The War on U.S. Journalists

In this explosive episode of "Connecting the Dots," I sit down with Professor Dan Kovalik to expose the harsh reality of free speech under attack in America. Dan shares his chilling story of being detained for hours at Miami Airport, interrogated simply for telling the truth on RT and other alternative news outlets. He’s part of a disturbing trend—journalists in the U.S. being raided, arrested, and harassed for daring to speak out. Is free speech in America on life support? We dive into Noam Chomsky’s theory of controlled debate, where public opinion is tightly managed, and how today’s media manipulates what we’re allowed to hear. From the prosecution of dissent to the silencing of pro-Palestine voices on college campuses, this conversation reveals the frightening erosion of our First Amendment rights. Don’t miss this urgent wake-up call—are we witnessing the death of free speech in the land of the free?  

 

Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!

 

Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!

 

Wilmer Leon (00:00):

The linguist, Noam Chomsky tells us the smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. Even encourage the more critical and dissident views that gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on. While all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of debate. That's Noam Chomsky. Let's talk about it. Stay tuned.

Announcer (00:43):

Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

Wilmer Leon (00:51):

Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon, and I am Wilmer Leon is this what American mainstream media and those in Western established press are engaging in actually the violation of the First Amendment? Let's discuss this. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historic context in which these events occur. During each episode of this podcast, my guests and I, we have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode, the issue of force is very simple. The first amendment, freedom of speech, and the US government's attack on this inalienable right, and my guest is a US labor and human rights lawyer, writer, author, and activist. His latest book is entitled The Case for Palestine, why It Matters and Why You Should Care. He has been a peace activist throughout his life. He has been deeply involved in the movement for peace and social justice in Columbia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and other countries in the global south. He's also taught international human rights law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law since 2012. He is Professor Dan lik. Dan, welcome.

Dan Kovalik (02:26):

Thank you. Thanks for having me. Always a pleasure. Wilmer.

Wilmer Leon (02:30):

So there are a number of events. We're going to connect a number of dots here, but let's start with the First Amendment and it reads as follows, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of people to peaceably, to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Dan, we take this as Americans, we take this for granted, but as the first amendment of the first 10, this one was very important and made number one for a reason why?

Dan Kovalik (03:18):

Well, because the founding fathers having come from England, where there was a king who was able to prescribe speech arbitrarily, wanted to protect the right of free spree speech, the right of religion. Of course, England had a state religion, the Anglican Church, and they wanted to make sure that Americans had the right to such things as speech and religion and freedom of the press. In England. Those things were not protected even to this day. By the way, great Britain does not have a written constitution and does not protect those types of rights in the way that the United States does.

Wilmer Leon (04:05):

And again, we've taken this right for granted for so many years, but we have found history shows us, particularly during times of war, when the United States feels that it is being threatened, the screws tighten on free speech, hence people get charged with sedition and other types of violations. When the government feels it's being threatened, when there is a perceived threat from outside the country, then the government will tend to tighten the screws restrict speech, and then once that threat is vanquished, then the prohibitions relax. Have you found history to prove that to be true?

Dan Kovalik (04:57):

Yes. I mean, one of the most famous examples, of course is during World War I, people like Eugene v Debs, great socialist from Terre Haute, Indiana. He was put in jail for publicly opposing World War I and famously his persecution and those of others like him was approved by the Supreme Court in a famous case by Oliver Wendell Holmes is one of the most celebrated jurors, and he created the clear and present danger rule. And what that says is that the First Amendment is not, as they often say, the US Constitution is not a suicide pact. He said that in cases of a clear and present danger, Congress in fact could

(05:59):

Limit speech. He gave the example famous example of you're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, for example. And he compared incredibly advocating for peace during a time of war as tantamount to claiming there's a fire in a crowded theater. And that remains the law of the day. And so that law or that decision, which is now almost a hundred years old, I think sets the precedent that advocating for peace in the United States is somehow a clear and present danger. And so when we look to how speech is being regulated and limited today, what we often see it being regulated when people are clamoring for peace.

Wilmer Leon (06:58):

There's an interesting piece in consortium news entitled Free Speech in the Department of Political Justice, and it's written by former judge Andrew Napolitano, who was a superior court judge in New Jersey. And he writes in this piece, I don't want to spend a lot of time getting into the weeds of the First Amendment, but I think this is very germane to what we find ourselves dealing with. He writes, the framers of the Constitution, were debating this idea of free speech, and they concluded that expressive rights are natural to all persons no matter where they are born. And natural rights are, as Jefferson had written in the Declaration of Independence inalienable. That's why I refer to them as inalienable rights in the open stated differently. He writes, Madison and his colleagues gave us a constitution and a bill of rights that on their face recognized the prepo political existence of the freedom of speech and of the press in all persons and guaranteed that in Congress, by which they meant the government could not and would not abridge them until now. And he, in his piece, he's referencing some charges that the United States government has imposed against some Americans and some Russians, and it's not even a matter of challenging war as much as it is challenging the established government narrative. Your thoughts?

Dan Kovalik (08:35):

Yes. So again, this is very similar to laws and regulations that have come down before during World War I and also around the same time you had the pomades against socialists and union leaders. Of course you had the McCarthy period, which also really represented an abridgement of peace of speech and of course very, I think relevant to today because of course the McCarthy period, at least ostensibly involved the persecution of communists. Though of course a lot of people persecuted were not communists, though a lot of the people who were persecuted were communists. Most notably in my mind, the great Paul Robeson who went, he and I went to the same law school. By the way, it's a big reason I went to Columbia Law School is because Paul Robeson went there, one of my heroes.

Wilmer Leon (09:31):

He was a few years ahead of you though.

Dan Kovalik (09:33):

A few years, yeah, yeah. I know I look old, but I'm not quite old enough to cross paths with Mr. Robeson. But why is that important? Because of course that involved claims that the communists were somehow how stooges of the Soviet Union. And now of course you have people making allegations that those opposing US foreign policy are pawns of Russia and Vladimir Putin. Right. So it's the same old trope that we've been hearing for years and years, and we see this manifested in the last two weeks with the Justice Department announcing indictments against people associated with rt, formerly known as Russia Today News based in Moscow. You had Anthony Blinken statements over the weekend that RT should be considered an espionage organization that means a spy organization. And of course the implication being that those Americans that work with it are spies. And then you had Hillary Clinton chiming in, I believe yesterday, saying that people spreading propaganda, Russian propaganda should be civilly if not criminally prosecuted. And so again, welcome to McCarthyism 2.0. It's a very scary time for people who, I'll just say like me, I'll only speak for myself who want to advocate for peace, but also specifically advocate for peace with Russia who say Russia's not our enemy who go to Russia. I've been to Russia five times in the last two years.

(11:26):

I've been to the Donbas three times to Crimea once to the Kherson region of what was Ukraine once. And I have worked with RT proudly so, but I and others like me are now in the crosshairs of the US government. And they're not even hiding it. They're being very clear that we are enemy number one at this point.

Wilmer Leon (11:51):

And this is important for people to understand because as you just mentioned, they've indicted two Americans living in Russia who are Russian citizens. They work for rt. The Feds are accusing them of spreading propaganda. And what they are basically doing is they're challenging the narrative of the Biden administration. And unlike what transpired during World War I, as you talked about Eugene Debs, and also what happened during World War ii, right now, last I checked, the United States has not declared war on Russia. So we are not in a war footing or on a war footing right now. These are individuals that, and I am one who is challenging the narrative of the Biden administration as it relates to what's going on in Ukraine as it relates to what's going on with China over Taiwan, what's going on in Venezuela, what's going on in the Middle East. There are a number of areas where I believe, and I think I have historic and current evidence to support the position that the established stated narrative of the administration is flat out wrong.

Dan Kovalik (13:18):

Yes, absolutely. And again, Anthony Blinken was very specific about that. He said that rt, that its alleged propaganda has undermined the cause of the war in Ukraine. But as you say, while the US is defacto at war with Russia, it is not officially at war with Russia. It is not declared war on Russia. And as you know, the US rarely declares war anymore. Only Congress can declare war. And rarely does it do that. We usually go to war again, not officially unofficially with countries without declaring war. So we are not officially at war with Russia, which means that those who work with Russia or Russia related entities are not engaged in sedition of any kind.

(14:12):

But that is what is being claimed. Now, I mean, that is being specifically claimed that we are in fact involved in sedition. And by the way, I know people, Wilmer friends of mine that are fleeing the country. Oh, really? Oh yeah. A number of people and some to Russia, but some to other places, Canada, other places for fear, they're going to be prosecuted because of their work with rt. And no, it's very serious. I know several people, I won't name them. I think I can name one because he's already done it. So he is safe there. And that's Jackson Henkel.

Wilmer Leon (14:55):

Oh, okay.

Dan Kovalik (14:57):

But there's others in the process of doing that. Some people have urged me to do that. So we have a very serious situation, and I understand why people would make that choice, because really the government is signaling that they may go after us. So it makes some sense,

Wilmer Leon (15:21):

And we're going to get to that with you in just a few moments because there, there's another, there are a number of facets of this that if you look at these things individually, people may have a tendency to think, oh, well, this is just a one-off here, or a one-off there. But when you start connecting these dots, what you find out is the government is engaged in incredibly fascist behavior, and they are establishing policies. When Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, former First Lady comes on television and starts talking about people who are spewing propaganda need to be considered for facing criminal charges. What's the difference between her saying that here in the United States and some of the incredibly repressive policies that have been and are in place by some people that she and other members of the current administration label as dictators label as strong men label as fascists?

Dan Kovalik (16:37):

No, I mean, of course there's no difference. I mean, and think about it. The US has voice of America, which again, openly broadcast US viewpoints around the world and in particular in countries that the US is hostile towards. Radio Liberty is a similar one in Europe, but frankly, you don't even have to point to those because now frankly, most of the US media operates like those. They're nothing but mouthpieces For the US government, I would put NPR in that category, C-N-N, M-S-N-B-C, and of course the iron. And if those stations or those broadcasting systems are jammed in other countries or people associated with those entities are arrested or persecuted, of course the US is the first one to claim foul. Right? But of course, the other irony here is that M-S-NBC, which is the station that Hillary Clinton made her statements on, and Rachel Maddow, they have been propagandists themselves in terms of pushing these lies about Russian interference. They've been pushing these lies for eight years now. And Hillary Clinton herself was one of the main origins of that lie, which has been debunked,

(18:02):

Almost entirely and right. So they are pushing propaganda and they're pushing war propaganda again, specifically against Russia. They themselves are guilty of war propaganda, which is by the way, a war crime under international law. But so talk about calling the kettle black, or in fact, they're calling the China, the China plates black when they're the ones that are engaged in propaganda.

Wilmer Leon (18:32):

In fact, there's a, I'm trying to pull it up right now. There's an NBC story from a while ago from 2022 where they admitted to using propaganda to fool American people. And in fact, the author of the story is a journalist, Ken Delan, who by the way I believe had been dismissed from the LA Times because he was clearing stories through the CIA before the stories were being submitted to his editors at the LA Times. That's history. But there was a story back from 2022 where NBC admitted that they're involved in his propaganda war with Russia and that they will lie to the American people in order to get out in front of a story before the Russians can tell the story or to mislead the Russians. And so the United States government em, it does it to the American people itself

Dan Kovalik (19:41):

All the time. We know this happens all the time. Another classic case was Judith Miller at the New York Times, who was doing nothing but writing CIA propaganda at the behest of the CIA, which led it helped lead us to the war in Iraq. And in fact, the CIA credited her reporting for helping pave the way to the war with Iraq. And of course one of the big lies of the war, the weapons of mass destruction was a lie that she promoted and incredibly, she's landed on her feet. She was let go or forced to resign for the New York Times because that came out. But now she works for CNN. I mean these folks, it's really not a negative mark on their career if they do this sort of thing. John Stockwell just mentioned John Stockwell, I don't know if you remember him well, I do. But he was a CIA Bureau chief at Angola. He talked about how the CIA would write stories that they would've published in the press, and he gave one example. He said, we once wrote a story about Cuban troops who were fighting US backed forces in Angola, and who by the way helped liberate Southern Africa and South Africa, as you know, Wilmer.

(21:06):

He said they would claim Cuban troops had raped these women in Angola. Then they'd write a story saying the Cuban troops were killed. And then he said, incredibly, they'd write another story about the same Cuban troop unit somehow revived from the dead doing something else. And yet the press printed it without question. And this happens, and Hollywood's the same way. Hollywood is very much under the sway of the ca. If I can just give one example of that famous interesting example, if you've ever seen the movie, which I like quite a bit, meet the Parents, pretty funny movie. There's a scene in which Ben Stiller, the main character, goes into Robert De Niro's layer for the first time and discovers he's with the ccia. Originally, the script had it that he found he was with the CIA because there was a CIA torture manual de Niro's desk. Well, the CIA who reviewed the script and reviews many scripts in Hollywood, you can't do that. So they ended up just having photos of De Niro with Bin Laden and Clinton and different things. So a lot of what we watch on TV in the movies and reading the newspaper, a lot of that is clear through the ccia, if not utterly based on CIA misinformation that they feed to the press.

Wilmer Leon (22:42):

And let me connect these dots. I found the story and here's the headline. This is from NBC News in a Break with the Past. Now that's a lie. Us is using intel to fight an info war with Russia, even when the intel isn't rock solid. It doesn't have to be solid intelligence. One US official said it's more important to get out ahead of them, the Russians Putin specifically before they do something. So this is NBC admitting that they're using less than accurate intel in stories that they're telling to the American public. They're basically lying in order to further a narrative. And we can take this back to the Iraq War with the Office of Special Plans, which was set up in the Pentagon to take intel that hadn't been vetted and spin it into stories that would support the US narrative about why the United States needed the whole idea of weapons of mass destruction. And Dick Cheney's letter about yellow cake uranium coming from Niger, okay, why are we getting into these weeds? Because the United States government is attacking American citizens, independent journalists for telling the truth about stories that are challenging the standard narrative when the United States government admits itself, it's lying to you. And this is in violation of the First Amendment, professor Dan Kalik. Is that a good summation of the issue?

Dan Kovalik (24:38):

It's a very good summation. You often hear, for example, someone like myself will say, oh, there's neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Which by the way, before 2022, even a lot of the mainstream press reported on that, right?

Wilmer Leon (24:55):

I won't say even Barack Obama said, one of the reasons we don't want to send weapons to Ukraine is because we don't want to give weapons to the Nazis.

Dan Kovalik (25:01):

Yeah. Not only did Barack Obama talk about it, there was a law passed by Congress that I think Obama signed saying that the US could not fund neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Well, I don't think they passed the law just because theoretically there might be because they knew there were Nazis in Ukraine, and then in fact, that law was repealed because they later decided, oh, well, we need to support Nazis in Ukraine. Okay, so everyone admitted there's Nazis in Ukraine. Then once the special military operations of Russia began in February of 2022, all of the press all of a sudden pretended, oh, there's no Nazis there. Okay? So now after that, if someone like me who's actually been to the Don Bass, which was part of Ukraine, says, oh yeah, there's neo-Nazis in Ukraine. They're like, well, that's a Putin talking point. Well, the fact it's a Putin talking point doesn't mean it's untrue. If Putin says the world is round, it doesn't mean the world is flat.

(26:00):

But that's what's happening. That is really the claim leveled against people who are trying to give a more balanced picture of what's happening in Ukraine as they're being portrayed as somehow being controlled by the Kremlin, when in fact they're just saying what the truth is. Even though, yeah, it may happen to correspond with what the Kremlin is saying, which I will say, I find the Kremlin a lot more credible on many of these issues than the White House, but other people have to judge that. But again, the fact that my views may overlap with those of the Kremlin at times doesn't mean I'm under their sway.

Wilmer Leon (26:47):

And let me give the reference those who want to look this up for themselves. Again, the headline of the story is in a Break with the Past US, is using intel to fight an in full war with Russia, even when the intel isn't rock solid. And the story is from April 6th and 2022 written by Ken Delan and others. And again, it's important to remember that again, Ken Delan was dismissed from the LA Times for writing stories, for sending stories to the CIA, having the CIA edit the stories, not telling the editors at the LA times that this was being done. So again, this shows you the kind of work and the kind of propaganda that is being sold to you as news. Now, there's another element to this because as we talked about before, there are a number of facets of this, and that is, again, in Consortium News, pro-Palestine students and faculty Sue UC, Santa Cruz, the lawsuit seeks to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly and due process against overreach by university authorities. So basically what has happened, and this story came was last week, September 11th, 2024. So if you all remember back in the spring, there were a number of protests across college campuses all over this country in support of the Palestinian efforts, and they were protesting against the genocidal action of Israel against Palestinians at the United States is supporting. And a number of students were arrested, and some students that were arrested at UC, what did I say, UC, Santa Barbara or UC, Santa Cruz

(28:52):

In the spring have now still been put off campus in violation of campus regulation. So they are suing the University of Santa Cruz to have that overturned. And just Tuesday, the University of Maryland now finds that care, the Council of American Islamic Relations, Palestine Legal, they are suing University of Maryland for canceling. And this is who would ever think to do something this horrific Jewish and Palestinian student groups holding an interfaith vigil? Dan Valick, the country is going to hell in a hand basket.

Dan Kovalik (29:44):

Yeah, absolutely. It's outrageous. I mean, what we see is violations of the First Amendment in many different ways. Not only the violation of free speech, of freedom of assembly, but of course freedom of religion because of course, the interfaith vigil would be an expression of religion. I don't see how these actions by Santa Cruz, which by the way, is part of the University of California system, that's a public school system. It means they are subject to the First Amendment. I don't see how those actions can stand if they do stand, if the courts allow them to stand, then we have entered a brave new world, my friend. I mean a very dangerous world by any precedent of the court, at least recent precedent, they should be permitted to have these types of protest in vigils. And I hope they win in the courts. They should win.

Wilmer Leon (30:42):

In fact, I remember saying after September 11th, as we looked at the crackdown that the United States government was imposing upon American citizens, that when a country violates its own constitution in reaction to action taken by terrorists, the terrorists have won.

Dan Kovalik (31:06):

Yeah, well, that's absolutely true. And of course, what we saw after nine 11 was an abomination in terms of the rights, not just of US citizens, but of others that were curtailed. The people put in Guantanamo Bay without charge. It turned out most of them had done nothing. Some died in jail, some died of torture.

(31:34):

It was a huge mark on American democracy. I believe there's still people there. It has not been there. I think there's a couple survivors still hanging on. It's an amazing thing. And of course then you had Barack Obama who decided he could murder American citizens with drones abroad on his own authority. And he killed one man who was claimed to have been a terrorist again, that had never been proven, that he had not been, that had not proven in a court of law. And then incredibly, they murdered his son, his 16-year-old son. And in defense, one of the White House spokespeople said, well, he chose the wrong father.

Wilmer Leon (32:25):

Eric Holder came out and said when he was the Attorney General, that an American president can execute American citizens anywhere in the world without judicial review.

Dan Kovalik (32:37):

Yeah, incredible. An incredible thing. And it's bad enough, frankly, Wilmer, that the government has done these sorts of things. But the sad part also is there's been so little resistance to this, so little criticism. And that's what allows these things to continue and not only continue, but to escalate

Wilmer Leon (32:59):

Quickly going back to the campus issue. So we're told that there has to be this prohibition against protesting in support of the Palestinians because we have to be mindful of the sensitivities of Jewish students, and we can't have these Jewish American students feeling threatened and feeling unsafe on the college campuses amidst these peaceful protests, ignoring the fact that a lot of the protestors are the very Jewish students who the authorities claim their rights are being protected. I believe I submit to you attorney Kovalik, that that is merely a cover or a pretext for the protection of these interests of these students is a pretext, is a cover that is being used by the government to violate our First Amendment rights the same way the Israeli government claims it has to engage in genocide of Palestinians as it attacks Hamas.

Dan Kovalik (34:22):

No, exactly right. Because the other issue, I mean, of course you're right that many Jews are protesting for Palestinians, but also what about the Palestinians rights? There's Palestinian students on campus, there's Arab students. What about their rights? Right?

Wilmer Leon (34:37):

What about my rights? I'm neither Palestinian nor Jewish, and I have this problem, and I know I'm nuts, Dan. I got a problem with genocide. I admit it. I admit America. I admit it to the world. I got a problem with genocide.

Dan Kovalik (34:52):

It's an incredible thing. Wilmer, what we've all been taught since World War II is that the worst crime in the world is genocide, right? It is the high crime. It is the most abominable crime. And even one of the worst things you could say about someone is they're a genocide denier, right?

Wilmer Leon (35:15):

Oh, yeah. Heaven forbid.

Dan Kovalik (35:16):

And now all of a sudden when people are protesting against genocide, they're the bad guys. And yet it's an incredible thing that is happening. It's an amazing Rubicon we've crossed, and no one can really defend it. That's the problem. And that is why there's repression. The universities, including some of the best in the world like Columbia University, which may be the main offender on this, they can't defend their actions. They can't defend the genocide. They can't defend against those saying it's a genocide. So they've decided we just have to shut the speech down because we as an institution, we have no argument. We can't ideologically defend this. We can't ideologically defend the United States. And so we're just going to say, students, you can't talk, which goes against every notion that anyone has about what the university is supposed to be, a space of free speech and free debate. And Zionists should have a right to their views. They should have a right to peacefully protest. And those are against Zionism. And the genocide should also have that right. And that is so obvious and so clear, and the fact that the universities have decided to go the other way and only repress one kind of speech, and that is pro-Palestinian and not pro-Israel. It's abominable. It just shows the corruption of our institutions from the universities all the way to the White House.

Wilmer Leon (36:55):

And it also, I believe, shows the power of the military industrial complex, or what Ray McGovern called the Mickey Mat, in that once you start challenging the narrative via free speech, you now threaten the defense budget. You now start threatening the billions of dollars in weapons that are being wasted in Ukraine, that are being wasted in Gaza, that are being wasted as the United States is trying to foment a Middle East war. And heaven forbid those billion dollar contracts that are going to Lockheed Martin, that are going to Boeing, that are going to ge, Raytheon, heaven forbid, people start asking questions about why is so much money being wasted on genocide?

Dan Kovalik (37:53):

Yeah, no, exactly. That's correct. When we look around our cities, we look around this country, we see so many problems that need fixing, and people are saying, Hey, why aren't you fixing our problems instead of sending money abroad to these wars in Ukraine and Gaza? Those are very inconvenient people to the powers that be, and not just to the military industrial complex, but apparently we know that in the case of Columbia University, that they responded to calls by millionaires in New York City who asked them to repress the protest. So we know the ruling class is very much in the tank for Israel, very much in the tank for the genocide in Gaza, and that they are influencing these universities and how they respond to this.

Wilmer Leon (38:45):

And let's connect another dot. And that is the trial in Tampa, Florida that just wrapped up last week in the Uru, the African People Socialist Party, also known as the Uhuru movement or the Uhuru three. There was an incredibly confusing verdict that came down in that trial. It was alleged that the defendants were doing the bidding of the Russian government by sowing discord in America's political process by promoting political views that were contrary to those of the United States government and favorable to those of the Russian government. Now, I got to reiterate, they're not talking about overthrowing the government. They're not talking about attacking the government sowing discord, their own words in America's political process by promoting political views, not military political views that are contrary to those of the United States government. So well, go ahead, Dan. You want to say something?

Dan Kovalik (40:00):

Yeah. Well, that's exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect, are controversial views that go against the government. I mean, right? You don't need the First Amendment to protect speech that is pro-government, right? I mean, that's kind of obvious. If the First Amendment only protected pro-government speech, it wouldn't be much of a protection at all. As people say, you have to protect inconvenience speech and dissident speech. And so it's amazing that this prosecution went forward. Apparently, I guess they were convicted of conspiracy, but not some of the other charges. And by the way, let's say a couple things about it. First of all, I'm not sure they influenced anyone. I never heard of this organization to be totally honest, until this, right, until this indictment came down. And so number one, so they don't have much influence at all. Number two, I think this was over like 500 bucks in a donation they got for some Russian 500 bucks. Meanwhile, APAC is giving over a hundred million dollars in this election cycle to people's election campaigns. APAC owned

Wilmer Leon (41:15):

And Corey Bush Co Bush lost because of those efforts. And Jamal Bowman in New York lost because of those efforts. So not only is APAC donating and it's a hundred million by their admission in the New York Times, they were successful in their efforts.

Dan Kovalik (41:36):

They claim they were successful in every effort, every person, they backed one. And this has been true for years, of course, this type of influence. In fact, John F. Kennedy tried to make APAC liable under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which is the act that the Arru group was prosecuted. And of course, Kennedy was not able to do so, and he was actually killed shortly after. You can draw your own conclusions. APAC has been this huge elephant in the living room, a huge influencer of American politics for many, many years. And yet, who's getting prosecuted for that? No one. No one. They go after these small fish

Wilmer Leon (42:28):

To make a big point.

Dan Kovalik (42:29):

Yeah,

Wilmer Leon (42:30):

Small fish to make a big point. And so this was an incredibly bizarre verdict because they weren't, as you mentioned, they weren't found guilty of failing to register as agents of the Russian government. They were convicted of conspiring to fail to register as agents of the government.

Dan Kovalik (42:54):

Incredible. It's absolutely incredible.

Wilmer Leon (42:57):

So the jury said that Chairman Omali Yeshitela and the other two defendants agreed to become unregistered agents of the Russian government, but didn't actually become agents of the Russian government.

Dan Kovalik (43:15):

They wanted to be agents, but Russian didn't care. They didn't want them to be agents, whatever. It's absolutely bizarre. And that we could talk about this all day. I mean, again, I'm a lawyer. I study criminal law, and that sort of, to get someone on that, that becomes just a thought crime. They literally did nothing they made,

Wilmer Leon (43:35):

Which by the way, isn't a crime,

Dan Kovalik (43:36):

Right? No, you're right. I mean, again, because that would be a First Amendment violation. We were not supposed to prosecute thoughts. And the idea is, oh, I wanted to do something. Well, that's not enough to convict someone. I mean, it's completely outrageous. And I think their case is on appeal, if I'm not mistaken. If it is, I really hope they win. I mean, God bless 'em. They really are the test case here for the rest of us. I mean, I think the government went after this small group that no one heard of because they figured no one would support them. They go after them first, make some bad precedent for the rest of us, then start going after the rest of us, which means it's a very important case.

Wilmer Leon (44:22):

And the prosecution, the government was unable to present hardly any witnesses. They had hardly any evidence because this was 95% fiction. It was just flat fiction. And I think what also the government didn't expect was the attention that this was going to bring. The courtroom was full of supporters for the Uhuru. They've been around since about 1972, and they've done incredible work in the communities that they work in. And so now final data point, as I understand it, you Dan Kalik we're coming back into this country last week.

Dan Kovalik (45:14):

Yeah, Friday. Last Friday, yeah.

Wilmer Leon (45:16):

I'll let you tell the story.

Dan Kovalik (45:19):

Yeah. So I was coming back from the anti-fascist Congress in Venezuela.

Wilmer Leon (45:26):

Yeah,

Dan Kovalik (45:27):

I believe,

Wilmer Leon (45:28):

Oh, wait a minute. See, I knew when I saw that white jacket, when I saw that white jacket

Dan Kovalik (45:32):

Knew something was bad. Yeah, they used to say they were premature. I guess that's what I'm, but anyway, I came back through Bolivia. And to be, make a long story short, I was held for four hours. I was interrogated where, what airport in Miami, which is not the airport, you really do want to come back through. But I was asked about my travels, about who I meet with, about my connections, my political beliefs. They

Wilmer Leon (46:07):

Asked you about your political beliefs.

Dan Kovalik (46:09):

Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, it was all about what countries do you like? What countries do you not like and do you feel most comfortable? What countries are you most afraid of? I said, honestly, the one I'm in right now because I get treated like this. And then

Wilmer Leon (46:27):

What was their reaction to that answer?

Dan Kovalik (46:29):

Well, they were a little defensive, but tried to continue with the conversation and then, well, even before, so before they got deeply into the questioning, they searched all my bags and took my cell phone and my computer. By the end of the evening, I did get my computer back, but my phone, I did not get back. And I just got it back this morning. So that would've been about three or four days they had it. And we know, I mean, you can Google this. There's a lot of stories about it. They have the right outside New York City. We can get into the exception outside of JFK and LaGuardia. They have the right everywhere else to take your phone and copy the whole thing, copy your computer, which I imagine they've done, which is an incredible privacy violation. As you can imagine. Most people have a heart attack if that happened to 'em. And it was clear, it was motivated by my trips to Russia, Venezuela, other countries. And in fact, I've been subject to secondary interrogation, which is what it's called at the border in the airports a number of times since I first started going to Russia about two years ago, I've been stopped. That was probably my fourth or fifth time being stopped.

(48:02):

I was told in Chicago when I was stopped some months ago, that I have a case number with the State Department that marked me for this type of interrogation. And other people like Danny Shaw, who's a friend of mine, a colleague of mine, he also was stopped

Wilmer Leon (48:21):

Friend of ours. Yeah,

Dan Kovalik (48:23):

Stopped for three hours. His phone was taken. I mean, he's Scott Ritter.

Wilmer Leon (48:27):

That was in Chicago.

Dan Kovalik (48:28):

Danny was stopped

Wilmer Leon (48:29):

In Chicago.

Dan Kovalik (48:29):

Chicago. Scott Ritter's house in New York was raided by the FBI. They took his phone and computer. So look, the hunt is on. There's no question about that. I do want to give one caveat, I mentioned this exception in New York City. There is a judge in New York, the federal court in New York who held in her court district, in her court jurisdiction, which covers JFK and LaGuardia. They cannot take your computer and phone without a search warrant. So people out there, Wilmer, if you're doing international travel, try to come back through JFK because

Wilmer Leon (49:13):

Thank you. I was just going to ask you about the warrant because this seems to be another violation. You're supposed to be secure in your person and your papers. Last I checked, and I'm not a lawyer. I did go to law school and I did stay at Holiday Inn Express. So there seemed to be a number of violations beyond the First Amendment when they start to detain you and they start to seize your property without warrants.

Dan Kovalik (49:50):

Yes. Well, the problem we have, Wilmer is outside the jurisdiction in New York, the courts have held that customs has the right to hold you even up to 72 hours, Wilmer without a lawyer interrogate you and to take your phone computer and copy it. They have held that until you get through the customs and immigration,

Wilmer Leon (50:20):

You're not officially in the country.

Dan Kovalik (50:22):

You're not in the United States of America. The Constitution does not apply to you. That's an incredible, incredible thing. Most Americans have no idea of it, and most Americans won't experience the repercussions of that.

(50:36):

But what that means, until you go through passport control and get your bag and go through those double doors and push on those double doors and go into the main terminal, they really have the power of God over you. And again, most people have no idea about that. And so what the government's decided to do is, okay, we're not going to even worry about getting a warrant. We won't even send the FBI to Dan Aleks home. We don't have to do that. We wait until he leaves the country. He comes back because he travels all the time, and we'll do things to him and take things from him. We could never do without a warrant and without an attorney being present if he's interrogated, et cetera. It's an incredible violation of our rights, as you say, Wilmer. But it is totally sanctioned, at least at this moment by the courts, except for that court in New York City.

Wilmer Leon (51:33):

So and where did they approach you? You're coming through the jet way. You're coming off, you're deplaning, you're coming through the jet way. So when you come out of the jet way to the terminal, what happened?

Dan Kovalik (51:51):

Well, so just as almost every time, so only one time this happened to me in Chicago recently. They were waiting for me off the plane. Right outside the plane. In theJet.

(52:05):

Yeah. The only time that happened, in fact, as we were descending, they announced in the plane is we were descending. Please have your passports ready when you exit the plane. They checked everyone's passports. When they got to me, they stopped checking because they had their guy and they took me to be interrogated. Now, there was only time that happened every other time, including this time in Miami. I get off the plane, I walk all that way. Usually it's a long walk all the way to passport control. I get in the line, I get up to the passport agent, she checks my passport, had a few questions, and I'm thinking maybe I'm going to be okay this time. And then she said, please stand over there. And I knew what that meant.

Wilmer Leon (53:00):

Did you say, go stand in the corner

Dan Kovalik (53:02):

And face the wall, basically. And she put a little orange slip over my passport and another guy comes out, he takes my passport and says, come with me. And I'm brought into another room with a bunch of other people, and I sat there for probably an hour. Other people were getting processed very quickly. After an hour, a customs officer came and said, please come with me with your baggage. And she said, now she begins, I'm sorry, Wilmer. She lied. Okay. She begins to make up this story. She says, you're subject to a random drug search from Bolivia because a lot of people are bringing in drugs. So we're going to check your bags and then I'm going to ask you a few questions. We'll let you go. And this is just a random, but she checks all my bags that she does, but she doesn't have a sniffer dog and she doesn't check my prescription pill bottles, which could have drugs in them. She didn't check my coffee I brought in, which could have drugs in them. Clearly this is theater.

(54:08):

And she says, as part of our search, we can take your phone and your computer. We're going to do that, but we're only going to search for issues related to drugs. Whether you told someone you have drugs or you swallow drugs. But then when she takes me to another room for interrogation, there's no questions about drugs. It's all about what countries do you visit? Do you meet with government officials? Do you know government officials? Do you know presidents of other countries? Again, what countries you feel comfortable in? What countries do you not feel comfortable in?

(54:45):

That sort of thing, which indicates that was the real reason for me being pulled over was my travels and political beliefs, not the drug stuff. That was just a lie, I think, to get me feeling comfortable enough to talk to them. So there you go. That's what happened. Again, it took me days to get my phone back again. You can read about it. The customs now copies thousands of phones a year. They put 'em on a database. All of that information is on the database for 15 years, and all 3000 customs officials have access to it. So some guy in whatever Oklahoma's board during his lunch can go eat his sandwich and look at my data. I mean, it's an amazing thing. Wilmer again, most Americans have no idea this is happening.

Wilmer Leon (55:48):

Wow. The land of the free and the home of the brave. So it's also important for people to understand this is happening during a democratic administration.

Dan Kovalik (56:00):

Yes. And especially because it's democratic. We know from the New York Times, an article about three weeks ago, talked about the FBI, investigating people for connections with Russia and rt, and they said specifically that this was ordered by President Joe Biden. So this is not an accident. This isn't just the bureaucracy doing what they do or the deep state. This has been ordered by a democratic president to happen.

Wilmer Leon (56:30):

And we also know that more whistleblowers were prosecuted during the Obama administration than any other administration in history.

Dan Kovalik (56:40):

Indeed, indeed.

Wilmer Leon (56:44):

Dan Kovalik, professor Dan Kovalik. Man, thank you so much for your time. I truly, truly appreciate. First of all, I'm very sorry that you as an American went through this. I'm even more aggrieved that you as a friend went through this. Thank you. But thank you for joining me today,

Dan Kovalik (57:04):

Wilmer. It's always a pleasure and you are a friend, and I admire you a lot, and I look forward to the next time we talk.

Wilmer Leon (57:11):

Well, man, appreciate it. And folks, thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting to Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wiler Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can see all the links below in the show description. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge, talk without analysis is just chatter. And we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out

Announcer (57:51):

Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.