being] complicit in overt racism.”

        3. Commit– Mespo is right. Scholarship of merit is fading and many ‘studies’ are little more than political tools. Seth and maybe you wondered how I could doubt a study in Lancet on hydroxychloroquine that led WHO to stop supporting its use. Yes, how could I doubt any ‘study’? It soon became apparent the study was a shoddy fraud and this week Lancet withdrew it. Studies by activists are crap. I doubt you have been closely involved with criminal justice. Spend a few months actually being there and you will push your stack of ‘studies’ into the garbage bins.

          1. None of which is evidence that your claim (“Blacks are not overrepesented in prison. Their incarceration is in direct proportion to their criminal activity”) is **true**.

            You believe your claim.
            But if you will not test it against evidence — both confirming and disconfirming — then your belief is not factual, only opinion.

            I had no idea what Lancet article you were referring to, but it wasn’t hard to find, and here’s what the co-authors actually wrote about their request that the article be retracted:

            If anything, that indicates the opposite of what you claim, instead showing that scientists police research pretty well. But the bottom line is that instead of focusing on whether your claim is true, you tried to distract by focusing on medical research.

            Again, their claim was about “overrepresentation of black Americans in every stage of our criminal and juvenile justice systems.” If you have actual evidence — not simply personal belief — of that being false, present it.

    2. Commit, Republican policies have given Blacks justifiable anxieties.

      Voter I.D.’s Laws,
      Drug Testing For Unemployment Benefits
      Repeal of Every Obama Initiative
      Right To Work Laws,
      Rollbacks of Environmental Standards
      Opposition to Marijuana Legalization
      Efforts to Break Up Post Office
      Turning Courts Over to Federalist Society
      Efforts to Criminalize Abortion
      Rollbacks of Relief To For-Profit College Victims

      All these policies have a punitive effect on common, working people. But Blacks, in particular, could think these efforts are a case of means Whites being nasty racists.

      1. yeah whatever.Republicans I know are fine with legalization. Roger Stone is an advocate. So what. More BS

        you just want to keep the voting block that’s all

      2. Voter ID laws are racist? Seth, you bought into the racist idea that blacks are too stupid to get ID on their own. Black Caribbean countries have voter photo ID, and I have seen one when I asked to look. Yeah, whatever mental limitations you think they may have they actually can manage voter ID. One problem with leftists is that at some level they see blacks as pets rather than as people. They know it and many of them secretly despise white liberals for it,.

        1. Seth, you are a patronizing racist. I bet ‘some of your best friends’ are black which usually means you know the names of a couple of black people. Your are type. And not a good one.

        2. Dude, you have to be stupid to not know this. GOP officials have admitted it and it is the provable and designed result of their various methods to keep a minority of the voters in charge. That would be people like you.

          1. Book– Stupid even for you. The ‘minority’ of voters kept away by voter ID are illegals and dead people who manage to vote years after their ashes have been scattered on the ruins of Cabrini Green.

            1. There’s no evidence for Young’s BS. There is evidence that qualified voters are disenfranchised by GOP voter ID machinations. That’s why they do it and we have them admitting it.

          2. There was a video, maybe still available, of someone asking whites at Berkely if getting ID for voting was racist to blacks. They all said it was. Then they asked working class blacks the same qestion in Boston. They all said it wasn’t and some thought the question was insulting. It is insulting, and condescending. The fight against voter ID has nothing to do with race and everything to do with voter fraud. That is why black people in the Caribbean have voter ID. They know the potential for fraud as well as we do.

            1. Young, poor Blacks born in the Jim Crow South, and even after Jim Crow, were often born at home to parents that for one reason or another failed to get the births registered. This was not uncommon in poor rural areas.

              Because those births were never registered, getting State I.D.’s and Drivers Licenses requires a lawyer and extensive hassles. And that’s the whole concept behind Vote I.D. laws, to create extensive hassles for poor Blacks.

              1. LAUGHING.
                The demon party has million$ and lawyer$, instead of whining get your crybaby rear ends down in the ghettos and get it done, instead of spending million$ on yourselves to fly all over the world whining.

                Oh, wait… if you actually did help make them real Americans by legal ID, you’d lose your lying whining illegal crime plot to steal elections…

                You people are sick.You keep ’em down, so you can pull your criminal power trips.

              2. Seth– They have no trouble getting ID now. Face it, you are racist and are convinced blacks are too stupid to know how to get ID these days. You have a familiar attitude, that of the old slaveowners– treat them like children. Yet despite your contempt for them they manage to get ID for welfare and food stamps and everything else for which ID is needed.

                If the idea behind voter ID is to oppress blacks why do black countries in the Caribbean require voter ID?

                1. Shakdi, once again you’re pretending to score imaginary debate points. But you haven’t written anything of substance. It’s just a hairball of an arguement buttressed by Young’s “exactly”.

                2. Young, right now Trump’s standing with Blacks is probably in the single digits. But you’re pretending everything’s fine and Blacks are perfectly happy. Which reveals you as someone deep within the rightwing bubble.

                3. ACLU Fact Sheet:

                  Voter ID laws deprive many voters of their right to vote, reduce participation, and stand in direct opposition to our country’s trend of including more Americans in the democratic process. Many Americans do not have one of the forms of identification states acceptable for voting. These voters are disproportionately low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Such voters more frequently have difficulty obtaining ID, because they cannot afford or cannot obtain the underlying documents that are a prerequisite to obtaining government-issued photo ID card.

                  Voter ID Laws Deprive Many Americans of the Right to Vote
                  Millions of Americans Lack ID. 11% of U.S. citizens – or more than 21 million Americans – do not have government-issued photo identification.1
                  Obtaining ID Costs Money. Even if ID is offered for free, voters must incur numerous costs (such as paying for birth certificates) to apply for a government-issued ID.
                  Underlying documents required to obtain ID cost money, a significant expense for lower-income Americans. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.2
                  The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation. In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office.3
                  Voter ID Laws Reduce Voter Turnout. A 2014 GAO study found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points,4 which can translate into tens of thousands of votes lost in a single state.5
                  Voter ID Laws Are Discriminatory
                  Minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.6
                  States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards. Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. And until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting.
                  Voter ID laws are enforced in a discriminatory manner. A Caltech/MIT study found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters.7
                  Voter ID laws reduce turnout among minority voters. Several studies, including a 2014 GAO study, have found that photo ID laws have a particularly depressive effect on turnout among racial minorities and other vulnerable groups, worsening the participation gap between voters of color and whites.8
                  Voter ID Requirements are a Solution in Search of a Problem
                  In-person fraud is vanishingly rare. A recent study found that, since 2000, there were only 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation – the only type of fraud that photo IDs could prevent – during a period of time in which over 1 billion ballots were cast.9
                  Identified instances of “fraud” are honest mistakes. So-called cases of in-person impersonation voter “fraud” are almost always the product of an elections worker or a voter making an honest mistake, and that even these mistakes are extremely infrequent.10
                  Voter ID laws are a waste of taxpayer dollars. States incur sizeable costs when implementing voter ID laws, including the cost of educating the public, training poll workers, and providing IDs to voters.
                  Texas spent nearly $2 million on voter education and outreach efforts following passage of its Voter ID law.11
                  Indiana spent over $10 million to produce free ID cards between 2007 and 2010.12
                  The ACLU has led the charge against Voter ID in several states, challenging voter ID laws in in states such as Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. For more information, please contact Robert Hoffman at or visit to learn more.

                  1. blah blah blach. who cares what ACLU says about voting. they are biased in favor of their own petty rackets. they don’t care about our nation as a whole. im convinced of this from decades of close observation in their operations. ever been to an ACLU meeting folks? I have.

              3. Peter – one of my college roommates’ father was born in a sod house on the plains of Nebraska in the middle of the winter. They didn’t even know what the date was to put his birth in the Bible. The guesstimated the date.

                1. Paul– Anynody who has done genealogy or proved lineage for membership in the DAR or Mayflower Society knows you don’t have to go very far back before relying on entries in a big family Bible or similar documentation to prove lineage. Seth is a shill and, apparently, willing to be a racist to push the party agenda.

                2. Yeah, Paul, some Whites are also affected by Voter I.D. laws. That again is especially true in poor, rural areas of the South.

          3. I could care less if black people can’t be bothered to bring their driver’s licenses to vote.

            you need a driver’s license to do anything these days. voting should not be so much easier than every other daily function which calls for an ID.

            you can call me racist, maybe i am

            but maybe you are too in your own weird way. maybe you are implying blacks are too disorganized or…. here it comes….. lazy? to find their IDs and go vote? is that what you’re saying, book?

            i think a black voter who is well organized enough to find his ID and get up and vote is welcome to do so. i celebrate his or her civil participation in our elections.

            but yeah they need an id. simple easy requirement.

            I’m also on record for literacy tests too. there’s nothing inherently bad about less people voting if the less people are people who are illiterate. literacy is a desirable and a very low bar.

            I would exclude retarded people too while we’re at it. not sure how that could be done efficiently, however, so it’s not worth the bother.

  3. From the ACLU of DC:

    “Protesters who were attacked with tear gas and other weapons by federal troops in front of the White House Monday evening as they were demonstrating against police brutality sued President Donald Trump, Attorney General William Barr, and numerous other federal officials today for violating their constitutional rights and engaging in an unlawful conspiracy to violate those rights.

    “The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Black Lives Matter D.C. and individual protesters today by the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the law firm of Arnold & Porter. …

    “The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and seeks an order declaring President Trump, Attorney General Barr, and other administration officials violated the protesters’ First and Fourth Amendment rights, as well as engaged in a conspiracy to deny those rights. The lawsuit seeks on order barring the officials from repeating the unlawful activities, and damages for the injuries plaintiffs sustained. The complaint can be found here: …”

    1. That’s a lawsuit unlikely to make it past a motion for summary judgment. The Park Service has already said no tear gas was used. There should be substantial penalties for organizations that file prima facie bogus suits.
      Maybe a cross claim making the ACLU a party to the litigation with skin in the game could be worked out. Hit back every time.

      1. Maybe a claim of champerty against the ACLU could be developed though I don’t recall off the top of my head if that is still a good tort.

          1. I would like to see it a silly lawsuit that turns around like pit bull and tears a chunk out of their butts.

          2. Barratry is good too. I would like to see barratry and champerty combined in a single complaint against these organizations. You know they are often doing for a fat award of attorney’s fees. It is a profit generating activity. Repeated assaults on their tax exemptions might serve as well. They most certainly do not seem to be nonpartisan. Time to hit back at the actual troublemakers.

            1. oh yeah. SPLC is another barratry and champertry operation. and a phony nonprofit status too, and a donor-fraud operation masquerading as a law firm

              the silver lining is they mostly cheat liberal suckers for donations so that’s a plus

  4. We have had domestic terrorist organizations before. Going back to the ’70s, we had the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and Hell’s Angels motocycle gangs I’m defining a domestic terrorist organization as an association of coordinating individuals united around political activism and using violence or threats of violence to bully/intimidate desired political change. I’m willing to soften the motive element to mere “self-gratification”/”self-glorification”, anticipating that in the future loose networks of anarchists will terrorize straight society as a video game, for entertainment. So, political motives are not a necessary element. It could also be a profit motive, for instance a gun manufacturer hires criminals to stage a spectacular violent incident that they believe will amp up gun sales. That would meet my definition of domestic terrorism.

    I don’t understand what is currently lacking in our FBI’s empowerments to infiltrate and surveil such groups.

    I don’t see how the USG making a formal declaration of fighting a terrorist group helps — the group can splinter and reorganize to counter that action.
    Better to NOT advertise government concern.

    1. Don’t you think you’re overstating “the democrats”?? I heard a couple of leftist radicals, one a Congresswoman. Try not to aggrandize your opponent in your mind, even though, I understand, media voices get paid to plant such wild exaggerations there.

      1. No not at all. They seem to be tripping all over themselves to chastise law enforcement. If I were a cop there is no way I could vote for a democrat. Check out the actions of the democrat mayors and governors over the past week. The police are treated with very little respect and are expected to keep taking it. As far as I’m concerned, DeBlasio is the poster boy for being a contemporary democrat.

    2. Oh please let it happen! Please let it happen!

      In all those Blue states and cities where they have disarmed the good decent white citizens! Oh please let them defund the police!

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  5. First, antifa is not a traditional organization. Indeed, it is designed not to have any specific leadership or structure that could be targeted by the government. It is an informal and amorphous collection of individuals and groups who hold militant and anarchist views.

    Not traditional, but designed to avoid targeting by the government? I didn’t go to law school, but isn’t this also the motivation of traditional, organized criminal and terrorist organizations? Do they need to be formally organized to fit our legal definitions, or do we need to change our legal definitions to catch up with how they are informally organized?

    I tell you what; when one of these disorganized, informal, amorphous collection of militants and anarchists destroy property, injure and murder their fellow citizens, the government might believe they have been hamstrung by our legal system, but law-abiding citizens will not sit around and wait for the lawyers to finish haggling over what to call them before they decide to take matters into their own hands. Sadly however, from what we’ve seen, the government will have no problem infringing the rights of the law-abiding citizens, while they fiddle away what remains of this country.

  6. Shot in the dark– Was there a crowd around when Floyd was taken down? Was the crowd heavily black?

    If that is the case the arresting officers may have had to divide their attention between Floyd and the crowd. There have been many instances lately when a crowd of blacks attacked police making an arrest. Time flows differently when one is under threat.

    1. I bet you’re capable of looking up the videos to answer your question.

      You’ll find that the bystanders did not “attack[] police making an arrest.”

      1. Commit– They didn’t have to attack to create a problem. It would be quite enough for them to yell and distract and raise the possibility of intereference to cause a sense of time dilation.

        Given the appearance of a crowd with some of them yelling the police could easily be unaware how long Floyd had been held down.

        I would consider that a possibility if I were defending the case.

  7. Stand fast, fear not. A knight in shinning armor is coming to the rescue. And will slay the children of disobedience with his sword of love.


    Project Veritas Exposes Inner Workings of Antifa [VIDEO]

    June 4, 2020

    Project Veritas has done it again. This time they exposed the domestic terrorists known as Antifa. Learn what they teach their recruits and study their methods and you will see why they are the darling of the Democratic party.

    Nicholas Cifuni, Rose City Antifa: “Practice Things Like an Eye Gouge, it Takes Very Little Pressure to Injure Someone’s Eyes.”

    Nicholas Cifuni, Rose City Antifa: “Police Are Going to Be Like: ‘Perfect, We Can Prosecute These [Antifa] F**kers, Look How Violent They Are.’ And Not That We [Antifa] Aren’t, But We Need to F**king Hide That Sh*t.”

    Nicholas Cifuni, Rose City Antifa: “Consider Like, Destroying Your Enemy. Not Like Delivering a Really Awesome Right Hand, Right Eye, Left Eye Blow You Know. It’s Not Boxing, It’s Not Kickboxing, It’s Like Destroying Your Enemy.”

    Ashes, Rose City Antifa: “The Whole Goal of This, Right, is to Get Out There and do Dangerous Things as Safely as Possible.”

    The Project Veritas Undercover Journalist said:

    “Depending on the setting, if I were to be caught or found out in a setting where I am present with them, it could escalate to violence against me.”

    James O’Keefe added:

    “Project Veritas does not condone any violence whatsoever. It is a sad time in our
    nation’s history with Antifa activists hijacking #blacklivesmatter protests in cities across the country, attacking the police and engaging in violence.”

    In many places, it appears the violence is planned, organized & driven by anarchic left extremist groups — far-left extremist groups using Antifa-like tactics.”

    From Project Veritas

    “They do not hesitate to either push back or incite some kind of violence. In our classes and in our meetings, before we do any sort of demonstration or Black Bloc, we talk about weapons detail and what we carry and what we should have,” said the Project Veritas Undercover Journalist.

    Earlier this week, President Donald Trump said the United States would designate “Antifa” as a terrorist organization.

    National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien echoed Trump’s comments Sunday morning, saying the violence “is being driven by ‘Antifa.’”

    Attorney General William Barr announced in a statement that he will enforce action against the group, saying “violent radical elements” are hijacking legitimate protests to “pursue their own separate, violent, and extremist agenda.”

    Anyone with additional information about the ongoing civil unrest or a different story
    is urged to email:

  9. undercover journalist team of O’Keefe infiltrates violent ANTIFA cell preparing for insurrection

    watch the video of their clandestine meeting where they discuss riot and violence tactics and how to avoid getting prosecuted for their crimes

    clearly they are not only a group of anarchist thugs but also receiving funding. it’s up to FBI and legitimate law enforcement at all levels, to find out who and put a stop to this terror and racketeering

  10. The only anti-free-speech agenda that has happened of late, happened in front of the WH. With the WH approval.

    1. @fishwings

      That’s right! What the glorious masked warriors of antifa do is self defense. No free speech for fascists, so what’s the problem?


      1. “Authorities have made 51 arrests for federal crimes related to rioting, Attorney General William Barr said Thursday, blaming the violence and destruction on antifa as well as agitators “of a variety of different political persuasions.”

        Mr. Barr, who has deployed all federal law-enforcement agencies to help quell the unrest, also said the federal investigation into the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, which sparked demonstrations nationwide, is continuing.

        “While the vast majority of police officers do their jobs bravely and righteously, it is undeniable that many African Americans lack confidence in our American justice system,” he said. “This must change.

        Antifa, which is short for antifascist, refers to a loose affiliation of far-left groups and individuals who say they believe in confronting those they consider racist, anti-Semitic or fascist, including through violence.“

        – WSJ

  11. “We still do not have a clear idea of what groups are involved in these protests.”

    – Professor Turley

    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

    – Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 500 BC

    If America does not know who the organized violent participants are, it is because America does not want to “know” who the organized, violent participants are.

    In fact, America knows full well who the organizers, leaders and members of these violent forces are.

    America even knows the names of the instigators-of-high-office who are hidden by “cut-outs” are.


    Derek Chauvin now faces a charge of second-degree murder in addition to earlier charges, and three other former Minneapolis police officers who were involved in George Floyd’s death face charges of aiding and abetting murder, according to new court documents.

    In addition to Chauvin, the three other officers named in criminal complaints are Tou Thao, J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas K. Lane. All four police officers were fired one day after Floyd died on Memorial Day.

    Criminal complaints against the four were formally filed Wednesday, as Brian Bakst of Minnesota Public Radio reports.

    Chauvin, who is white, was initially charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter in Hennepin County last week after a video showed he pinned his knee on the black man’s neck for nearly nine minutes. But the higher charge has now been added, days after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz asked Ellison to lead the prosecution.

    The second-degree murder charge carries a maximum penalty of 40 years in prison; the third-degree charge has a 25-year maximum sentence.

    The charge against Chauvin is categorized as “Second Degree Murder – Unintentional – While Committing A Felony.”

    Discussing that charge, Ellison said, “According to Minnesota law, you have to have premeditation and deliberation to charge first-degree murder. Second-degree murder, you have to intend for death to be the result. For second-degree felony murder, you have to intend the felony and then death be the result — without necessarily having it be the intent.”

    When asked about the felony in question, he said, “We would contend that George Floyd was assaulted, so that would be the underlying felony.”

    The Hennepin County medical examiner has ruled that Floyd’s death was a homicide, saying on Monday that the 46-year-old’s heart and lungs had ceased functioning “while [he was] being restrained” by law enforcement officers.

    Floyd was pronounced dead shortly after his encounter with Chauvin and the other officers. Video of the incident shows that the other officers did not intervene while Chauvin kept his knee pressed on Floyd’s neck, despite the stricken man’s pleas of “I can’t breathe.”

    Keung and Lane held Floyd’s back and legs after the officers tried unsuccessfully to get him into the back of a squad car, according to the criminal complaint, which states: “Officer Chauvin placed his left knee in the area of Mr. Floyd’s head and neck. Mr. Floyd said, ‘I can’t breathe’ multiple times and repeatedly said, ‘Mama’ and ‘please,’ as well. At one point, Mr. Floyd said ‘I’m about to die.’ Officer Chauvin and the other two officers stayed in their positions.”

    Thao, who had arrived at the scene along with Chauvin, brought out a hobble restraint to use on Floyd, the complaint says, “but the officers decided not to use it and maintained their positions.”

    After Thao watched his fellow officers subduing Floyd, the complaint states, “The defendant then became concerned about a number of citizens who had gathered and were watching the officers subdue Mr. Floyd, and potential traffic concerns, and so the defendant stood between those citizens and the three officers.”

    It adds, “When one citizen stepped off the curb, imploring Chauvin to get off of Mr. Floyd, the defendant put his hands on the citizen to keep him back.”

    Thao, Kueng and Lane each face two counts of aiding and abetting — one for second-degree murder and one for second-degree manslaughter. The charges carry maximum prison sentences of 40 and 10 years, respectively.

    Lane, Kueng and Thao are being taken into official custody Wednesday.

    “We are in the process of taking the officers into custody,” said Drew Evans, superintendent of the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

    Edited From: “Chauvin And 3 Former Officers Face New Charges Over George Floyd’s Death”

    NPR, 6/3/20


      I was expecting Professor Turley to feature this story today. I’d be interested in knowing what he thinks of this development.

      Personally I think the case against Derek Chauvin is a slam dunk. He honestly had no excuse to keep his knee on Floyd’s neck as long as he did. I don’t see how Chauvin can even contest the charges.

      But the cases against the other 3 cops dont look as solid to me. 2 of those 3 were actually rookies with less than a year on the force. The other, Officer Thao, the Asian, is an ethnic Hmong (Laos). Minneapolis actually has one of the world’s largest Hmong communities. Thao had 8 years on the force.

      The truth is that Derek Chauvin, with 19 years on the force, was the senior cop at the scene; the oldest and most experienced of the 4. That explains why the other 3 were deferential to Chauvin and let him take over as they did. By deferring to the senior cop, the other 3 now face similar charges.

      1. Seems an interesting case, Seth.

        And it would be good for JT to comment on this, given his ‘Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks’ chops and the clear evidence on tape here. The commander/commanded dynamic going on. The knowledge that acquittals will blow up the country times 2.


      2. I could care less about these four guys, let them be tried and go to jail for a long time for all I care, obviously they did something bad. I am not the prosecutor, let them do their work.

        but you expose your basic ignorance of our criminal justice system again seth

        you said: “I don’t see how Chauvin can even contest the charges.”


        every accused person has the right to plead “NOT GUILTY”
        and refuse to testify in their own behalf,
        and to have a competent lawyer defend them by making the state prove its case

        NOBODY not even the hated police in question who have clearly done something bad, is “required” to plead guilty

        learn something about our Anglo Saxon system of DUE PROCESS before you come on here and lecture us every day, when you dont even get the basics

        1. Kurtz, of course Chauvin can plead not-guilty. I just dont see what defense he can possibly use. But again, the others might have a case.

          1. Seth:
            Chauvin will defend on causation of death and exigencies like drugs causing combativeness in the vehicle justifying severe restraints. Squeeky has laid out al the typical defenses. I’m guessing a battle of experts resulting in a manslaughter conviction but given the decedent’s propensity for violence that’s not given.

      3. you didn’t mention that 1/4 cops is a light skinned black man.

        this doesnt matter too much to me,. but i keep hearing RACISM day after day even when we consider that the police all around the country are one of the most aggressive hirers of racial diversity

        so I find all this talk of “Systemic racism” rather hard to swallow. oh why softpedal it? it’s total bs

        go on the streets of any big city and you will see the cops have plenty of nonwhite officers and women etc.

        and we saw recently how they too are getting attacked and murdered on the streets by rioters.

        shameful lies coming from the apologizers for riot!

          1. well that lady has some sense. good for her. i told you there are still some sane Democrats out there at the local level. So what’s wrong with deblosio?

            what a chump that sucker is.

    2. Ellison hasn’t practiced law in nearly 20 years and does not appear to have taken a criminal case since 1993.

      Did you notice Chauvin is being hit with a charge more severe than than the one Mohamed Noor was convicted of? You’ll recall that Noor shot dead a middle-aged woman in a pink bathrobe for no discernable reason and it took law enforcement in Minnesota seven months to make an arrest. White privilege, and all that.

        1. @mr kurtz

          She was white and holder of white privilege. Her shooter was a victim of incessant, evil, white racism which explains all minority (particularly black) failure, all of the time. Explains why he MAY have overreacted. So, the shooting while regrettable, was understandable. Almost a victim himself.

          Am I missing anything? Trying to explain the “woke” point of view.


          1. nah they just ignore stuff like that and mostly never heard of it

            because billionaires like jack dorsey control tweeter and suppress information he doesn’t like. so people never see nor hear of it. Im just one nobody putting it up on the internet. i don’t have “ALGOS’ at my disposal to magnify my point of view and suppress others.

  13. Accordingly to that false premise it’s better to convict 1 instead of 1,000 or put the other way let 1,000 guilty go free to ensure 1 is not wrongly convicted. or follow the two wrongs make a right theory instead of focusing on one word and exempting window smashing, car burning, head bashing AND the rest of it.

    Or wrongfully term the incident as anti free speech when it was hate speech

    and then forget completely the Bill of rights calls for peaceful assembly and free speech but does not support lies, slander, porn

    Too much of this wrong path was characterized by George Carlin in this way.

    “Political correctness is fascism parading as manners.”

    The Constitution unlike the manifestos used by the left are ‘whole’ documents and cannot be taken piece by bit by single phrase but taken as a whole. A quick exam of the Constitution gives an example of a recent untruth ‘the constitution;does not regulate that is for Congress”

    when it specifically states “:Congress provides regulation for the military.”

    Just one example.

    Use the Constitution as written it’s got more than enough for our Constitutional Republic and does not need the creeping incrementalism of false foreign ideology and dogma.

    Congress also approved the Oath of Office of the military too bad Congress too often sees fit to ignore their own Oaths of Office after so swearing or worse are illegally seated after refusing to take the oath of office. . .


  14. Nothing against Turley (who is generally quite informative), but… only the LA Times, right?

    Personally, I see this issue as a “call to arms.” Because if the Fed fails to rein in these violent militant organizations, the people themselves will be forced to defend. And these riots? Geesh, wait until Democrats again lose a presidential election. Or, following that, the jury returns verdicts of not guilty for all four of these officers. The People WILL BE forced to defend!

    Our cause should have a motto, me thinks. And so it begins.

  15. I appreciate JT’s attempt to be thoughtful, thorough and fair and particularly his constant defense of free speech. Used to know a lot of free speech liberals while in university.
    In a sane world he would be right, but we are not living in such.

    I can assure you in another 15 years leftists are not going to observe these niceties when going after groups such as the NRA, American Renaissance or VDARE. Or in their attempts to track down dissident internet posters as in currently done in Germany and the UK. There are already calls to declare the NRA a “terrorist organization” and go after dissident thinkers on immigration on race.

    And it will all be done while claiming to “respect” the 1st Amendment.


    1. antonio is soft pedalling it. he knows that anybody of even modest social standing who has uttered a dissenting point of view on race or immigration in public has been under strong internet coordinated targeting and social pressure for decades. orchestrated by ANTIFA and their bosses at places like SPLC or other “activist” NGOs which are backed by various money men who see an angle in harassing and suppressing any native white leadership that could rise up and lead dissent to the global agenda/.

      the means usually consists of: defamation and tortious interference with contracts

      but try and make a case out of it and the courts will see it it the case gets nowhere.

      occasionally someone wins but it’s mostly a man bites dog story when it happens

      the main thing is to control mass media. in this country that is 95% of everything. do that and you can fix elections, fix trials, fix markets, do all kinds of interesting things

      the biggest flaw in every right wing, conservative, or nativist organization in the past 50 years is that they almost always failed to identify rich white male billionaires as their greatest adversaries. think about that antonio. very little of the troubles the average law abiding white people of this country have now, has not been orchestrated from above, from certain factions of billionaires. guys like jack dorsey at tiwtter, bezos, then you can go back to the older groups of oligarchs if you really want to get in trouble. let’s not bring that up.

      you probably knew that, but it’s complicated, and mostly doesn’t earn anyone friends to say so.

  16. Being close to four score years I was informally taught war history by the participants. History does not repeat; it rhymes. I am reminded of Brownshirts, the military arm of the Nazi party before power.

Leave a Reply