Three Cases. One Big Question.

Can the federal government prosecute protesters for conspiracy when the underlying conduct is murky, the evidence is questionable, and the political pressure to charge is obvious? Three ongoing cases are forcing that question into federal courtrooms.

None of these cases is simple. Media coverage from both left-leaning and right-leaning outlets is failing to give the full picture.

The Spokane Case: Conspiracy Charges That Don't Add Up

In Spokane, Washington, federal prosecutors are trying three activists on charges of conspiring to impede federal officers — specifically, officers at an ICE facility. According to the New York Times, legal experts across the ideological spectrum are calling the conspiracy theory a stretch.

Conspiracy charges require proving an agreement to commit a crime, not just showing up at the same protest. If prosecutors can't clear that bar, they're wasting taxpayer money and potentially chilling lawful protest. Both are problematic.

The Spokane case has NOT produced evidence of violence or weapons. It's three people accused of coordinating — legally or otherwise — outside a detention facility. That's a thin foundation for federal conspiracy charges.

The Fort Worth Case: A Real Shooting, A Real Question

The Fort Worth trial is different, and deserves to be treated differently.

On July 4th, 2024, a protest outside the Prairieland ICE detention facility turned violent. A police lieutenant was shot — non-fatally. According to The Guardian, Officer Jeremiah Zapata testified that he was crawling along Tanglewood Drive searching for a suspect armed with a rifle, responding to an urgent radio call about the shooting.

An officer was shot. Someone is responsible.

The five defendants arrested that night were found walking calmly toward police in dark clothing. They deny membership in any organized group. The Trump administration has charged them as members of an antifa "terror cell" — the first time the federal government has used that framing against left-wing demonstrators.

But antifa is not an organization. The Trump administration declared it a domestic terror group last year, according to The Guardian, but it does not legally have the authority to make that designation. Antifa has no membership rolls, no leadership structure, no dues. Calling five individuals members of an "antifa cell" is like charging someone as a member of "road rage."

That doesn't mean they didn't commit crimes. It means the government is layering political framing on top of a legitimate criminal case — and that framing could actually sink the prosecution.

The J20 Cases: A Warning From Eight Years Ago Nobody Learned From

The third thread here is historical but directly relevant. After Trump's 2017 inauguration, federal prosecutors charged nearly 200 people with conspiracy and rioting charges. Some faced up to 60 years in prison.

Almost all of those cases collapsed.

Prosecutors in that case relied on video evidence from Project Veritas — a group that, at the time the video was submitted, had just been caught attempting to plant a fabricated sexual misconduct story with the Washington Post in order to discredit it, according to The Guardian. The Post investigated, detected the deception, and exposed it. Using evidence from a group actively engaged in journalistic fraud is not a minor procedural hiccup. It's a credibility catastrophe.

The J20 cases are what happens when prosecutorial zeal outruns actual evidence. Hundreds arrested, hundreds charged, most acquitted or dropped. Enormous cost to taxpayers. ZERO accountability for the prosecutorial overreach.

What the Left Is Getting Wrong

Outlets like The Guardian and the Protect Democracy tracker are framing all of this as pure political retaliation — Trump using the DOJ as a weapon against his enemies. That framing ignores one fact: a police officer was actually shot in Fort Worth. That requires a prosecution. The question is whether the terrorism framing is valid — not whether any prosecution is appropriate.

Left-leaning coverage also groups these cases together as if they're identical. They're not. A conspiracy charge with no violence is fundamentally different from a case involving a shooting.

What the Right Is Getting Wrong

Conservative media largely isn't covering the Spokane case at all — because the evidentiary problems there make the prosecution look weak and politically motivated. If the DOJ were charging conservative protesters with the same thin conspiracy theory, Fox News would run it for a week straight.

The silence is telling.

The Real Framework: Same Standard, Every Time

Protect Democracy raises a legitimate structural concern — that the Trump DOJ is selectively enforcing laws against political opponents. That concern deserves scrutiny. But their tracker conflates cases with genuine evidentiary problems with cases that have real criminal conduct at the center.

The standard that should apply regardless of who's in the White House: charge what you can prove, prove what you charge, and don't dress up political pressure as criminal conspiracy.

By that standard, the Spokane case looks prosecutorially weak. The Fort Worth case has a legitimate criminal core buried under illegitimate terrorism theater. And the J20 cases are a historical example of what happens when the government brings overwhelming force against protesters and has almost nothing to show for it in court.

What This Means for Regular People

If you protest — left, right, or center — federal prosecutors can charge you with conspiracy based on showing up. They can use questionable video evidence. They can call you a terrorist without legal authority to do so.

Federal power used against political opponents doesn't stay pointed in one direction forever. The precedents being set right now in Spokane and Fort Worth will be available to the next administration too — whatever party runs it.

This isn't a left problem or a right problem. It's a government power problem. And neither side is being honest about it.