Jimmy Dore: FBI Caught Faking Documents To Russia-Gate!

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.



CONTEXT: This kerfuffle still remains between the henchmen of the ruling class' two wings (Republican/Trumpites vs Democrats/CIA) fighting it out to impose their vision of how to run the US empire. Nothing good is liable to come from this exercise, as far as the people are concerned, since imperial policies are invariably disgusting no matter who controls the government, but the brawl itself will allow some light, some exposure, to the sheer criminality and illegality of a lot of ruling class behavior.

15 Aug 2020

FBI Caught Faking Documents To Russia-Gate!


Covid-19 has put this site on ventilators.
DONATIONS HAVE DRIED UP… 
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW

 





Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License



ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
 



Don’t Talk to the Police

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Don't Talk to the Police


The Right to Remain Silent: A New Answer to an Old Question

Criminal Justice, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2010

3 Pages Posted: 1 Mar 2012 Last revised: 5 Mar 2012

James J. Duane

Regent University - School of Law

Date Written: February 2, 2012

Abstract

When a witness is summoned to testify before a grand jury or at a judicial or legislative proceeding, the lawyer for the witness frequently concludes that it may be in the client's best interest to assert the Fifth Amendment "right to remain silent," at least with respect to certain topics. The lawyer will often give the witness a card to read aloud when asserting that privilege. But precisely what words should the lawyer advise the client to read when invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege?

For more than 100 years, lawyers have shown surprisingly little imagination or ingenuity, advising their clients to state in almost exactly these words: "On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me."

This article explains why that unfortunate language is never in the best interests of the witness, and why it naturally tends to sound to most listeners as if the witness is somehow admitting that he cannot tell the truth without confessing that he is guilty of some crime. The article also points out that this archaic invocation is not required by either the language or the theory of the Fifth Amendment, nor by the most recent controlling Supreme Court precedents. The article concludes with a suggestion for an entirely new formulation for invoking the privilege, one which gives greater protection to the rights of the witness and also more faithfully captures what the Supreme Court of the United States has written about the nature of this precious constitutional privilege.

Keywords: Fifth Amendment, self-incrimination, right to remain silent

JEL Classification: K10, K14, K00, K19, K20, K39, K40, K42, K49, Z00, I00

Download the full text here. 

James J. Duane is a professor at Regent Law School in Virginia Beach and the National Trial Advocacy College at the University of Virginia School of Law, and was a visiting professor at William & Mary Law School in the fall of 2009. He is a member of the panel of Academic Contributors to Black’s Law Dictionary and the coauthor of Weissenberger’s Federal Evidence (6th ed. 2009).

[post-views]

Covid-19 has put this site on ventilators.
DONATIONS HAVE DRIED UP... 
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW



Puke if you must


This bloodsoaked monster is probably the most evil person on planet earth https://t.co/nGq2H1EPHt

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 9, 2020




[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License


ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS


Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

[google-translator]

black-horizontal

Keep truth and free speech alive by supporting this site.
Donate using the button below, or by scanning our QR code.







Judge Orders ‘Destruction’ of Evidence Against Jeffrey Epstein

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.


This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches by historian Eric Zuesse


 

Preska


U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Preska, who was appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush, and whom his son had considered promoting maybe to the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled in a case on July 1st, ordering the attorneys for one of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged victims, Virginia (Roberts) Guiffre, to “destroy” a list of men who had taken advantage of Epstein’s “girls.” This action pertains to a case not only against Epstein, who is dead, but against his friend and colleague Ghislaine Maxwell, who happened to become arrested by the FBI in Bedford New Hampshire the very next day, on July 2nd.
 
Judge Preska said that Giuffre’s attorneys
 
“Cooper & Kirk shall destroy (a) all materials from Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433, currently in its possession, save for the transcript of Ms. Giuffre’s deposition in that case and (b) all work product derived from the Maxwell materials. Cooper & Kirk shall submit to the Court an affidavit detailing the steps that it took to destroy the materials.” 
 
Her order to the attorneys stated that Giuffre,
 
“alleged that Ms. Maxwell was a ringleader in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking scheme, a trusted lieutenant of Epstein’s who facilitated his purported trafficking of underage girls to prominent individuals. Ms. Giuffre’s defamation action against Mr. Dershowitz alleges that Mr. Dershowitz was one of the prominent individuals who took advantage of Epstein and Ms. Maxwell’s trafficking scheme and that Ms. Giuffre was forced to have intercourse with Mr. Dershowitz when she was underage. Ms. Giuffre alleges that Mr. Dershowitz’s false denial of such contact defamed her.”
 
Preska’s order does not say that the names of the men on that list are to be kept confidential and not available to the press, but instead that Giuffre’s attorneys are to “destroy” it.
 
As Colin Kalmbacher reported, at Law and Crime, on July 1st, under the headline “Judge Orders Virginia Giuffre’s Lawyers to ‘Destroy’ Their Jeffrey Epstein Files, Bars Dershowitz from Accessing Them”,
 
At issue here are two separate legal controversies: (1) a protective order issued in 2015 by Judge Robert W. Sweet in a since-settled defamation case between Giuffre and Epstein’s alleged groomer and girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell; and (2) a more recent series of extant defamation, back-and-forth claims between Giuffre and Dershowitz.
The Giuffre v. Maxwell protective order is the major legal lock-and-key which has long-protected the Epstein files. A process is currently underway for both sides to sift through those documents and eventually make many of them available for public consumption.
 
Although other copies of that list might exist (which are not likewise being ordered by Preska to be destroyed, but could possibly be brought forth as evidence in other trials), Judge Preska’s order prohibits Dershowitz’s use of Giuffre’s copy of that physical list, as being evidence in this trial, which isn’t between Giuffre and Maxwell, but instead between Giuffre and Dershowitz — who claims to be not on that list and to need that list in order for him to prove his personal defamation case against Giuffre, who says that he is on the list.
 
The Court’s ruling said:
 
the Maxwell Protective Order prohibits information designated as CONFIDENTIAL from being “disclosed or used for any purpose except for the preparation and trial of [the Maxwell] case.”
 
The alleged reason that the ruling provides to “destroy” the list is that 
 
“Critically, the agreed-upon unsealing procedure can only work as intended if non-parties are willing to participate. Handing over to Mr. Dershowitz all of the materials from Maxwell, which would necessarily include all of the sealed filings that are the subject of the unsealing protocol, would threaten that balance. Non-parties [to the Giuffre-v.-Maxwell case] may question the legitimacy of that process if Mr. Dershowitz can obtain, without any regard whatsoever for their interests, the sealed materials for the mere reason that disclosure would make mounting his defense and litigating his counterclaims against Ms. Giuffre more convenient [in other words: to assist Dershowitz’s case against Giuffre].The Court will not risk collateral damage to the Maxwell unsealing process by modifying the protective order.”
 
The “balance” that’s referred-to there is allegedly the right of both the accuser Giuffre and the accused Maxwell to have their privacy protected. Dershowitz says he wants this list in order to prove that his name isn’t on the list. The Court’s “Protective Order” had been issued in 2016 in the Giuffre-v.-Maxwell case, so as to:
 
“protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information or information that will improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness, or person providing discovery in [Maxwell].” (Id.) The order accordingly permits the parties to designate as CONFIDENTIAL certain materials produced in discovery that “are confidential” and that implicate “common law and statutory privacy interests” of Ms. Giuffre and Maxwell Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”).
 

Alan Dershowitz


Preska’s ruling includes a footnote in which she says:
 
Bubbling underneath the debate about modification of the Maxwell Protective Order is a more practical concern: the temptation that the Maxwell materials might inspire for a litigant in Mr. Dershowitz’s position. As a general matter, Mr. Dershowitz’s battle with Ms. Giuffre has proceeded in very public — and frequently toxic — fashion. See, e.g., Alan Dershowitz Twitter Posts from June 22, 2020, available at https://twitter.com/AlanDersh (suggesting that Ms. Giuffre should be “prosecuted and sent to prison” for perjury). More importantly, and perhaps reflecting Mr. Derhsowitz’s desire to defend himself in the public eye, Counsel for Mr. Dershowitz noted at oral argument that “Professor Dershowitz obviously wants all information [contained in the Maxwell materials] to be out there, to be public … because he believes it exonerates him.” (Transcript at 21:21-24.)
 
That lengthy footnote concludes:
 
“Thus, given the public character of this litigation [between Dershowitz and Giuffre] and what is at stake for the litigants, production of the Maxwell materials to Mr. Dershowitz would raise additional risk of leakage from the materials at issue in the Maxwell[-v.-Giuffre] unsealing process into filings in the Dershowitz action. This would further undermine the unsealing process in Maxwell.”
 
Perhaps any men who had raped any of those girls will be long in their graves and well-established in the history-books before their having been on Ghislaine Maxwell’s lists will become publicly known. If that turns out to be the outcome, then the girls and the public will be “screwed” yet again, and Judge Preska’s order exhibits no concern about that. A judge is supposed to represent the public’s interests, even in private disputes. But perhaps private interests take precedence in America’s courts. The public’s interests are not even mentioned in the judge’s ruling. Though the word “public” is stated there six times, it never concerns the public’s interests, but only private ones, such as “given the public character of this litigation and what is at stake for the litigants”. What about the public? They’re mentioned only as being voyeurs. Is this American ‘democracy’?
 

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]


UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE, ALL IMAGES, CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Be sure to get the most unique history of the Russo-American conflict now spanning almost a century!  The book that every American should read.

Nuclear Armageddon or peace? That is the question.
And here’s the book that answers it.
CLICK HERE to buy The Russian Peace Threat.

 



Mapping The State’s Strategy Of Repression Against The Rebellion

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.



Dateline: Jun 18, 2020



It's Going Down

While the recent rebellion against the police and white supremacy has been historical, it has also been coupled by an attempt by the State to drown the uprising in a sea of tear-gas and rubber bullets. While demonstrations and actions continue, the State is now gearing up for a more long-term strategy of repression, as a vast network of FBI agents, attorneys, and local police comb through hours of footage and social media, looking for targets.

Already, over 10,000 people have been arrested across the so-called US and around 75 currently have federal charges; many of which carry extensive prison sentences. Moreover, there are reports of FBI door-knocks and visits to those that have recently been arrested. Often times people are being asked if they are involved in “antifa” while some are even propositioned with becoming informants.

As the Pentagon readies for the rebellions to come, its important for us to begin to map out and prepare a strategy of long-term movement defense of all rebels swept up during the uprising. Reaching out to our legal correspondent, we sat down to discuss just what is happening and what we can expect.

100

IGD: Broadly speaking, what has happened, repression wise, since the rebellion? We know that there has been a slew of federal charges and lots of door knocks by the FBI, can you talk about both? 

So much has happened. Across the country, police have unleashed incredible violence against protesters, rebels, journalists, and bystanders. Countless people have been arrested and are facing all sorts of state charges in local courts. I read that the number was over 10,000 arrests nationally.

Additionally, at least 74 people across the country are facing federal charges for their alleged roles in the uprisings. This is particularly concerning because federal charges tend to carry much more severe penalties than comparable state charges, and are less likely to get lenient plea bargains. So that’s 74 uprising participants who are facing very serious prison time, just in a couple weeks. Countless more people have been visited or contacted by federal agents, usually FBI or ATF but also Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, ICE, or DEA.

There’s a long history of this repression, especially against Black liberation movements and to a lesser extent anarchist movements. The FBI has always been a political police force. Their headquarters is named for J. Edgar Hoover who founded the FBI to fight communists and anarchists, and then orchestrated COINTELPRO to destroy the Black freedom movement for close to three decades. Crushing this uprising, this movement, is in their very DNA.

But the more we understand their repression, the better we can fight back against it. So I started compiling information about all the uprising-related federal prosecutions and sharing it with other people involved in legal support and anti-repression efforts around the country.

IGD: How are these investigations unfolding? What tactics and strategies are being used to identify people?

Most of the cases I first reviewed seemed like pretty low-hanging fruit, prosecutions of opportunity. But this week I’ve seen cases where the feds together with local law enforcement put in quite a bit of effort to investigate and identify people. One example was a case out of Philly where a woman is accused of burning two cop cars. The lengths they went to in order to connect this unidentified person at the protest to an identifiable person through online shopping records, social media accounts, promo videos from work, government and commercial databases, etc. surprised even me.

I think this is where we see a significant connection to the J20 inauguration prosecutions in 2017-2018. The government is willing to invest a lot of resources into scouring the internet for photos and videos from protests, analyzing them in excruciating detail to find any unique identifying features that they can, and then scouring social media and other sources for a match. This is the full weight of the surveillance state bearing down.

Other ways they’ve been able to allegedly identify people recently include:

  • cell phone location data to corroborate someone’s location at a given time
  • many people who were caught at or near the scene. 

We should also consider the possibility that the FBI is using illegal electronic surveillance of some sort to track and identify people, and then reverse engineering the identification so they don’t have to disclose the surveillance. We know this is a tactic that is sometimes used.

Another thing we’ve seen is rarely used federal laws from the 1960’s being used more widely. These are laws that were created specifically to criminalize and punish Black and indigenous resistance movements in particular, and other resistance movements generally.

One is the Anti-Riot Act, which was passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 during the riots that followed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. Notably, part of the reasoning behind the federal Anti-Riot Act was the belief that “outside agitators” like H. Rap Brown (now Jalil Al-Amin) of SNCC were traveling state to state to incite riots. The law was sometimes even referred to as the “Rap Brown law.” So this is all a very old playbook in some respects. The law hadn’t been used much since the early 1970s, but then was recently tested against the neo-Nazi Rise Above Movement and is now being used in the George Floyd uprisings.

The other law is the Civil Disorder law, another product of 1968.  It’s a law that also hasn’t been used a whole lot historically. The two exceptions were against the American Indian Movement in the 1970s after the occupation of Wounded Knee, and then in 2016-2017 against indigenous Water Protectors at Standing Rock. Of the many hundreds of criminal cases that came out of Standing Rock, the only federal prosecutions were against indigenous people. Now, like the Anti-Riot Act, it is also being used against uprising participants.

IGD: Why are these charges coming from a federal level?

The biggest reason is that Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr have taken a particular interest in the uprisings and promised a federal crack down. I assume each FBI field office in the country and each U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) got specific instructions to begin or intensify investigations around the uprisings and select appropriate cases for prosecution. The government has always reacted extremely harshly to Black resistance movements, both in the streets and in the courts.

Federal prosecution tends to carry much more significant penalties, and the feds have more resources to invest in the cases they select than do overburdened local prosecutors. So in terms of punishing people for rising up and fighting back against the racist police state, federal prosecutions are very effective for that.

Usually the feds pick cases for prosecution based on a variety of factors. Sometimes there is a particular federal interest. For example, one person is charged with destroying federal property for allegedly spray painting on the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., and in Oakland, two followers of the right-wing Boogaloo movement shot two Federal Protective Service officers (killing one) outside the federal courthouse, in close proximity to the protests.

Sometimes a case is exceptionally complex and only the feds have the resources to effectively investigate and prosecute it, such as big white collar crimes or complex organized crime cases.

Other factors tend to be a bit more political and arbitrary, such as wanting someone to face a particularly serious punishment based on their background or actions. A lot of the arson and Molotov cocktail cases fall in this category to some degree. The feds have always taken a keen interest in Molotov cocktail cases, whether or not the Molotovs are used.

Finally, there are those cases where they just want to send a message to the public–the legal equivalent of a shock and awe campaign. Anytime someone is prosecuted for political activities, this factor is somewhat, if not entirely, at play. Here we are seeing a lot of unexceptional crimes by unexceptional people that the feds have decided to make a public example of in retaliation for the rebellions. One person is charged with Civil Disorder and facing a sentence up to 5 years in prison for allegedly trying to push through police lines with his body and then going limp in an act of passive resistance when the police arrested him. This is piddly shit but the feds have decided this person needs to go to federal prison for a couple years. The only real purpose is collective intimidation.

Other examples are the feds charging Civil Disorder for allegedly throwing a brick through a police car window. In most places that would be a misdemeanor, but not in federal court. Another person supposedly threw a water bottle at police, then ran when police tried to apprehend him. When police tackled him, they supposedly found a concealed handgun and about 1g of marijuana. Now the feds are charging him with Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person under 18 U.S.C. 922(g) which prohibits people who unlawfully use or are addicted to a controlled substance from possessing a firearm and carries a penalty up to 10 years in prison. Further reading about this statute here.

Even when the alleged conduct is more serious, the feds have been pursuing extraordinary punishments that do not seem at all commensurate with the conduct alleged. Two people in New York are facing potential sentences of 45 years to life for allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail at an empty police car. Regardless of what you think about particular tactics, even the potential of a life sentence for one crispy cop car is ridiculous and draconian. But that’s exactly their point. 

Some people are surprised to learn that the feds are even allowed to prosecute these seemingly ordinary crimes. But the scope of federal prosecution expanded dramatically over the 20th century and can encompass almost anything now. If it involves interstate travel; facilities of interstate commerce (the internet, phones, interstate highways); items that pass in interstate commerce (literally everything these days); an entity that affects interstate commerce (again, almost anything); or targets an entity that receives any amount of federal funding (most police departments, local governments, universities, and many non-profits) some federal prosecutor can probably find a federal law that fits.

IGD: Attorney General Bill Barr, along with Trump, has made it a personal mission to push the ‘ANTIFA’ narrative, which is currently losing steam due to the FBI’s own reports, lack of evidence, and also the far-Right killing people left and right. What is your impression of the State’s rush to demonize anarchists and antifascists? 

This is the old trope that authorities always use to displace blame for popular rebellions. The specifics vary but the general narrative does not. It’s the classic “outside agitator” story, which was very popular during the Black freedom movement in the 1960s as well.  

Anarchists and antifascists make easy and politically convenient targets. Most people don’t know much about anarchism and the biggest connotation for it is scary: violence, chaos, disorder. Also, anarchists and antifascists have been a thorn in the side of the far-right, if not the Trump regime itself, for quite a while. Blaming “antifa” has been a central talking point for Trump’s base for at least three years now. So he gets approval from them and doesn’t risk anything.

IGD: In released documents, the FBI stated that they found no evidence of ‘ANTIFA’ involvement in the rioting on May 31, one of the most intense nights of the riots and subsequent reports have ruled the same thing. At the same time, we hear of more and more door knocks by the FBI. We also hear of people being asked about their thoughts on ‘fascism’ and if they identify as ‘antifa.’ What do we make if this seemingly contradictory evidence? 

In the minds of the Justice Department flunkies, just because they haven’t found any evidence doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist; they just have to go find it! So they are shaking trees and seeing what falls out. If they can’t find the evidence of antifascist involvement, it’s likely they will manufacture some evidence. We should expect and prepare for more and escalating federal harassment and surveillance for a while. We should also expect and prepare for grand jury subpoenas.

IGD: Door knocks are becoming more and more of a fact of life. How should we view these encounters from the vantage point of the FBI? What are they hoping to get out of them; what messages are they looking to send, if at all?

Door knocks serve several purposes. First, despite all our efforts, sometimes people talk, and the FBI is very accustomed to having people talk to them. A not insignificant number of the uprising cases currently being prosecuted by the feds involve people who allegedly gave incriminating statements to the FBI after being told they have the right to remain silent and to an attorney.

The FBI has a few goals when talking to people. Sometimes they want specific information about a specific crime. It might even be information they already know and just want to hear you say it so they can hang you with it later. Other times they are just gathering general intelligence about movements, stuff they can use as background or leads for other investigations, vulnerabilities they can exploit, key points they can target. Creating social maps of people’s relationships and dynamics is extremely useful in campaigns of repression. The more they know the more effective they are.

Second, even when people don’t talk, they are still gathering intelligence. Who seemed confident and who seemed scared? Who lawyers up and who doesn’t? Who publicizes the visit and who doesn’t? What did they see in your house from the front window or in the second you opened the door before you realized it was the FBI? (Pro tip: FBI agents don’t usually look like Mulder and Skully from the X-Files; it’s a lot more un-tucked golf shirts and khakis, jeans, or cargo pants.)

Finally, they are intimidating people and disrupting lives. FBI knocks are scary and stressful and disruptive; even more so if they visit you at work or go to a family member’s house. Some people will take fewer risks if they believe the feds are watching. Some might step away from their movements or political communities altogether, either temporarily or permanently. Sometimes people get paranoid, not just about the FBI but about who around them might be careless or malicious and talk. All this can have a serious chilling effect on movement activity. They want us to police ourselves.

IGD: With doors knocks, what should people do if this happens to them? And what do you hear about people doing wrong that they shouldn’t? 

Most importantly do NOT let them in and do NOT answer questions or talk to them!

There’s a lot of resources out there, some of which get into a lot of detail, so I’ll just cover the basics here.

First, you are not required to answer the door (but if they are serving a warrant and you don’t answer they will kick your door in).

If you do answer, it is best to step outside and close your door behind you.

However you come face to face with an agent or officer of any sort (at home or work, in your car, in a jail interview room), it is very important that you say “I am not going to answer questions. I want to speak to a lawyer.” This invokes your legal rights. You don’t need to have a lawyer already to ask to speak to one.

They might threaten you, intimidate you, lie to you, pretend to be your friend or want to help, tell you your friends already snitched, show you incriminating evidence, show you exculpatory evidence, literally anything under the sun that they think might get you to talk. They might even physically abuse you. But it’s very important that the only words that ever leave your lips are “I am not going to answer questions. I want to speak to a lawyer.” You can’t talk your way out of trouble but you can talk your way into a lot trouble.

If they ask to search or “take a look” in your house, car, trunk, backpack, shed, purse, pocket, wallet, or anything else, say “No, I do not consent to a search.”  Repeat as necessary.

If they have a warrant, you can ask to see it and inspect it (like in those ACLU Know Your Rights trainings), but in all likelihood, they probably already have you in handcuffs with a couple guns pointed at you and are yelling commands. So mostly try to just stay cool and get your wits about you and say “I am not going to answer questions. I want to speak to a lawyer.”

If they serve you a subpoena, take it. Listen to whatever they have to say (or don’t! you’re not required to talk OR listen!). Wait for them to leave and then go back inside and lawyer up.

A nearby chapter of the National Lawyers Guild or a local anti-repression group might be able to help you find a lawyer. If that doesn’t exist where you are, you can review local attorney websites to see who seems more social justice oriented, or just start calling around and asking.

I recommend never physically resisting or interfering in any way, because it will likely just make your situation worse. Just say over and over, “I am not going to answer questions. I want to speak to a lawyer. I do not consent to a search.”

Also, don’t keep the visit a secret. I recommend being at least semi-public about it. If people find out you got visited and didn’t tell anyone, they will be suspicious of you. People also need to know so they can prepare and protect themselves. Perhaps there’s information you all can gain from connecting the dots about the FBI’s investigation. Their investigations thrive in secrecy, darkness, and isolation. Our weapons are solidarity, transparency, and support, but we can’t do that if people keep these things to themselves.

IGD: Will far-Right actors such as the “Boogaloo Boys” killing police officers push attention more towards the far-Right, or this simply doesn’t matter?

We’ve already seen two high profile prosecutions for right-wing Boogaloo types coming out of the uprising. This is on the heels of the prosecutions against neo-Nazi groups Attomwaffen Division and The Base earlier this year. We’ve also seen unprecedented numbers of prosecutions of police officers recently. This will likely continue for a while, but the legitimacy the government gains, especially among liberals, from these prosecutions will inevitably be weaponized against our movements even harder.

For example, a year ago we talked about the federal prosecution of the neo-Nazi Rise Above Movement (RAM) under the Anti-Riot Act for their actions in Charlottesville. But now we are seeing the same Anti-Riot Act being used against at least six uprising participants. 

IGD: Assuming Trump is not elected in 2020 and Barr is removed as the Attorney General, what does that mean for any potential cases? 

Honestly, probably not much. Some people might get better plea deals. But a lot of federal cases could likely resolve before then (federal criminal cases tend to move a little faster). Even the ones that don’t resolve I would not expect to be dramatically affected by a new AG.

IGD: Does the popularity of the BLM movement and growing anger at police have any bearing over what the State thinks it can get away with? 

This moment feels rather unprecedented in a lot of ways, at least in my lifetime. I’ve heard a lot of comparisons to the 1960s. I can’t think of another social movement or uprising since then that has had this much widespread resonance, especially so quickly. We do know that, historically, public support for the people facing charges can help improve their outcomes.

Unfortunately, federal prosecutions remain more insulated from this popular sentiment. Unlike most local prosecutors who are elected, U.S. Attorneys are appointed so they are insulated from the political winds insofar as the president and Attorney General are backing them (and I don’t expect either of them to soften). Also, federal districts are much larger than individual counties and so draw a larger jury pool that includes more conservative suburban and rural areas.

IGD: Do you foresee the government pulling something like at the J20 inauguration protests and attempting to create some elaborate web of charges? 

The crux of the J20 prosecution was collective culpability based on mere presence at this one march. It didn’t matter if you were a journalist, medic, legal observer, bystander; if they thought you were involved in that march in any way, you were seen as guilty for the property destruction that happened.

But J20 was a disaster for the government. It was extremely costly for us too in a variety of ways. But legally and politically, we won that fight. So I don’t expect them to want a rematch just yet, especially when the political momentum is already against them.

Additionally, I think they can exact an equal or greater toll with a lot of selective, targeted prosecutions that are successful. Already our movement is faced with dozens of new political prisoners just in the federal system, some of whom could be doing significant time. So we are already looking at a huge and long term support effort for a lot of people all over the country. It’s honestly a little overwhelming.

IGD: What should we be doing in terms of getting ready for repression? What should our strategy be?

Here are some suggestions for building collective resiliency and resisting repression. If everyone takes a couple small steps in the right direction with this stuff, it can have a big impact.

Please, please, PLEASE stop posting photos and videos of protests publicly on the internet and social media. At the very least make it private. Those videos, pictures, and posts are sending people to prison, and it might be you or someone you care about next. Even the photos “away from action” are being used to identify people. It’s not too late to take stuff down or at minimum make your account private.

Next, don’t panic. Repression is scary, but it’s not new and we can fight back. It’s important to make a sober, honest assessment of your risks and vulnerabilities. This can be hard because once you start looking you can see risk and vulnerability everywhere. So it’s important to take a step back and keep perspective on things. Radical change is inherently unsafe, but there’s always reasonable things we can do to mitigate risks.

Related, I think education is incredibly important, for ourselves, the people around us, and our movements as a whole. Learning about the history of repression and how our movements have fought back can teach us valuable lessons and perspective. Educating ourselves and each other about what to do in certain scenarios is vital. It’s one way to emotionally prepare for repression.

It sounds silly but actually role playing a FBI visit or interrogation with your friends, family, or roommates can be really helpful. It’s one thing to read a meme about not talking to police, but it’s another to actually do it. Practice makes perfect.

It’s also helpful to study the cases of people who got caught. What did they do? How did they get caught? What tactics did the cops and FBI use? There’s a lot of lessons you can learn from it. It also helps demystify the FBI and federal prosecutions.

I’m really interested and curious about how to spread this education more widely. We’ve seen recently that all sorts of participants in the uprisings have quickly learned tactics for how to deal with chemical weapons. How do we disseminate anti-repression education just as widely?

In all our work, anti-repression or otherwise, we must prioritize care. State repression is a form of abuse and can cause similar emotional and physical reactions in people. We can’t resist the state and build a new world if we can’t take care of each other along the way, emotionally, materially, politically. Always ask people what they need and want. Get creative. Mobilize sympathetic people who are looking for ways to plug in.

Probably the biggest task is building strong networks of solidarity, even with liberals when possible. This is a long-term project and there are no shortcuts. Be trustworthy, up front, and consistent. Be humble and patient. Don’t compromise your principles but don’t draw yourself into a corner with hard lines. Avoid spreading rumors and conspiracy theories. The more you can build these relationships before the repression hits the better. But it’s never too late to start working on it either.

Usually the most obvious thing is to organize legal resources like raising money for bail and legal fees and mobilizing sympathetic lawyers. But the behind the scenes support infrastructure is just as important: the jail support, the prisoner support, the court support, the public support campaign. The best support doesn’t usually come from legal professionals or activist experts but rather your friends, family, comrades.

Write to political prisoners. If you haven’t before, read up on some guidelines about how to do it in a way that is safe for you and them. They are in there for us, we are out here for them.

Finally, I recommend making a really good anti-repression playlist. Many years ago my friend told me that Rhianna’s hit song “Umbrella” is actually about supporting your friends when they are facing grand jury subpoenas and federal investigations. That song has helped me through a lot of hard times ever since. But find what works for you.

IGD: Anything else?

We are stronger than they are and have a lot of history and momentum behind us. Keep fighting and find ways to retake the initiative. As Chelsea Manning says, we got this!

Resources

Legal Rights And Legal Support:

Tech And Social Media:

Building Resilience In Face Of Repression:

History Of Repression:

Groups:


 

 





Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License



ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
 



Maria Butina explains why she agreed to a plea deal despite her innocence

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

The Paul Crag Roberts site


As the system's woes and contradictions multiply, its regard for established law disintegrates.


“I saw with my own eyes that there is no justice in the US.”


Leontiev: You signed a plea deal. We were watching the case very closely, just like all of Russia. Some lawyers said the prosecutors might not have enough evidence to prove your guilt. Why then take a plea bargain?

Butina: Imagine you are in a foreign country, away from your parents… you have no contact with your family. You are locked up in solitary confinement. It’s very cold and you sit on the floor. You might be facing a 15-year sentence. I thought about how old I was going to be and whether my parents were going to be alive when that day came. And then you find out, that according to statistics, in the US about 98% of defendants who face a jury get convicted. So the chance of you losing is, well, quite high. Besides, who would have been judging me? I would have faced a jury in Washington – the people who watch CNN, the people who have already been fed this narrative, and with those people, it wouldn’t have mattered what I was being accused of. I would have been on trial for being Russian. I would have been sentenced to 15 years. So I believe I made the only right decision. There was no other way.

https://www.rt.com/news/471950-butina-interview-exclusive-video/


‘My hair color was proof of guilt’: Maria Butina talks her arrest, the NRA, and Senate testimony (FULL INTERVIEW)



[dropcap]A[/dropcap]ccused of spying and jailed in the US, Russian student and gun rights activist Maria Butina has told RT about her ordeal, from staring down a dozen armed FBI agents at her door to how Hollywood cliches served as proof of guilt.

Arrested in July 2018, Butina spent eight months in custody, most of it in solitary confinement, before eventually pleading guilty in December. Meanwhile US media telling juicy stories about her that later proved false. 

“They just took some Hollywood clichés and made me the scapegoat,” she said. “The color of my hair and my features served as proof of guilt. That’s the way it should be, because we see it this way in the movies.”

Butina testified for eight hours to the Senate Intelligence Committee, where she was grilled by lawmakers on her contacts with the NRA. While prosecutors later viewed her dalliances with the NRA as an attempt to work her way into Republican circles, Butina herself told RT she was more interested in its work campaigning for gun rights that she wanted expanded in Russia, and decried how the organization has become “overly politicized,” and focused on supporting political candidates, instead of “self-defense rights.” 

Despite her ordeal, Butina believes good relations between Russia and the US would eventually be built “on the foundation of friendship between people, between students.” 

Watch or read below her full exclusive interview to RT where she talks about all the facts and speculation of her saga.


RT's Dmitry Leontiev: Maria, hello. I’m very happy you’re here, because it could have been very different. As far as I know, you could have faced five years in prison.

Maria Butina: Initially, it was 15.

Leontiev: 15?

Butina: Yes, then they cut it down to five. At first, the idea was that I would be given the time I spent on remand and then return home. However, it didn’t go as I expected, I was given a longer sentence.

Leontiev: Let’s start from the very beginning. What were you doing in the US? Why were you there?

Butina: I was studying. I enrolled in a master’s degree at a university in Washington to study international relations. After I obtained a work permit, and I was invited to work at the university as an assistant professor. And then, two days later, I was arrested.

Leontiev:Frankly speaking, I know you were not just studying, right? You were a political activist of sorts.

Butina: Yes, that’s true, but these two things do not contradict each other. I can tell you that when you come to study international relations, it’s only natural to do something practical in this area too. I always had a lot of respect for the US, and I still have. And I also love my home country dearly. So, I thought it only reasonable to do something for the sake of friendship between the two countries, to try to improve relations and engage in civic diplomacy.

Leontiev: Is that still the case?

Butina: I still want to do that. There are good and bad people, it’s the same everywhere. I believe that the American people should really start paying attention to what is happening in their country. But there are good people there, I know this, so I think that good relations between Russia and the US will eventually be built on the foundation of friendship between people, between students – thanks to student exchange programs and religious affinity, too. That’s exactly what I was basically doing, building bridges between the countries though shared interests in gun rights, and I thought that everything would be OK. Unfortunately, the US authorities had been busy disrupting such activities, probably they don’t want peace.

Leontiev:After all what happened, do you think it is possible for relations between Russia and the US to improve?

Butina: Of course. I think that what happened to me, and how Russia is generally depicted in the US, has really nothing to do with Russia per se, they just picked a scapegoat. And especially now with all those petty games the Republicans and Democrats are playing for power. The establishment has nothing to do with people or with democracy, the politicians are just fighting for power and that’s why they need a foreign threat, an enemy. Who could make an ideal enemy? So, they picked Russia and now Russia is blamed for everything, even though there are no grounds for any of the accusations. And then they thought, let’s take some student – like myself – and put her behind bars, and say she is responsible for everything. That is just absurd. If I were a US national, I would be offended to hear something like that, that my own government treats me like that. Do they think I really don’t understand anything? That I cannot choose a candidate on my own, and I need Russian interference to help me make a choice? It’s just ridiculous.

Leontiev:This may sound naïve, but do you think this would have happened if the political climate had been more settled after Trump became president?

Butina: Certainly, political climate is one thing, and the other thing is racism. I regret to say it, but there is racism in the US. And it’s getting stronger. Look, if I belonged to any other ethnic group – not Russian – there would be no case. Today, however, if you are Russian and you are in the US, there is reason to be worried. And I am living proof.

Leontiev:Let’s talk about your arrest. How did it happen? And what did they charge you with at first?

Butina: That was a terrible day, it’s hard for me to recall what happened. My friend and I, we were about to move after I got a job. All our things were already packed up. And then I heard this wild banging on the door, so my friend went to see what it was and didn’t come back. I became nervous, and then I heard someone saying my name, ‘Maria, come in’. I slowly came up to the door, it was around the corner. I opened it to see some 12 FBI agents in full gear, with assault rifles. They told me to step out from the apartment and handcuffed me, asking whether I had anything I could use to hurt them. What? A copybook maybe? That’s how I was arrested, and until yesterday I was behind bars, today [October, 26] was my first sunrise in a free world.

Leontiev: What did they accuse you of initially, espionage? What?

Butina: I was never charged with espionage, that was simply speculation. The media blew it all out of proportion in their stories, perhaps because of how I looked and some fantasy they made up. Maybe they’ve seen too many Hollywood movies and thought this is how a spy should look. I don’t know, maybe they were just too thick.

Leontiev:Am I right saying that you testified before Congress behind closed doors, and those hearings lasted for some eight or nine hours. Congressmen were asking you questions and telling you to provide thousands of papers. What was all that about?

Butina: When the investigation started, the Senate Intelligence Committee sent me a request asking whether I would like to talk about my activities in relation to the National Rifle Association, the National Prayer Breakfast and why I visited it, as well as my ties with Alexander Torshin. And I said OK, no problem. The next day, I called up Mr. Torshin and…

Leontiev:Was that before your arrest?

Butina: Yes. So I told him about that letter and asked him what he thought I should do. I just wanted to hear his personal advice, because I do respect him and he is an old friend of mine, a very good friend and a mentor too. That’s why I asked him. And he said, Maria, give them all the documents, we are not doing anything wrong. We only want peace and friendship to prevail. And that’s the truth. I don’t know why they decided to search my place. I had given all the documents to the Senate two weeks prior to that. I gave it all voluntarily to show that I’d done nothing wrong, I had nothing to hide.

Leontiev:What were they asking you? Eight hours is a lot of time.

Butina: They asked me about everything I had been doing in the US. How I enrolled in that program and what was the purpose of the visit of NRA representatives to Russia.

Actually, after my home was searched, I didn’t change any passwords on my computer, didn’t delete any files. That’s because, again, I had done nothing wrong. I handed over all the documents voluntarily. So, I really don’t know why they needed to arrest me. If it was just because I didn’t register, then they could have simply fined me for that and that’s it. Why such cruelty, for what?

Leontiev: Right after your arrest, the US media said that a note was found after the police search. And supposedly you wrote that note, it read, “How to respond to an FSB offer of employment.” What was that note?

Butina: I didn’t write that note.

Leontiev:Oh, I see.

Butina: It was my friend who wrote that down, that’s first. Second, I can only guess what he meant by that. As far as I can tell by the conversations we had… listen, if my work eventually transformed into something more serious, then maybe it could have attracted some interest. But history is never hypothetical, it knows no ifs. The Russian security services were not interested in my activities in the US. Period. How can a note like that be considered proof? Especially if it wasn’t even mine. I really don’t understand how it could have become evidence in my case.


Leontiev: Now, the note was not the only thing that happened to you. Your story unraveled during the premiere of a movie about Russian female spies starring Jennifer Lawrence.

Butina: Regrettably

Leontiev:Spies who are ready to use sex for promotions, new contacts and a chance to reach high-profile US officials. This was the image the mainstream media exploited along with the Attorney General’s office, which had to apologize later, right? What was your response to these allegations?

Butina: They should be embarrassed. The US positions itself as a country that protects women’s rights. They should be ashamed of their behavior. They just made the allegations based on my looks. I have a great family. I am proud of it. Both of my grandmothers are teachers. We share the same name. I have nothing to do with these sex stories. What about my life? How do I live on? Yes, they apologized. But what about me now?

I was extremely surprised and saddened that the judge did not do anything about it. The only statement by the judge was, “It took me five minutes to realize that the communications you have submitted as proof are messages between friends” – back in Russia. It had nothing to do with the US.

It was completely absurd.

I thought she would defend me, defend my honor and my dignity, because she was also a woman.

Butina: When the investigation started, the Senate Intelligence Committee sent me a request asking whether I would like to talk about my activities in relation to the National Rifle Association, the National Prayer Breakfast and why I visited it, as well as my ties with Alexander Torshin. And I said OK, no problem. The next day, I called up Mr. Torshin and…

Leontiev:Was that before your arrest?

Butina: Yes. So I told him about that letter and asked him what he thought I should do. I just wanted to hear his personal advice, because I do respect him and he is an old friend of mine, a very good friend and a mentor too. That’s why I asked him. And he said, Maria, give them all the documents, we are not doing anything wrong. We only want peace and friendship to prevail. And that’s the truth. I don’t know why they decided to search my place. I had given all the documents to the Senate two weeks prior to that. I gave it all voluntarily to show that I’d done nothing wrong, I had nothing to hide.

Leontiev:What were they asking you? Eight hours is a lot of time.

Butina: They asked me about everything I had been doing in the US. How I enrolled in that program and what was the purpose of the visit of NRA representatives to Russia.

Actually, after my home was searched, I didn’t change any passwords on my computer, didn’t delete any files. That’s because, again, I had done nothing wrong. I handed over all the documents voluntarily. So, I really don’t know why they needed to arrest me. If it was just because I didn’t register, then they could have simply fined me for that and that’s it. Why such cruelty, for what?

Leontiev: Right after your arrest, the US media said that a note was found after the police search. And supposedly you wrote that note, it read, “How to respond to an FSB offer of employment.” What was that note?

Butina: I didn’t write that note.

Leontiev:Oh, I see.

Butina: It was my friend who wrote that down, that’s first. Second, I can only guess what he meant by that. As far as I can tell by the conversations we had… listen, if my work eventually transformed into something more serious, then maybe it could have attracted some interest. But history is never hypothetical, it knows no ifs. The Russian security services were not interested in my activities in the US. Period. How can a note like that be considered proof? Especially if it wasn’t even mine. I really don’t understand how it could have become evidence in my case.



Leontiev: Now, the note was not the only thing that happened to you. Your story unraveled during the premiere of a movie about Russian female spies starring Jennifer Lawrence.

Butina: Regrettably

Leontiev:Spies who are ready to use sex for promotions, new contacts and a chance to reach high-profile US officials. This was the image the mainstream media exploited along with the Attorney General’s office, which had to apologize later, right? What was your response to these allegations?

Butina: They should be embarrassed. The US positions itself as a country that protects women’s rights. They should be ashamed of their behavior. They just made the allegations based on my looks. I have a great family. I am proud of it. Both of my grandmothers are teachers. We share the same name. I have nothing to do with these sex stories. What about my life? How do I live on? Yes, they apologized. But what about me now?

I was extremely surprised and saddened that the judge did not do anything about it. The only statement by the judge was, “It took me five minutes to realize that the communications you have submitted as proof are messages between friends” – back in Russia. It had nothing to do with the US.

It was completely absurd.

I thought she would defend me, defend my honor and my dignity, because she was also a woman.

They could have accused me of being anybody – a foreign agent or whatever…

But those allegations.

As if they didn’t know they were lying.

They knew it. They saw the messages. They realized it was a deliberate lie to keep me detained without any chance of bail.

What do I do now with my reputation?

Bottom line: It is a disgrace for the US

Leontiev:Do you agree it was done on purpose to create an image for the US audience, that the public is familiar with?

Butina: Absolutely. They just took some Hollywood clichés and made me the scapegoat. The color of my hair and my features served as proof of guilt. That’s the way it should be, because we see it this way in the movies.

It was click bait and made for good headlines on TV. If you remove the sex for money hype, the case itself is pretty boring. Was I a foreign agent or not? That’s all bureaucratic, not really exciting. They added flames to the story. I saw with my own eyes that there is no justice in the US.

More than 90 percent of defendants plead guilty to avoid a jury, because they know they will be convicted. What kind of justice are we talking about?

Leontiev:One of the most celebrated newspapers in the US, the New York Times, said you were the person who was supposed to organize a meeting between Trump and Putin… What would you say to that?

Butina: They think too much of me… Absolutely not. The only thing I did vis-à-vis Trump was ask him a question at a conference, and he initially wasn’t even meant to be there.

It was an annual Libertarians conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, and was interested in the event as a person who shares these views. Trump made a surprise visit and I had a chance to ask a question – and lo and behold – I asked him a question about Russia.

Simply because I am a Russian.

I don’t know why everyone was so surprised. There’s nothing strange about that.

I am often asked, ‘Why did you ask him about sanctions?’ I did it because I think trade is the foundation for good relations between countries. That’s been true for thousands of years. Trade has always been a solid foundation to improve ties. So it was natural that I asked him about the sanctions.

First and foremost, it affects the people of both countries.

Leontiev:Did you ever consider using legal means to force top US TV channels to change their narrative? And are you considering it now - or you have other matters to deal with now?

Butina: I am looking at possible options. My return to Russia is not the end of the story. It is just the beginning for me. It’s not right to just get over it and think it’s all in the past.

It’s not fame I want in this life. I must now become a voice for those who are unduly accused or maltreated. I feel I have to do some human rights campaigning. As for my personal case, I need to discuss it with my family first.

I think there will be a decision very soon.


Closure of an ordeal: Butina embraces her father Valery Butin upon arrival at Sheremetyevo International Airport outside Moscow, Russia, October 26 © Sputnik/Vitaliy Belousov


Leontiev:You signed a plea deal. We were watching the case very closely, just like all of Russia. Some lawyers said the prosecutors might not have enough evidence to prove your guilt. Why then take a plea bargain?

Butina: Imagine you are in a foreign country, away from your parents… you have no contact with your family. You are locked up in solitary confinement. It’s very cold and you sit on the floor. You might be facing a 15-year sentence. I thought about how old I was going to be and whether my parents were going to be alive when that day came. And then you find out, that according to statistics, in the US about 98% of defendants who face a jury get convicted. So the chance of you losing is, well, quite high. Besides, who would have been judging me? I would have faced a jury in Washington – the people who watch CNN, the people who have already been fed this narrative, and with those people, it wouldn’t have mattered what I was being accused of. I would have been on trial for being Russian. I would have been sentenced to 15 years. So I believe I made the only right decision. There was no other way.

Leontiev: You said you were put in solitary confinement. Why? Is that standard procedure? Or did they deem you dangerous in some way?

Butina: No, it’s not standard procedure. I don’t know why they had to be so cruel. I tend to think – this is just conjecture – that maybe they were trying to break my will or something like that, learn some secrets. But I didn’t have any secrets. I think that when we started those briefings, as they call them, with the prosecutors, they understood everything after the first or second talks. They had all my computers, which they still do, and all of my papers. I hadn’t deleted anything, and they searched through everything. There was nothing there. But they couldn’t admit there was nothing. They had to justify why the US tax payers paid for this show. So they did.

Leontiev: So this was a way to apply pressure?

Butina: Yes, of course. No doubt about it.

Leontiev: Would you be willing to go back to the US now? Or ever?

Butina: Well, first of all, I can’t go to the US now – I’m not allowed to.

Leontiev: So it’s out of the question, then.

Butina: Yes, in light of my hideous crime, trying to build bridges between the two countries – I’m being sarcastic here, of course – I’m not allowed to set foot in the US for 10 years. It’s forbidden. And, you know, I would’ve refrained from going there at this point, because right now the attitude towards Russians is not great. I’m living proof of that.



Leontiev: Tell us about how you met Mr Torshin? Was he the one who sent you to America? What role did he play in all this?

Butina: No, no one sent me to the US. I have always respected Mr. Torshin as a more experienced friend and a mentor. We met at a demonstration in support of gun rights. He has always been in favor of the right to carry guns, and I respect him for it. It hasn’t always been a popular stance – never popular, really – but he has consistently advocated for gun rights regardless. He has never sent me anywhere, of course. He had traveled to the US long before I did, and he needed no help from me. So our relationship was that of a mentor-student basis, and I have a great deal of respect for him. I don’t know what has been happening to him recently, since we haven’t been in touch. I hope he’s well, and I hope we’ll have a chance to talk.



Leontiev: Your activism regarding the Second Amendment and that we need to have something like that in Russia, how did it come about?

Butina: It came from my family. My dad taught me how to handle a gun, and this interest of mine grew into an NGO to protect the rights of people who found themselves in situations that required self defense. It’s important to me, and my views on the issue haven’t changed. I’ll tell you what – the curious thing is, on the second day after my arrest, Russian diplomats came to me, even though gun rights have never been on the official Russian government agenda, even though I have never been a pro-Kremlin activist. The people from the Embassy came, and they supported me every day, they fought for me every day, just because I was a Russian national. I’m very proud of that.

Leontiev: Considering the complex environment we have, is it realistic to have a law similar to the Second Amendment in Russia? Even in the US, many people believe that it causes more murders and facilitates mass violence. Especially considering school shootings.

Butina: Unfortunately, this happens in Russia as well. Let’s be clear, our organization has always advocated self defense weapons to be legal, namely pistols and revolvers. Today, unfortunately, we are only allowed long-barrel firearms, which obviously cannot be carried for self defense purposes, and traumatic guns, which, sadly, tend to feature a lot in crime reports. I believe that those who are fighting crime on the front line – I mean people first and then the police – should be able to use real firearms in self defense situations. I think that can be done in Russia, we are in no way inferior to those countries that allow it.


Leontiev: Are you ready to continue your work?

Butina: Absolutely. Our organization is headed by a great person. By the way, my organization and my colleagues supported me, they wrote letters and no one abandoned me. I am very grateful for that. The head of our organization supported and defended me too. I think I should let him continue to represent our organization. And of course, I will support them. However, due to what happened, the focus of my work will certainly shift.

Leontiev:You won’t be working with the NRA?

Butina: I was expelled from the NRA. An official notification was sent to me – to my lawyers – saying that now that I have a criminal record, the NRA Charter requires to discontinue my membership, so I was officially expelled. So the NRA dodged that bullet.


NRA annual meeting in Indianapolis, US, last April (2019).

Leontiev: Most Russians maybe have a stereotype of the NRA. What is the organization really like? What are the members like and who runs it?

Butina: There are all sorts of people there… Overall, the NRA is a great organization, I mean… I’ll put it this way: it’s very successful in terms of campaigning for gun rights. But there is one thing I want to say – and the fact that I was expelled speaks to that, too – it has become overly politicized. While I believe that an organization campaigning for gun rights, for self defense rights… you know, like me in Russia, it should be balanced in terms of politics, because it is more about general civil rights. Whereas the NRA today basically supports political candidates. And that’s exactly why they cannot just focus on gun rights anymore, and it’s a pity – because when I joined the NRA, when I went to the United States, I looked up to them, I came to see how they built it. And I wanted to see this American dream, you know, I was like a moth to a flame, attracted to all these great things. And unfortunately, now I don’t know the answer – where is life great for people? It seems to me America is not the answer.

Leontiev: The American dream turned into a nightmare.

Butina: Yes, it did.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!


[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]


PCR with feline kids.

About the Author
  Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

 

 

 

 Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.




The Russian Peace Threat examines Russophobia, American Exceptionalism and other urgent topics