Connect with us

News

Nazis’ Lawyers Accuse Charlottesville Victims of Being Communist Sympathizers in Sixth Day of Wild Trial

Published

on

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Virginia — As the second witness in the landmark lawsuit against white nationalist organizers of the 2017 Unite the Right rally took the stand on Monday, defendants sought to discredit the victims of violence that engulfed the city in August 2017 by attempting to make strained connections to violent left-wing counter-protesters and communists.

During jury selection, several prospective jurors expressed negative opinions about “antifa,” revealing how deeply right-wing conspiracy theories falsely portraying left-wing, antiracist activists as uniformly violent have become entrenched since the election of Donald Trump. Lawyers for the plaintiffs were able to get several of the prospective jurors with the most extreme views of “antifa” struck.

Defense counsel began cross-examination of Devin Willis, a plaintiff who was an 18-year-old African-American student at the University of Virginia in August 2017, on Monday morning. Willis and fellow plaintiff Natalie Romero, who testified on Oct. 29, were the only people of color among a group of counter-protesters who were surrounded by a torch-bearing mob as they linked arms around the statue of Thomas Jefferson on the University of Virginia campus on Aug. 11, 2017.

White nationalists in the mob yelled, “Go back to where you came from,” made monkey noises at them, and hurled lit torches at their feet.

A member of the Black Student Alliance at the University of Virginia, Willis helped organize a respite area in nearby McGuffey Park, where antiracist counter-protesters could find food and water, listen to poetry or take time for meditation, during the day of the Unite the Right rally on Aug. 12, 2017.

Defendants questioned him about the language in a press release announcing the project by asking him to distinguish between “nonviolent civil protest” and “direct action.” Through cross-examination, the defendants attempted to cast the respite effort in a sinister light by highlighting the fact that Willis also went to what was then Emancipation Park and stood with a group of people who attempted to block the white nationalists from traversing the street.

Richard Spencer, the one-time figurehead of the alt-right movement, asked Willis if his intention of maintaining a “safe space” at McGuffey Park would “have included blocking people from traveling to a permitted rally.”

“I don’t think so,” Willis replied. “The first thing is the safe space was in McGuffey Park. I think what you’re referring to took place somewhere else.”

But Willis also rejected the defendants’ attempt to characterize his participation in the blockade as “direct action,” instead describing it as “a symbolic gesture,” similar to when he joined counter-protesters to surround the Jefferson statue the previous evening.

“That’s why there was space left to walk around,” he added.

Bryan Jones, counsel for the two League of the South defendants, used his cross-examination of Willis to attempt to undermine the plaintiffs’ characterization of themselves as peaceful counter-protesters. Jones presented images of the counter-protesters blocking Market Street adjacent to Emancipation Park that included at least two individuals holding sticks or flagpoles. Others in the line were wearing red bandannas, which Jones suggested in his cross-examination were indicative of support for communism.

Willis acknowledged on the stand that he joined what Jones called “this human barricade” on at least two occasions.

During direct examination, Willis had testified that he had witnessed people using sticks and poles as weapons to hit people near Emancipation Park. When Jones showed Willis a photo of person who appeared to be a counter-protester in the human chain holding a flagpole, Willis acknowledged that it was consistent with, as Jones worded it, “the type of weapons you saw used during the confrontation and conflict that day.”

Willis also identified co-plaintiff Romero in a photograph of people on the line.

Jones referenced Romero’s earlier testimony when she said that white nationalists spit at her and threw her against a police car next to Emancipation Park on the morning of Aug. 12. She testified that she couldn’t understand why they assaulted her because there was plenty of room to go around her.

“If someone were to say that Natalie was only standing on the side of the road, that would be incorrect, wouldn’t it?” Jones asked.

“I don’t think that invalidates the other thing she said,” Willis responded.

Jones also questioned Willis about red bandannas worn by people in the line blocking Market Street.

“You didn’t realize that there were communist supporters?” Jones asked.

“I wasn’t really paying much attention to that,” Willis replied.

Jones’s questioning also sought to shift blame for the violence from the defendants to members of law enforcement, who stood on the sideline as hand-to-hand combat raged on the Market Street on the morning of Aug. 12, before declaring the event an unlawful assembly and ordering people to leave.

Jones contrasted the police handling of Unite the Right with their response to a rally a month earlier by the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Willis agreed with Jones that the Klan rally was relatively uneventful and that there was a significant police presence at the earlier rally, in comparison with Unite the Right. In contrast to Unite the Right, during the Klan rally, police kept the two groups separated.

“Could it be that one of the reasons you experienced violence at the August rally is that you were standing with other counter-protesters blocking a roadway, but in July you didn’t do that?” Jones asked.

Willis responded: “I don’t think standing in the roadway is an invitation to be attacked, but you could say that, yes.”

Before the trial started, Jones had unsuccessfully sought to introduce the 220-page Heaphy Report, an independent review of the breakdown of order during the Unite the Right rally that was commissioned by the former city manager, into evidence in entirety.

The Heaphy Report concluded that the city of Charlottesville failed to protect both free expression and public safety on Aug. 12, 2017.

“The city was unable to protect the right of free expression and facilitate the permit holder’s offensive speech,” the report said. “This represents a failure of one of government’s core functions — the protection of fundamental rights. Law enforcement also failed to maintain order and protect citizens from harm, injury and death.”

Timothy Heaphy, the lead author of the report, is a former US attorney for the Western District of Virginia who was recently hired as chief investigative counsel for the US House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol.

The plaintiffs have argued that the Unite the Right organizers sought to use the report “as a central pillar in their defense at trial” in an effort “to shift the blame of their racially motivated violence onto others.”

Judge Moon turned down the defendants’ request, ruling the report inadmissible as hearsay.

The defendants are likely to sharpen questions about plaintiffs allegedly impeding their access to Emancipation Park, where they held a permit for a rally, when the Rev. Seth Wispelwey takes the stand. Wispelwey, who is a plaintiff in the case, organized a response from clergy. As Wispelwey and other clergy members, including Professor Cornel West, marched arm-in-arm to Emancipation Park, white nationalists charged through them, knocking Wispelwey into a bush.

Defendant Christopher Cantwell, a neo-Nazi podcaster, took the defendants’ efforts to link plaintiffs to violent left-wing activists a step further by extensively questioning Willis about various individuals who counter-protested the Aug. 11 torch march. At one point, Cantwell asked Willis to name the people who were in the car with him when he traveled to campus to counter-protest the torch march. During his direct examination, Willis had explained that when the white nationalists attacked them at the Jefferson statue he covered his face to avoid being doxed.

Responding to Cantwell’s question on Monday about his fellow counter-protesters, he told the court: “I’m hesitant to name them. Some of them live here.”

“You have to name them,” Judge Moon told Willis.

Plaintiffs’ counsel asked to approach the bench for a conference.

Cantwell resumed his line of questioning, and Willis asked if he had to respond.

“This is your lawsuit, and this is information they need to ask,” Moon said.

Cantwell, whose legal strategy has occasionally earned the scorn of counsel for his fellow defendants, has aggressively cross-examined the first two plaintiff-witnesses, running the risk of alienating jurors who sympathize with the injuries they incurred during the weekend of violence. At times, Cantwell’s courtroom comments have seemed more directed towards his white nationalist podcast audience than the court.

 

Jordan Green covers right-wing extremism for Raw Story. A Kentucky native, he now lives in North Carolina, where he spent 16 years writing for alt-weeklies and freelancing for the Washington Post and other publications.

Image: Peter Cvjetanovicm (Twitter)

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Trump’s Own Posts ‘Gravely Injured’ DOJ’s Investigation Into Fed Chairman: Reporter

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s own social media posts harmed the Department of Justice’s efforts to criminally investigate Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, according to a Washington, D.C. reporter.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg “quashed a pair of subpoenas tied to the investigation and ordered the docket in the case to be unsealed,” The Washington Post reported, calling it “a significant setback” for the Trump administration’s inquiry.

“A mountain of evidence suggests that the Government served these subpoenas on the Board to pressure its Chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning,” Judge Boasberg wrote. “On the other side of the scale, the Government has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime; indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the Court can only conclude that they are pretextual.”

Washington correspondent and investigative journalist Scott Macfarlane reported, “Trump’s Truth Social posts appear to have gravely injured his attempt to get a criminal case against Jerome Powell.”

Judge Boasberg’s 27-page memorandum opinion began with a Trump Truth Social post:

“Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair. He is costing our Country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS… Put another way, ‘Too Late’ is a TOTAL LOSER, and our Country is paying the price!’ ” Trump wrote on July 31, 2025, as Boasberg noted.

“That is one of at least 100 statements that the President or his deputies have made attacking the Chair of the Federal Reserve and pressuring him to lower interest rates,” the judge wrote.

The words “Too Late,” as in Trump’s nickname for the Fed chairman, appear in Boasberg’s opinion eighteen times.

The judge cited numerous Trump posts.

“‘Too Late’ Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government…. TOO LATE’s an American Disgrace!” Trump wrote on June 19, 2025.

On August 1, 2025, as Boasberg wrote, Trump posted: “Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell, a stubborn MORON, must substantially lower interest rates, NOW. IF HE CONTINUES TO REFUSE, THE BOARD SHOULD ASSUME CONTROL, AND DO WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS HAS TO BE DONE!”

Boasberg also noted that as he “considered whom to appoint as the Fed’s next Chair,” Trump vowed, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be the Fed Chairman!”

In his opinion, as MacFarlane reported, Boasberg wrote that Trump “spent years essentially asking if no one will rid him of this troublesome Fed Chair. He then suggested a specific line of investigation into him, which had been proposed by a political appointee with no role in law enforcement, who hinted that it could be a way to remove Powell. The President’s appointed prosecutor promptly complied.”

Boasberg also suggested that federal prosecutors had issued subpoenas improperly.

“Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will.”

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Sense of Dread’: Ex-Trump DHS Official Fears He Could Stumble Into a Nuclear War

Published

on

A former top Trump Department of Homeland Security official is warning that he fears the president could get the U.S. into a nuclear war for which it is not prepared — because he saw the president’s response in his first term, when fears ran high after North Korea launched a missile that could have reached the U.S.

“Few Americans realize how close the president took us to the brink of nuclear war in his first term before aides talked him down,” writes Miles Taylor, the DHS chief of staff during Trump’s first term. “What the public didn’t know at the time — and until years later — was that the president’s team was worried he might start a nuclear war.”

“Today, there’s no one prepared to stop him,” warns Taylor, who writes that Trump “has an eerie fascination with nukes.”

“My fear about this man has always been about his finger on the nuclear button. That’s usually just symbolism when we talk about the presidency. The ‘nuclear button’ is a stand-in for the concept of presidential power and the risks of instability,” says Taylor. “When we’re talking about Trump, it’s not a metaphor.”

READ MORE: ‘What Was the Plan?’: White House Faces Fury Over Claim Trump Knew Hormuz Closure Risk

During Trump’s first year in office, “the United States came closer to a nuclear conflict than most people realize,” Taylor says. He chastised the president for his “mishandling” of a confrontation with North Korea that “was so serious” that the team at DHS “was forced to do real-life, defensive planning for the possibility of a nuclear strike against the homeland — a situation DHS had never been in since its creation.”

Detailing the events that day, Taylor notes that “North Korea had launched an intercontinental ballistic missile,” its “most powerful weapon yet — the first North Korean missile capable of hitting anywhere in the world, including Washington, D.C.”

As the crisis grew, Trump called acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke.

“But Trump wasn’t calling to ask about the missile — or even whether his defensive team at DHS was ready to protect the homeland against such a strike had it been the real thing,” Taylor writes. In an “angry” phone call, Trump “wanted to talk about deportations.”

“As Elaine recounted the call to me, her eyes began to well up. A nuclear-capable missile had just ripped through the skies over the Pacific, and the president of the United States was oblivious. All he cared about was getting foreigners off his land.”

DHS had to prepare for the “genuine possibility” that Trump “might stumble us into a nuclear confrontation with North Korea.”

READ MORE: ‘Quiet Part Out Loud’: Hegseth Slammed for Lashing Out at CNN’s War Reporting

Taylor detailed Trump’s “angry tweets,” in which he “threatened North Korea with ‘fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before.’ National security officials woke up to these messages on their phones. Stunned. The president almost seemed to welcome the prospect of a global conflagration.”

As the months wore on, whenever DHS “got alerts that the North Koreans were preparing a missile launch, those of us working inside the administration worried it could be the real thing,” says Taylor, “or that the president might say something so stupid that he’d manifest it… or that he would be too distracted to care.”

Now, Trump has not changed, but what has is that “everything that kept him in check” is gone.

Taylor recounts how last year, Trump took to Truth Social to declare that, “Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”

“That process will begin immediately,” Trump wrote.

“As the president barrels forward with the Iran war, I’m getting the same sense of dread that I had then,” Taylor warns.

Summing up his concerns, he says that, “Regardless of what happens with the Iran war, I want you to remember this. I want you to remember what we’ve learned about how Donald Trump sees his gravest responsibilities as commander-in-chief, how he was gamified war, and how he has flirted with nuclear catastrophe.”

“It is, perhaps, the most urgent reason for Americans to demand the other branches of government do more to keep him in check. Our president is unstable, and there are no longer sensible people around him to send up a flare if he’s ready to do something deadly.”

READ MORE: ‘Key Indicator’: Expert Warns US Could Be Planning ‘Potential Ground Operation’

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Key Indicator’: Expert Warns US Could Be Planning ‘Potential Ground Operation’

Published

on

The Pentagon’s reported decision to send a Marine expeditionary unit and additional warships to the Middle East is being called a “key indicator” of a “possible ground operation,” according to a national security and defense expert.

“The Pentagon is moving a Marine expeditionary unit and more warships to the Middle East, as Iran steps up its attacks in the Strait of Hormuz,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has approved a request from Centcom for an element of an amphibious ready group and attached Marine expeditionary unit, typically consisting of several warships and 5,000 Marines, according to three U.S. officials.”

The Economist’s defense editor, Shashank Joshi, responded to the Journal’s reporting, calling it a “key indicator of a potential ground operation.”

Joshi, who has given lectures to the UK Defence Academy and NATO, according to his bio, added: “Many potential uses for [a Marine expeditionary unit,] of course. Some related to ground operations … but many not. Things like de-mining capacity, escort capacity, evacuation of civilians.”

READ MORE: ‘What Was the Plan?’: White House Faces Fury Over Claim Trump Knew Hormuz Closure Risk

CBS News national security analyst Aaron MacLean wrote: “If I were considering a special operations mission targeting Iran–perhaps a raid on nuclear sites, or even the seizure of critical energy infrastructure–this is just the sort of capability I would want on hand in the region.”

Retired Washington Post editor Robert McCartney called the move a “sign we could soon see U.S. boots on ground.”

“If modern war history shows us anything it’s once you start sending troops the number keeps going up especially when the war is a debacle,” warned Mike Prysner, Executive Director of the Center on Conscience & War. “And leaders would rather pass off the problem to the next administration rather than be the one to admit defeat.”

Just days ago, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) warned of a potential deployment of U.S. troops “on the ground in Iran,” after attending a briefing.

READ MORE: ‘Quiet Part Out Loud’: Hegseth Slammed for Lashing Out at CNN’s War Reporting

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.