---
author: New York Times Podcasts
date: '2026-10-27'
guest: ''
layout: post.njk
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwlN9g9a0cc
speaker: New York Times Podcasts
tags:
- terrorism-charges
- protest-rights
- judicial-precedent
- political-violence
title: 得州移民拘留所抗议案：抗议者因恐怖主义罪名获重刑
summary: 2025年7月得州一处移民拘留所外的抗议活动中一名警官中弹受轻伤。在查理·柯克遇刺及特朗普针对左翼发布指令后，联邦检方以向恐怖主义提供物质支持罪起诉涉案抗议者，陪审团裁定全员罪成，被告被判处30年至100年重刑。
insight: ''
draft: true
series: ''
category: politics-society
area: society-thinking
project: []
people:
- Janet Reitman
- Michael Barbaro
- Ben Song
- Thomas Gross
- Charlie Kirk
- Donald Trump
- Nancy Larson
- Kyle Shidler
- Daniel Sanchez Estrada
companies_orgs:
- ICE
- FBI
- DOJ
- Socialist Rifle Association
- John Brown Gun Club
- Anthropic
products_models: []
media_books:
- The New York Times
- The Daily
- 'The Inheritance: An American Tragedy in Five Acts'
status: evergreen
---
### 案件起因：得州移民拘留所外的枪声
这里是《纽约时报》，我是迈克尔·巴巴罗。这是《每日新闻》。[音乐]
>> 是的，我们需要警察到佩里兰拘留中心来。我不知道外面发生了什么。他们只是让我打电话。
>> 2025年7月4日晚，得克萨斯州达拉斯郊外的警方接到一通来自移民与海关执法局（ICE）拘留中心内部的电话。
>> 好的。你不知道发生了什么事？
>> 不知道，长官。
>> 我想他们是在放烟花。
报警人报告称，一小群身穿黑衣的抗议者聚集在拘留中心外。[音乐]
>> 他们在外面绕着围栏走。我不知道，长官。
>> 抓住他了。[音乐] 好，我们把他弄进来了。
>> 几分钟内，一名当地警察中尉赶到了现场。
当他接近拘留中心时，他看到有人身穿黑衣。
>> 嘿，站住！他走出警车，拔出了配枪。
>> 他在跑。
>> 趴在地上！
>> 突然间，他被枪声吞没。
>> 我中弹了。
>> 他被一颗子弹击中了肩膀。[音乐]
所有这些事实都是无可争议的。
但接下来发生的事情是：这是一场意图杀人的有预谋伏击。
>> 随后展开的起诉，在美国历史上绝无仅有。
>> 这是联邦调查局（FBI）首次逮捕被该机构认定为与“反法西斯”（Antifa）相关的无政府主义暴力极端分子的人员，并随之提起了恐怖主义指控。这就把我们带到了起诉书本身。[音乐]
今天，我的同事珍妮特·赖特曼将讲述她所调查到的内幕——关于这起已成为特朗普第二任总统任期标志性法律案件的始末，以及它就如今在美国谁有资格被定性为恐怖分子所引发的令人不安的疑问。[音乐]
今天是10月27日，星期二。
珍妮特，欢迎回到《每日新闻》。
Original English
From
the
New
York
Times,
I'm
Michael
Babaro.
This
is
the
Daily.
[music]
>> Yes,
we
need
the
police
to
come
out
to
Perry
Land
Detention
Center.
I
don't
know
what's
going
on
outside.
They
just
told
me
to
call.
>> On
the
night
of
July
4th,
2025,
police
outside
Dallas,
Texas,
get
a
call
from
inside
an
ICE
detention
center.
>> Okay.
You
don't
know
what's
going
on?
>> No,
sir.
>> I
think
they
doing
fireworks.
The
caller
reports
that
a
small
group
of
protesters
has
gathered
outside
the
center
and
are
dressed
in
[music]
black.
>> They
outside
walking
the
perimeter.
I
don't
know,
sir.
>> Got
[music]
him.
All right,
we
got
him
in.
>> Within
minutes,
a
local
police
lieutenant
arrives
at
the
scene.
As
he
approaches
the
detention
center,
he
sees
somebody
dressed
in
black.
>> HEY,
STOP.
He
exits
his
police
car,
draws
his
weapon.
>> He's
running.
>> GET
ON
THE
GROUND.
>> And
is
suddenly
engulfed
in
gunfire.
>> I'm
hit.
>> And
he's
hit
with
a
single
bullet
[music]
in
the
shoulder.
All
of
those
facts
are
undisputed.
But
[music]
what
came
next?
It
was
a
planned
ambush
with
the
intent
to
kill.
>> Was
a
prosecution
unlike
any
in
American
history.
>> That
it
is
now
the
first
time
that
the
FBI
has
arrested
someone
that
the
agency
has
identified
as
Antifa
aligned
anarchist
violent
extremists
and
terrorism
charges
now
as
a
result
have
been
brought.
So
that
takes
us
to
the
indictment
itself.
[music]
Today,
my
colleague
Janet
Wrightman
on
what
she's
uncovered
about
[music]
what's
become
a
defining
legal
case
of
the
second
Trump
presidency
and
the
troubling
questions
that
it
raises
[music]
about
who
now
qualifies
as
a
terrorist
in
America.
[music]
It's
Tuesday,
October
27th.
Janet,
welcome
back
to
the
Daily.
Original English
>> Thank
you
for
having
me.
Good
to
be
back.
>> So,
you
have
covered
national
security
and
extremism
for
decades.
We
call
upon
you
very
specifically
for
that
purpose
from
time
to
time.
You've
reported
on
dozens
of
cases
of
domestic
and
foreign
extremism.
So,
what
was
it
given
that
about
this
particular
case
that
really
struck
you?
So
there
were
two
things
that
struck
me
about
this
case.
The
first
was
that
this
was
really
the
first
time
that
the
federal
government
has
ever
tried
American
protesters
on
either
the
right
or
the
left
for
terrorism
related
charges.
>> And
it
was
also
the
first
time
that
the
government
has
prosecuted
what
they
call
an
Antifa
cell.
>> Right.
Because
we
don't
think
of
Antifa
as
really
having
much
of
an
organization
at
all,
let
alone
having
cells.
>> Exactly.
There's
no
group
known
as
Antifa,
right?
The
term
has
been
used
by
the
GOP
as
a
sort
of
catchall
for
the
left.
And
as
you
said,
it's
not
an
organization.
It
isn't
a
group
with
cells
the
way
sort
of
al-Qaeda
or
ISIS
or
some
other
foreign
terrorist
group
that
we've
heard
of
would
have
cells.
It's
a
very
loose
decentralized
movement
of
left-wing
activists
whose
ideology
is
kind
of
broadly
anti-fascist.
And
that's
what
Antifa
stands
for,
>> anti-fascist.
Antifa.
And
that's
what
made
this
prosecution
for
me
as
somebody
who's
reported
on
terrorism
cases
for
years
shocking
frankly.
Original English
>> Well,
we're
going
to
get
very
deeply
into
this
prosecution
and
into
the
government's
decision
to
charge
the
folks
in
this
case
as
an
Antifa
cell.
But
let's
just
start
with
the
very
basics
of
this
case.
You
went
and
did
a
lot
of
independent
[clears throat]
reporting
to
try
to
understand
who
they
are,
what
motivated
them.
What
did
you
end
up
finding?
>> So,
I
spent
months
looking
through
documents,
talking
to
a
lot
of
people
who
knew
the
protesters
and
even
more
people
who
are
just
part
of
the
larger
left-wing
scene.
And
what
I
came
to
see
very
quickly
is
that
the
place
that
this
happened
in
Dallas
Fort
Worth
does
not
have
a
sort
of
established
protest
scene
in
the
way
that
say
a
city
like
Seattle
or
Portland
or
New
York
or
some
other
sort
of
blue
city
frankly
that
have
you
know
really
long
histories
of
progressive
activism.
>> Right.
>> Dallas
Fort
Worth
does
not
have
that
>> which
makes
sense
because
it's
Texas.
It
wouldn't
seem
to
be
a
hot
bed
of
leftwing
activism.
>> Exactly.
And
so
what
scene
does
exist
is
more
of
a
patchwork
of
people
with
different
interests
or
tendencies.
So
you
have
like
the
self-styled
anarchist
types,
you
have
artists,
you
have
LGBTQ
activists,
you
have
immigration
activists,
you
have,
you
know,
a
really
broad
cross-section
of
people
who
care
about
a
variety
of
different
social
issues
who
are
left
of
center.
>> And
so
just
like
many
many
people
in
this
world,
they
connect
with
people
online.
And
so
that's
where
[clears throat]
the
central
meeting
place
of
this
community
is.
And
how
is
it
that
people
involved
in
this
online
community
end
up
gathering
at
this
detention
center?
>> So,
the
people
I
spoke
to
told
me
that
this
had
really
been
brewing
for
a
while.
Texas's
conservative
government
and
legislature
had
been
taking
a
series
of
actions
for
several
years
that
were
making
a
lot
of
liberals,
especially
liberal
activists,
very,
very
fearful.
They
were
restricting
the
rights
of
trans
people.
They
were
cracking
down
on
abortion.
and
they
were
targeting
immigrants
in
all
of
these
areas.
They
were
way
in
front
of
a
lot
of
states
in
this
country.
In
fact,
in
some
cases,
they
were
at
the
front.
>> Right.
Texas's
governor,
Greg
Abbott,
was
so
proud
of
his
immigration
crackdown.
For
example,
he
was
literally
busing
people
out
of
state
to
Democratic.
>> Yeah.
He
went
around
federal
immigration
law
to
crack
down.
[music]
And
so
that
is
the
backdrop
for
this
pivotal
[music]
moment
that
comes
in
February
of
2021
when
Texas
is
hit
by
this
massive
massive
winter
storm
that
plunges
the
whole
state
into
these
like
literally
sub-zero
temperatures
[music]
and
about
5
million
homes
and
businesses
across
the
state
[music]
lost
power.
And
what
the
state
actually
didn't
do
[music]
was
warn
people.
They
had
a
very
weak
power
grid.
They
knew
it.
They
had
known
it
for
about
10
years.
[music]
They
had
never
ever
made
an
effort
to
fix
it.
And
what
happened
is
you
had
hundreds
of
people
who
literally
froze
to
death
in
their
homes.
[music]
So
these
activists
who
are
already
feeling
fearful
and
already
feeling
as
if
the
government
doesn't
care
about
them
or
that
the
government
could
like
try
to
legislate
them
out
of
existence
on
some
level
now
are
connecting
the
dots
and
feeling
like,
you
know,
oh
my
god,
we
are
genuinely
at
a
crisis
point.
We're
genuinely
at
risk.
Our
government
doesn't
care
if
we
live
or
die.
This
is
a
very
galvanizing
moment
for
the
activists
across
Dallas
Fort
Worth,
a
lot
of
whom
start
to
realize
that
they
really
need
to
learn
survival
skills
and
how
to
protect
themselves
in
case
something
like
this
happens
again.
And
one
avenue
available
to
them
was
a
group
called
the
Socialist
Rifle
Association.
>> H
not
a
group
I
have
heard
of.
>> The
SRA
is
an
organization
that
has
cast
itself
over
the
years
as
sort
of
the
progressive
alternative
to
the
National
Rifle
Association.
>> This
is
a
national
organization.
So
it
has
branches
around
the
country,
but
it
functioned
in
Dallas
as
a
meeting
place
for
a
lot
of
people
who
wanted
to
get
involved
not
just
in
learning
how
to
shoot
guns,
but
in
doing
things
like
mutual
aid,
you
know,
in
doing
like
a
variety
of
projects
that
were
all
reinforcing
of
a
community
and
sort
of
building
community
strength
and
resiliency.
>> So
this
scattered
group
of
activists
starts
to
find
a
home
in
SR.
>> Yeah.
Some
of
them
they're
gravitating
to
people
or
groups
that
will
make
them
feel
more
in
control.
And
one
of
the
figures
who
sort
of
represents
himself
that
way
is
a
guy
named
Ben
Song
who
was
a
leader
of
the
SRA.
And
Ben
was
a
professional
activist.
These
are
the
guys
that
are
just
everywhere.
They're
at
every
protest.
They're
at
the
front
of
every
protest.
Ben
was
a
Marine,
had
been
in
the
Marine
Corps,
and
he'd
been
involved
in
the
pro-democracy
protests
in
Hong
Kong.
And
this
was
a
huge
deal
within
a
community
of
very
inexperienced
activists
to
have
a
guy
who
had
gone
to
a
foreign
country
and
had
thrown
himself
into
these
very
famous
and
actually
quite
violent
protests.
And
so
he
had
a
myth
about
him.
[music]
So
Ben
creates
a
group
of
people
around
him
who
[clears throat]
are
all
sort
of
united
in
this
[music]
fear
that
something
terrible
is
going
to
happen.
And
so
they
need
to
be
prepared.
They
need
to
know
how
to
defend
themselves.
They
need
to
know
how
to
use
a
gun.
>> And
they
need
to
be
a
little
small
cadre,
like
a
little
army,
right?
They
need
to
be
a
tribe.
>> And
Ben
is
the
unofficial
leader
of
the
tribe.
He
is
the
expert
within
the
tribe.
[music]
>> And
they
train
at
the
range.
Shooter
ready.
>> Yeah.
>> Target
one.
>> And
he
has
[music]
quite
a
few
AR-15
style
rifles
that
he
will
lend
or
give
to
people
that
don't
have
them.
>> Six
is
down.
Move.
>> He
[music]
has
offered
to
teach
them
self-defense
for
free.
You
just
practice
these
at
home.
You're
going
to
be
able
to
move
your
weapon
administratively
much
faster,
engage
much
faster,
much
more
accurately.
>> [music]
Original English
>> So
all
of
this
is
going
on
for
a
couple
of
years
and
it
winds
up
building
to
a
head
after
Donald
Trump
is
elected
because
at
that
point
every
fear
within
this
community
particularly
when
it
comes
to
people
who
are
trans
or
non-binary
and
deportation
of
those
who
are
of
Latino
origin.
Those
fears
are
now
becoming
a
reality
in
their
minds.
So
what
do
Ben
and
this
group
that
he
is
essentially
leading
do
with
these
feelings
of
being
under
siege
now
that
Donald
Trump
is
reelected?
>> So
Ben
has
created
a
signal
group
for
the
broader
activist
community
to
share
their
fears
and
anxieties.
And
by
the
spring
of
2025,
we
are
seeing
some
big
deal
protests,
anti-ICE
protests
happening
in
blue
cities
like
LA
and
Portland
and
Seattle.
And
the
Dallas
activists
are
sitting
there
and
going,
"We
need
to
do
something
like
this."
So,
what
can
we
do
that
would
be
effective?
and
they
come
up
with
an
idea
that
they
should
do
some
sort
of
protest
outside
of
an
ice
facility.
>> Mhm.
>> And
Prairie
Land,
which
is
a
privatelyun
ice
facility
about
an
hour
from
Dallas
Fort
Worth,
becomes
the
place
that
they
think,
well,
maybe
that
would
be
a
good
place
to
go.
It's
called
the
Prairie
Detention
Center.
and
Ben
and
some
other
activists
are
on
this
private
signal
chat
and
they're
talking
about
doing
a
noise
protest
on
the
4th
of
July,
which
they
think
would
be
this
spectacular
moment
of
symbolism,
right?
They're
going
to
hold
a
protest
on
the
day
that
America
celebrates
freedom
to
show
solidarity
with
people
who
are
detained
by
the
government.
Mhm.
>> And
their
idea
is
they're
going
to
set
off
fireworks
outside
of
this
ice
facility,
Prairie
Land,
to
remind
the
detainees
that
they
haven't
been
forgotten.
At
the
same
time
as
they're
having
this
conversation,
Ben
has
another
idea
[music]
and
he
will
bring
that
idea
up
at
a
gathering
that
he's
holding
with
about
[music]
six
or
seven
activists
at
a
house
in
Dallas
where
he
starts
showing
them
videos
and
pictures
he's
pulled
off
of
the
internet
of
the
Prairieland
Detention
Center
and
he
begins
to
point
out,
"Look
at
this
guard
shack.
It's
not
very
well
manned.
Look
[music]
at
these
video
cameras.
There's
not
that
many
of
them.
They
might
not
even
be
operational.
And
all
of
this
leads
to
him
saying
to
the
group,
"This
is
going
to
be
as
easy
as
it
gets."
>> Hm.
What
will
be
as
easy
[music]
as
it
gets?
>> Exactly.
So
several
people
in
the
group
go,
"What
are
you
talking
about?
What?"
And
he
goes,
"Oh,
we're
going
to
take
the
place
and
free
the
detainees."
>> Wow.
we're
going
to
take
over
a
federal
immigration
detention
center.
>> How
what
are
we
going
to
shoot
our
way
in?
What
are
we
going
to
kill
somebody?
And
he
says,
"Oh,
no,
no,
no.
We're
going
to
lay
down
suppressive
fire.
It's
just
oppressive
fire.
It's
a
way
to
sort
of
hold
them
back."
And
he
doesn't
really
explain
much
more
than
that
as
far
as
we
know.
And
the
group
is
really
shocked
by
this.
And
they're
like,
"Oh,
[music]
oh,
that
sounds
like
a
terrible
idea.
We
don't
want
to
do
that.
>> That's
not
what
we
signed
up
for.
>> That's
not
what
we
signed
up
for.
And
so
the
conversation
switches
[music]
to,
okay,
well,
what
could
we
do?
And
so
they
return
to
this
idea
of
the
noise
protest
and
they
decide,
okay,
we're
just
going
to
do
that.
>> One
person
in
the
group
says,
so
do
we
still
bring
our
guns?
And
Ben
says,
oh,
definitely.
[music]
>> With
that,
the
evening
ends
and
they,
you
know,
go
home.
It's
the
night
of
and
they
show
up
at
Prairieland.
They
park
about
a
quarter
mile
away
on
this
quiet
street.
They've
scoped
this
out.
They're
very
intent
on
making
[clears throat]
sure
that
they're
secure
and
making
sure
that
they're
not
identifiable.
>> They
are
wearing
black.
They
are
wearing
masks.
They
have
walkie-talkies
to
communicate
with
each
other
and
they're
using
aliases
which
they
always
use.
So
the
group
gets
to
the
intersection
where
Prairie
Land
is
and
most
of
them
hang
a
left
and
they
head
off
to
this
grassy
area
that
is
right
in
front
of
the
window
inside
the
facility
where
the
detainees
might
be
able
to
come
and
look
and
they
start
to
set
off
fireworks
>> as
planned.
>> As
planned.
>> Just
to
be
very
clear,
they're
approaching
this,
the
vast
majority
of
them
unarmed.
>> Yes.
There
are
a
few
important
exceptions,
however,
and
one
of
them
is
Ben.
Ben
has
brought
his
favorite
AR-15,
and
so
he's
stayed
a
little
bit
further
down,
sort
of
near
the
guard
shack,
to
keep
guard.
The
rest
of
the
group,
they're
setting
off
fireworks.
They're
shouting
espironza,
which
is
hope
in
Spanish.
And
you
see
at
the
window
this
very
long
window
inside
the
facility
all
[music]
these
deninies
lined
up
with
their
faces
pressed
against
the
glass.
They
were
obviously
invisibly
cheered
by
this.
One
person
in
this
group
with
the
fireworks
is
a
guy
that
nobody
knew
[music]
and
starts
heading
towards
the
parking
lot
[music]
and
has
some
spray
paint
in
his
backpack
and
starts
spray
painting
the
guard
shack
and
some
cars
[music]
and
writing
like
[ __ ]
you
pig
and
traitor
and
[ __ ]
Ice
and
things
like
that.
>> Not
part
of
the
plan.
>> Not
part
of
the
plan.
And
it
was
also
something
almost
everybody
was
unaware
of.
Meanwhile,
[music]
inside
the
ICE
facility,
the
security
guards
are
hearing
these
fireworks
and
they're
a
little
bit
[music]
worried
that
something
might
be
hitting
the
building
or
whatever.
And
so,
two
of
them
go
out
to
check
out
what's
going
on.
They
see
these
fireworks
going
off.
One
of
them
walks
right
up
to
the
activists
and
says,
"Hey,
you
know
what?
You
guys,
it's
time
to
go.
You're
on
private
property.
You
got
to
go."
And
the
[music]
group
says,
"Okay."
Hm.
>> And
they
start
[music]
packing
up.
You
know,
they've
kind
of
done
their
thing.
It's
beginning
to
rain,
so
no
more
fireworks
are
really
going
to
get
set
off
at
this
point.
And
they
take
off.
And
[music]
the
security
guard
who
had
told
the
group
to
leave,
she
and
her
partner
are
starting
to
walk
towards
the
parking
lot
because
they're
hearing
some
noises.
They're
hearing
some
breaking
glass.
They're
hearing
some
pop
sounding
of
like
tires
being
popped.
and
she
now
realizes,
oh,
there's
some
actual
vandalism
going
on.
There's
the
spray
paint.
And
she
calls
the
security
desk
inside
ICE
and
said,
you
need
to
call
the
police.
So,
at
that
point,
we
have
a
local
police
lieutenant
named
Thomas
Gross
who
answers
that
call
and
he
shows
up
in
his
car
alone
without
a
partner
and
he
sees
all
this
graffiti.
All
of
a
sudden,
somebody
all
in
black
runs
in
front
of
his
car.
He
parks
his
car,
gets
out,
he
shouts
for
this
guy
to
stop,
and
the
next
thing
you
know,
Ben,
who's
wearing
a
green
ski
mask
and
has
moved
towards
the
parking
lot
area,
begins
to
shoot.
Lieutenant
Gross
claims
that
he
did
not
shoot
first,
but
he
returned
fire.
[music]
And
there's
a
quick
exchange
of
fire.
In
that
exchange,
Gross
is
shot.
[music]
Original English
>> So
with
the
shooting
of
Lieutenant
Gross,
everything
changes,
>> right?
>> So
Ben
begins
to
[music]
run
away
and
another
activist
who
is
also
walking
away
sees
him
racing
past
him
[music]
and
goes,
"What
the
[ __ ]
did
you
do?"
And
Ben
says,
"Oh
[ __ ]
Oh
[ __ ]
Oh
[ __ ]
Oh
[ __ ]
and
he
[music]
just
drops
his
weapon
and
disappears.
And
within
a
very
short
[music]
amount
of
time,
all
of
these
law
enforcement
have
arrived
on
the
scene.
>> Right.
A
cop
has
been
shot
and
they
want
to
find
everybody
who
might
be
involved.
>> Absolutely.
And
they
start
arresting
people.
But
[music]
Ben
evades
capture
by
hiding
in
the
sunflowers,
you
know,
in
a
field
near
the
Prairand
facility
[music]
until
about
a
day
or
so
later,
he
s
spirited
away
by
some
friends
that
he
contacted.
And
he
spends
the
next
two
weeks
kind
of
on
the
lamb
hiding
[music]
in
the
home
of
one
friend
and
then
another
friend
until
he's
finally
arrested.
[music]
>> And
once
this
very
desperate
group
who
are
all
there
that
night
where
this
cop
is
shot,
once
they're
arrested,
what
are
they
charged
with?
>> Initially,
they
were
charged
with
attempted
murder.
And
Texas
is
a
state
that
takes
a
pretty
aggressive
approach
and
had
identified
Ben
as
the
shooter.
And
they
identified
the
rest
of
them
as
sort
of
the
supporting
cast
that
made
that
shooting
possible.
And
they
had
identified
this
group
as
holding
anti-government
views
because
of
some
materials
they
found
in
their
backpacks
and
their
cars.
And
so
their
perspective
was
this
was
a
planned
ambush
of
law
enforcement
and
everybody
is
basically
charged
with
attempted
murder
and
this
is
going
to
be
a
conspiracy
case.
And
they
proceeded
with
a
case
that
was
by
many
estimations
somewhat
of
an
overreaction
but
at
the
same
time
was
pretty
standard.
I
mean
they
were
able
to
use
these
laws
to
go
after
them
in
a
very
punitive
kind
of
way.
But
then
not
long
after
this,
the
conservative
activist
Charlie
Kirk
is
killed.
[music]
And
at
that
point,
everything
in
this
case
changes.
And
let
me
tell
you
something
I
not
share
with
anybody,
[music]
but
the
last
message
that
Charlie
Kirk
gave
to
me
was
he
said
that
we
have
to
dismantle
[music]
the
radical
left
organizations
in
this
country
that
are
fermenting
violence.
>> [music]
>> That
was
the
last
message
that
he
sent
me.
We'll
be
right
back.
Original English
So,
Janet,
how
does
the
assassination
of
Charlie
Kirk
end
up
influencing
the
course
of
this
prosecution
in
Texas?
So
Trump
and
members
of
his
administration
have
long
blamed
political
violence
in
this
country,
not
on
the
right,
but
on
the
left.
And
they
saw
the
Kirk
assassination
as
like
the
example
of
that.
Here
it
is.
Violence
against
a
person
that
is
widely
known
to
be
a
sort
of
lightning
rod
for
the
left.
And
so
with
that,
they
see
an
opportunity
to
declare
war
on
the
left.
[music]
>> We
are
going
to
do
what
it
takes
to
dismantle
the
organizations
and
the
entities
that
are
fermenting
riots
that
are
doxing,
that
are
trying
to
inspire
terrorism,
that
are
committing
acts
of
[music]
wanting
violence.
>> And
so
officials
like
Steven
Miller
and
and
JD
Vance,
vice
president,
really
laid
out
the
rhetorical
case
for
action
>> speech.
No,
no.
We're
going
to
go
after
the
NGO
network
that
fermentss,
facilitates,
and
engages
in
violence.
>> President
Trump's
leadership.
I
don't
care
how
[music]
it
could
be
a
RICO
charge,
a
conspiracy
charge,
conspiracy
against
the
United
States,
[music]
insurrection.
It
has
to
stop.
>> Within
a
few
weeks
of
the
Kirk
assassination,
Trump
had
released
[music]
a
couple
of
directives.
The
very
first
one
was
he
made
an
announcement
[music]
initially
on
social
media
and
then
>> believe
it.
These
are
anarchists
and
agitators,
professional
anarchists
and
agitators
and
they
get
>> he
released
an
executive
order
designating
Antifa
as
a
terrorist
organization.
Even
though
there
is
[music]
no
actual
legal
mechanism
to
designate
Antifa
as
a
terrorist
organization
in
the
same
manner
as
[music]
the
government
does
designate
foreign
groups
as
terrorist
groups.
So
this
is
kind
of
a
symbolic
statement.
>> Got
it.
[music]
And
a
few
days
after
that
executive
order,
Trump
sends
out
another
directive
that
directs
law
enforcement
to
aggressively
pursue
domestic
terror
investigations
into
people
who
are
associated
with
what
was
described
in
this
document
as
anti-Americanism,
anti-
capitalism,
anti-Christianity,
>> and
extremism
on
immigration,
race,
and
gender.
Interesting.
>> And
this
memo
specifically
called
on
prosecutors
to
seek
the
highest
penalties
available
and
it
also
cites
anti-fascism
as
a
key
source
of
political
violence.
So
what
this
means
is
that
the
Charlie
Kirk
assassination
has
unleashed
a
kind
of
revenge
campaign
on
the
left
by
which
the
government
has
directed
law
enforcement
to
invest
a
tremendous
amount
of
its
resources
into
going
after
people
who
hold
these
kinds
of
views
and
to
punish
them
to
the
highest
extent
of
the
law.
Original English
>> Okay.
Once
the
president
issues
these
backto-back
directives
and
there's
this
new
framework
for
thinking
about
the
threat
of
leftwing
activism,
what
ends
up
being
the
impact
on
this
Prairie
Land
case?
So,
the
US
attorney,
she
was
an
acting
US
attorney
in
Dallas,
her
name
is
Nancy
Larson,
had
for
a
long
time
since
she'd
been
appointed
in
the
spring
of
that
year,
in
fact,
been
looking
to
please
the
Trump
administration.
And
this
is
according
to
former
prosecutors.
And
she
saw
this
opportunity.
She
has
a
case
involving
the
shooting
of
a
law
enforcement
officer,
the
defacing
of
a
federal
building,
and
individuals
who
are
charged
who
believe
in
an
anti-government,
anti-law
enforcement,
anti-Donald
Trump
ideology.
She
also
has
in
her
hand
a
directive
from
the
justice
department
instructing
US
attorneys
to
charge
every
case
in
the
highest
most
serious
way
possible.
So
with
these
two
things
in
mind,
she
decides
to
charge
them
with
material
support
for
terrorism.
[music]
So
material
support
is
a
terrorism
law
that's
been
on
[music]
the
books
since
the
'90s.
It
became
a
sort
of
a
go-to
for
prosecutors
who
are
looking
to
make
cases
against
supporters
of
al-Qaeda
or
Hamas
or
any
other
foreign
terrorist
groups
because
it
could
be
used
against
a
very
broad
range
[music]
of
activities.
>> Mhm.
When
it
is
used
in
a
domestic
context,
which
it
has
been,
[music]
it's
usually
used
to
go
after
people
who
have
arguably
provided
support
for
what
we
would
all
think
is
terror,
[music]
like
blowing
up
infrastructure
or
providing
the
material
to
damage
the
power
grid
or
[music]
something
like
that.
>> And
that's
not
uncommon.
What
is
uncommon
is
that
it's
[music]
never
used
against
protesters.
And
the
DOJ
has
made
a
really
big
[music]
point
of
avoiding
that.
It's
very
close
to
treading
on
speech,
treading
on
the
First
Amendment,
and
[music]
so
to
use
it
is
kind
of
the
nuclear
option,
>> but
Nancy
Larson
decided
to
go
for
it.
>> So,
how
does
Nancy
Larson
use
this
statute
that
is
generally
focused
on
foreign
terrorists
on
domestic
protesters?
So
there's
a
part
of
the
law
that
allows
prosecutors
to
go
after
individuals
for
what
they
call
terrorist
acts.
And
the
interesting
thing
about
the
way
they
charge
these
people
and
the
reason
that
they
used
this
particular
law
was
because
this
part
of
the
law
does
not
require
you
to
be
a
member
of
a
terrorist
group
to
think
of
yourself
as
committing
any
act
of
terrorism.
All
it
requires
is
that
you
committed
one
of
the
crimes
that
the
government
says
can
be
terrorism.
>> And
there
are
about
50
or
so
crimes,
federal
crimes,
that
could
qualify
as
a
terrorist
act.
And
ultimately
Larson
determined
that
there
were
three
crimes
that
would
allow
her
to
charge
these
people
with
material
support
for
terrorism.
So
one
of
them
was
defacing
government
property,
which
was
vandalism.
The
other
one
was
setting
off
fireworks
that
qualified
as
explosives
>> and
the
attempted
murder
of
federal
law
enforcement
or
someone
coming
to
the
aid
of
federal
law
enforcement.
The
ICE
facility
was
manned
by
people
on
contract
to
the
federal
government.
So
they
qualified
as
some
form
of
federal
law
enforcement
and
Lieutenant
Gross
was
coming
to
their
aid.
So
the
shooting
of
him
qualified
as
the
attempted
murder
that
could
qualify
as
a
terrorist
act.
Original English
>> So
once
this
prosecutor
breaks
all
kinds
of
norms
and
files
these
charges
in
a
way
that
the
Department
of
Justice
has
long
avoided,
what
happens
once
those
charges
actually
reach
the
courtroom.
So
in
February
I
went
to
Fort
Worth
to
attend
the
trial
of
these
at
this
point
it
was
nine
activists
and
it's
important
to
know
that
it
was
prosecuted
in
Fort
Worth
because
Fort
Worth
is
very
conservative
and
the
two
judges
in
the
Fort
Worth
federal
courthouse
are
very
conservative
>> when
the
case
open.
So
the
onus
is
on
the
government
to
prove
that
these
people
did
what
they
accuse
them
of
doing,
which
is
not
just
vandalizing
a
building
or
shooting
at
a
police
officer,
but
doing
that
for
a
political
purpose.
That's
what
would
make
it
terrorism,
right?
And
so
in
order
to
do
that,
they
must
bring
in
their
ideology,
which
under
law
you
cannot
prosecute
a
person
for.
But
you
can
bring
an
ideology
if
it
informs
the
motive
or
the
intent.
>> Mhm.
>> So
the
prosecution
opens
their
case
with
sort
of
a
spectacular
story
of
an
Antifa
cell
that
met
on
Signal,
an
encrypted
chat
platform
to
discuss
their
plans
to
attack
this
facility.
and
they
bring
out
all
the
things
that
they
consider
the
evidence
in
this
case.
So
they
bring
out
chat
transcripts
where
they
discuss
the
protest
and
the
planning.
They
bring
out
into
the
courtroom
all
these
guns,
all
these
AR-15s
and
photographs
of
weapons
and
they
bring
in
the
fact
that
Ben
Song
and
a
number
of
the
other
activists
were
members
of
the
SRA,
the
Socialist
Rifle
Association.
Some
were
members
of
the
John
Brown
Gun
Club,
which
is
a
much
more
militant
[music]
kind
of
organization.
And
they
bring
in
the
fact
that
they
had
all
these
zenes
and
[music]
flyers
and
books.
And
one
of
the
most
important
parts
of
this
case
was
that
a
number
of
the
activists
were
involved
in
an
anarchist
book
group
called
the
Emma
Goldman
book
club,
which
was
exactly
what
it
sounds
like.
It
was
a
book
club.
And
yet
the
government
considered
the
Emma
Goldman
book
club
to
be
the
recruiting
ground
for
the
Antifa
cell.
>> So
the
prosecution
is
connecting
a
lot
of
dots
here
and
they
say
in
our
view
this
is
terrorism
and
this
is
Antifa.
But
I
have
the
question
of
why
so
far
in
our
conversation
and
the
way
you've
talked
about
this
group
of
protesters
and
what
motivated
them
why
you
never
mentioned
the
word
Antifa.
So
was
there
any
actual
connection
between
these
activists
and
that
idea
that
acronym?
A
question
was
put
to
five
activists
who
plead
guilty
and
were
cooperators
and
testified
about
Antifa.
Not
one
of
them
denied
that
they
held
anti-fascist
views.
And
in
fact,
some
of
them
said,
"Isn't
it
a
good
thing
to
be
anti-fascist?"
Right?
Don't
we
all
hate
fascism?
None
of
them,
however,
identified
as
Antifa
in
a
sort
of
organized
group
way.
And
we've
already
discussed
how
Antifa
>> isn't
really
an
organized
group,
>> right?
>> And
so
on.
One
of
the
last
days
of
the
trial,
they
call
to
the
stand
a
guy
who's
been
sitting
in
the
courtroom
for
3
weeks
named
Kyle
Schneider.
He
is
a
little
known
figure
in
the
world
of
counterterrorism,
but
is
a
well-known
figure
on
the
right
as
being
an
expert
on
the
Muslim
Brotherhood
and
most
recently
on
Antifa.
He's
very
fixated
on
Antifa.
And
in
September
of
2025,
right
around
the
time
that
Kirk
was
killed,
he
published
an
essay
in
a
right-wing
magazine
called
How
to
Dismantle
Far-Light
Extremist
Networks.
And
he
described
that
as
a
road
map
for
countering
radical
left
Ideologies
and
Organizations.
Among
the
roadmap
recommendations
was
for
the
justice
department
to
bring
sedicious
conspiracy
and
material
support
for
terrorism
charges
>> which
is
what
happens
>> exactly.
Kyle
Shidler
>> creates
the
template
for
the
prosecution
and
then
testifies
for
the
prosecution.
>> And
not
only
that,
he
created
the
definition
of
Antifa
that
the
prosecution
used
in
its
indictment
and
used
in
the
trial.
I
mean
this
is
highly
unusual
for
any
civilian
non
DOJ
employee
non-
lawyer
to
be
consulting
with
the
prosecutors
on
any
wording
of
a
federal
terrorism
indictment
any
of
the
wording.
So
Shidler
is
asked
to
essentially
identify
what
Antifa
is
and
what
would
be
behavior
that
Antifa
>> that's
Antifa
like
right
so
he
testifies
that
wearing
black
block
which
is
you
know
the
black
clothing
and
the
black
mask
is
both
Antifaike
behavior
and
possibly
could
be
connected
to
a
potentially
violent
intent.
He
testifies
about
the
use
of
walkie-talkies.
He
testifies
about
the
use
of
aliases.
At
one
point,
a
point
is
made
that
none
of
these
people
in
their
signal
chats
ever
talked
about
violence
at
all
in
any
capacity.
And
he
says,
"Well,
of
course
not,
because
that
would
be
a
violation
of
security
culture.
Of
course,
they
would
never
do
this
>> because
we
can't
prove
that
you're
a
terrorist.
That
means
that
you're
a
terrorist."
Has
been
used
over
and
over
again.
It's
not
circular.
It's
a
very
circular
logic.
So
when
Shidler
was
done,
the
government
more
or
less
rested
its
case.
Original English
>> So
how
does
the
defense
respond
to
this?
What
what
argument
does
it
put
forward
on
behalf
of
the
folks
who
are
outside
this
detention
center?
>> So
the
defense
has
been
challenging
the
prosecution's
argument
every
step
of
the
way.
Their
argument
is
that
this
was
a
peaceful
protest
that
went
wrong.
And
so
throughout
the
trial,
in
cross-examination,
in
their
responses,
they're
constantly
challenging
this
narrative
and
saying,
"I'm
sorry,
but
what
you're
saying
here
does
not
amount
>> to
what
you
said
>> to
what
you
said.
It's
just
you're
not
proving
your
case."
So
when
the
prosecution
rests,
the
defense
rests.
>> Was
the
defense
right
to
think
that
they
didn't
need
to
put
on
much
of
a
case
because
the
prosecution
had
failed
to
persuasively
make
its
case?
No,
>> they
were
wrong.
>> They
were
wrong.
And
it
took
about
two
days
for
the
jury
to
find
every
single
one
of
those
defendants
guilty.
They
weren't
all
guilty
of
attempted
murder.
Only
Ben
was
found
guilty
of
attempted
murder,
but
they
were
all
found
guilty
of
material
support
for
terror.
>> H
the
most
provocative,
the
most
unusual
of
the
charges.
>> Right.
And
two
months
after
this,
they
are
sentenced.
And
the
sentences
were
astonishing.
[music]
>> What
do
you
mean?
>> Well,
let's
start
with
a
man
who
wasn't
even
at
the
scene
that
night.
His
name
is
Daniel
Sanchez
Estrada.
He's
the
husband
of
one
of
the
Prairie
Land
protesters
and
he
was
charged
and
convicted
of
concealing
documents
and
with
his
wife
conspiring
to
conceal
documents
which
turned
out
to
be
a
box
of
leftist
pamphlets
and
other
material
the
police
found
in
the
trunk
of
his
car.
>> He
was
sentenced
to
30
years.
>> Wow.
his
wife
who
was
one
of
the
people
who
planned
the
protest
>> and
was
the
sort
of
driver
of
wanting
to
do
a
noise
protest.
>> She's
a
poet.
She's
a
[music]
a
doula
and
she
was
the
one
that
shouted
espironza.
>> Mhm.
>> She
got
70
years.
>> Wow.
Why
70
years?
>> Ostensibly
because
>> no
arms,
no
violence.
not
only
no
arms,
no
violence,
she
vocally
opposed
guns.
She
was
the
one
that
said,
"I
don't
know
about
guns.
That
could
make
the
situation
more
hot."
But
she
was
heavily
involved
in
planning
this
protest.
And
so
the
planning
is
what
made
her
a
potential
terrorist.
And
the
other
sentences
were
just
as
harsh.
Most
of
the
others
in
the
group
got
50
[music]
years.
Can
you
just
put
these
sentences
into
some
perspective
for
me?
>> Interestingly
enough,
most
people
who
are
prosecuted
for
material
support
for
terrorism
in
this
country
receive
under
10
years.
>> I
mean,
these
are
the
kinds
of
sentences
that
you
would
get
if
you
were
the
leader
of
a
drug
cartel
that
you
would
get
if
you
were
a
member
of
the
mafia.
high
level.
These
are
high
level
leaders
of
drug
cartels
or
mafiosas
or
>> responsible
for
untold
numbers
of
deaths.
>> Untold
numbers
of
deaths
for
extreme
extreme
violence.
>> And
no
one
was
killed
here.
>> No,
no
one
was
killed.
And
I
should
say
that
Ben
Song,
who
shot
at
Lieutenant
Gross,
was
given
a
sentence
of
a
hundred
years.
And
Lieutenant
Gross's
injury
was
relatively
minor.
He
was
not
hospitalized.
as
he
went
to
the
hospital,
was
treated,
and
was
released
in
about
an
hour.
Original English
>> So,
how
integral
was
the
charge
of
material
support
for
terrorism
to
the
astonishing
length
of
these
sentences?
>> It
certainly
enhanced
the
length
of
the
sentences.
But
I
think
what
was
integral
to
these
sentences
was
the
belief
system.
Because
even
though
the
prosecution
could
not
prosecute
them
for
their
ideology
and
could
only
bring
in
their
ideology
to
suggest
their
intent,
the
judge
who
sentenced
them
could
use
the
ideology
to
impose
these
extremely
long
sentences.
And
one
of
the
judges
in
fact
reportedly
said
during
sentencing
that
he
was
imposing
these
sentences
as
a
deterrent
to
other
people
who
might
share
this
ideology.
Hm.
Jen,
how
should
we
think
about
this
case
and
its
outcome?
Should
we
think
of
it
as
an
outlier
because
it
was
the
first
of
its
kind?
because
every
element
of
it
seems
so
specific,
including
the
fact
that
it
was
tried
in
a
very
conservative
part
of
the
country
where
I
have
to
imagine
the
jury
may
not
have
been
particularly
sympathetic
to
the
defendants
or
should
we
view
it
as
a
really
important
template
for
how
the
government
starts
to
treat
protests
and
ideologies
that
it
doesn't
like
as
terrorism.
I
don't
even
think
this
was
an
unsympathetic
jury.
There
were
jurors
who
argued
vocally
in
the
jury
room
to
the
point
where
people
heard
them
having
a
very
spirited
debates
about
this
case
when
they
came
in
to
deliver
their
verdict.
I
think
at
least
one
of
the
jurors
had
been
crying
and
seemed
very
distraught.
But
once
they
were
confronted
with
these
undisputable
facts,
they
were
really
in
a
bind
because
the
government
had
essentially
said
to
them,
"These
facts
make
these
people
terrorists."
>> So
in
a
sense,
once
these
charges
were
brought,
this
jury
was
boxed
in.
>> Yeah,
I
think
so.
In
this
case,
one
of
those
acts
of
terror
was
vandalism.
Vandalism
under
many,
many,
many,
many
other
circumstances
is
simply
vandalism.
And
so
that
was
the
bind
that
the
jury
found
themselves
in.
They
were
looking
at
crimes
that
were
fairly
minimal
aside
from
the
shooting
of
a
police
officer.
But
when
it
becomes
an
act
of
terror,
now
you're
in
a
different
category.
And
so
that
is
how
you
find
a
group
of
activists,
most
of
whom
don't
have
criminal
records
of
any
sort
going
to
prison
for
30,
40,
50,
70,
100
years.
>> Mhm.
And
that
outcome
feels
totally
inextricably
linked
to
the
Trump
administration's
decision
to
articulate
this
idea
that
leftwing
activism
and
activists
should
be
seen
as
terrorism.
I'm
just
thinking
back
to
that
original
executive
order
that
>> you
mentioned
much
earlier
in
our
conversation
where
the
president
was
ticking
through
all
the
forms
of
activism
that
he
wanted
to
treat
as
domestic
terrorism
and
they're
all
viewpoints
that
he
disagrees
with
>> absolutely
>> anti-
capitalism,
anti-Christianity,
extremism
on
immigration.
And
that
inevitably
raises
the
question
if
the
president
right
now
wants
to
in
a
certain
sense
criminalize
protest
that
he
doesn't
like
which
happens
in
this
moment
to
be
leftwing
activism.
Who's
to
say
that
the
next
president
won't
criminalize
the
activism
of
the
right
or
the
middle?
Who
knows?
I
mean,
how
much
is
that
a
real
risk?
>> That's
a
real
risk.
I
think
that's
a
real
risk.
I
mean,
I
think
that
there's
so
there's
a
line
that
prosecutors
use,
bad
facts
make
bad
law.
And
what
that
means,
so
what
that
means
is
that
you
have
a
a
fact
in
your
case
that
makes
your
case,
if
you're
a
defense
attorney,
kind
of
loable,
right?
You
have
a
fact
that
looks
bad.
In
this
case,
it
was
the
shooting
of
a
police
officer.
You
you
cannot
minimize
>> that
a
police
officer
was
shot,
>> right?
Once
you
did
that,
that
opens
up
a
huge
can
of
worms.
And
that's
the
thing
that
initiates
this
permission
structure.
Without
the
shooting
of
the
police
officer,
I'm
not
sure
these
guys
would
have
gotten
prosecuted.
Maybe
not
at
all,
but
certainly
not
in
the
way
that
they
were.
>> But
with
the
shooting
of
the
police
officer,
where
you
have
an
undisputed
act
of
violence,
that
allowed
the
government
to
basically
say,
"Well,
see,
they
are
terrorists.
See,
they
are
violent.
here's
political
violence.
Let's
charge
them
all
as
violent
terrorists.
And
where
that
makes
bad
law
is
that
if
it
is
not
somehow
overturned
in
an
appeals
court,
which
at
the
moment
it's
very
uncertain
what
will
happen.
That
bad
law
can
be
applied
to
anybody.
So
as
long
as
you've
created
a
permission
structure
to
go
after
people
that
you
disagree
with
based
on
your
belief
that
their
ideology
is
dangerous,
then
anybody
can
use
that
same
template
to
go
after
a
different
group
of
people.
So
while
this
was
used
against
the
left,
four
years
or
5
years
from
now,
it
could
easily
be
used
against
the
right.
This
is
the
kind
of
case
that
January
6th
arguably
based
on
everything
that
occurred
could
easily
be
called
a
terrorist
incident.
There
were
a
million
things
that
people
did
in
on
January
6th
that
qualified,
but
they
weren't
charged
in
that
matter.
And
then
they
actually
walked
out
of
prison
after
a
very
short
amount
of
time.
But
if
there's
something
similar
like
that
happened
in
another
administration,
they
could
go
after
all
of
them
and
make
it
a
a
serious
serious
situation
where
people
would
be
sentenced
to
4050,
>> right?
And
suddenly
we
have
a
system
from
the
top
on
down,
the
president
on
down
where
terrorism
is
in
the
eye
of
the
beholder.
And
that
is
not
something
we've
ever
had.
That's
not
a
tradition
we
have
legally
in
this
country.
Terrorism
is
supposed
to
be
terrorism.
The
idea
that
terrorism
is
in
the
eye
of
the
beholder
is
the
danger
in
declaring
a
war
on
terror.
[music]
As
somebody
who's
been
reporting
on
it
for
a
long
time,
this
is
[music]
why
anyone
who
has
been
involved
in
prosecuting
terrorism,
in
[music]
working
in
law
enforcement,
they
understand
that
that
once
you
declare
a
war
on
terror,
[music]
which
is
actually
a
war
on
fear
in
a
lot
of
ways,
right?
Weaponizing
that,
you're
weaponizing
your
fear.
You're
weaponizing
your
dehumanization
of
your
enemy.
[music]
When
you
can
do
that,
that
cannot
be
stopped.
[music]
That
could
mean
you're
a
radical
supporter
or
what
somebody
says
is
a
radical
supporter
of
literally
anything
[music]
as
long
as
you
can
find
the
construct
to
brand
it
as
terrorism.
>> And
that's
what
we
did
with
Prairieland.
[music]
And
I
think
this
is
a
dangerous
corner
that
we've
turned
in
this
case.
[music]
Well,
Janet,
thank
you
very
much.
Appreciate
it.
>> Thank
you
so
much
for
having
me.
[music]
[music]
Janet
Wrightman's
new
book
is
about
the
hidden
costs
of
the
US
war
on
terrorism.
[music]
The
book
entitled
The
Inheritance:
An
American
Tragedy
in
[music]
Five
Acts
was
published
earlier
this
month.
[music]
[music]
We'll
be
right
back.
Original English
Here's
what
else
you
need
[music]
to
know
today.
On
Monday,
the
artificial
intelligence
giant
Anthropic
offered
[music]
the
most
detailed
look
inside
its
finances
to
date
when
it
filed
paperwork
to
soon
become
a
publicly
traded
company.
[music]
The
documents
reveal
that
Anthropic's
revenue
has
skyrocketed
in
the
first
half
of
this
year
to
more
than
[music]
$16
billion,
a
14fold
increase
from
a
year
earlier.
But
the
company's
debt
[music]
has
surged
as
well.
Anthropic
IPO
expected
[music]
next
month
could
value
the
company
at
up
to
$2
trillion.
That
would
make
the
5-year-old
[music]
startup
one
of
the
most
valuable
companies
in
the
world.
Today's
episode
was
produced
by
[music]
Austa
Chhaturved
and
Jack
Didoro
with
help
from
Alex
Stern
and
Eric
Krupky.
It
was
edited
by
Michael
[music]
Benois
with
help
from
Chris
Hel
and
Rob
Zipco.
Contains
music
by
Brad
Fischer,
Marian
Lozano,
Alicia,
[music]
Dan
Powell,
and
Rowan
Demisto.
And
was
engineered
by
Alyssa
Moxley.
Our
theme
[music]
music
is
by
Wonderly.
[music]
That's
it
for
the
daily.
I'm
Michael
Aborro.
See
you
tomorrow.