Philadelphia’s Top Prosecutor Is Prepared to Arrest Federal Agents

After numerous reports and lawsuits in Portland regarding un-badged and un-uniformed federal officers arresting, beating, and detaining people in unmarked vehicles, the Trump administration’s response is that they’re going to do it even more, and in more cities. Saying that his federal agents are doing a “fantastic job,” Trump has suggested that he will also deploy agents in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore and Milwaukee to do the same.

In one of those cities, the city prosecutor has already preemptively warned Trump’s police forces what he will do if they bring the same tactics to Philadelphia:

“My dad volunteered and served in World War II to fight fascism, like most of my uncles, so we would not have an American president brutalizing and kidnapping Americans for exercising their constitutional rights and trying to make America a better place, which is what patriots do,” said Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner in a statement. “Anyone, including federal law enforcement, who unlawfully assaults and kidnaps people will face criminal charges from my office.”

Trump claims the federal intervention is needed due to excessive violence, particularly around federal statues and monuments. But legal experts have said the reported federal actions in Portland far exceed legal boundaries.

“[T]he use of a secret federal paramilitary force in Portland (and soon Chicago and likely other cities) is every bit the abuse of power that it appears to be,” legal scholar Elizabeth Goitein, of the Brennan Center for Justice, wrote on Twitter, noting that Trump’s claim of protecting federal property is pure pretext for his intent to have federal agents do the work of local police.

Trump’s dare to deploy additional troops to more cities will test the mettle of reformist prosecutors like Krasner, who has aggressively pursued police reforms and taken steps to eliminate what he calls unethical and unconstitutional police practices that Trump has said he’d like to see more of.

A clash between local and federal law enforcement over how to manage protesters in Philadelphia — if it comes to that — would be unprecedented.

A Judge Said Federal Officers Can’t Arrest Or Use Force Against Journalists In Portland

The new 14-day temporary restraining order, which the Trump administration opposed, represents the first court order placing limits on the federal law enforcement action in Portland.

A federal judge in Portland, Oregon, entered a temporary restraining order on Thursday that blocks federal law enforcement officers from arresting or using physical force against journalists and legal observers as they respond to anti–police brutality protests there.

The Trump administration is facing multiple lawsuits challenging the federal response to the demonstrations in Portland, where protesters have reported that officers without identifying markers have been snatching people off the street. This is the first order that places a court-enforced restriction on the actions of law enforcement officers from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice, which have been accused of making unlawful arrests and engaging in unconstitutional violence against demonstrators, journalists, and legal observers.

The legal team representing the journalists and legal observers, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union, had submitted declarations to the court from individuals who said they were clearly marked as members of the press and complying with orders to move away from the federal courthouse in Portland when they were shot with “less than lethal” munitions, such as rubber and plastic bullets, by federal officers. At a hearing earlier on Thursday, Matthew Borden, a lawyer for the journalists and legal observers, argued that the uses of force against journalists were “acts of intimidation by a tyrant.”

US District Judge Michael Simon’s order prohibits federal agents from arresting or using force against journalists or legal observers unless there is probable cause they’ve committed a crime. The order also states that journalists and legal observers will not be required to leave an area if federal agents issue an order to disperse, and that federal officers can’t seize a journalist’s press pass or equipment unless they’re being lawfully arrested.

The temporary restraining order will be in effect for 14 days as the case moves forward.

Simon wrote that the Justice Department was wrong when it argued that journalists didn’t have a right to stay when federal law enforcement closed otherwise public streets and ordered people to disperse. He wrote that the role of journalists was to observe and report whether law enforcement was, in fact, lawfully closing streets (the judge also noted that closing streets was a function for local police, not federal agents).

“Without journalists and legal observers, there is only the government’s side of the story to explain why a ‘riot’ was declared and the public streets were ‘closed’ and whether law enforcement acted properly in effectuating that order,” the judge wrote.

At Thursday’s hearing, Simon made clear he was inclined to grant the 14-day temporary restraining order, questioning a Justice Department lawyer about why it would be “impossible” for federal agents to comply since he’d previously imposed a nearly identical order on local police in Portland in the same case.

The city of Portland not only hadn’t come back to court to complain the injunction was unworkable, Simon said, but it had joined the legal team for the journalists and legal observers in urging the judge to adopt a similar order for federal officers.

“I do think it’s critically important that journalists and legal observers have an opportunity to see these things,” Simon said at the end of the hearing, referring to videos of federal agents using force against protesters.

Justice Department lawyer Andrew Warden argued that such an order would be unworkable, given the “extraordinarily chaotic” and “volatile and dangerous” situation on the ground. He expressed concern that federal agents could be held legally responsible if a journalist or legal observer were accidentally exposed to tear gas or munitions, but Simon noted the ACLU had carved out an exception for that type of scenario in its request.

In his order several hours later, Simon highlighted the administration’s argument that federal officers were needed in Portland now because protests had been going on in the city for more than 50 nights. The fact that local police could comply with an order not to arrest or use force against journalists under those circumstances was “compelling evidence” that it was a workable set of terms, the judge wrote.

“When asked at oral argument why it could be workable for City police but not federal officers, counsel for the Federal Defendants responded that the current protests are chaotic. But as the Federal Defendants have emphatically argued, Portland has been subject to the protests nonstop for every night for more than 50 nights, and purportedly that is why the federal officers were sent to Portland,” Simon wrote. “There is no evidence that the previous 21 nights were any less chaotic.”

Simon rejected the government’s argument that the journalists and legal observers lacked standing to bring the case because they had only pointed to past incidents involving encounters with law enforcement officers, as opposed to showing there was an ongoing threat. The judge wrote that, “The actions by the federal agents described by Plaintiffs are part of a pattern of officially sanctioned conduct.”

“Absent an injunction, the Federal Defendants will continue to target journalists and legal observers and require them to disperse or face force and vioience by federal officers, even when the journalists and legal observers are not engaged in any harmful or illegal conduct,” the judge wrote. “The threatened future harm is not speculative or hypothetical.”

Simon’s order comes as another federal judge in Portland weighs whether to impose a broader injunction that would restrict federal officers from making any arrest without probable cause and identifying themselves and their agency before detaining someone; one video has surfaced of federal agents snatching an individual off the street and putting them in an unmarked car. That case was brought by the Oregon attorney general’s office.

Denis Vannier, a lawyer for the city, argued on Thursday that President Donald Trump’s latest plan to deploy more federal agents to other cities, which, like Portland, lean politically liberal, undermined the administration’s argument that federal officers were in Portland for legitimate law enforcement reasons.

“Perhaps the elephant in the room is the fact that the president has stated publicly that, how can I put this, that the reasons for these deployments are political,” Vannier said.

Earlier Thursday, the inspectors general for the departments of Justice and Homeland Security announced that they are launching an investigation into the use of force by federal officers in Portland.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. A temporary restraining order typically is not the type of court order that can be appealed, but Warden said at the hearing that if Simon ruled against the government, they would explore options to appeal.

The ACLU released a statement saying Simon’s order was a “victory for the rule of law.”

“Federal agents from Trump’s Departments of Homeland Security and Justice are terrorizing the community, threatening lives, and relentlessly attacking journalists and legal observers documenting protests. These are the actions of a tyrant, and they have no place anywhere in America,” said Jann Carson, interim executive director of the ACLU of Oregon.

Venezuelan Spring

More than words are at work. Last week the Bank of England blocked Mr. Maduro from withdrawing $1.2 billion in gold reserves. On Friday the U.S. gave Mr. Guaidó control of Venezuelan government accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and other U.S.-insured banks.

.. Venezuelans have made numerous attempts since 2002 to restore the liberties lost when Chávez used his majority backing to dissolve civil rights and a free press. But they were never able to persuade the military high command, infiltrated by Cuba, to break ranks with the dictator. If this time is different it’s because Mr. Maduro can no longer guarantee the interests of the top brass.

Mr. Guaidó is rumored to be backed by Venezuela’s military rank-and-file and midlevel officers. There are also reports that some commanders of detachments around the country no longer support Mr. Maduro.

The regime is unleashing repression and the international community wants to avoid more bloodshed. The U.S. has offered the military high command safe passage out of the country, and if international efforts to cut financial channels for the leadership are successful, many may find it an attractive option.

.. On Jan. 10 Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia FreelandwarnedMr. Maduro that he would not be recognized: “We call on him to immediately cede power to the democratically-elected National Assembly until new elections are held, which must include the participation of all political actors and follow the release of all political prisoners in Venezuela.”

.. Mr. Maduro says this is a U.S. conspiracy. But as a member of Canada’s Liberal Party and the lead negotiator of the bitter rewrite of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Ms. Freeland is hardly a Trump administration lackey.

The tyrant isn’t entirely alone. Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Hezbollah stand with him. Havana runs the counterintelligence network charged with controlling the Venezuelan armed forces and brownshirts. Reuters reported Friday that Russia has flown an unspecified number of paramilitary contractors into the country. A new asymmetric war can’t be ruled out.

This legal tactic can keep neo-Nazi protests out of your city

Many of their members wore matching uniforms, marched in military-style formations, openly chanted white-supremacist slogans, and invited confrontation with counterprotesters and law enforcement. In some cases, their gear and maneuvers imitated those used by armies of the past, and their weapons, whether firearms or cruder instruments such as shields, bats, batons and flagpoles, were deployed in coordination to intimidate and signal that they were, as they put it, “ready to crack skulls.” The day’s fateful events culminated in the death of 32-year-old Heather Heyer, for which one marcher has been charged with first-degree murder and two federal hate crimes.

.. Most states have constitutional language, criminal statutes or both barring unauthorized paramilitary activity. Every state except New York and Georgia has a constitutional provision, akin to Virginia’s, requiring that “in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” In other words, private armies are proscribed in 48 states. You can’t legally organize with others into battalions to fight those with whom you disagree.

.. 28 states have criminal statutes that prohibit individuals from forming rogue military units and parading or drilling publicly with firearms, while 25 states have criminal statutes that bar two or more people from engaging in “paramilitary” activity, including using firearms or other “techniques” capable of causing injury or death in a civil disorder.

.. By restricting paramilitary activity and the usurpation of military and police powers by private groups, the court orders sought by the lawsuit would restore the long-standing public-private equilibrium disrupted by those who descended on Charlottesville last August.