Journalist Faces 61 Years in Prison for Covering Anti-Trump Protests

Journalist Faces 61 Years in Prison for Covering Anti-Trump Protests

  • Though AFP may disagree with the political views apparently held by this photojournalist and videographer who provided embedded coverage of the D.C. protests on the day of President Trump’s inauguration, he has the right to attend and report on controversial events.

Nov. 27 marked the beginning of a trial being watched across the nation. Alexei Wood, a San Antonio-based freelance photojournalist and videographer, is facing multiple felony rioting and destruction of property charges stemming from his coverage of the chaotic and violent protests held in Washington, D.C. during President Donald Trump’s inauguration ceremony. If convicted, Wood faces up to 61 years in prison, according to his lawyer.

Numerous groups protested against Trump’s election on the day of the inauguration, and many more protests followed during the weekend. As this newspaper reported at the time, as many as 50 of the groups involved with organizing the protests, which turned violent, caused massive property damage, and created disruption and chaos in the nation’s capital, were directly connected to the infamous plutocrat and top globalist George Soros. Soros has a history of financing radical, subversive protest groups around the world with the goal of undermining the established order in a truly Bolshevik-style fashion.

During the D.C. protests, vehicles were damaged, storefront windows were broken, and other private property was vandalized. Over 200 of the protesters, many of whom were affiliated with the DisruptJ20 activist organization—a radical, anarchistic group—were arrested for their participation in the violent chaos that consumed the nation’s capital. Additionally, nine journalists, including Wood, were arrested along with the protesters.

Seven of the nine journalists have had all charges against them dropped by prosecutors in Washington, D.C. Charges against Wood and Aaron Cantu, a staff reporter at The Santa Fe Reporter in New Mexico, were not dropped despite First Amendment concerns from some of the nation’s leading journalism and free speech experts.

Wood has a history of covering protests, particularly during the heated 2016 presidential campaign. On his personal website, Wood notes his history of “documenting social justice issues and resistance movements,” for which he appears to have sympathy.

Wood livestreamed his embedded coverage of the Inauguration Day protests and can be heard expressing what seems to be tacit approval of the actions of the protesters, which included breaking windows and spray-painting private property.

The Department of Justice, the entity pursuing the charges against Wood, has not commented on the case.

“The government has not informed me as to why Mr. Wood’s case involved any greater degree of culpability than any of the other journalists who were ultimately not charged,” Brett E. Cohen, Wood’s attorney, explained to The New York Times. The indictment against Wood and 211 other defendants, originally filed on April 3, “does not single out Mr. Wood for anything arising from the demonstration,” Cohen noted.

Lawyers and legal experts have questioned the indictment against Wood and other journalists, arguing that a journalist’s political perspective and personal attitude toward an event they are covering is not relevant from a legal perspective.

“Obviously, journalists are not above the law—they can’t break windows,” Reed Brody, who has represented other journalists in controversial cases involving coverage of major protests, explained to the Times. “They can be sympathetic to the people that they cover, and they can draw attention to the people that they cover. But you can’t arrest and you can’t charge journalists for covering events.”

At the end of Wood’s livestream, police are seen moving in to confront and arrest many of the protesters. Wood identifies himself as a journalist and member of the media documenting the event, yet Washington Metropolitan Police appear to ignore him and eventually arrest and charge him with the same crimes as the radical, violent protesters he was covering.

NB: This article was originally published by American Free Press on December 4, 2017. Subscribe to America’s last real newspaper today!

Subscribe to The Realist Report today, and support pro-White independent media!



  • he’s got a jewish lawyer. sometimes that works for you but i don’t know about it this time. treachery everywhere.
    it sounds as if mr. wood was happy to get the exciting footage, actually encouraging the protestors, and for that he should reprimanded, maybe even fined and jailed for a while.
    but basically, the court should have to prove this or any other defendant actually harmed someone before they can convict him of anything serious, especially a felony.
    but in that case you would likely be taking about a constitutional proceeding, where the jury has control of the process, not the typical corporo-military travesty common to us now, where the judge totally rules over the courtroom, even dictating what may or may not be the defendant’s theory of his own defense…
    i wonder how many of the actual protestors, the ones who threw heavy objects at the police, broke windows and set fire to cars are looking at 60+ years in federal prison?
    and what is stopping the trump administration from making the official link between violent antifa protestors and soros as a funder?

  • “Wood livestreamed his embedded coverage of the Inauguration Day protests and can be heard expressing what seems to be tacit approval of the actions of the protesters, which included breaking windows and spray-painting private property.”

    This would seem to be hinge issue, from the info presented.

    If whatever he expressed could indeed be considered approval (it couldn’t be tacit, btw), then it could possibly be considered to have encouraged the more violent protestors.

    If did express approval of the destruction, AFP shouldn’t be defending him as a journalist but attacking him as a fake journalist.

  • I’m sure he was careful in his selection of what he deemed to be ‘important’ photos (cops beating protesters, for ex.). But, that ‘s ok, that’s what they do. If he, however, took part and was seen taking part in destructive activity and not just photographing events, then he is guilty like any other anarchist there. If he wants to play ‘commie anarchist’ and ‘liberator of the people’ and wanted to get arrested to boost his status among his peers and followers, then maybe some time in the grey bar hotel is what he wanted. The article is unclear about what he actually did. It had to be more involved than photography to get arrested while other photographers did not. I’d love to see some photos of him in action there. So, we need more information about this guy is what it boils down to.

    • From what I understand, he live-streamed his coverage of the protests. During the live-stream (which I have not seen in its entirety), he can be heard expressing tacit approval for the protesters and their actions. He was not actually physically or actively involved in anything – he was just there documenting their (in many cases criminal) actions.

  • What I don’t understand is that if I paid and organized a few people to commit violent felonious crimes, I would be an accessory and quickly charged and jailed. Why is Soros not being arrested?
    We cannot pretend Soros is not involved, the truth is already known.

  • Good seeing a Presstitute finally getting a prison sentence!