This article is confusing. I think the actual charges are this:
> According to the indictment, Mavalwalla and his co-defendants “physically blocked the drive-way of the federal facility and/or physically pushed against officers despite orders to disperse and efforts to remove them from the property”.
And it was recorded and posted to Instagram:
> A one-minute video posted on Instagram shows the army veteran briefly jostle with an officer whose face is covered by a ski mask and sunglasses. Mavalwalla then locks arms with other demonstrators to block the gate.
Sidestepping the political hot topic, if you use Facebook to coordinate with others to block federal officers from doing their job and then someone from your group records it and posts it to Instagram, your lawyer is going to have a hard time finding a way out of charges like this.
No comments yet
nomel · 3h ago
Facts start at the third section, "‘An issue of selective prosecution’", after ~30 paragraphs of character/story/emotion building.
> Mavalwalla was one of hundreds of people to respond to a 11 June social media post from the former president of the Spokane city council that encouraged protesters to block an Ice transport they believed would carry two Venezuelan immigrants who were in the country legally, petitioning for asylum when they were detained.
> “I am going to sit in front of the bus,” Ben Stuckart, the former city council president, wrote. “Feel free to join me.”
With this "problem" for the prosecutors quoted:
> In this case, prosecutors would just have to prove that defendants agreed in concert to impede or injure an officer.
So I would caution against reading a short description of the law and thinking it's an open-and-shut case against the protesters.
nomel · 2h ago
IANAL, but that cases seem very different. This appears direct (prevent the federal officer from completing their enforcement action), where the Bundy brothers appears to have been indirect (in response to a federal officers that completed their action):
> In response to the imprisonment of two Harney County ranchers, who were prosecuted for arson, Ammon and Ryan led a group of activists in an occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge, an obscure sanctuary for birds.
> Ammon declared that he and other protesters, some who openly carried firearms and took over government buildings and equipment, would stay until the ranchers were freed and the refuge land was given to locals to control.
rafram · 2h ago
The thing that prompted the occupation isn't relevant. They physically occupied federal property and prevented federal officers from entering or from performing their duties. Much like in this case!
throwawayffffas · 1h ago
And much like the other case there is a first amendment component, and the balance of how much the government can override ones right to express one's self when doing so impedes the work of the government.
malcolmgreaves · 2h ago
The facts start at the beginning:
- the actual US attorney for the area was pressured to resign from Republicans (Trump)
- Republicans put in a guy with 0 legal experience who was previously working for a political group. Said guy also wanted the US government overthrown on January 6th as he supports the insurrectionists. This is also the guy who supports the Republican's attempt to illegally erase the 14th amendment.
- The person who was arrested and charged was merely exercising his first amendment rights to peacefully assemble and protest. He did nothing violent nor criminal.
nomel · 1h ago
> nor criminal
IANAL, but it appears to be criminal: 18 U.S.C. 111
"Conspiracy to Impede or Injure Officers" seems like a pretty broad category, and should be separate things. Conspiracy to impede is one thing. That might be applied to planning to be at a protest where you may be in the way of an officer. Injuring is a very different thing. Conflating the two into a single charge seems disproportionate. This conflation seems intentional to give an excuse to just round up anyone who plans to be at a protest, and charge them with a crime that has a punishment equal to assaulting an officer.
like_any_other · 2h ago
> a crime that has a punishment equal to assaulting an officer
I'd be very surprised if the punishments for impeding or injuring are equal, despite the two crimes being described in the same statute. Afaik sentencing guidelines take into account more than just the charge itself.
malcolmgreaves · 2h ago
Conspiracy to impede is unconstitutional, as people in the US have the right to peacefully assemble. If cops decide to illegally break up a protest, then they can say "oh you're impending me!" and no one actually has a 1st amendment right.
throwawayffffas · 1h ago
Taking this to its logical conclusion you should be able to walk up the hill, push aside the cops, enter the rotunda, occupy the chambers of Congress all within your first amendment rights.
There is nuance and balance to be had in law, your rights end where others begin.
clipsy · 1h ago
> Taking this to its logical conclusion you should be able to walk up the hill, push aside the cops, enter the rotunda, occupy the chambers of Congress all within your first amendment rights.
Isn't this exactly what the MAGA crowd has professed to believe since 1/6/2021?
krapp · 1h ago
And not just regarding the first amendment.
They were fine storming government buildings with guns in hand during covid. They considered the Bundy brothers and Kyle Rittenhouse to be heroes and patriots.
These rights are absolute and inalienable, granted by God as long as you're "white and right." Otherwise it's time to crack skulls.
mrinterweb · 2h ago
I'm certainly not advocating that "conspiracy to impede" should be illegal. I just feel that putting "impede" and "injure" together into a single charge seems like a way to deal excessive punishments in a way that could be very broadly interpreted.
everyone · 2h ago
Seeing, not just stuff like this, but a myriad of things, imo the US is cooked. EU countries that still have enlightenment ideals alive need to cut ties asap. In particular we need our own completely independent armies, arms production, and nuclear deterrence.
Imo what we're seeing in the US now is the visible "blooming" of things which have been growing and metastasizing since the 80's.
leoh · 2h ago
I agree for the moment. My hope is that cases like this will form the basis of positive change in the next few years.
linohh · 2h ago
"Thank you Ronald Reagan, your legacy is intact"
standardUser · 2h ago
The complete lack of pushback from traditional conservatives against Trump's constant overreach and his complete disregard for basic civil liberties and the rule of law continues to shock me.
PieTime · 2h ago
I’ve asked myself why my grandparents did not try to overthrow their Nazi regime. They were not the most immoral people on the surface, they just viewed their actions happening as the only way of survival. I think the answer lies in seeing what really happening instead of what’s portrayed as happening on their propaganda outlets. Articles like this start to transition people away from supporting fascism if they are believed.
standardUser · 1h ago
I will say that, having grown up in the 80's and 90's far removed from the fascist states of yesteryear, it was always baffling how Western nations succumbed so completely to authoritarianism.
I am not longer baffled.
onetimeusename · 2h ago
There was large scale mass migration into the country that appeared to be facilitated by the last administration. I think it's interesting how now trying to undo that is considered fascism. Serious question, would you say you support mass migration into a country to create voting blocs that counter those stupid, ignorant, fascist people?
mcphage · 2h ago
> I think it's interesting how now trying to undo that is considered fascism.
Fascism is based on what you're doing—it has nothing to do with the why.
like_any_other · 2h ago
The mass migration has been going since before 1986, when Republicans gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, on the promise of getting better border control [1]. They didn't get it, nor was legal immigration reduced in any way, nor did the Republican party itself fight too hard for either. No surprise voters felt betrayed. California passed a referendum to stop literally funding illegal immigration, only for it to be judicially overturned [2].
Again and again and again, any kind of limit on immigration, no matter how popular, was rejected. Is it any surprise it came to this?
>There was large scale mass migration into the country that appeared to be facilitated by the last administration.
Did you forget to specify "illegal" migration in regards to this conspiracy theory or did the mask just slip here?
like_any_other · 2h ago
You think this is an argument about paperwork?
krapp · 1h ago
Obviously not. I just want people to actually say what they mean for once and stop pretending it is an argument about paperwork.
exolymph · 2h ago
~No one pushes back on abuses of power by their own side.
(Not literally no one, but few enough people that they effectively don't matter.)
zem · 2h ago
"traditional" conservatives are mostly people who were sufficiently concerned with appearances to not say the quiet parts out loud. I have no doubt they support trump's agenda, if not the uncouthness of his methods.
aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA · 2h ago
It was always just a mask.
GuinansEyebrows · 2h ago
i think the memetic idea of "traditional conservatism" doesn't really exist in any meaningful historical context. that type of label has always been a mask for ethnonationalism, whether or not every conservative voter actually believed in ethnonationalist ideals.
dragonwriter · 2h ago
> The complete lack of pushback from traditional conservatives against Trump's constant overreach and his complete disregard for basic civil liberties and the rule of law continues to shock me.
There hasn't actually been a complete lack of such pushback from traditional conservatives; the surviving icons of traditional conservatism have often been vocal anti-Trumpers.
What it turns out is that, while some of the former luminaries are still alive and active, there are, as far as political impact goes, no traditional conservatives left.
mathiaspoint · 2h ago
We tried to compromise with libertarianism for so long and the left kept rejecting it. This is us accepting your rejection.
solid_fuel · 2h ago
Every power this administration has secured for itself will be available to and used by future administrations. Do not fool yourself into believing this state of conservative power over the three branches will last, it will not.
And now when it ends, the next administration will inherit this power to deploy the military for domestic use, with very few restrictions. They will inherit the power to detain anyone without due process based on the simple allegation that the detainee is here illegally. They will inherit the power to use the considerable spying apparatus that is Palantir against perceived domestic enemies.
The next administration will easily be able to create huge tariffs on imports, and relieve them in a targeted manner for specific companies as a reward for bribes and compliance. That is the current reality, and it is the world you are backing.
Finally, the next administration will have the ability to deal with the problems that have haunted this country since the failure of reconstruction. Guns, hate groups, religious cults, climate change deniers... the next admin will have many, many more options to address these problems. I hope you have considered the tools you are handing to the other side.
No comments yet
dragonwriter · 2h ago
No, for a while after the shakeup of the US political landscape resulting from Johnson embracing the Civil Rights Act and the Republican Party exploiting disaffection of racists from the Democratic Party in a way that they had not tried to do after the similar Democratic split over integration vs segregation in the 1940s that produced the short-lived State's Rights Democratic Party, the Republican Party placed heavy rhetorical emphasis of libertarianism because it was a framework within which the “State's Rights” code for racial discrimination and laissez-faire capitalism of economic conservatives could be appealed to under the same verbiage. This was not an attempt at a compromise with the Left; insofar as it was a compromise rather than just a joint propaganda effort, it was a compromise within the Right.
No comments yet
mrinterweb · 2h ago
Acceptance is embracing a fascist autocracy? "Hmmm. Libertarianism didn't resonate with liberals. Guess we will just go full on fascist.", is how I interpreted that.
No comments yet
GuinansEyebrows · 2h ago
truly i implore you to read Dark Money by Jane Mayer if you think there was any real power behind the libertarian movement that wasn't explicitly directed at consolidating disparate rightwing movements into the monolith of the modern GOP.
nemo44x · 2h ago
They’re just so used to not having opposition. Even less than that. Just being able to blatantly walk all over their opposition and poke them in the eye. Their opposition assumed good will but after decades of being deceived they’ve finally decided to resist. And this resistance is a new feeling for the left.
They’re continuing their tried and true tactics but they aren’t working anymore.
standardUser · 2h ago
Hardly. There has never been a president more hostile to libertarian ideology than Donald Trump.
> According to the indictment, Mavalwalla and his co-defendants “physically blocked the drive-way of the federal facility and/or physically pushed against officers despite orders to disperse and efforts to remove them from the property”.
And it was recorded and posted to Instagram:
> A one-minute video posted on Instagram shows the army veteran briefly jostle with an officer whose face is covered by a ski mask and sunglasses. Mavalwalla then locks arms with other demonstrators to block the gate.
Sidestepping the political hot topic, if you use Facebook to coordinate with others to block federal officers from doing their job and then someone from your group records it and posts it to Instagram, your lawyer is going to have a hard time finding a way out of charges like this.
No comments yet
> Mavalwalla was one of hundreds of people to respond to a 11 June social media post from the former president of the Spokane city council that encouraged protesters to block an Ice transport they believed would carry two Venezuelan immigrants who were in the country legally, petitioning for asylum when they were detained.
> “I am going to sit in front of the bus,” Ben Stuckart, the former city council president, wrote. “Feel free to join me.”
With this "problem" for the prosecutors quoted:
> In this case, prosecutors would just have to prove that defendants agreed in concert to impede or injure an officer.
So I would caution against reading a short description of the law and thinking it's an open-and-shut case against the protesters.
> In response to the imprisonment of two Harney County ranchers, who were prosecuted for arson, Ammon and Ryan led a group of activists in an occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge, an obscure sanctuary for birds.
> Ammon declared that he and other protesters, some who openly carried firearms and took over government buildings and equipment, would stay until the ranchers were freed and the refuge land was given to locals to control.
IANAL, but it appears to be criminal: 18 U.S.C. 111
This does not appear to be covered under "peaceful protest": https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights
I'd be very surprised if the punishments for impeding or injuring are equal, despite the two crimes being described in the same statute. Afaik sentencing guidelines take into account more than just the charge itself.
There is nuance and balance to be had in law, your rights end where others begin.
Isn't this exactly what the MAGA crowd has professed to believe since 1/6/2021?
They were fine storming government buildings with guns in hand during covid. They considered the Bundy brothers and Kyle Rittenhouse to be heroes and patriots.
These rights are absolute and inalienable, granted by God as long as you're "white and right." Otherwise it's time to crack skulls.
Imo what we're seeing in the US now is the visible "blooming" of things which have been growing and metastasizing since the 80's.
I am not longer baffled.
Fascism is based on what you're doing—it has nothing to do with the why.
Again and again and again, any kind of limit on immigration, no matter how popular, was rejected. Is it any surprise it came to this?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_18...
Did you forget to specify "illegal" migration in regards to this conspiracy theory or did the mask just slip here?
(Not literally no one, but few enough people that they effectively don't matter.)
There hasn't actually been a complete lack of such pushback from traditional conservatives; the surviving icons of traditional conservatism have often been vocal anti-Trumpers.
What it turns out is that, while some of the former luminaries are still alive and active, there are, as far as political impact goes, no traditional conservatives left.
And now when it ends, the next administration will inherit this power to deploy the military for domestic use, with very few restrictions. They will inherit the power to detain anyone without due process based on the simple allegation that the detainee is here illegally. They will inherit the power to use the considerable spying apparatus that is Palantir against perceived domestic enemies.
The next administration will easily be able to create huge tariffs on imports, and relieve them in a targeted manner for specific companies as a reward for bribes and compliance. That is the current reality, and it is the world you are backing.
Finally, the next administration will have the ability to deal with the problems that have haunted this country since the failure of reconstruction. Guns, hate groups, religious cults, climate change deniers... the next admin will have many, many more options to address these problems. I hope you have considered the tools you are handing to the other side.
No comments yet
No comments yet
No comments yet
They’re continuing their tried and true tactics but they aren’t working anymore.