Ask the questions but we can see with our eyes and commonsense provides the understanding of tge harm being done to our precious planet:
Are Space Shuttle Splashdowns Dangerous For Marine Life? New Findings Raise Questions
As the Artemis II Orion capsule prepares for a high-energy return, new environmental findings question the long-term cost of turning the Pacific into a ‘spacecraft cemetery.’
“There’s a line from the first Batman, Joker, he’s like, ‘I’ve already been dead once already. It’s very liberating,’” Fetterman told Maher on Friday. “That’s not reckless, that’s just freeing. It’s just freeing in a way. And I just think after beating all of that, I just really want to be able to say the things that I have to really believe in and not be afraid of if there’s any kind of blowback.”
Following the October 7 Hamas attack, Fetterman broke from the progressives who got him elected to saber-rattle for Israel’s brutal attacks on Gaza. His stance has largely been antagonistic, trolling protesters rallying for a cease-fire by waving an Israel flag over them, laughing at military veterans getting arrested protesting for a cease-fire, and castigating the United States for abstaining from a cease-fire resolution instead of voting against it. He has described student encampment protests as “pup tents for Hamas” and spread debunkedpropaganda denigrating pro-Palestine demonstrations in Philadelphia.
Since adopting an aggressively pro-Israel stance, Fetterman has also backed harsher border policies—a curious stance given that he used to point to his wife’s undocumented status as a child to tout his progressive bona fides.
Fetterman frames his seismic shift as stances he’s always had, which his brain damage simply allowed him the freedom to embrace—despite constantly describing himself as a progressive through the years, seeking endorsement from the Democratic Socialists of America, and himself endorsing progressive candidates for office.
While progressives who campaigned hard for Fetterman feel betrayed by his shift, conservatives have celebrated Fetterman’s self-described brain damage–induced embrace of right-wing positions—itself a clear signal he’s garnering the wrong audience.
“If only there was some way we could repeat this experiment with other elected officials,” replied another user in response to a Fox News post about how Fetterman’s brain damage “freed” him.
West Bank’s ancient olive tree a ‘symbol of Palestinian endurance’
by Louis BAUDOIN-LAARMAN
Nov 7, 2025
Italian and Japanese experts estimate the tree to be 3,000 to 5,500 years old — John Wessels
As guardian of the occupied West Bank’s oldest olive tree, Salah Abu Ali prunes its branches and gathers its fruit even as violence plagues the Palestinian territory during this year’s harvest.
“This is no ordinary tree. We’re talking about history, about civilisation, about a symbol,” the 52-year-old said proudly, smiling behind his thick beard in the village of Al-Walajah, south of Jerusalem.
Abu Ali said experts had estimated the tree to be between 3,000 and 5,500 years old. It has endured millennia of drought and war in this parched land scarred by conflict.
Around the tree’s vast trunk and its dozen offshoots — some named after his family members — Abu Ali has cultivated a small oasis of calm.
A few steps away, the Israeli separation wall cutting off the West Bank stands five metres (16 feet) high, crowned with razor wire.
More than half of Al-Walajah’s original land now lies on the far side of the Israeli security wall.
Yet so far the village has been spared the settler assaults that have marred this year’s olive harvest, leaving many Palestinians injured.
Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967, and some of the 500,000 Israelis living in the Palestinian territory have attacked farmers trying to access their trees almost every day this year since the season began in mid-October.
The Palestinian Authority’s Colonisation and Wall Resistance Commission, based in Ramallah, documented 2,350 such attacks in the West Bank in October.
– ‘Rooted in this land’ –
Almost none of the perpetrators have been held to account by the Israeli authorities.
Israeli forces often disperse Palestinians with tear gas or block access to their own land, AFP journalists witnessed on several occasions.
But in Al-Walajah for now, Abu Ali is free to care for the tree. In a good year, he said, it can yield from 500 to 600 kilograms (1,100 to 1,300 pounds) of olives.
The reason why the olive trees should not be burned
March 5, 2025
In many agricultural areas, the burning of branches resulting from the pruning of the olive trees remains a common practice. Although a quick and simple method for waste management is considered, this action has considerable environmental consequences, since Contributes to climate change.
When olive branches burn, contaminating gases such as carbon dioxide are released. In addition, burning destroys organic matter that, if letting decompose naturally, could provide essential nutrients to the soil and improve its structure. The elimination of this waste through fire also increases the Forest fire riskan increasingly frequent threat in agricultural and rural areas.
September 25, 20261:17 AM GMT+1Updated September 25, 2026
Summary
Mufti says Saudi-backed Yemeni government must assert authority over entire country
Statement follows weeks of missile, drone and airstrike escalation between Saudi Arabia and Houthis
Yemeni forces lost control of Bab el-Mendeb waterway to Houthis two weeks ago
RIYADH, Sept 25 (Reuters) – Saudi Arabia’s top religious authority called on soldiers in the kingdom to be ready to lay down their lives to fight the Iran-backed Houthis until the group is ousted from power, a statement posted on the Saudi state news agency said.
The rare and strongly worded message by Saudi Grand Mufti Sheikh Saleh bin Fawzan Al-Fawzan was addressed to soldiers stationed at the country’s borders and drew heavily on Quranic verses and recorded sayings of the Prophet Mohammad related to sacrifice and struggle in defence of God.
Yemen’s Houthis threaten to strike Saudi bridges in retaliation for airstrikes
Story by TZVI JASPER
• 17h
In this handout photo provided by Houthi Media Center, people inspect Al-Dalil Bridge following an aerial attack carried out by a Saudi war jet targeted it on September 26, 2026 in Ibb province, Yemen.
Yemen‘s Houthis could begin targeting bridges in Saudi Arabia as a form of retaliation against airstrikes that the terror group claims were made by the Saudi military, a Sana’a military source told Lebanese outlet Al-Akhbar on Monday.
According to the source, Saudi Arabian airstrikes have targeted Yemeni bridges and other civilian infrastructure while claiming they were missile launch platforms.
“Civilian bridges are not used for military purposes,” the source said, calling the Saudi practice “utter bankruptcy.”
Smoke rises near buildings in Taiz Governorate, Yemen, following what the Houthi-run health ministry says was a strike on shops at a market, while Yemen’s internationally recognised government says its forces targeted a Houthi military camp and vehicles at the same junction, September 27, 2026. (credit: Social Media/via REUTERS)
Houthis claim Saudi Arabia struck market in Yemen
On Sunday, Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree claimed that an attack against a market at the Mawiya junction in Taiz province was carried out by Saudi Arabia and not Yemen’s internationally recognized government.
According to Houthi claims, the attack targeted a market in the city and left more than 50 casualties, including the wounded and the dead.
The Houthis accused the Saudis of “committing a heinous crime against civilians,” while they also claimed that the attack was performed by a Saudi F-15 squadron.
Jerusalem Post Staff and Reuters contributed to this report.
Saudi’s desire for F35 jets:
Royal Saudi Air Force F-35
The US Department of State approved on 17 September 2026 a possible Foreign Military Sale of forty-eight F-35A Lightning II fighters to Saudi Arabia, an estimated $24.3 billion package that the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified to Congress the same day as Transmittal 26-69. The request covers forty-nine Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 engines — forty-eight installed, one spare — along with cryptographic equipment, electronic warfare database support, simulators, and the long tail of spares, software and training that any fighter purchase drags behind it. If Congress lets it stand, the kingdom would become the second Middle Eastern operator of the aircraft after Israel, and the first Arab one. The notification came ten months after President Donald Trump publicly committed to the sale, and it arrived while Saudi Arabia was fighting on two fronts at once: absorbing Iranian missile and drone strikes since the United States and Israel opened their war on Iran on 28 February 2026, and trading blows with Yemen‘s Houthi movement, which claimed on 16 September 2026 that it had shot down a Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SA over Marib.
The public commitment dates to 17 November 2025, the day before Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s White House visit. Asked about the jets, Trump said “I will say that we will be doing that, we’ll be selling F-35s, yeah.” He said the Saudis “want to buy” them, and that they had “been a great ally.” At the time, the potential sale of forty-eight aircraft was widely treated as the main bargaining chip in the administration’s effort to bring Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords. That linkage did not survive. The State Department cleared the aircraft in September 2026 with Saudi-Israeli normalization still stalled on the question of Palestinian statehood, and with the Pentagon’s own intelligence arm still warning that Chinese access to Saudi bases and networks could put the fighter’s technology at risk.
The Trump administration has approved a $24.3 billion sale of 48 F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, along with engines and other parts.
The deal comes as Iran-backed Houthis escalate attacks on Saudi Arabia and seek control of the strategically important Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
Congress has 30 days to scrutinize deal, with lawmakers raising concerns over the potential transfer of sensitive U.S. military technology and Riyadh’s ties to China.
New Delhi, Sept. 19 — Questions continue over the fate of two Royal Saudi Air Force personnel after Yemen’s Houthi movement claimed it shot down an F15 over Marib province on September 16. Footage released by the Houthis appears to show burning aircraft wreckage, and open-source observers have linked a visible tail number, 5539, to a Saudi F15 operated by the 55th Squadron. The exact variant, aircraft status and cause of the crash have not been officially confirmed by Riyadh. If the jet was an F15SA or F5SR, it would normally carry two crew members: a pilot and a weapons-systems officer. No reliable information has emerged on whether either aircrew member ejected, survived, was recovered or was detained.
Some history:
Muhammad ibn Saud’s son and successor, Abdulaziz I (reigned 1765–1803), who had been largely responsible for this extension of his father’s realm through his exploits as commander in chief of the Wahhābī forces, continued to work in complete harmony with Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb. It was the latter who virtually controlled the civil administration of the country, while Abdulaziz himself, later in cooperation with his warlike son, Saud I (1803–14), busied himself with the expansion of his empire far beyond the limits inherited by him. Meanwhile, in 1792, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb died at the age of 89. Wahhābī attacks on settled areas had begun to attract the attention of officials of the Ottoman Empire, the dominant political force in the region. In 1798 an Ottoman force invaded Al-Hasa, though it later was compelled to withdraw. Qatar fell to the Saudis in 1797, and they also gained control through local allies over Bahrain and parts of Oman.
In 1801 the Wahhābīs captured and sacked the Shiʿi holy city of Karbala in Ottoman Iraq, plundering and damaging important religious buildings. In the following year, Saud led his father’s army to the capture of Mecca itself in the Hejaz, which was also under Ottoman control. It was soon after Saud’s return from this expedition that his father was assassinated by a Shiʿi in the mosque of Al-Dirʿiyyah in revenge for the desecration of Karbala.
The Geran-4 is a Russian jet-powered one-way attack drone, in combat use over Ukraine since May 2026 and built to outrun the cheap interceptor drones that had begun defeating the propeller-driven Geran-2. It cruises at 300 to 350 km/h with a dash reported up to 500, flies at 4,000 to 5,000 m, and delivers a 50 kg warhead over a reported 450 to 850 km, a fraction of the Geran-2’s 1,800 to 2,500 km. Trading reach for speed and altitude is the design’s central decision: it lifts the drone above the guns and shoulder-launched missiles that kill Shaheds cheaply, while confining it to targets within roughly the depth of Kyiv and Odesa from its two known launch sites. At an estimated 85,000 to 120,000 dollars a round, about twice a Geran-2, it flies into a defence fielding 2,500 dollar interceptors at more than 10,000 a month, so the exchange still favours Ukraine whenever a drone intercept succeeds.
I just noticed this report dated March 26 2026, I have reproduced it here for anyone who may also have missed it. It referred to an ICE protest which occurred in July, 2025.
This report is dated one month after the illegal Israeli-US war on Iran. Under cover of war, many illegal actions have occurred both within and without the US and Israel. The beacon of Democracy has been dimmed but is not dead.
Juan Vargas, a member of the Prairieland Support Committee, speaks to media in front of the federal courthouse in Fort Worth, Texas, after the verdict was delivered on March 13.Photo: Adam Federman
This article was produced in partnership with the nonprofit newsroom Type Investigations.
Fort Worth, Texas—On the last day of testimony in the federal “Prairieland” trial — wherein nine activists faced charges related to a protest outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center — the government called its star witness back to the stand. Kyle Shideler, director of counterterrorism research at the right-wing think tank Center for Security Policy, had been key to the prosecution’s case that “antifa” — the loose network of activists defined by their opposition to fascism — is a violent, criminal organization bent on overthrowing the U.S. government. Shideler, an imposing figure with a cleanly shaven head and full beard, had attended nearly the entire trial, even sitting in the overflow room during jury selection.
At the stand, Shideler read aloud the government’s definition of antifa, as well as an excerpt from President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring antifa a domestic terrorist organization — issued in September, less than two weeks after the assassination of right-wing pundit and activist Charlie Kirk. Both documents describe antifa as a shadowy, militant “enterprise” involved in “coordinated efforts to obstruct” enforcement of federal laws through “organized riots,” and in perpetrating “violent assaults” against ICE agents and law enforcement officers.
Three days later, on March 13, the jury convicted all nine defendants on a variety of charges, ranging from providing material support to terrorists to attempted murder. The ruling could have far-reaching consequences for activists, protesters and NGOs that have aligned themselves in any way with anti-fascist organizing.
But FBI records obtained by Type Investigations and In These Times through a Freedom of Information Act request contradict the government’s claim that antifa poses an existential threat to national security. And several defense attorneys involved in the trial say the information should have been included in discovery.
MarQuetta Clayton, an attorney representing Maricela Rueda — one of the defendants convicted of providing material support to terrorists, organizing a riot and conspiracy to conceal documents — confirmed that the records were not turned over.
“Coupled with some of the testimony we heard, I feel like that would all be something for the jury to decide whether it was worth anything or not,” Clayton said. “They are the tryers of credibility and fact.”
FBI records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request contradict the government’s claim that antifa poses an existential threat to national security. And several defense attorneys involved in the trial say the information should have been included in discovery.
The case centered around a noise demonstration on July 4, 2025, in which roughly a dozen activists set off fireworks outside the Prairieland ICE detention center in Alvarado, Texas, about a 45-minute drive south of Dallas. Noise demonstrations are a common protest tactic, sometimes involving fireworks, whistles or megaphones, and a way of expressing solidarity with immigrant detainees or inmates who have little contact with the outside world. At least one protester spray painted a guard shack and a vehicle in the Prairieland parking lot with expletives and anti-ICE slogans and dismantled a security camera. Some of the protesters also had firearms — which in Texas, an open-carry state, is generally legal.
When a police officer arrived on scene and pulled his gun, allegedly pointing it at someone running away from him, one of the protesters fired an AR-15 style rifle in the officer’s direction. The officer was hit just below the neck and suffered minor injuries. That night, and in the weeks that followed, the FBI and state law enforcement raided activists’ homes and arrested 19 people.
The shooter, Benjamin Song, a 32-year-old former U.S. Marine Corps reservist — who remained at large for 11 days — was charged with three counts of attempted murder. (The officer who was shot, Thomas Gross, testified that he believed he was being ambushed and that his life was in danger. On the last day of the trial, Song’s defense argued that he wasn’t aiming at the officer at all but had fired “suppressive” shots toward the ground and that the bullet, which showed signs of impact with a hard surface, had ricocheted before grazing the officer.)
Other charges included organizing and carrying out a riot, providing material support to terrorists and conspiracy to use and carry an explosive. Roughly half a dozen activists not at the protest on the night of July 4 were also apprehended and charged with a variety of state and federal offenses, including one accused of conspiracy to conceal documents for moving a box of anarchist zines to a friend’s apartment. (The FBI also raided that home, using a battering ram to break through the front door and detonating a flash bang device in the living room, and confiscated all of the occupants’ phones and laptops, which have still not been returned.)
In the months since, the Prairieland case became the cornerstone of the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle antifa and crack down on the Left more broadly. In October 2025, when the first indictment in the case was unsealed, FBI Director Kash Patel said it was the “first time” the government had arrested “Antifa-aligned anarchist violent extremists” and charged them with terrorism — despite the fact that antifa is not a formal organization and has no membership list or leadership hierarchy.
Making that charge stick is what prosecutors set out to achieve in court. Along with the administration’s crackdown on dissent — its use of ICE agents to threaten and detain student protesters, for example — this case will likely be used to target the Left and launch investigations into anyone with connections, however tenuous, to antifa.
Attorney General Pam Bondi reiterated the administration’s claim that “Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization” and said the Prairieland case marked the beginning of a broader effort to “systematically dismantle” the group.
In a statement released a few hours after the verdict, the Department of Justice cited Shideler’s testimony and referred to the North Texas “Antifa Cell” nearly a dozen times. Attorney General Pam Bondi reiterated the administration’s claim that “Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization” and said the Prairieland case marked the beginning of a broader effort to “systematically dismantle” the group.
Shideler, asked to comment on his testimony in the hallway outside of the courtroom, told Type Investigations and In These Times, “I’m not taking any questions.”
But the government did not always consider antifa a serious threat. Records from an FBI investigation out of the Dallas field office that ended in 2018 reveal that, under Trump’s first term, the bureau had investigated “Antifa DFW” (and several allegedly related entities, including Dallas Workers Front, Dallas Antifa, Antifa Dallas, Dallas Antifascist and DFW Anti-Fascist League) and found that the group and its affiliates posed no threat to national security. This determination prompted the bureau to formally close the investigation.
“No potential criminal violations or priority threats to national security warranting further investigation were identified,” the two-page FBI file states.
FBI records obtained by Type Investigations and In These Times through a Freedom of Information Act request contradict the government’s claim that antifa poses an existential threat to national security.
The records are at odds with the case prosecutors presented during the three-week trial and indicate that, as of 2018, the top law enforcement agency in the country did not view antifa as a criminal threat. (Around the same time, the FBI also opened a case on Rose City Antifa in Portland, Oregon, suggesting that the agency’s mandate to investigate activists involved in the anti-fascist coalition extended beyond Dallas/Fort Worth. It is unclear if the Rose City investigation was closed.)
According to five defense attorneys — three of whom were involved in the federal case and two who are representing defendants facing state-level charges — this information was not included in the discovery evidence that the government provided to the defense teams.
“The prosecution broke the law when it hid this evidence from the defense,” said Texas attorney George Lobb, who is representing one defendant in the state’s case. “This internal FBI document shows the government lied about the defendants, because it presents a position contrary to what the prosecution alleged at trial. The prosecutors should be removed from this case and a new trial should be granted immediately.”
Sign included in the Support Committee’s display in Burnett Park, across from the Fort Worth, Texas, federal courthouse.Photo: Adam Federman
Harmony Scheurman, a defense attorney representing Elizabeth Soto — one of the activists convicted on charges of organizing a riot and providing material support to terrorists, and who was linked by prosecutors to an “Antifa DFW” X account — expressed concern that the FBI’s earlier determination had not been included.
“If we had to try it again,” she said, referring to the federal case, “we definitely would want that, since the government used that against us.”
It is standard procedure for agency investigative records to be turned over to the U.S. Attorney’s office, which then decides if a case should be prosecuted. In a phone interview, Melinda Urbina Garcia, spokesperson for the FBI’s Dallas field office, affirmed that the U.S. Attorney’s office would have been aware that this investigation had taken place, though she added that there has been turnover in the office since 2018.
“If the case was closed and no charges were brought, then obviously it is safe to say that there was a declination to prosecute,” Urbina Garcia said.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Texas declined to comment.
The handling of the trial by Judge Mark T. Pittman — a Trump appointee and member of the Federalist Society—raised questions from the very beginning. On day one of jury selection, Pittman declared a mistrial after learning that defense attorney MarQuetta Clayton was wearing a T-shirt featuring images of civil rights leaders under her blazer, which he called prejudicial. Pittman was also reportedly unhappy with prospective jurors’ responses to questions about ICE and law enforcement’s handling of recent protests, and subsequently called a new, smaller jury pool which he questioned himself. He also moved the trial to a smaller courtroom, prompting speculation among media that he was trying to limit press coverage.
Even before the trial began, there were concerns that Pittman—who has a reputation for sanctioning and fining defense attorneys—was trying to tip the scales. In January, Zachary Evetts, one of the defendants charged with material support for terrorism, submitted a motion for additional discovery, including any information used by law enforcement and prosecutors to conclude that the “North Texas Antifa Cell” was a “militant enterprise.” Pittman denied the request and fined Evetts’ lawyers $500 each for filing what he called “frivolous” motions. (Pittman also granted a motion filed by the government that precluded defense attorneys from making the case that the protesters may have acted in self defense, which took on greater significance when it was revealed during the trial that the officer pulled his gun first.)
Banner criticizing Judge Mark Pittman, who moved the high-profile Prairieland trial to a smaller courtroom.Photo: Adam Federman
According to their motion, lawyers for Evetts asked prosecutors multiple times about their findings that antifa posed a threat.
“There are matters in the request that I reasonably believe that you have not yet provided, but should,” Patrick McLain, Evetts’ lead defense attorney, wrote in an email to prosecutors in October.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Shawn Smith, one of the lead prosecutors, replied that they had fulfilled their discovery obligations. “The government has not identified any extraneous evidence that is not part and parcel of the charged conspiracy,” he wrote.
But during the trial, McLain told Type Investigations and In These Times, key pieces of evidence related to the events that took place on the night of July 4 — including the fact that the officer was the first to pull his weapon — had not been disclosed to the defense. “We did not have evidence that they should have had and should have shared with us,” McLain said.
McLain also noted that the FBI records would be “grist for our appeal,” especially if they choose to challenge the judge’s denial of the discovery motion.
Moira Meltzer-Cohen, an attorney whose work focuses on politically motivated abuse of the legal system, and who was not part of the Prairieland case, said that evidence deemed favorable to the defense must be included in discovery. This encompasses information that could affect rulings on certain motions as well as records in the possession of law enforcement that may, in some way, undermine the charged offense. Failure to share information that could impact the outcome of the case, she said, is a violation of defendants’ constitutional rights.
“The prosecution has constitutional, common law and professional ethical obligations to disclose to defendants any ‘favorable’ evidence within the possession, custody, control or knowledge of any law enforcement personnel acting in the case,” Meltzer-Cohen said.
It’s fair to say that a prior FBI investigation finding that “Dallas Antifa” in fact posed no threat to national security would fit in that category.
Mike German, a former FBI special agent and author of the 2019 book Disrupt, Discredit, and Divide: How the New FBI Damages Democracy, said the 2018 records appear “to contradict the prosecution’s argument that common tactics of anti-fascist protesters are evidence of criminal intent.” He added that the FBI files, along with the underlying investigation, “should have been disclosed so the defense could properly challenge the factual basis of [the] prosecution’s theory.”
A former FBI special agent said the 2018 records appear “to contradict the prosecution’s argument that common tactics of anti-fascist protesters are evidence of criminal intent.”
The government’s case relied in part on the perception that wearing black clothing to a protest, communicating via encrypted texting app Signal and reading anarchist or anti-fascist literature was part of a wider conspiracy to ambush and attack law enforcement. Or as the Trump administration would have it, to overthrow the government.
German acknowledged that the FBI’s assessment of Dallas Antifa could have changed since the 2018 investigation was closed. If that were the case, though, he suggested that a more comprehensive account of law enforcement’s opinion of antifa should have been aired in court — particularly in a trial that featured testimony from several FBI agents.
David Rudovsky, a civil rights attorney and senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Law School, who was not involved in the trial, said there is no question the records should have been included in discovery.
“It goes to the core of what the government was saying,” Rudovsky said, noting that while the agency’s views could have changed since 2018, the FBI files still offer a rebuttal to the expert witness’s theory of the case. “To deprive the defense of that, I think, is to deprive them of some pretty core Brady material,” he added, referring to a 1963 Supreme Court case which compels the prosecution to turn over any evidence that might be considered exculpatory or favorable to the defense.
The government’s case relied in part on the perception that wearing black clothing to a protest, communicating via encrypted texting app Signal and reading anarchist or anti-fascist literature was part of a wider conspiracy to ambush and attack law enforcement. Or as the Trump administration would have it, to overthrow the government.
Trump’s DOJ, particularly during his second term, has repeatedly flouted or ignored judicial orders, misrepresented evidence and taken actions deemed to be “arbitrary and capricious,” generally undermining public trust in the rule of law, in the assessment of non-partisan law and policy journal Just Security. According to an ongoing project spearheaded by the journal, there have been more than 120 rulings since 2025 in which courts have expressed distrust of government information and representations, including cases where prosecutors have not complied with discovery orders.
The FOIA records obtained for this story are just a small portion of the documents related to the 2018 Antifa DFW investigation. According to the government, in a pending lawsuit brought by this author against the FBI, the agency possesses up to 250 pages of documents that have not been previously released.
When word of the verdict reached family and friends, members of the Prairieland support committee and activists gathered outside of the courtroom on the afternoon of Friday, March 13, there was a palpable sense of shock and disbelief. A smaller group of committee members began drafting a media response. Local television crews lined up outside of the main entrance. Tensions were high.
Maricela Rueda’s defense attorney, MarQuetta Clayton, speaks to local media after the jury delivered its verdict on March 13Photo: Adam Federman
Joseph Fabbro, an activist working with Fire Ant Movement Defense, who’d come from out of state to help with defense strategy and messaging, said the group had mapped out responses to four potential outcomes. But guilty verdicts on nearly all charges was not one they had accounted for. And Fabbro said the convictions — particularly on material support for terrorism — set a dangerous precedent.
The first Trump administration, Fabbro pointed out, went after the so-called J20 protesters, who’d staged a rally in Washington, D.C., on inauguration day 2017, alleging that they were part of a conspiracy to riot. But the charges were dismissed. State officials in Atlanta have also leveled RICO charges — originally conceived to target organized crime — against activists seeking to stop the construction of a police training facility known as Cop City. Those, too, have failed.
The Prairieland trial marks a turning point.
“Now they have succeeded at making dressing in black together — at the very least in these specific circumstances — a felony: providing material support for terrorism,” Fabbro said. “They’re saying that’s the same thing as me giving bitcoin money to Al Qaeda, which is simply absurd.”
“The prosecution broke the law when it hid this evidence from the defense,” said attorney George Lobb. “This internal FBI document shows the government lied about the defendants, because it presents a position contrary to what the prosecution alleged at trial. The prosecutors should be removed from this case and a new trial should be granted immediately.”
“This case was overcharged,” said Lesa Pamplin, an attorney who was part of Maricela Rueda’s defense team. “This is not a riot compared to January 6. This was brought because Trump wanted it brought.”
But the fate of the Prairieland defendants — and the five protesters who pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government — is far from over. Many still face state-level charges. (Johnson County prosecutor Christy May was present during most of the federal trial.) And appeals and challenges in the federal case will likely come after defendants are sentenced in June.
George Lobb, the Texas attorney representing one defendant on state charges, said the Johnson County District Attorney’s office has told him it has over 20 terabytes of evidence — likely a mix of video, photographs and thousands of pages of files — in discovery but have not turned any of it over.
“We are quickly approaching the one-year anniversary of this case and none of that has been provided,” Lobb said, adding that it could be a violation of his client’s speedy trial rights.
Xavier T. de Janon, the National Lawyers Guild director of mass defense and a member of the People’s Law Collective, who is also representing a defendant in the state case, said the 2018 FBI records raise troubling questions about the prosecution’s handling of evidence in the trial and also undermine Shideler’s testimony. De Janon said that if the state-level case proceeds, he will be requesting records related to the earlier FBI investigation, which he noted could also have implications for the federal case when appeals are filed.
“If the FBI already concluded years ago that there was no criminal concern to DFW Antifa, why didn’t that come up during the federal trial?” de Janon asked. “Did federal prosecutors even know this investigation had happened?”
This article was updated with additional details at 1:35 p.m. CST on March 27, 2026.
Free for any DSA or Union member
Get 10 print issues of our award-winning, worker-first journalism here!
Adam Federman is a reporting fellow with Type Investigations whose work has appeared in Politico Magazine, the Washington Post, Wired and other publications. He writes regularly on political repression and government surveillance of social movements for In These Times.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has claimed it captured a second US unmanned underwater vehicle in the Strait of Hormuz, saying the vessel was conducting an intelligence mission in the strategic waterway.
The IRGC Navy said on Sunday that its forces seized the American-made underwater vehicle during what it described as a complex operation involving intelligence capabilities and electronic warfare.
According to Iranian state media, the vehicle was identified as a Remus 600 autonomous underwater vehicle and was operating in the Strait of Hormuz for what the Guards described as espionage.
“Through a coordinated, complex operation involving intelligence oversight and electronic warfare, IRGC naval forces’ personnel successfully captured an advanced unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) belonging to the terrorist US military,” the IRGC naval forces said in a statement carried by state television.
The Guards said the vehicle was now in the possession of Iranian specialists, who would examine it and attempt to recover information stored on the system.
The claim comes less than three weeks after Iran announced the capture of another US unmanned submarine near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz.
Egypt spy chief flew to Israel 11 days before Oct. 7 with warning on Gaza, report says
Abbas Kamel reportedly made a rare one-hour visit to Israel on Sept. 26, 2023, warning that Hamas appeared to be preparing for a major escalation; his message lacked a date or attack plan, while Netanyahu’s office later denied receiving an Egyptian warning
Israel leans almost entirely on the United States for arms and cover, treats Iran and its proxies as existential, and trades quiet security ties with several Arab states.
Key Interests
Containing Iran and its proxies
Preserving United States military backing
Normalization with Gulf Arab states
Survival in a hostile neighborhood is the organizing fact of Israeli foreign policy, and almost every choice flows from it. The country built a qualitative military edge over far larger Arab and Persian rivals, then leaned on the United States to guarantee it with weapons, vetoes, and diplomatic cover no other partner offers. Around that core Israel has spent two decades quietly trading intelligence and trade with Gulf monarchies that share its fear of Iran, formalized for some in the 2020 normalization pacts. The bet is that demonstrated strength, not concession, wins Arab acceptance. That is why the prize Israel chases, recognition from Saudi Arabia, stays tied to how it handles power rather than how it handles the Palestinians.
What that logic leaves out is the cost of holding the Palestinian question open. Gaza and the West Bank keep Israel at odds with much of Europe, large parts of the developing world, and the same Arab publics whose governments it courts. The unresolved status of a Palestinian state is the single condition Riyadh keeps naming, and it is the one Israel’s governing coalition is least willing to grant. The recognition Israel keeps reaching for from Riyadh runs straight back through the territory it will not give up. A military that can reach Tehran cannot close that gap. A governing coalition that depends on its hard-right flank has little room to trade land for acceptance, which is why each battlefield success seems to widen rather than narrow Israel’s diplomatic isolation.
Report: UAE intel warned Shin Bet of Hamas action before Oct. 7, prompting leader’s call to Netanyahu
Emirati leader reportedly phoned premier to ensure info was passed on; more details revealed of alleged similar warning by Hamas chief Sinwar shortly before onslaught
22nd September, 2026: addressing UNGA President Trump said:
The United States also totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist scheme to control the artificial intelligence being spoken of so much, now here and after officially called superintelligence, changing the name. The use of the word artificial makes intelligence fake, it makes it sound fake … From this point forward, all of United States documents and hopefully the world will be changed to use the much more accurate term super as opposed to artificial.
You must be logged in to post a comment.