One leading expert told Raw Story “characterizing ‘Antifa ideology’ as necessarily violent,” like such established extremist threats, indicated the weakness of the government’s case.
The 12-count superseding indictment returned earlier this month in the Northern District of Texas is against nine defendants but alleges only one, Benjamin Song, opened fire on federal and local law enforcement.
Four defendants are charged with aiding and abetting Song, named as the “principal,” in the attempted murder of two federal officers and a local police officer.
Song is alleged to have shot an Alvarado police officer in the neck area.
All but one of the defendants are charged with providing material support to terrorists.
Prosecutors telegraphed in a recent filing that they intend to lean into arguments about the defendants’ alleged antifascist beliefs to establish intent and motive.
The government accuses Autumn Hill of being part of an “Antifa Cell” that shot fireworks at the Prairieland ICE facility in Alvarado, and accuses Zachary Evetts and another defendant of destroying a surveillance camera and vandalizing vehicles and a guard shed.
As a “militant enterprise” prosecution, the government’s case holds many defendants responsible for Song’s alleged actions.
“The daytime reconnaissance of security measures at the facility, the use of black bloc, the presence of assault rifles, body armor, and combat-style first aid kits, as well as the flight from the scene after the shooting are inconsistent with a peaceful protest and instead support that the defendants were aware that they were involved in an attack in which the use of deadly force was reasonably foreseeable,” prosecutors wrote.
Alluding to a detention hearing in September, prosecutors signaled the government’s intent to cite defendants’ alleged antifascist beliefs, writing that “intent and motive can be inferred from each individual’s adherence to an extremist ideology that holds that violent force is justified to resist and overthrow the United States government.”
The filing contests an argument by Evetts that the government hasn’t explained how it will prove he “intended or knew that his conduct would support terrorists.”
Beyond the facts of the attack, including Evetts’ attendance at a “gear check,” and his involvement in a reconnaissance mission, prosecutors said they will “rely on Evetts’ adherence to a violent and extremist Antifa ideology for purposes of motive and intent.
“This is common and proper in material-support-for-terrorism cases, regardless of whether ideology is that of Antifa, white supremacy, or Islamic jihad,” the filing continues.
Attorneys for Evetts and Hill could not be reached for comment.
‘Weakness in the argument’
The filing cites appellate rulings in cases concerning Islamic jihadists and white supremacists.
The jihadist cases concerned Ahmed Abu Khattallah, a Libyan extremist said to have directed the 2012 attack on the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, and Betim Kaziu, convicted of terrorism-related charges after allegedly traveling to Kosovo with the intention of killing fellow Americans.
In the other case cited by the government, an appellate court ruled that a defendant’s white supremacist beliefs and associations, including a photo of her giving a Nazi salute and an article she wrote about “white power,” were “highly relevant” to charges related to a bomb-making plot targeting “a Holocaust or Black history” event.
Thomas Brzozowski, a former Department of Justice counsel for domestic terrorism, told Raw Story “the government can use ideology to prove specific intent,” and that the cases cited do support its position in the Texas antifa case.
“But the weakness in the government’s argument concerns their characterization of ‘Antifa ideology’ as necessarily violent,” Brzozowski said.
Brzozowski said the government will likely turn to a box of photocopied booklets described as “insurrection planning, anti-law enforcement, anti-government, and anti-immigration enforcement documents and propaganda” and seized by law enforcement.
One publication, War in the Streets, describes a “series of situated and intelligent reflections on black blocs, street clashes and related tactics of confrontation,” intended as a practical guide for refining tactics relating “to the larger insurrectional process.”
The 12-count superseding indictment separately charges Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada and Maricela Rueda with conspiracy to conceal documents related to an allegation that Sanchez moved the box from a residence in an effort to prevent the government from using it as evidence.
The significance of the literature to the government’s case is highlighted when the indictment names three defendants — Ines Soto, Elizabeth Soto and Savanna Batten — as “part of a group that created and distributed insurrectionary materials called ‘zines.’”
The indictment presents the group as being part of an “Antifa Cell” at the center of the government’s militant enterprise case.
‘4th of July Party!’
The indictment also includes references to planning chats that provide a mixed picture as to whether the defendants went to Alvarado expecting a firefight or a rowdy protest.
The government cites a “4th of July Party!” chat with six members. In one exchange, Rueda allegedly commented that “rifles might make the situation more hot.”
“Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle so it tends to make them back off,” Song reportedly replied.
During the July 3 “gear check,” Hill allegedly asked Song if they would be bringing guns.
“Song replied that they would because he would not be going to jail,” the indictment reads.
“Song repeated words to this effect multiple times throughout the evening, putting everyone there on notice of his intent to shoot at police rather than be arrested.”
But the government’s depiction of a larger chat suggests participants expected a different kind of confrontation.
“Throughout the large chat, Ines Soto and Rueda attempted to downplay concerns about law enforcement, urging action and referring to noise demonstrations as ‘low risk,’” the indictment reads.
