theintercept--2020-06-04--White House Forced to Retract Claim Viral Videos Prove Antifa Is Plotting Violence

engaged in an extraordinary act of rumor-mongering on Wednesday , releasing a compilation of viral video clips posted on social media recently by people who believed , wrongly , that the piles of bricks they came across had been planted there by anti-fascist activists , known as Antifa , to inspire violence at protests .
“ Antifa and professional anarchists are invading our communities , staging bricks and weapons to instigate violence , ” the White House caption for the video claimed .
“ These are acts of domestic terror.
” Within minutes , journalists discovered that most of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the White House had already been investigated and debunked .
A short time later , without explanation or apology , the White House deleted the video from its official Twitter and Facebook feeds — but only after it had been viewed more than a million times .
Although the White House tried to hide the video once it became clear just how riddled with errors it was , The Intercept saved a copy before it disappeared .
The video is worth examining in detail , since it shows just how unconcerned with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are , as they conduct a frantic search for evidence to support the president ’ s baseless claim that the protests over racial injustice and police impunity have been hijacked by phantom “ professional protesters.
” The compilation includes seven clips showing bricks , rocks or paving stones that the people who filmed them found suspicious .
Three of the clips were broadcast a day earlier in a report from “ Inside Edition , ” which told its viewers that “ police say small bands of the so-called ‘ professional agitators ’ are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peaceful demonstrations.
” “ Piles of bricks have also appeared at the scenes of major demonstrations , ” a reporter for the tabloid news show added .
“ There is speculation they may have been planted there by Antifa , for use as projectiles aimed at cops and storefront windows.
” However , as open-source investigators for BBC News , Buzzfeed and Vice had already reported before the White House compiled the clips , almost all of the video included in it showed ordinary piles of bricks used in construction projects which were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to the killing of George Floyd , an unarmed black man , by Minneapolis police officers last week .
In the first clip , recorded in Dallas on Saturday night , a young black protester addresses the camera , and shares the conspiratorial idea that a pallet of bricks outside a courthouse must have been planted there to provoke a riot .
“ This is a set-up , ” the young man says to the camera in the original video , which was posted on Twitter by a black activist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the man adds , wagging his finger in a sarcastic scolding of the slipshod provocateurs he imagines were responsible .
In the background , another protester can be heard saying , “ there ain ’ t no damned construction around here.
” That is not quite correct , however .
Photographs and video shot on May 5 at the same location , outside the Dallas County Courthouse — during a protest by the far-right Oathkeepers in support of Shelley Luther , a salon owner who was jailed for reopening her business during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were extensive roadworks and piles of bricks at that same street corner three weeks before George Floyd was killed .
Even if the roadwork had been largely or entirely completed by last Saturday , it seems far more likely that the bricks had just not been cleared away than that they were removed and then planted again , outside a courthouse , by left-wing agitators .
Another clip used by the White House , and “ Inside Edition , ” shows a pile of bricks in Fayetteville , North Carolina , in video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , as Benjamin Strick of The BBC reported on Tuesday , the bricks were clearly visible at the same spot in video posted on YouTube on May 24 , one day before the killing of George Floyd .
The Fayetteville Public Works Commission also confirmed to Strick ’ s colleague , Shayan Sardarizadeh , on Tuesday that the paving stones had been placed on that sidewalk last week ahead of planned work to restore the cobblestoned street following work on water and sewer lines beneath the pavement .
In the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the fifth clip , and , as Strick pointed out on Twitter , the pile of paving stones in it appears to be identical to those shown in the second clip in the sequence , which seems to show the same stones ( surrounded by the same traffic cones and brick wall ) at a different time of day .
The third clip in the White House video , of a police officer removing blue boxes of stones from a street corner in Gravesend , a part of South Brooklyn where there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was posted on Twitter on Tuesday morning by someone who claimed , without evidence , that they had been placed there by Anifa .
“ Bricks have been places strategically around Brooklyn in anticipation of protests , ” a conservative Brooklyn resident named Yaakov Kaplan wrote in his video caption without evidence .
“ ANTIFA is way more organized than politicians pretend.
” That video was shared on Twitter on Wednesday morning by Commissioner Dermot Shea of the New York Police Department .
However , Mark Treyger , a New York City Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the commissioner ’ s tweet a short time later , calling his accusation that the stones had been placed there by antifascists false .
“ This is in my district .
I went to the site .
This construction debris was left near a construction site on Ave X in Gravesend , ” Treyger wrote on Twitter .
It is nor clear where the fourth clip in the White House compilation was shot , but it shows what look like ordinary construction materials .
The sixth clip , of young protesters in Manhattan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saturday night , was edited by the White House to cut out the start of the scene , in which they could be seen first breaking down a barrier around a clearly defined construction site in the East Village .
The original clip , posted by a reporter , showed a yellow fence around the building materials and a sign reading “ LANE CLOSED CAUTION , ” before it was pulled down by the protesters to get at the bricks .
The White House social media director , Dan Scavino , did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why the video was posted after most of its contents had already been debunked , and why it was removed without explanation .
Despite a lack of evidence , belief in the president ’ s conspiracy theory that “ outside agitators ” from Antifa are infiltrating protests to spark violence has become an article of faith among his supporters , and has been echoed from senior officers in some police departments .
On Monday , Terence Monahan , the chief of department and the highest-ranked uniformed police officer in the NYPD , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time “ to get those groups out of here — from California , from all over this country , who are being paid to take this movement , which is a good movement , and turn it into violence ” against police officers .
Other departments have found themselves forced to debunk viral rumors of imminent Antifa attacks .
On Monday , a police department in Idaho wrote on Facebook that a viral rumor spread by a rightwing militia group , that “ Antifa has sent a plane load of their people into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the rural areas , ” was entirely untrue .
“ The Payette County Sheriff ’ s Office has been monitoring social media posts that have stated FALSE information , ” the department wrote .
“ The Payette County Sheriff ’ s Office has not had contact with and has not verified that Antifa is in Payette County .
The Payette County Sheriff ’ s Office has not given any specific warnings to our citizens about Antifa or other organizations.
” Ahead of a protest on Sunday , the Sioux Falls Chamber of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tips from unnamed sources that protesters from outside of Sioux Falls planned to attend the rally and incite violence.
” Sioux Falls Police Chief Matt Burns told The Argus Leader , a local newspaper , on Monday “ that authorities were looking for the buses and didn ’ t find any evidence of them arriving and unloading protesters.
” But unverified claims that “ pallets of bricks ” have been mysteriously delivered to protest sites have also been embraced by some anti-Trump activists on the left .
The podcaster Tonya Tko used many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in her own video analysis posted on Facebook on Monday , in which she concluded that the government must be trying to undermine peaceful protests in favor of racial justice by inciting people to violence .
Tko ’ s video , “ Bricks Planted in Protest Cities Across the U.S. : IT ’ S A SET-UP !
” in which she also suggests that the Covid-19 pandemic might have been part of a wider government plot , has already been viewed 3.4 million times .
Updated : Thursday , June 4 , 1:13 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ note reporting from Benjamin Strick of the BBC that the second and fifth clips in the White House compilation video seem to show the same pile of paving stones in Fayetteville , North Carolina , shot at different times of the day , and to report Tonya Tko ’ s video analysis .

The White House engaged in an extraordinary act of rumor-mongering on Wednesday, releasing a compilation of viral video clips posted on social media recently by people who believed, wrongly, that the piles of bricks they came across had been planted there by anti-fascist activists, known as antifa, to inspire violence at protests.
“Antifa and professional anarchists are invading our communities, staging bricks and weapons to instigate violence,” a caption for the video posted on the official White House Twitter feed claimed. “These are acts of domestic terror.”
Within minutes, journalists discovered that most of the clips included in the video posted online by the White House had already been investigated and debunked. A short time later, without explanation or apology, the White House deleted the video from its official Twitter and Facebook feeds — but only after it had been viewed more than a million times on Twitter alone.
Although the White House tried to hide the video once it became clear just how riddled with errors it was, The Intercept saved a copy before it disappeared.
The video is worth examining in detail, since it shows just how unconcerned with the truth people in the White House are, as they conduct a frantic search for evidence to support the president’s baseless claim that the protests over racial injustice and police impunity have been hijacked by phantom “professional protesters.”
The compilation includes seven clips showing bricks, rocks or paving stones that the people who filmed them found suspicious. Three of the clips were broadcast a day earlier in a report from “Inside Edition,” which told its viewers that “police say small bands of the so-called ‘professional agitators’ are taking advantage of the crisis and hijacking peaceful demonstrations.”
“Piles of bricks have also appeared at the scenes of major demonstrations,” a reporter for the tabloid news show added. “There is speculation they may have been planted there by Antifa, for use as projectiles aimed at cops and storefront windows.”
However, as open-source investigators for BBC News, Buzzfeed and Vice had already reported before the White House compiled the clips, almost all of the video included in it showed ordinary piles of bricks used in construction projects which were underway before the wave of protests began in response to the killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, by Minneapolis police officers last week.
In the first clip, recorded in Dallas on Saturday night, a young black protester addresses the camera, and shares the conspiratorial idea that a pallet of bricks outside a courthouse must have been planted there to provoke a riot.
The Dallas protest was a lot of things. But I was very disappointed to see this RANDOM stack of bricks in front of the courthouse. #setup #BlackLivesMatters #makeblackcount pic.twitter.com/CULGXPzMun — Reuben Lael (@reubengotsoul) May 30, 2020
“This is a set-up,” the young man says to the camera in the original video, which was posted on Twitter by a black activist. “You got to do better,” the man adds, wagging his finger in a sarcastic scolding of the slipshod provocateurs he imagines were responsible. In the background, another protester can be heard saying, “there ain’t no damned construction around here.”
That is not quite correct, however. Photographs and video shot on May 5 at the same location, outside the Dallas County Courthouse — during a protest by the far-right Oathkeepers in support of Shelley Luther, a salon owner who was jailed for reopening her business during the coronavirus lockdown — showed that there were extensive roadworks and piles of bricks at that same street corner three weeks before George Floyd was killed.
https://twitter.com/Oathkeepers/status/1257755220538343424
Even if the roadwork had been largely or entirely completed by last Saturday, it seems far more likely that the bricks had just not been cleared away than that they were removed and then planted again, outside a courthouse, by left-wing agitators.
In an interview, the man who recorded this video and posted it online, Reuben Lael, told me that he took the threat of “interlopers,” meaning “anarchists or any other anti-America groups,” using violence to distort the meaning of the Black Lives Matter protests very seriously. “America is vulnerable and on the radar of people who want to destroy the country,” he said. Lael argued that it was important to him “to protect the young protesters” and “kind of keep the narrative clear” by at least letting the young man who suspected the bricks might have been a set-up make it plain that he was not a rioter and not interested in violence.
Another clip used by the White House, and “Inside Edition,” shows a pile of bricks in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in video that was posted on Twitter on Saturday. However, as Benjamin Strick of The BBC reported on Tuesday, the bricks were clearly visible at the same spot in video posted on YouTube on May 24, one day before the killing of George Floyd.
Hi @WhiteHouse. You are wrong. Some of these "staging bricks" to "instigate violence" videos are false. This one filmed in #Fayetteville (https://t.co/AqRBp85oeC) the bricks were there pre-May 24 in this video here: https://t.co/gnwqUk7r9u. See more here: https://t.co/pCPB30qxEm https://t.co/BlrAreJ7vE pic.twitter.com/lsgc6R6xX5 — Benjamin Strick (@BenDoBrown) June 3, 2020
The Fayetteville Public Works Commission also confirmed to Strick’s colleague, Shayan Sardarizadeh, on Tuesday that the paving stones had been placed on that sidewalk last week ahead of planned work to restore the cobblestoned street following work on water and sewer lines beneath the pavement.
In the White House compilation, that video from Fayetteville is the fifth clip, and, as Strick pointed out on Twitter, the pile of paving stones in it appears to be identical to those shown in the second clip in the sequence, which seems to show the same stones (surrounded by the same traffic cones and brick wall) at a different time of day.
The third clip in the White House video, of a police officer removing blue boxes of stones from a street corner in Gravesend, a part of South Brooklyn where there have been no protests or rioting, was posted on Twitter on Tuesday morning by someone who claimed, without evidence, that they had been placed there by Anifa. “Bricks have been places strategically around Brooklyn in anticipation of protests,” a conservative Brooklyn resident named Yaakov Kaplan wrote in his video caption without evidence. “ANTIFA is way more organized than politicians pretend.”
That video was shared on Twitter on Wednesday morning by Commissioner Dermot Shea of the New York Police Department. However, Mark Treyger, a New York City Council member who represents that area responded to the commissioner’s tweet a short time later, calling his accusation that the stones had been placed there by antifascists false. “This is in my district. I went to the site. This construction debris was left near a construction site on Ave X in Gravesend,” Treyger wrote on Twitter.
This is in my district. I went to the site. This construction debris was left near a construction site on Ave X in Gravesend. Could be evidence of a developer breaking law since phase 1 hasn’t begun, but there was no evidence of organized looting on X last night that I’m aware of https://t.co/oTEn0wMzAR — Mark Treyger ? (@MarkTreyger718) June 3, 2020
It is nor clear where the fourth clip in the White House compilation was shot, but it shows what look like ordinary construction materials.
The sixth clip, of young protesters in Manhattan picking up bricks during a march on Saturday night, was edited by the White House to cut out the start of the scene, in which they could be seen first breaking down a barrier around a clearly defined construction site in the East Village. The original clip, posted by a reporter, showed a yellow fence around the building materials and a sign reading “LANE CLOSED CAUTION,” before it was pulled down by the protesters to get at the bricks.
"Yo, we got bricks. We got bricks!"—#Rioters in Manhattan chanced upon a cache in the street equipped with bricks and a shovel at 10:01 p.m. on Second Ave between St. Marks Pl. and Seventh St. pic.twitter.com/dYB7vHdYqL — Kevin R Hogan (@KRHogan_NTD) May 31, 2020
The seventh and final clip offered by the White House as supposed proof of anti-fascists “staging bricks” was perhaps the most embarrassing mistake. That viral clip showed several piles of large rocks inside six metal cages on a sidewalk in Sherman Oaks, California, which people on social platforms speculated were caches of ammunition for future riots.
https://twitter.com/talialikeitis/status/1267649632366137349
In fact, as the Chabad of Sherman Oaks had already explained on its Facebook page on Monday, in response to the viral rumor that these were stones prepared for rioting, the structures were in fact security barriers that had been in place outside the Jewish center for nearly a year.
People keep RTing this like it's prep for looters. That's a hoax. This is in front of Chabad in Sherman Oaks. They're bolted to the cement to keep people from ramming a car into the place of worship & are getting boarded up. Share the shit out of this 2 stop the false narrative. pic.twitter.com/cmgbSnKvQv — Jennie ??? (@JennieRoberson) June 1, 2020
“Nevertheless to alleviate people’s concern that they may be vandalized and used by rioters, they were temporarily removed,” the center said in a message posted on Facebook with a photo of the cages after the rocks had been removed.
The White House social media director, Dan Scavino, did not reply to a request for comment on why the video was posted after most of its contents had already been debunked, and why it was removed without explanation.
Despite a lack of evidence, belief in the president’s conspiracy theory that “outside agitators” from the ranks of the anti-fascists are infiltrating protests to spark violence has become an article of faith among his supporters, and has been echoed from senior officers in some police departments. On Monday, Terence Monahan, the chief of department and the highest-ranked uniformed police officer in the NYPD, told a local television crew that it was time “to get those groups out of here — from California, from all over this country, who are being paid to take this movement, which is a good movement, and turn it into violence” against police officers.
NYPD is being led by a chief, Terence Monahan, who reveals here that he believes the baseless conspiracy theory that groups from other parts of the country "are being paid" to hijack the protests and inflict violence on the police. He's in charge. https://t.co/yVgXzsmPPi — Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) June 2, 2020
Other departments have found themselves forced to debunk viral rumors of imminent attacks from anti-fascists, who use the term antifa as a nickname, but are not members of an organized group, as Trump and his followers seem to believe.
On Monday, a police department in Idaho wrote on Facebook that a viral rumor spread by a rightwing militia group, that “Antifa has sent a plane load of their people into Boise and three bus loads from Seattle into the rural areas,” was entirely untrue. “The Payette County Sheriff’s Office has been monitoring social media posts that have stated FALSE information,” the department wrote. “The Payette County Sheriff’s Office has not had contact with and has not verified that Antifa is in Payette County. The Payette County Sheriff’s Office has not given any specific warnings to our citizens about Antifa or other organizations.”
Ahead of a protest on Sunday, the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce tweeted that it “had received tips from unnamed sources that protesters from outside of Sioux Falls planned to attend the rally and incite violence.”
Sioux Falls Police Chief Matt Burns told The Argus Leader, a local newspaper, on Monday “that authorities were looking for the buses and didn’t find any evidence of them arriving and unloading protesters.”
But unverified claims that “pallets of bricks” have been mysteriously delivered to protest sites have also been embraced by some anti-Trump activists on the left. The podcaster Tonya Tko used many of the same viral clips of bricks in her own video analysis posted on Facebook on Monday, in which she concluded that the government must be trying to undermine peaceful protests in favor of racial justice by inciting people to violence. Tko’s video, “Bricks Planted in Protest Cities Across the U.S.: IT’S A SET-UP!” in which she also suggests that the Covid-19 pandemic might have been part of a wider government plot, has already been viewed 3.4 million times.
Last Updated: Friday, June 5, 1:30 a.m. PDT
This article was updated to add comments from Reuben Lael, who filmed a protest in Dallas, to report Tonya Tko’s video analysis, and to note reporting from Benjamin Strick of the BBC indicating that the second and fifth clips in the White House compilation video seem to show the same pile of paving stones in Fayetteville, North Carolina, at different times of the day. Screenshots were also added to show the video on the White House Twitter feed, before it was deleted, and the error message that appeared after it was removed from the White House Facebook feed.


theintercept--2020-06-04--Brooklyn Man Was Arrested for Curfew Violation. The FBI Interrogated Him About His Political Beliefs

Brooklyn Man Was Arrested for Curfew Violation. The FBI Interrogated Him About His Political Beliefs.

in his apartment in Brooklyn when he heard the sound of police beating protesters outside of his building Wednesday night .
Having spent much of the week in the streets joining the waves of demonstrations against police brutality currently sweeping the nation , Feingold rushed outside .
He was swiftly tossed to the ground by a senior New York City police officer in a white shirt , thrown in a police van , and placed under arrest along with four other individuals for having ostensibly violated a recently imposed curfew on New York City residents .
Feingold and the others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 78th Precinct , where they were told that they were being cited for violating the city ’ s 8 p.m. curfew .
It was there , Feingold told The Intercept , that they were interrogated by the NYPD and the FBI about their political beliefs and their reasons for participating in the nationwide protests — subjects that should , under the Constitution and local NYPD rules , be off-limits from law enforcement inquiries following an alleged curfew violation .
After being processed and taken to a cell , Feingold said he and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were approached by two men in plainclothes .
“ One of them is from NYPD intelligence and the other is an FBI agent , ” he said .
Feingold said a third officer confirmed the affiliations of the two men as they were being discharged .
The FBI agent ’ s line of questioning was clearly focused on his political views .
“ We want to know who ’ s hijacking your movement and making it violent , ” Feingold recalled the agent saying .
“ That is what he said verbatim.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interrogations is part of an emerging pattern , New York City civil rights attorneys say , that seems to have followed Attorney General William Barr ’ s designation of the leaderless movement against fascism known as antifa as a domestic terrorist organization .
President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly alleged that outside agitators affiliated with the movement are stoking violence and unrest across the country .
Feingold ’ s account follows a story published by Univision on Thursday , which reported that individuals arrested by the NYPD in recent days have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On Thursday afternoon , the National Lawyers Guild of New York City urged anyone who had been contacted by the NYPD or FBI to reach out to their office .
Gideon Oliver , former president of the New York chapter of the organization , said the NLG was running down multiple reports of politically focused law enforcement interrogations in multiple boroughs .
“ There are others , ” Oliver told The Intercept , adding that the interviews signaled a “ very serious and disturbing development.
” “ To turn arrests for violations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dragnet for gathering political intelligence about protesters is inherently problematic , ” Oliver said .
If demonstrators find themselves under arrest , Oliver went on to say , they should not consent to law enforcement searches , remain silent and invoke their right to speak to an attorney .
The NYPD referred questions for this story to the FBI .
The FBI did not respond to a request for comment by publication .
The three men he was detained with described their interviews once they were returned to their cell , Feingold said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cell joking that he was “ the king of antifa.
” According to Feingold , “ They had clearly asked him about outside agitators.
” The second arrestee was asked , “ What do you think you were protesting ?
” The third , who had a long conversation with the law enforcement officials , was from Missouri .
“ They asked him if he had been at Ferguson , ” Feingold said , the site of the historic 2014 protests against police brutality and the killing of Mike Brown , an unarmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a white police officer .
Feingold , who told The Intercept he had been arrested at protests before , was the last to be interviewed .
He said he made an effort to keep the conversation as short and detail-free as possible .
“ The NYPD intelligence officer looked like a normal NYPD cop , ” Feingold said .
“ The FBI guy was very slick.
” Following a brief bit of small talk and general questioning , which Feingold interpreted as an effort to “ soften him up , ” the agent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hijacked for violent purposes .
“ I have nothing more to say , ” Feingold told him .
Feingold and the others were released with summonses for violating the city ’ s curfew .
Marty Stolar , a veteran New York City civil rights attorney , whose legal work around law enforcement surveillance of political activity led to the creation of a set of rules prohibiting the NYPD from engaging in wanton political spying , said Feingold ’ s interrogation was one of several he has heard of in recent days .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other names that I ’ m running down , ” Stolar told The Intercept .
The rules Stolar and others helped to establish , known as the Handschu agreement , have gone through many iterations over the past several decades , particularly following the September 11 attacks and the expansion of law enforcement surveillance powers that followed .
In 2004 , after the court-imposed guidelines were watered down in the wake of the attacks , Stolar and the other attorneys responsible for ensuring that the NYPD was in compliance with the agreement learned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forms to probe protesters about their political views .
“ They had been lying to the judge , they ’ d been lying to us , they had no explanation for it , ” he said .
“ It pissed off the judge , and the guidelines then became part of the court order once again.
” “ This whole demonstration debriefing bullshit was theoretically out the window , ” he said .
“ And lo and behold , it ’ s surfacing again.
” Feingold told The Intercept that this week ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the men he was detained with , from attending New York City ’ s ongoing protests — though the experience did underscore the state of the government ’ s relationship to those demonstrations .
“ That this FBI sweep is going on during a Black Lives Matter protest is very troubling , ” he said .
“ It ’ s further federal repression of black and brown people in this country .
The Trump administration ’ s orientation towards authoritarian rule is being born out now in the street , and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dissenters .
”

Joel Feingold was in his apartment in Brooklyn when he heard the sound of police beating protesters outside of his building Wednesday night. Having spent much of the week in the streets joining the waves of demonstrations against police brutality currently sweeping the nation, Feingold rushed outside. He was swiftly tossed to the ground by a senior New York City police officer in a white shirt, thrown in a police van, and placed under arrest along with four other individuals for having ostensibly violated a recently imposed curfew on New York City residents.
Feingold and the others were taken to the NYPD’s 78th Precinct, where they were told that they were being cited for violating the city’s 8 p.m. curfew. It was there, Feingold told The Intercept, that they were interrogated by the NYPD and the FBI about their political beliefs and their reasons for participating in the nationwide protests — subjects that should, under the Constitution and local NYPD rules, be off-limits from law enforcement inquiries following an alleged curfew violation.
After being processed and taken to a cell, Feingold said he and the three men he was locked up with were approached by two men in plainclothes. “One of them is from NYPD intelligence and the other is an FBI agent,” he said. Feingold said a third officer confirmed the affiliations of the two men as they were being discharged. The FBI agent’s line of questioning was clearly focused on his political views.
“We want to know who’s hijacking your movement and making it violent,” Feingold recalled the agent saying. “That is what he said verbatim.”
The FBI’s involvement in protest interrogations is part of an emerging pattern, New York City civil rights attorneys say, that seems to have followed Attorney General William Barr’s designation of the leaderless movement against fascism known as antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly alleged that outside agitators affiliated with the movement are stoking violence and unrest across the country.
Feingold’s account follows a story published by Univision on Thursday, which reported that individuals arrested by the NYPD in recent days have been questioned about their views on anti-fascism. On Thursday afternoon, the National Lawyers Guild of New York City urged anyone who had been contacted by the NYPD or FBI to reach out to their office. Gideon Oliver, former president of the New York chapter of the organization, said the NLG was running down multiple reports of politically focused law enforcement interrogations in multiple boroughs. “There are others,” Oliver told The Intercept, adding that the interviews signaled a “very serious and disturbing development.”
“To turn arrests for violations or misdemeanors at a protest into a dragnet for gathering political intelligence about protesters is inherently problematic,” Oliver said. If demonstrators find themselves under arrest, Oliver went on to say, they should not consent to law enforcement searches, remain silent and invoke their right to speak to an attorney.
The NYPD referred questions for this story to the FBI. The FBI did not respond to a request for comment by publication.
The three men he was detained with described their interviews once they were returned to their cell, Feingold said. The first came back to his cell joking that he was “the king of antifa.” According to Feingold, “They had clearly asked him about outside agitators.” The second arrestee was asked, “What do you think you were protesting?” The third, who had a long conversation with the law enforcement officials, was from Missouri. “They asked him if he had been at Ferguson,” Feingold said, the site of the historic 2014 protests against police brutality and the killing of Mike Brown, an unarmed black teenager who was gunned down by a white police officer.
Feingold, who told The Intercept he had been arrested at protests before, was the last to be interviewed. He said he made an effort to keep the conversation as short and detail-free as possible. “The NYPD intelligence officer looked like a normal NYPD cop,” Feingold said. “The FBI guy was very slick.” Following a brief bit of small talk and general questioning, which Feingold interpreted as an effort to “soften him up,” the agent raised the question about the protests being hijacked for violent purposes. “I have nothing more to say,” Feingold told him.
Feingold and the others were released with summonses for violating the city’s curfew.
Have you been interrogated by the FBI while in police custody? Email ryan.devereaux@theintercept.com or use one of these secure methods to contact a reporter.
Marty Stolar, a veteran New York City civil rights attorney, whose legal work around law enforcement surveillance of political activity led to the creation of a set of rules prohibiting the NYPD from engaging in wanton political spying, said Feingold’s interrogation was one of several he has heard of in recent days. “I’ve got a couple of other names that I’m running down,” Stolar told The Intercept.
The rules Stolar and others helped to establish, known as the Handschu agreement, have gone through many iterations over the past several decades, particularly following the September 11 attacks and the expansion of law enforcement surveillance powers that followed. In 2004, after the court-imposed guidelines were watered down in the wake of the attacks, Stolar and the other attorneys responsible for ensuring that the NYPD was in compliance with the agreement learned the department was using so-called demonstration debriefing forms to probe protesters about their political views. “They had been lying to the judge, they’d been lying to us, they had no explanation for it,” he said. “It pissed off the judge, and the guidelines then became part of the court order once again.”
“This whole demonstration debriefing bullshit was theoretically out the window,” he said. “And lo and behold, it’s surfacing again.”
Feingold told The Intercept that this week’s interrogation would not stop him, or the men he was detained with, from attending New York City’s ongoing protests — though the experience did underscore the state of the government’s relationship to those demonstrations.
“That this FBI sweep is going on during a Black Lives Matter protest is very troubling,” he said. “It’s further federal repression of black and brown people in this country. The Trump administration’s orientation towards authoritarian rule is being borne out now in the street, and its targets are black and brown people, and dissenters.”


theintercept--2020-06-04--A Progressive Challenger Was Attacked for Calling to Defund the Police. She Won Anyway.

Janeese Lewis George , a 32-year-old democratic socialist , decisively won an election in D.C. ’ s Ward 4 — the northernmost part of the city — despite facing weeks of attacks from her opponent that she was too radical on policing .
She ousted the moderate incumbent , a protege of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser , by a margin of 55-43 percent as of Thursday afternoon .
Calls to defund the police have become a focal point of nationwide protests following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis , with local politicians from New York City to Los @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police departments .
While some critics dismiss the idea as politically untenable , a city council election in Washington , D.C. , this week offers lessons on how politicians can succeed while pushing bold positions on policing .
Todd , a moderate and former Republican , by contrast has called for putting more cops on the streets , and praised the mayor for proposing an increase to the MPD ’ s budget .
He has also consistently voted against some of the most progressive bills to cross the council ’ s desk .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote against the city ’ s paid leave law in 2016 , and he voted to repeal a ballot measure that would have gradually eliminated the city ’ s tipped minimum wage .
( A majority of voters in his ward backed the measure . )
“ It was very disheartening for me that they were trying to use my message of demilitarization to say I don ’ t care about safety when the exact reason I spoke out was because I believe we need to be safe , ” she told The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pro-charter school advocacy group that endorsed Todd , sent out a series of mailers in the weeks leading up to the Tuesday election taking Lewis George ’ s comments out of context and smearing her as being anti-police .
Lewis George , a Ward 4 native , ran on a platform of expanding affordable housing , creating higher-paying jobs , fighting money in politics , and supporting criminal justice reform .
She also campaigned on demilitarizing the police and reallocating portions of the Metropolitan Police Department ’ s budget toward social services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that drew the ire of backers of her opponent , Brandon Todd .
It was these positions that drew attacks from DFER-DC .
One mailer funded by the group misrepresented a tweet Lewis George posted in October , which promised to divest from the local police department and put money into “ violence interruption ” programs .
As a candidate , she urged an end to mass incarceration and the militarization of the police , ending cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement , and decriminalizing drugs and sex work .
Lewis George has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since her time as a student at Howard Law School , where she learned about the immense discretionary power that prosecutors hold .
She took this knowledge with her when she went to work as an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia , where she says she spoke out against what she saw as harsher punishments for the same offense when committed by black people .
In 2016 , she came back to D.C. to work for the city ’ s attorney general office , leading efforts in the Juvenile Section of their Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
Lewis George urged other politicians considering whether it ’ s safe to back bold police reforms to step up .
“ This time is not the time for political leaders to be in a place of comfort but to be in a place of courage , ” she said .
“ If you stand with the people , the people will come out and show up for you.
” Like many insurgent candidates , Lewis George ’ s challenge to Todd was an uphill battle from a fundraising perspective .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was able to overcome that by participating in D.C. ’ s first year of publicly financed elections , where candidates eschew PACs and corporate donations and have their local contributions matched 5:1 .
Todd declined to participate in the program , arguing public dollars were better spent elsewhere .
The DFER-DC funded mailer sent to Ward 4 voters claimed Lewis George “ BRAGGED : ‘ I WILL DIVEST FROM MPD !
” It warned against letting Lewis George bring her “ harmful ideas ” to the city council and claimed she was looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funded by DFER-DC pulled answers Lewis George had given to a Metro DSA questionnaire out of context .
The questionnaire had asked about whether she supported efforts to “ demilitarize and disarm ” police departments .
Lewis George said yes , and explained “ We ’ re told the institution of policing is intended to protect all of us from some suspicious menace , but the fact is that crime is a public health problem , not a battle of military opponents .
The transformation of American police departments , especially the MPD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very communities promised protection is one of the greatest dangers to the future of urban life.
” The DFER-DC mailers read “ Our police officers have dedicated their lives to keeping Ward 4 families safe .
But Janeese Lewis George calls them ‘ one of the greatest dangers to the future of urban life , ’ ” suggesting she was denigrating officers specifically , not the militarization of their departments .
DFER-DC ’ s director Ramin Taheri declined to comment on the mailers or on Lewis George ’ s win , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stands in support of the police brutality protesters organizing in the wake of Floyd ’ s death .
“ Our mission has always been to elect candidates who will fight to reverse the educational inequities that too many Black children face , and like many , we are reflecting on how we can be a better ally in dismantling systemic racism in the District.
” He previously told Washington City Paper that his group crafted its mailers based on recent polling that most Ward 4 voters were less likely to vote for someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the force .
The telephone poll , which was conducted by Garin-Hart-Yang Research in late April , also said Todd had a 22 percentage point advantage over Lewis George , and that she was unlikely to win a majority of the 25 percent of then- undecided voters .
Taheri told City Paper they quoted Lewis George correctly in their ads .
In an interview , Lewis George blasted DFER-DC and emphasized that cutting the police budget isn ’ t synonymous with cutting officers .
“ The fact that they saw my platform as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have in the community about what it means to be safe speaks to their ultimate goal which is not reforming education but retaining power within our political system , ” she said .
Lewis George also noted that when D.C. Councilmember and Education Chair David Grosso spoke out about the militarization of the police both in 2017 and as recently as a few days ago , DFER-DC did not object .
DFER-DC ’ s attacks on Lewis George have become especially relevant as the call to defund the police has gone mainstream over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests .
While activists have long called for the same types of reforms Lewis George champions , elected officials across the country are now taking note .
On Wednesday , the president of the Los Angeles City Council introduced a measure asking city staff to find up to $ 150 million in possible cuts to the local police department , and to reinvest those funds into poor communities and communities of color .
In New York , state Sen. Julia Salazar recently argued for cutting the New York Police Department ’ s $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to nonprofit organizations and mental health services .
In D.C. , a growing chorus of activists have been calling to defund the MPD , which is one of the 10 largest police departments in the nation .
The city council is currently reviewing Bowser ’ s budget proposal , which would increase police funding by 3.3 percent — resulting in a budget of over $ 500 million — coupled with an 11 percent cut to violence prevention programs .
“ I think it ’ s easy for people to lean on doing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comfort , ” said Lewis George , when asked about the proposed budget .
“ But the point has to come when you realize that doing the same thing over and over isn ’ t going to produce the results you want.
” Makia Green , a local organizer with the Working Families Party who embedded herself in Lewis George ’ s campaign , told The Intercept that she believes the negative mailers backfired .
“ They were a complete failed attempt at misleading voters and putting forth scare tactics , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Janeese ’ s record , plans and support we have and instead I think it helped strengthen people ’ s resolve , and turn more passive supporters into active ones.
” Lewis George notably had the backing of not just DSA and WFP , but labor unions like the Washington Teachers Union , Unite Here Local 25 , and SEIU Local 500 .
Black Lives Matter DC and Sanctuary DMV also backed Lewis George — their first political endorsements ever .
“ We do not take making endorsements lightly , ” April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matter DC said in November .
“ Janeese [ ‘ s ] policy and budget priorities around public safety , policing , and addressing intra-community violence are informed by values and principles that not only align with ours but will result in real safety.
” Benjy Cannon , a spokesperson for Unite Here Local 25 , called Lewis George ’ s win a victory for organized labor and workers .
“ Her campaign showed that when we ’ re united , a powerful coalition of workers , tenants , progressive advocacy groups , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most deep-pocketed corporate interests , ” he said .

Calls to defund the police have become a focal point of nationwide protests following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, with local politicians from New York City to Los Angeles weighing new budget cuts to their police departments. While some critics dismiss the idea as politically untenable, a city council election in Washington, D.C., this week offers lessons on how politicians can succeed while pushing bold positions on policing.
Janeese Lewis George, a 32-year-old democratic socialist, decisively won an election in D.C.’s Ward 4 — the northernmost part of the city — despite facing weeks of attacks from her opponent that she was too radical on policing. She ousted the moderate incumbent, a protege of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, by a margin of 55-43 percent as of Thursday afternoon.
Read Our Complete Coverage Protests for Black Lives
Lewis George, a Ward 4 native, ran on a platform of expanding affordable housing, creating higher-paying jobs, fighting money in politics, and supporting criminal justice reform. She also campaigned on demilitarizing the police and reallocating portions of the Metropolitan Police Department’s budget toward social services and violence prevention initiatives — a position that drew the ire of backers of her opponent, Brandon Todd.
Democrats for Education Reform-DC, a pro-charter school advocacy group that endorsed Todd, sent out a series of mailers in the weeks leading up to the Tuesday election taking Lewis George’s comments out of context and smearing her as being anti-police.
“It was very disheartening for me that they were trying to use my message of demilitarization to say I don’t care about safety when the exact reason I spoke out was because I believe we need to be safe,” she told The Intercept.
Todd, a moderate and former Republican, by contrast has called for putting more cops on the streets, and praised the mayor for proposing an increase to the MPD’s budget. He has also consistently voted against some of the most progressive bills to cross the council’s desk. He was one of four lawmakers to vote against the city’s paid leave law in 2016, and he voted to repeal a ballot measure that would have gradually eliminated the city’s tipped minimum wage. (A majority of voters in his ward backed the measure.)
Like many insurgent candidates, Lewis George’s challenge to Todd was an uphill battle from a fundraising perspective. But through amassing robust grassroots support, she was able to overcome that by participating in D.C.’s first year of publicly financed elections, where candidates eschew PACs and corporate donations and have their local contributions matched 5:1. Todd declined to participate in the program, arguing public dollars were better spent elsewhere.
Lewis George urged other politicians considering whether it’s safe to back bold police reforms to step up.
“This time is not the time for political leaders to be in a place of comfort but to be in a place of courage,” she said. “If you stand with the people, the people will come out and show up for you.”
Lewis George has been particularly attuned to criminal justice issues since her time as a student at Howard Law School, where she learned about the immense discretionary power that prosecutors hold. She took this knowledge with her when she went to work as an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia, where she says she spoke out against what she saw as harsher punishments for the same offense when committed by black people. In 2016, she came back to D.C. to work for the city’s attorney general office, leading efforts in the Juvenile Section of their Public Safety Division that encouraged alternatives to jail time.
As a candidate, she urged an end to mass incarceration and the militarization of the police, ending cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and decriminalizing drugs and sex work.
It was these positions that drew attacks from DFER-DC. One mailer funded by the group misrepresented a tweet Lewis George posted in October, which promised to divest from the local police department and put money into “violence interruption” programs.
I will absolutely divest from MPD and put that money into violence interruption programs. Full stop. — Janeese Lewis George (@Janeese4DC) October 21, 2019
The DFER-DC funded mailer sent to Ward 4 voters claimed Lewis George “BRAGGED: ‘I WILL DIVEST FROM MPD!” It warned against letting Lewis George bring her “harmful ideas” to the city council and claimed she was looking to cut police officers.
Photo: Obtained by The Intercept
Another mailer funded by DFER-DC pulled answers Lewis George had given to a Metro DSA questionnaire out of context.
The questionnaire had asked about whether she supported efforts to “demilitarize and disarm” police departments. Lewis George said yes, and explained “We’re told the institution of policing is intended to protect all of us from some suspicious menace, but the fact is that crime is a public health problem, not a battle of military opponents. The transformation of American police departments, especially the MPD, into military units trained to occupy the very communities promised protection is one of the greatest dangers to the future of urban life.”
The DFER-DC mailers read “Our police officers have dedicated their lives to keeping Ward 4 families safe. But Janeese Lewis George calls them ‘one of the greatest dangers to the future of urban life,’” suggesting she was denigrating officers specifically, not the militarization of their departments.
DFER-DC’s director Ramin Taheri declined to comment on the mailers or on Lewis George’s win, but said in an email that his group stands in support of the police brutality protesters organizing in the wake of Floyd’s death. “Our mission has always been to elect candidates who will fight to reverse the educational inequities that too many Black children face, and like many, we are reflecting on how we can be a better ally in dismantling systemic racism in the District.”
He previously told Washington City Paper that his group crafted its mailers based on recent polling that most Ward 4 voters were less likely to vote for someone who wanted to cut police officers from the force. The telephone poll, which was conducted by Garin-Hart-Yang Research in late April, also said Todd had a 22 percentage point advantage over Lewis George, and that she was unlikely to win a majority of the 25 percent of then- undecided voters. Taheri told City Paper they quoted Lewis George correctly in their ads.
In an interview, Lewis George blasted DFER-DC and emphasized that cutting the police budget isn’t synonymous with cutting officers.
“The fact that they saw my platform as a weakness instead of a conversation to have in the community about what it means to be safe speaks to their ultimate goal which is not reforming education but retaining power within our political system,” she said. Lewis George also noted that when D.C. Councilmember and Education Chair David Grosso spoke out about the militarization of the police both in 2017 and as recently as a few days ago, DFER-DC did not object.
The subject of DFER-DC’s attacks on Lewis George have become especially relevant as the call to defund the police has gone mainstream over the last week amid nationwide police brutality protests. While activists have long called for the same types of reforms Lewis George champions, elected officials across the country are now taking note. On Wednesday, the president of the Los Angeles City Council introduced a measure asking city staff to find up to $150 million in possible cuts to the local police department, and to reinvest those funds into poor communities and communities of color. In New York, state Sen. Julia Salazar recently argued for cutting the New York Police Department’s $6 billion budget and transferring those dollars to nonprofit organizations and mental health services.
In D.C., a growing chorus of activists have been calling to defund the MPD, which is one of the 10 largest police departments in the nation. The city council is currently reviewing Bowser’s budget proposal, which would increase police funding by 3.3 percent — resulting in a budget of over $500 million — coupled with an 11 percent cut to violence prevention programs.
“I think it’s easy for people to lean on doing the same things again and again out of comfort,” said Lewis George, when asked about the proposed budget. “But the point has to come when you realize that doing the same thing over and over isn’t going to produce the results you want.”
Makia Green, a local organizer with the Working Families Party who embedded themself in Lewis George’s campaign, told The Intercept that they believe the negative mailers backfired.
“They were a complete failed attempt at misleading voters and putting forth scare tactics,” they said. “They tried to mislead about Janeese’s record, plans and support we have and instead I think it helped strengthen people’s resolve, and turn more passive supporters into active ones.”
Lewis George notably had the backing of not just DSA and WFP, but labor unions like the Washington Teachers Union, Unite Here Local 25, and SEIU Local 500.
Black Lives Matter DC and Sanctuary DMV also backed Lewis George — their first political endorsements ever. “We do not take making endorsements lightly,” April Goggans, an organizer with Black Lives Matter DC said in November. “Janeese[‘s] policy and budget priorities around public safety, policing, and addressing intra-community violence are informed by values and principles that not only align with ours but will result in real safety.”
Benjy Cannon, a spokesperson for Unite Here Local 25, called Lewis George’s win a victory for organized labor and workers. “Her campaign showed that when we’re united, a powerful coalition of workers, tenants, progressive advocacy groups, and grassroots activists can defeat even the most deep-pocketed corporate interests,” he said.
Correction: June 7, 2020
A previous version of this article misgendered Makia Green, who uses they pronouns.


theintercept--2020-06-04--How Protests Over George Floyd's Killing Exposed Trump as a Lame-Duck Authoritarian

strange political success has been powered from the start by a wildly effective campaign of image-building .
In his public persona , Trump has consistently projected himself as a budding strongman , reveling in authoritarian threats calculated to thrill his supporters and terrify his opponents .
The outbreak of an unprecedented national protest movement triggered by the police killing of George Floyd seemed like it could be the moment that Trump finally delivered on these terrible promises .
Those who fear Trump braced for their worst nightmares to become reality .
Those who support him and took seriously his authoritarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapture finally drawing near .
Instead of Trump ’ s full tyrant mode coming to pass , though , something more nuanced happened : Neither side is having their expectations met .
This in-between outcome may be toxic for Trump , especially as the 2020 election approaches .
As any authoritarian knows , a real strongman needs to govern either through love or fear .
Trump has done neither .
His prevaricating yet cruel response succeeded in making him look tyrannical and weak at the same time — a potentially fatal mix for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crushing response to a national uprising , Trump ’ s extreme statements gave plenty of reason for either hope or fear .
The problem for Trump is that , even as his threats get more severe , he seems unable to match them with effective action .
He certainly has not made any concessions to the protests — demonstrators have been jailed , beaten , and even killed — but he is also not capable of utterly crushing them like an actual authoritarian would .
There has been no order for a general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy have not been unilaterally dissolved by presidential decree in the name of security .
Rather than strong and menacing , Trump seems to be checkmated .
Even the military establishment he has done so much to flatter seems to be turning on him .
In his notorious photo-op in front of a church , where he awkwardly brandished a Bible to signal his evangelical supporters to come to his rescue , Trump didn ’ t look decisive ; he looked desperate .
And it didn ’ t work : The move was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cost of real suffering , then , the protesters may have already won a major achievement .
If Trump ’ s proto-fascist political persona was an idol , they ’ ve smashed it to pieces with a sledgehammer .
Put to the real test , Trump ’ s reaction has been the worst of both worlds for his political career .
He responded to the uprising with enough brutality to outrage his opponents , but not enough to truly suppress them and satisfy his base .
still fluid , and things could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way events are going , the protests that went all the way to the gates of the White House look like they ’ ve finally pulled back the curtain on Trump ’ s fascist cosplay .
What the unrelenting demonstrations revealed is less a dictator-in-waiting than a con artist – a man who was never actually capable of living up to his most chilling threats .
Though he has certainly inflicted massive damage in office — think , for instance , of the families that continue to be ripped apart by his brutal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wars — when put to the test , Trump has been shown as a strongman without any real strength .
Even the Wizard of Oz didn ’ t have such a devastating reveal .
On Tuesday , Trump began publicly hemorrhaging the support of a U.S. military establishment to which he had gone to cringeworthy lengths to attach himself .
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper , former Defense Secretary James Mattis , and National Guard Chief Gen. Joseph Lengyel all issued public statements undermining the sitting president .
In a press conference , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of armed troops to quell protests , while Lengyel issued a statement on social media last night subtly chastising the government for its response to the protests .
The most dramatic blow , however , came from Mattis .
A man with a deeply checkered record himself , Mattis took the unprecedented move of openly condemning a president that he had served just two years earlier .
“ Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yesterday evening to The Atlantic .
The retired general didn ’ t say explicitly what should be done but suggestively concluded , “ We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.
” Whether due to institutional constraints , personal weakness , or a combination of both , it is looking like Trump was never actually capable of living up to his rhetoric .
The disillusionment for those who support him is potentially great , since Trump really does talk like an authoritarian , routinely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy measures , and even encouraging his supporters to take things into their own hands .
Despite being exposed as a phony , many of his voters will likely stick with Trump as a lesser evil compared with his liberal and leftist opponents .
But , barring a dramatic reversal of events , his aura of strength has been shattered .
Time and again , Trump set the bar for fascist expectations to the highest levels .
Mercifully , he seems utterly incapable of actually meeting them .
To be clear , everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relieved if Trump leaves office in November having turned out to be a lame-duck strongman .
But we should not become complacent until that happens .
Should something shift in his thinking , or if more extreme members of the administration get into positions of power , he might still end up delivering the real authoritarianism that many of his supporters are clearly craving .
There are real risks in the coming months , amid the continued pain of the coronavirus pandemic , unprecedented levels of unemployment , and an uncertain election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we get through the immediate crisis .
For now , one thing people might celebrate out of these protests , in addition to ensuring serious charges are leveled at the officers involved in killing George Floyd , is destroying the powerful myth Trump built for himself years ago – the one that carried him all the way to the presidential office .
Like so many people around the world who like to talk tough on social media , Trump built an image for himself intended to intimidate others .
When the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his door however , he did exactly what it was always in him to do : He hid .

Photo: Agustin Paullier/AFP/Getty Images
President Donald Trump’s strange political success has been powered from the start by a wildly effective campaign of image-building. In his public persona, Trump has consistently projected himself as a budding strongman, reveling in authoritarian threats calculated to thrill his supporters and terrify his opponents.
The outbreak of an unprecedented national protest movement triggered by the police killing of George Floyd seemed like it could be the moment that Trump finally delivered on these terrible promises. Those who fear Trump braced for their worst nightmares to become reality. Those who support him and took seriously his authoritarian promises likely felt the long-awaited moment of rapture finally drawing near.
Instead of Trump’s full tyrant mode coming to pass, though, something more nuanced happened: Neither side is having their expectations met. This in-between outcome may be toxic for Trump, especially as the 2020 election approaches. As any authoritarian knows, a real strongman needs to govern either through love or fear. Trump has done neither. His prevaricating yet cruel response succeeded in making him look tyrannical and weak at the same time — a potentially fatal mix for any leader.
For those expecting a crushing response to a national uprising, Trump’s extreme statements gave plenty of reason for either hope or fear. The problem for Trump is that, even as his threats get more severe, he seems unable to match them with effective action. He certainly has not made any concessions to the protests — demonstrators have been jailed, beaten, and even killed — but he is also not capable of utterly crushing them like an actual authoritarian would. There has been no order for a general massacre of demonstrators. The institutions of democracy have not been unilaterally dissolved by presidential decree in the name of security.
Rather than strong and menacing, Trump seems to be checkmated. Even the military establishment he has done so much to flatter seems to be turning on him.
In his notorious photo-op in front of a church, where he awkwardly brandished a Bible to signal his evangelical supporters to come to his rescue, Trump didn’t look decisive; he looked desperate. And it didn’t work: The move was even rebuked by Republican senators.
At the cost of real suffering, then, the protesters may have already won a major achievement. If Trump’s proto-fascist political persona was an idol, they’ve smashed it to pieces with a sledgehammer. Put to the real test, Trump’s reaction has been the worst of both worlds for his political career. He responded to the uprising with enough brutality to outrage his opponents, but not enough to truly suppress them and satisfy his base.
The situation is still fluid, and things could take an uglier turn. But the way events are going, the protests that went all the way to the gates of the White House look like they’ve finally pulled back the curtain on Trump’s fascist cosplay. What the unrelenting demonstrations revealed is less a dictator-in-waiting than a con artist – a man who was never actually capable of living up to his most chilling threats. Though he has certainly inflicted massive damage in office — think, for instance, of the families that continue to be ripped apart by his brutal immigration policies or killed in his foreign wars — when put to the test, Trump has been shown as a strongman without any real strength. Even the Wizard of Oz didn’t have such a devastating reveal.
On Tuesday, Trump began publicly hemorrhaging the support of a U.S. military establishment to which he had gone to cringeworthy lengths to attach himself. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, former Defense Secretary James Mattis, and National Guard Chief Gen. Joseph Lengyel all issued public statements undermining the sitting president. In a press conference, Esper publicly broke with Trump over the use of armed troops to quell protests, while Lengyel issued a statement on social media last night subtly chastising the government for its response to the protests.
The most dramatic blow, however, came from Mattis. A man with a deeply checkered record himself, Mattis took the unprecedented move of openly condemning a president that he had served just two years earlier. “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try,” Mattis wrote in a statement given yesterday evening to The Atlantic. The retired general didn’t say explicitly what should be done but suggestively concluded, “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”
Whether due to institutional constraints, personal weakness, or a combination of both, it is looking like Trump was never actually capable of living up to his rhetoric.
Whether due to institutional constraints, personal weakness, or a combination of both, it is looking like Trump was never actually capable of living up to his rhetoric. The disillusionment for those who support him is potentially great, since Trump really does talk like an authoritarian, routinely making hair-raising threats of violence or draconian policy measures, and even encouraging his supporters to take things into their own hands.
Despite being exposed as a phony, many of his voters will likely stick with Trump as a lesser evil compared with his liberal and leftist opponents. But, barring a dramatic reversal of events, his aura of strength has been shattered. Time and again, Trump set the bar for fascist expectations to the highest levels. Mercifully, he seems utterly incapable of actually meeting them.
To be clear, everyone in the United States should be deeply relieved if Trump leaves office in November having turned out to be a lame-duck strongman. But we should not become complacent until that happens. Should something shift in his thinking, or if more extreme members of the administration get into positions of power, he might still end up delivering the real authoritarianism that many of his supporters are clearly craving. There are real risks in the coming months, amid the continued pain of the coronavirus pandemic, unprecedented levels of unemployment, and an uncertain election. No one should rest easy, even if we get through the immediate crisis.
For now, one thing people might celebrate out of these protests, in addition to ensuring serious charges are leveled at the officers involved in killing George Floyd, is destroying the powerful myth Trump built for himself years ago – the one that carried him all the way to the presidential office. Like so many people around the world who like to talk tough on social media, Trump built an image for himself intended to intimidate others. When the people he was threatening finally showed up to his door however, he did exactly what it was always in him to do: He hid.


theintercept--2020-06-04--We Crunched the Numbers: Police — Not Protesters — Are Overwhelmingly Responsible for Attacking Jour

We Crunched the Numbers: Police — Not Protesters — Are Overwhelmingly Responsible for Attacking Journalists

a truly unprecedented attack on press freedom in the United States , with journalists are being systematically targeted while covering the nationwide protests over the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police .
The scale of the attacks is so large , it can be hard to fathom .
At the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker , a project of Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Committee to Protect Journalists , we catalogued 150 press freedom violations in the United States in all of 2019 .
We are currently investigating 280 from just the last week .
The crisis has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushed a narrative — fueled by commonly used phrases like “ journalists are being attacked by police and protesters alike ” — that police and protesters are attacking journalists at relatively equal rates .
Our data shows this is incorrect .
Police are responsible for the vast majority of assaults on journalists : over 80 percent .
At the Tracker , we document violence against journalists from all perpetrators , whether it comes from the police , protesters , or bat-wielding racist vigilantes ( yes , that really happened ) .
And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here is a breakdown of our preliminary numbers , as of the morning of June 4 : As you can see , out of the 180 assaults we are investigating , 149 of them have been by police .
That ’ s almost 83 percent .
( This number also does not include police arresting journalists , which have occurred at least another 45 times . )
We further break down the Tracker ’ s “ assaults ” category into several subcategories .
For our tracking purposes , “ assaults ” can mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pepper-spraying , or being fired upon with rubber bullets and other projectiles .
Even if you remove all the times police have purposefully fired on and seriously injured journalists with their extremely dangerous “ crowd control ” weapons , the police have physically assaulted journalists at a greater rate as well .
Out of the 67 physical assaults , 42 have been by police .
Further , some of the assaults from private citizens have not come from protesters either .
For example , WHYY reporter Jon Ehrens was beaten up by what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Philadelphia .
Many of the attacks by police have been targeted .
There are now literally dozens of videos showing journalists — sometimes live on national television — with cameras , microphones , and press badges , clearly indicating to police they are with the media , only to find officers purposefully firing dangerous projectiles at them anyway .
Listen to this harrowing NPR segment in which multiple journalists — one of them even in tears — describe the terrifying scenarios they have found themselves in as police have turned on them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ puts it , “ We were not caught in the crossfire .
They pursued us .
And they knew that we were reporters and photographers.
” Just last night , journalist Amin Rosen described riding his bicycle and being assaulted by a New York Police Department officer with a baton .
The police then stole his bike , refused to identify themselves , and , when Rosen asked how he could get it back , they reportedly responded , “ It ’ s not your bike anymore.
” Rosen was wearing a helmet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on it the whole time .
There ’ s no doubt there have been several serious physical assaults directed at journalists from a small subset of people attending protests .
And private citizens have broken cameras and damaged newsroom facilities as well ( 14 incidents at the police ’ s hands , and 26 by others ) .
At Freedom of the Press Foundation , we forcefully condemn all acts of violence on journalists and urge anyone on the streets to respect their rights .
( It should also be noted many protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
However , when reporting on violence against journalists this fact bears repeating : The police are violently attacking journalists at a rate greater than 4 to 1 when compared with private citizens .
Given the out-of-control militarization of police we have seen over the past two decades , and government ’ s threats to increase its crackdown , that is especially terrifying .
And if police departments are not held quickly accountable by state governments , it will only get worse .

Photo: Wong Maye-E/AP
We are witnessing a truly unprecedented attack on press freedom in the United States, with journalists are being systematically targeted while covering the nationwide protests over the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police.
The scale of the attacks is so large, it can be hard to fathom. At the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a project of Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Committee to Protect Journalists, we catalogued 150 press freedom violations in the United States in all of 2019. We are currently investigating 280 from just the last week.
The crisis has rightly generated international outrage. Some have pushed a narrative — fueled by commonly used phrases like “journalists are being attacked by police and protesters alike” — that police and protesters are attacking journalists at relatively equal rates.
Our data shows this is incorrect. Police are responsible for the vast majority of assaults on journalists: over 80 percent.
At the Tracker, we document violence against journalists from all perpetrators, whether it comes from the police, protesters, or bat-wielding racist vigilantes (yes, that really happened). And the data could not be more clear.
Here is a breakdown of our preliminary numbers, as of the morning of June 4:
LATEST DATA, MAY 26-JUNE 3: *279+ total press freedom incidents* —45+ arrests
—180 assaults (149 by police)
—40 equipment/newsroom damage Assault category breakdown:
—67 physical attacks (42 by police)
—40 tear gassings
—23 pepper sprayings
—69 rubber bullets/projectiles — U.S. Press Freedom Tracker (@uspresstracker) June 4, 2020
As you can see, out of the 180 assaults we are investigating, 149 of them have been by police. That’s almost 83 percent. (This number also does not include police arresting journalists, which have occurred at least another 45 times.)
We further break down the Tracker’s “assaults” category into several subcategories. For our tracking purposes, “assaults” can mean physical attacks, but also tear-gassing, pepper-spraying, or being fired upon with rubber bullets and other projectiles.
Even if you remove all the times police have purposefully fired on and seriously injured journalists with their extremely dangerous “crowd control” weapons, the police have physically assaulted journalists at a greater rate as well. Out of the 67 physical assaults, 42 have been by police. Further, some of the assaults from private citizens have not come from protesters either. For example, WHYY reporter Jon Ehrens was beaten up by what appears to be police-aligned white nationalists in Philadelphia.
Many of the attacks by police have been targeted. There are now literally dozens of videos showing journalists — sometimes live on national television — with cameras, microphones, and press badges, clearly indicating to police they are with the media, only to find officers purposefully firing dangerous projectiles at them anyway.
Listen to this harrowing NPR segment in which multiple journalists — one of them even in tears — describe the terrifying scenarios they have found themselves in as police have turned on them. As Los Angeles Times reporter Molly Hennessy-Fiske puts it, “We were not caught in the crossfire. They pursued us. And they knew that we were reporters and photographers.”
Just last night, journalist Amin Rosen described riding his bicycle and being assaulted by a New York Police Department officer with a baton. The police then stole his bike, refused to identify themselves, and, when Rosen asked how he could get it back, they reportedly responded, “It’s not your bike anymore.” Rosen was wearing a helmet with a large “PRESS” sign on it the whole time.
Still got my helmet though! (Tape etc applied by @BenFeibleman last night) pic.twitter.com/M5zw2Bie26 — Armin Rosen (@ArminRosen) June 4, 2020
There’s no doubt there have been several serious physical assaults directed at journalists from a small subset of people attending protests. And private citizens have broken cameras and damaged newsroom facilities as well (14 incidents at the police’s hands, and 26 by others).
At Freedom of the Press Foundation, we forcefully condemn all acts of violence on journalists and urge anyone on the streets to respect their rights. (It should also be noted many protesters have helped journalists to safety as well).
However, when reporting on violence against journalists this fact bears repeating: The police are violently attacking journalists at a rate greater than 4 to 1 when compared with private citizens. Given the out-of-control militarization of police we have seen over the past two decades, and government’s threats to increase its crackdown, that is especially terrifying. And if police departments are not held quickly accountable by state governments, it will only get worse.


theintercept--2020-06-04--New PFAS Chemical Contamination Discovered in New Jersey

By collecting samples near the factory , then analyzing and reverse engineering the molecules in them , the scientists were able to deduce that the company had replaced one compound from the family of manmade , industrial chemicals with another .
Based on complex mapping , they showed that the new compound , like the old one , was spreading far beyond the factory and was contaminating the area even as the scientists were doing their taxpayer-funded sleuthing .
The challenge was to identify the new compound .
Because the company didn ’ t reveal the chemistry of the replacement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purposefully obscured on the grounds that it was confidential business information — the scientists had to resort to expensive , painstaking detective work to figure out what chemical the company was now using and whether they were releasing it into the environment .
Government scientists suspected that the factory was releasing a dangerous PFAS chemical , and they had good reason to think so .
The company operating it had knowingly released another PFAS chemical from this site before — and the first toxic industrial compound , which persists indefinitely in nature , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the bodies of the people who drank it .
The company phased out that first problem chemical as part of an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency and began using another in its place .
If you feel like you have read this story before , it may be because this precise series of events led to the 2015 discovery that DuPont had replaced its toxic and environmentally persistent chemical PFOA with GenX , which came to light only after EPA scientists spent years sampling the water of the Cape Fear River @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a DuPont factory , analyzing the samples , and reverse engineering the chemicals they found downstream from the factory .
This time , after yet another game of scientific cat-and-mouse , researchers from the EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection have discovered another instance in which a company has released a potentially dangerous little-known PFAS replacement compound .
According to an article being published tomorrow in Science , eight variations of a recently identified group of PFAS compounds were found in soil in New Jersey , with their concentrations decreasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plant in West Deptford , New Jersey , that makes fluorochemicals .
According to the article , the pattern “ is consistent with Solvay being the source of these compounds.
” Perhaps most disturbing , the chemicals apparently travel with the wind and were found throughout the state .
The smallest of the molecules , which is thought to be most easily transported , was detected in a soil sample from Merrimack , New Hampshire — some 280 miles away .
As The Intercept previously reported , Solvay Specialty Polymers , a division @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the recently identified chemicals known only as “ Solvay ’ s compound ” as a replacement for the compound PFNA , which is a close relative of PFOA .
( PFNA is based on a slightly longer chain of carbon atoms . )
Solvay used PFNA to make specialty plastic for semiconductors and lithium batteries in its West Deptford plant as far back as 1990 .
The company phased out the use of the chemical in 2010 as part of an agreement with the EPA that restricted the production of PFAS compounds based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not before PFNA had spread into the environment near the Solvay plant .
According to a 2015 report , more than 100 water samples around the factory contained PFNA , and 83 wells around the site were contaminated with both PFNA and PFOA .
Elevated levels of PFNA were found in people living near the plant , with one person ’ s blood level reaching 63 times the national average , according to a document Solvay submitted to the EPA in 2015 .
The chemical also accumulated in the blood of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a report filed with the EPA in 2004 .
Solvay declined to respond to questions from The Intercept about the findings described in the Science article .
In the case of GenX , there was ample evidence that the replacement chemical posed a serious threat to human health .
DuPont had done animal experiments that showed GenX caused many of the same health problems that PFOA does , including cancer .
Although the company sent summaries of the animal experiments to the EPA , the agency had quietly filed them away and allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear red flags they raised .
The companies ’ letters alerting the EPA to the hazards posed by the chemical remained out of the public eye until The Intercept published them in 2016 .
Since then , it ’ s become clear that some 250,000 people in North Carolina were exposed to GenX and a number of other PFAS through their drinking water .
Research is now underway to understand how those chemicals affected the health of the people who drank them for decades .
In the case of the newly discovered replacements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly available research on the health threats they pose .
A search for a number associated with the chemical on the EPA ’ s computerized database of chemicals turns up no records , which may indicate that it is listed on the portion of the government ’ s inventory of chemicals that is shielded by companies ’ claims of confidentiality .
Solvay did not respond to a question about whether its replacement chemicals were listed in the confidential inventory or whether the company had conducted tests of its toxicity .
According to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Science tomorrow , California regulators studied the sub-class of PFAS to which the new replacements belong and issued a warning last year that they also persist in the environment and “ may have similar or higher toxic potency than the longer-chain [ PFAS chemicals ] they are replacing.
” The European Chemicals Agency has a little bit more information , linking the PFNA replacement five hazards , being “ fatal if swallowed , ” “ fatal in contact with skin , ” causing “ liver damage through prolonged or repeated exposure ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with long-lasting effects.
” But 12 other categories in its assessment were marked as “ data lacking.
” Unfortunately , as with GenX in North Carolina , the definitive answers to questions about the dangers of these chemicals will likely be found in the people who were unwittingly exposed to them for years .
In the case of Solvay ’ s replacements , residents of West Deptford and other places near the plant are likely to be the most affected .
A study is already underway in West Deptford and Paulsboro , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Solvay plant , to determine how ingesting PFNA , which has been shown to harm pregnant mice and their developing offspring in lab experiments , has affected residents .
The people there have been concerned about the health consequences of that chemical since learning about it in 2013 .
“ And now they ’ re having to face another toxic compound that was supposed to be a safe replacement for the original which raises the specter of even more health problems , ” said Tracy Carluccio , deputy director of the Delaware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PFNA contamination to light in this community .
“ It ’ s totally unjust .
The people living near Solvay are being treated as guinea pigs again .
”

Government scientists suspected that the factory was releasing a dangerous PFAS chemical, and they had good reason to think so. The company operating it had knowingly released another PFAS chemical from this site before — and the first toxic industrial compound, which persists indefinitely in nature, had contaminated local drinking water and accumulated in the bodies of the people who drank it. The company phased out that first problem chemical as part of an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency and began using another in its place.
The challenge was to identify the new compound. Because the company didn’t reveal the chemistry of the replacement — in fact had kept its details purposefully obscured on the grounds that it was confidential business information — the scientists had to resort to expensive, painstaking detective work to figure out what chemical the company was now using and whether they were releasing it into the environment.
By collecting samples near the factory, then analyzing and reverse engineering the molecules in them, the scientists were able to deduce that the company had replaced one compound from the family of manmade, industrial chemicals with another. Based on complex mapping, they showed that the new compound, like the old one, was spreading far beyond the factory and was contaminating the area even as the scientists were doing their taxpayer-funded sleuthing.
If you feel like you have read this story before, it may be because this precise series of events led to the 2015 discovery that DuPont had replaced its toxic and environmentally persistent chemical PFOA with GenX, which came to light only after EPA scientists spent years sampling the water of the Cape Fear River in North Carolina near what was then a DuPont factory, analyzing the samples, and reverse engineering the chemicals they found downstream from the factory.
This time, after yet another game of scientific cat-and-mouse, researchers from the EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection have discovered another instance in which a company has released a potentially dangerous little-known PFAS replacement compound. According to an article being published tomorrow in Science, eight variations of a recently identified group of PFAS compounds were found in soil in New Jersey, with their concentrations decreasing along with their distance from a Solvay plant in West Deptford, New Jersey, that makes fluorochemicals. According to the article, the pattern “is consistent with Solvay being the source of these compounds.” Perhaps most disturbing, the chemicals apparently travel with the wind and were found throughout the state. The smallest of the molecules, which is thought to be most easily transported, was detected in a soil sample from Merrimack, New Hampshire — some 280 miles away.
As The Intercept previously reported, Solvay Specialty Polymers, a division of a Belgian chemical company, used the recently identified chemicals known only as “Solvay’s compound” as a replacement for the compound PFNA, which is a close relative of PFOA. (PFNA is based on a slightly longer chain of carbon atoms.) Solvay used PFNA to make specialty plastic for semiconductors and lithium batteries in its West Deptford plant as far back as 1990. The company phased out the use of the chemical in 2010 as part of an agreement with the EPA that restricted the production of PFAS compounds based on relatively long chains of carbon, but not before PFNA had spread into the environment near the Solvay plant. According to a 2015 report, more than 100 water samples around the factory contained PFNA, and 83 wells around the site were contaminated with both PFNA and PFOA. Elevated levels of PFNA were found in people living near the plant, with one person’s blood level reaching 63 times the national average, according to a document Solvay submitted to the EPA in 2015. The chemical also accumulated in the blood of the company’s workers, according to a report filed with the EPA in 2004.
Solvay declined to respond to questions from The Intercept about the findings described in the Science article.
In the case of GenX, there was ample evidence that the replacement chemical posed a serious threat to human health. DuPont had done animal experiments that showed GenX caused many of the same health problems that PFOA does, including cancer. Although the company sent summaries of the animal experiments to the EPA, the agency had quietly filed them away and allowed the chemical to be used despite the clear red flags they raised. The companies’ letters alerting the EPA to the hazards posed by the chemical remained out of the public eye until The Intercept published them in 2016. Since then, it’s become clear that some 250,000 people in North Carolina were exposed to GenX and a number of other PFAS through their drinking water. Research is now underway to understand how those chemicals affected the health of the people who drank them for decades.
In the case of the newly discovered replacements for PFNA, there is very little publicly available research on the health threats they pose. A search for a number associated with the chemical on the EPA’s computerized database of chemicals turns up no records, which may indicate that it is listed on the portion of the government’s inventory of chemicals that is shielded by companies’ claims of confidentiality. Solvay did not respond to a question about whether its replacement chemicals were listed in the confidential inventory or whether the company had conducted tests of its toxicity.
According to a companion commentary that is also being published in Science tomorrow, California regulators studied the sub-class of PFAS to which the new replacements belong and issued a warning last year that they also persist in the environment and “may have similar or higher toxic potency than the longer-chain [PFAS chemicals] they are replacing.”
The European Chemicals Agency has a little bit more information, linking the PFNA replacement five hazards, being “fatal if swallowed,” “fatal in contact with skin,” causing “liver damage through prolonged or repeated exposure” and being “toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects.” But 12 other categories in its assessment were marked as “data lacking.”
Unfortunately, as with GenX in North Carolina, the definitive answers to questions about the dangers of these chemicals will likely be found in the people who were unwittingly exposed to them for years. In the case of Solvay’s replacements, residents of West Deptford and other places near the plant are likely to be the most affected. A study is already underway in West Deptford and Paulsboro, a small, high-poverty community 2 miles from the Solvay plant, to determine how ingesting PFNA, which has been shown to harm pregnant mice and their developing offspring in lab experiments, has affected residents. The people there have been concerned about the health consequences of that chemical since learning about it in 2013.
“And now they’re having to face another toxic compound that was supposed to be a safe replacement for the original which raises the specter of even more health problems,” said Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, who helped bring the PFNA contamination to light in this community. “It’s totally unjust. The people living near Solvay are being treated as guinea pigs again.”