All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I am the Director of the Libertarian Institute, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com, author of the book Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and I've recorded more than 5,000 interviews going back to 2003, all of which are available at scotthorton.org.
You can also sign up for the podcast fee.
The full archive is also available at youtube.com slash scotthorton show.
Okay, guys, on the line, I've got Chip Gibbons.
He's a journalist whose work has been featured in In These Times, Jacobin and the Nation, and he is the Policy Director of Defending Rights and Dissent, where he authored the report Still Spying on Dissent, the Enduring Legacy of FBI First Amendment Abuse.
And here he's got one at the Intercept.
FBI opened terrorism investigations into nonviolent Palestinian Solidarity Group, Documents Reveal.
Welcome to the show, Chip.
How are you?
Thank you for having me.
It's a real honor to be on your program.
I've followed it for some time.
Oh, really?
Cool.
I'm very happy to hear that.
Well, I'm very happy to have you here, and I've got to say, great work on this.
Let's start with Mark.
I don't know how to say his last name.
You tell me here.
No, Mark Schimel.
He was an academic and activist in St. Louis.
A number of activists from St. Louis, including Heidi Epstein, who was a Holocaust survivor who has since passed away, traveled to the occupied West Bank in, I believe, 2003, 2004-ish to go on a solidarity delegation with the International Solidarity Movement.
And for those who aren't familiar, the ISM is a nonviolent group that encourages people to take direct, nonviolent, direct action against the Israeli military occupation.
So they went over there on a delegation.
During the delegation, they visited a Palestinian town where the apartheid wall is being built through.
Israel has this so-called security barrier.
They say it's to keep terrorists out of their country.
But a lot of the wall is actually in Palestinian territory.
It's been declared illegal by the International Court of Justice.
And as you can imagine, the Palestinians rightfully recognize this as their land being annexed.
So they protest nonviolently against the wall.
And during one of these protests, one of the activists from St. Louis was injured when the IDF opened fire on it.
Heidi Epstein, on her way home, not coming in home, was subjected to a really humiliating and invasive search at the airport, by the Israeli airport.
And instead of looking at any of these deprivations of rights of Americans, the FBI in St. Louis, after meeting what their own documents refer to as a source of unknown reliability, start investigating two of the delegation members.
Why only two?
Why not the whole delegation?
I don't know.
I can't explain how the FBI thinks.
But they open an investigation into these two people to assess them for ties for terrorism.
And this is actually an international terrorism investigation conducted pursuant to their foreign counterintelligence powers into these two people.
And during the investigation with at least one of the activists, they're able to pull his phone records.
They have the communication analysis unit do that.
And for people who are not familiar with this unit, it is a real gem.
It was formed after 9-11 to analyze phone call records.
It has, during this time, repeatedly gets in trouble with the Office of the Inspector General for wrongfully obtaining phone call records.
My favorite scandal of this unit is that they had three employees of telecom companies, not FBI, telecom companies in the FBI open workspace.
And these employees could access the telecom company's phone records, which the FBI needs either a subpoena or a national security letter to get.
And they were letting the agents take, quote unquote, sneak peeks at the records, which is not surprising.
What do you expect to happen?
Right.
And this unit somehow pulled this person's phone records.
I can't, for the life of me, figure out what the justification for this was.
And per the documents I got, and I was also shocked this wasn't redacted.
And just as a bit of background, it took me five years to get these documents.
They show that the number, one of the phone numbers he had called or one of the phone numbers someone he called called, was linked to a, quote unquote, highly classified CIA cable.
The FBI was never supposed to have access to this cable.
The CIA will not let them look at it.
There's a very funny use of passive voice in the document.
Apparently the FBI was not an intended recipient of the cable.
And they closed both investigations by saying neither of the two individuals had broken any U.S. laws.
Neither one of them threatened U.S. national security.
And in both cases, it appeared they were, they were activists.
And I want to stress, you know, those things might be obvious to the listeners and to you and to me, but the FBI rarely in these types of investigations ends with such affirmative exonerations.
They usually just shut them down, right?
That's very shocking.
And that shows how weak and out of line this one investigation was.
And the fact that they were somehow able to pull phone records and somehow run it against this mysterious CIA cable that's too secret, even for the FBI, is extraordinarily shocking.
And I also want to note that when I got the files, I, you can see some of the handwritten notes in the margins, both of the case files for these two activists.
Someone writes in their own handwriting, no leads, no evidence in the file.
So it almost sounds like an internal fight, like one agent repudiating another or something.
I don't know.
I mean, that's a, that's a good point.
I don't, I don't know what was up on the closing communications, just no leads, no evidence.
And then this mention that they somehow got this CIA cable.
And unfortunately, what I have found is that these, this was not the only terrorism investigation of the ISM, which has been nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize.
There's tons of documents.
Most of them are heavily redacted.
So it's impossible to figure out what some of them are from, but there are at least two major investigations, almost certainly more.
And we know ISM activists have been interviewed by the FBI outside the scope of, of dates these documents have.
And we know there's lots of instances of the FBI noting other people's ISM associations outside these investigations.
But there's two main investigations.
In addition to the St. Louis one, there is a national investigation based out of the Los Angeles field office.
And whereas the other investigation was an international terrorism investigation, this one started off initially as a domestic terrorism investigation, but it looks like they may have reclassified it partway through.
And this was a terrorist enterprise investigation into the ISM as a organization.
An enterprise investigation is when you're investigating two or more people involved in some sort of lawful wrongdoing.
So it's not an investigation of individual activists.
It's an investigation of the ISM as a group.
And when you go through the documents justifying opening this investigation, and every six months they have to argue why they should keep it open, the types of things you see in there are blatant criminalizations of political speech.
One of the documents mentions that because of the ISM members' anti-capitalist and anti-globe philosophy, I believe they mean like anti-globalization, like no World Bank, not Flat Earth, but you know, the FBI, who knows, as well as their sympathetic views on the Palestinian cause, it makes them likely to become coerced into performing terror acts.
And that is a blatant criminalization of speech.
What you are saying is that if people possess certain First Amendment views, you're allowed to be anti-capitalist, you're allowed to dislike the World Bank, you're even allowed to be a Flat Earther, and you're certainly allowed to sympathize with the Palestinians who live under military occupation and apartheid, then you are subject to an investigation because you might be a terrorist.
And while that's very shocking, you know, based on my larger research into the FBI, it's sadly not that surprising.
What we've seen is since the church committee, when the FBI was sort of stripped of its authority to conduct these sort of broad-based intelligence investigations into domestic reversives, they've continuously used their counterterrorism authorities to do the same thing by treating certain types of speech as a proxy for suspicion of terrorism.
And this is not a rogue investigation.
It has the approval of the FBI national headquarters.
They have a coordinating meeting at the J. Edgar Hoover building in D.C.
They have at least 10 different field offices involved in carrying out the investigation.
It involves physical surveillance, confidential informants.
They have local police who are in JTT, Joint Terrorism Task Force, working on this investigation.
And they have, I mean, in one of the documents they're listing their accomplishments of the investigation, and one of their accomplishments is they briefed the California Highway Patrol on it.
So it's a sprawling investigation.
Hold on just one second.
Be right back.
So you're constantly buying things from Amazon.com.
Well, that makes sense.
They bring it right to your house.
So what you do, though, is click through from the link in the right-hand margin at ScottHorton.org, and I'll get a little bit of a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
Won't cost you a thing.
Nice little way to help support the show.
Again, that's right there in the margin at ScottHorton.org.
Hey, y'all, check it out.
The Libertarian Institute, that's me and my friends, have published three great books this year.
The first is No Quarter, The Ravings of William Norman Grigg.
He was the best one of us.
Now he's gone, but this great collection is a truly fitting legacy for his fight for freedom.
I know you'll love it.
Then there's Coming to Palestine by the great Sheldon Richman.
It's a collection of 40 important essays he's written over the years about the truth behind the Israel-Palestine conflict.
You'll learn so much and highly value this definitive libertarian take on the dispossession of the Palestinians and the reality of their brutal occupation.
And last but not least is The Great Ron Paul, The Scott Horton Show Interviews, 2004-2019.
Interview transcripts of all of my interviews of the good doctor over the years, on all the wars, money, taxes, the police state, and more.
So how do you like that?
Pretty good, right?
Find them all at LibertarianInstitute.org slash books.
You need stickers for your band or your business?
Well Rick and the guys over at TheBumperSticker.com have got you covered.
Great work, great prices, sticky things with things printed on them.
Whatever you need, TheBumperSticker.com will get it done right for you.
TheBumperSticker.com.
Now one thing here is you quote Mike German, and he's a former FBI agent who turned ACLU lawyer.
I believe he's still there, correct?
He's at the Brennan Center now.
Oh, okay.
He's a former FBI agent who became a whistleblower.
FBI doesn't like whistleblowers.
Then he became an ACLU attorney, and now he is a fellow at the Brennan Center.
Okay.
And you have a quote from him saying that it's clear that they broke the law in doing this.
It's clear that they broke their own policies.
Unfortunately, the FBI, and this is something that people need to understand, has no statutory charter.
The people who set the rules for what the FBI can and cannot do are, is the attorney general and the FBI itself.
And unfortunately, in the time period since these investigations, the rules for opening investigations has gotten even looser.
It used to be the FBI had to have a factual predicate that you were involved in some sort of crime or threatening national security to open an investigation.
But literally in the lame duck part of the Bush administration, when Obama has already been elected and Bush is just still sitting in the White House, his attorney general, Michael McKasey, pushes through these new guidelines that are utterly shocking in their scope and allow for the first time since the church committee, the FBI opened investigations called assessments without any sort of factual predicate to suggest wrongdoing on your part.
And during the assessment, the FBI can search your trash, task an informant.
It's really disturbing.
And you would have hoped that the Obama administration would have come in and immediately repealed this.
But I guess Eric Holder was so busy prosecuting Bush era torturers and Wall Street bankers that didn't have time, time to do so.
All right.
Now, so to play the devil's advocate here, the FBI, they must have been terrified of this group.
They participate in direct action.
That sounds scary, like maybe fire or a thrown stone.
You know, that's that might be true.
But I mean, the FBI, it's clear from the documents themselves, the things that are calling, calling the FBI's attention to this group are clearly First Amendment protected speech, such as the comments that they have, anti-capitalist, anti-globe philosophy.
They're sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
The opening invest, the opening communication in the investigation makes no mention of any statute they're breaking.
About six months into the investigation, they introduced this idea that the ISM could be violating or conspiring to violate the Neutrality Act of 1794, which is a very old law still on the books.
It mentions foreign princes and dominions.
That's how how old it is.
And you know, that's that in itself is illustrative of the real double standard in this country.
Right.
The Neutrality Act still exists.
It's still on the books, but it's only ever been enforced selectively.
Robert F. Kennedy came under.
I'm thrilled to hear that there's such a thing at all.
The Neutrality Act sounds like something maybe we should pass again to remind them.
It was pushed through by George Washington because he was concerned about, I guess, Americans who were sympathetic to the French Revolution would get entangled in a war with with Britain.
So it makes so much sense to apply this to the ISM, because, as you know, the U.S. is famously very neutral in the Middle East before these ISM guys got involved.
But I mean, like.
Well, on the point here, though, to my stupid question that I asked is that they're not even pretending to be afraid of any, quote unquote, direct actions that this group has ever taken.
They are simply going off of things that they had said and associations that they have made.
Yes.
And they rely on very biased sources from Front Page magazine.
I don't know people.
I don't know if that's still around or not.
People remember that.
But it was David Horowitz.
Yeah.
Yeah.
David Horowitz.
He's still around doing this.
But he had this publication in the Bush years.
You know, everyone who opposes the war is a traitor and a terrorist.
Well, and all leftists are in league with all Muslims.
And all you have to do is draw lines between them all and see.
That's all a big conspiracy.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And they would do like this weird, like six degrees of Fidel Castro type stuff like this person spoke with this person and this person belonged to this.
Like every single like profile, someone always involved like this, like 12 degree connection to Fidel Castro.
That is like, OK, whatever.
But but they were they were super obsessed with the ISM during this time period.
A lot of these sort of like anti-Palestinian pro-war interventionist right sources are just fixated on the ISM during this period.
And based on some of the trolls I've been getting on Twitter, there's still some of that left.
Yeah.
Well, and you're saying the FBI was citing Frontpage Mag and was saying, look, they're tied to Quakers and anarchists and pretending that this was substantive.
No.
Yeah.
So they quote this Frontpage Magazine article about they quote two Frontpage Magazine articles.
One is about Tom Herndale, who was an ISM volunteer who was shot by the IDF.
And the IDF sniper who shot him is actually later court-martialed by the IDF.
And you know, Israel does not have a lot of accountability for war crimes.
So the fact that this person got court-martialed ought to suggest that it was really bad.
But the article just opens with this crazy paragraph about this guy was in fatigues.
He was carrying a gun.
He was shooting at the IDF.
But if you read BBC, you wouldn't know any of that.
They said he was shielding children.
And then it goes, what is the truth?
No one knows.
But ISM shares the same ideology as the attackers of September 11th and Saddam Hussein.
If Tom Herndale lives, the British government should put him on trial.
And instead, a British corners inquest found he was wrongfully killed and the IDF soldier was court-martialed.
And the State Department used to do pretty accurate reports on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory.
I actually went and looked up the State Department report from that year.
And Tom Herndale's shooting is in it as an Israeli human rights abuse.
And there's none of this nonsense in it about he was wearing fatigues, which seems to exist only in the mind of this front page person.
So just a article that contradicts the State Department's own reporting, like the FBI could have just looked at other government sources and found out this was bonkers.
And what about the ties to the Friends Committee here?
They have a strong association with Quakers.
That's just randomly thrown in there.
One of the documents, they have a strong association with the Quakers.
They also frequently fundraise with other Islamic groups, ISM, not a religious group.
And in other parts of these documents, they go through and list ISM members' religion and ethnicity.
They'll be like, oh, this person's a Christian.
This person was born into a Jewish family.
That's the phrase they use.
This person is Palestinian American.
It's really very weird.
And it sounds like it was written by David Horowitz, even, right?
We're like, we don't want to say we don't want to admit this person is Jewish and is taking the side of the Palestinians here.
So we'll imply that this person has somehow rebelled against their family and their upbringing or something without ever saying that, but make it sound like, well, it's formerly a Jew.
You know how that is.
Born into a Jewish family, but by some circumstance himself, not Jewish.
I don't know.
Yeah.
And it's just wacky.
But they also keep coming back with this language like some people associated with the ISM has loose associations and they'll rattle off all the criminalized Palestinian groups, PFLP, Islamic Jihad, where some people, one of the documents had some people known to associate the ISM had been known to sympathize with more radical groups like Hamas.
And it's like, what is, who, who, who is this person?
What does sympathize mean?
And then they also cite associations with domestic terrorists.
But in the domestic terrorist part, it's literally just, they use the phrase anarchist and domestic terrorist interchangeably.
They're very concerned that they're associated with the ruckus society, which is a nonviolent group that does like direct action, civil disobedience training.
And like in the, there's an entire document titled like domestic terror, intelligence, domestic terrorist, anarchist, and the ISM, right?
If you are an anarchist, you are a domestic terrorist.
That is just the assumption these documents make.
And therefore, since the ISM sympathizes or associates or whatever the vague term they use with anarchist, they're therefore involved with domestic terrorist too now.
Yeah.
As long as you're making up stuff and on your slippery slope, might as well go for it.
But so let me ask you this then, because I bet you there are some people who are listening to this show for the very first time or only the 10th or something, and they might not know why any American would side with the Palestinians against the Israelis when after all the Israelis are our friends and the Palestinians are a bunch of horrible Islamic orcs from the East who are coming to take everything away from our buddies.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, the people in ISM, they look at the conditions the Palestinians live under.
They've lived under a military occupation since, you know, 1967.
If you look at the Gaza Strip right now, it's been under a blockade since 2007.
It has 1.9 million people, 1.4 million of those people are registered refugees with the United Nations.
It's one of the most densely populated places on earth.
It's basically an open air prison.
And for decades, the Israelis have subjected the Palestinian people, not just in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to a military occupation, but to basically policies of apartheid.
And some people in this country look at that and say, this is wrong.
My tax money shouldn't be going to this.
And I'm going to, you know, exercise my First Amendment right as an American to work to right this injustice.
Of course, for a lot of people, including, you know, clearly the FBI, if you sympathize with the Palestinians or think maybe they shouldn't live under occupation or maybe they should have basic human rights, that basically makes you a person on grata and a terrorist.
And as corroborating evidence, they'll cite your association with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, who are the greatest American heroes ever, who spend all day on Capitol Hill lobbying their legislature to please stop killing people so much.
Those terrorists, those Quakers.
I mean, the FBI has been spying on Quakers since J. Edgar Hoover first formed the Radical Division, like right after World War I, I think the Quakers are probably one of the most spied on groups in the history of the United States.
You know, peaceful, nonviolent, very friendly and, you know, just pacifist by ideology, right?
They will not even hit back if you hit them.
I'm not recommending anyone does that, but I'm just saying, yes.
But since World War I, they have continuously been spied on by multiple branches of this government because they are pacifist by ideology.
And our government finds that repulsive, I guess.
And absolutely intolerable because it could get around that.
What do you mean it doesn't have to be this way?
We don't want that.
But just the fact that it's the Quakers, I just like that so much because they're such decent people and they're such old fashioned kind of people in their culture.
It's not, they're not the kind of people that you can accuse of being the black block breaking a Starbucks window or whatever the FBI wants to call terrorism.
They're just not that at all.
There's something else entirely.
Just, yeah.
Yeah.
And, and, you know, we know during the Bush years, there's a number of examples of, of Quakers being, being spied on or Quaker groups, Quaker anti-workers being spied on by the FBI.
And I believe by other branches of the government as well.
You know, we know they were spying on them during, during the Vietnam War.
We know they were being spied on during World War I.
So it's just, it's the phrase I keep using and it's a bit of a cliche, but it's, you know, it's shocking, but not surprising, right?
This is appalling to anyone who values living in a democratic society.
But given what we know about how the FBI operates, it's, it's unfortunately not surprising, right?
The FBI is not just a law enforcement agency.
It's also a domestic intelligence agency.
The first intelligence component created in the then Bureau of Investigation is headed up by a gentleman named J. Edgar Hoover.
And the original name for it is the Radical Division because they were rounding up radicals during the Comma Race.
They quickly changed the name to General Intelligence Division.
But like that is the origins of FBI intelligence is a division literally named the Radical Division.
So it's very much wired into the DNA of the FBI to engage this type of political surveillance.
Yep, exactly right.
That's really kind of the whole point of them.
And as you say, shocking, but not surprising.
We went through this at antiwar.com.
They use the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on the pretension that, you know, possibly Eric Garris and Justin Raimondo of all people were backed by a foreign power.
And why?
Because they did good journalism.
That was it.
And they pretended to believe that maybe there's a foreign power behind them we need to investigate here so that they could use the law that was written to allow them to spy on spies in this country without a Fourth Amendment hurdle of reasonable, you know, probable cause and said reasonable suspicion will do under FISA.
And they use that against antiwar.com.
As you say, they use any excuse in the world to persecute the Quakers.
What wouldn't they do to the International Solidarity Group or, you know, for the Palestinians or anybody else that they feel like messing with?
No, that's a really valid point.
I mean, and FISA has been continuously abused by the FBI throughout its history.
There's a lot of attention to FISA abuses right now.
But I was I was going back and reading some of the older abuses that had the current safeguard.
Once again, safeguards created by the FBI, not not anyone else put in place.
But, you know, in September 2000, this is the Clinton years before 9-11, the FBI admitted to the FISA court that 75 different applications for FISA warrants contained false or misleading information.
And those applications largely were dealt with targeting, quote unquote, Hamas supporters.
So you can imagine what was going on there.
So it's just the FBI has continuously been embroiled in abuse after abuse after abuse.
The very first attempt to reform the FBI to stop political surveillance was in 1924.
Right.
This is this has been going on a long time.
And and yet every time we just throw it all down the memory hole, then we come back again.
Oh, I'm so shocked the FBI is filing false FISA applications like we found out they're doing every like five years or so.
And of course, there's one answer to all of this.
It's because there's no accountability whatsoever.
That whole thing about binding the government with the chains of the Constitution is just a joke.
There it creates their power, but it in no way limits it.
Congress has never put a statutory charter on the FBI.
The FBI was the Bureau of Investigation, which predates the FBI, was created by Theodore Roosevelt while Congress was on recess.
And to this day, it has no charter.
There was serious movement to get Congress to impose a charter on it after all the controversies of the 60s and 70s.
And they decided, oh, we don't need to do this because the attorney general has put guidelines in.
And what's happened is, you know, unsurprisingly, those guidelines have increasingly been whittled away.
Reagan comes in.
One of his first acts in office is to pardon Mark Felt and another gentleman who were some of the only FBI agents ever convicted of violating people's civil rights.
Mark Felt was also deep throat.
Nixon funded his defense.
And when Reagan pardons him, he sends him a bottle of champagne with a note that says justice ultimately prevails.
He also testified for Mark Felt at his trial saying that break-ins without warrants were just the norm in the government then.
Which is, you know, Nixon would know, I guess.
But Reagan's AG laxes the guidelines.
Bush's John Ashcroft repeatedly lowers them.
And then Michael McCasey just basically does this unprecedented bold move to to just sort of make it so they can investigate anyone without any sort of criminal predicate.
He's willfully trying to collapse the distinction between intelligence and law enforcement.
In theory, when we got all these sort of intelligence tools in the 70s, like FISA, there's supposed to be this wall between intelligence and law enforcement.
And now we see, you know, routine criminal cases for things not about espionage, not about terrorism.
And they're introducing evidence they got through foreign intelligence tools, which shouldn't be allowed.
But, you know, that's the situation.
And Congress can step in whenever they want and, you know, put some limits on the FBI.
The courts could do something, but they're, I think, even more hopeless than Congress sometimes.
The attorney general could as well if he wanted to.
But, you know, there's not a big constituency for reforming the FBI, just bloviating about how shocked we are that the FBI would do the thing it's always done.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I'd kind of like to see when the Durham report finally comes out that maybe Donald Trump will take revenge against the FBI for framing him for high treason on this bogus Russiagate charge for three years.
And, you know, I'm not counting on it.
He needs that law and order support out there.
But hey, you swing at the king and miss, there should be some consequences to that.
They can persecute you and me all they want, but persecute the president and get away with it.
That would really be something to see.
Yeah.
Unfortunately, you know, Trump and Barr talk sort of out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.
They're very concerned that the FBI may have targeted Trump or his associates, but they're, you know, totally OK with the FBI going after everyone else.
They still want to have it as their tool to use against their enemies.
So you don't want to live too bad in that circumstance.
And that's how it goes.
Right.
That's why it never gets fixed is because whenever the parties switch off in power, now it's revenge time.
Now we're going to use the IRS against your donors and now we're going to use them against your donors.
And back and forth they go.
Same kind of thing.
The spying powers and all the rest of it.
Yeah.
I think that's a good point.
Yeah.
I mean, I think reform of the FBI is very much needed.
I've written about what I think, you know, that reform would look like.
But you just need someone in Congress to actually want to pick up reforming the FBI.
And in spite of people in both parties having at various times expressed displeasure, they have never really embraced meaningful reform, with some exceptions, but it's never.
There used to be in the late 80s, early 90s, after the FBI got caught spying on Ronald Reagan's foreign policy opponents, something called the FBI First Man Protection Act.
And I was going through and looking at all of the old co-sponsors.
Nancy Pelosi was actually in the early 90s.
One of the one of the co-sponsors, if Rand Paul had sense, he would bring back that that draft that bill, which was very good, and ask Nancy why isn't she still support it?
That's a good idea.
You're saying he did that or he should?
He did.
He did.
Oh, he did do that?
He should do that.
I mean, if the Republicans want to really reform the FBI, that is all they would have to do is dust off this piece of legislation you can find online.
He's probably the only one in the Republican Party.
And he was saying something about the FBI, you know, last week or two.
Yeah, he has been.
But none of his reforms have been really as, I don't think they've been as far reaching or targeting the right parts as of the FBI that we would need.
I mean, the big thing is that the FBI should be, you know, barred from investigating so that without a factual predicate, that level of scrutiny needed to establish a predicate needs to be enshrined in law.
And there needs to be strong protections for First Amendment protected speech, which there was a whole bill in the 80s and 90s that would have done that.
But it did not ever go anywhere.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, thanks very much for your time, Chip.
It's great stuff and great article and great interview here.
Really appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for having me on.
All right, you guys.
I'm Robert Gibbons and the piece is at The Intercept.
FBI opened terrorism investigations into nonviolent Palestinian Solidarity Group.
Documents reveal.
And you can also read Chip at In These Times, Jacobin and the Nation.
And he authored the report, Still Spying on Dissent, The Enduring Legacy of FBI First Amendment Abuse.
The Scott Horton Show, Antiwar Radio, can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A., APSradio.com, Antiwar.com, ScottHorton.org, and LibertarianInstitute.org.
