Friday, June 19, 2015

Longtime Tenants in Manhattan See an Effort to Push Them Out
By COREY KILGANNON NY TIMES
The message was clear to Tommy McCarthy as soon as the sturdy metal gates were installed on his stoop and on those of nearly 20 other buildings along his block in Manhattan south of Columbia University.
"The tenants who’ve been in the neighborhood for years, that’s who uses the stoop," said Mr. McCarthy, 56, a retired doorman and a hardened stoop-sitter at 247 West 109th Street, where he has lived all his life. "They want us out, so they can bring more Columbia students in and charge much higher rents."
Mr. McCarthy lives in a rent-regulated apartment first inhabited by his grandfather in 1934 — "I was literally grandfathered in," he said — and pays a monthly rent of $480, in a neighborhood where the landlord could get many times that under market conditions.
Not coincidentally, Mr. McCarthy said his landlord had sent letters accusing him of loitering on the stoop of the building, which is one of about two dozen owned by the Orbach Group on the block between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue. The Orbach Group has installed gates outside most of those buildings.
Tenants and tenant advocates say the gates are just one of the tactics that the Orbach Group has deployed in a campaign to harass and drive out low- and middle-income residents, many of them Latino, and replace them with Columbia University students who pay much steeper rents for the newly deregulated units.
The Orbach Group markets the apartments to students by using a collegiate-looking logo on its buildings and website, with a blue color scheme similar to the one used by Columbia, and by offering tenants a free campus-area shuttle bus.
The landlord, tenants and advocates say, has repeatedly challenged tenants in Housing Court on residency requirements in their leases and has installed covert surveillance cameras in smoke detectors or electrical outlets in building hallways.
Other tactics, critics say, have included pressure-filled offers to buy out the leases of tenants facing legal action and the use of a private investigator, who tenants say employs ruses to gain admittance to apartments, to photograph private information for evidence in Housing Court.
The Orbach Group’s methodical approach to pursuing eviction cases, even against tenants in good standing, requires such exhaustive, detailed responses that some tenants inevitably fail to properly answer motions or miss deadlines and end up losing leases, said Jason Blumberg, a lawyer with MFY Legal Services, a nonprofit that has represented several tenants in Orbach-owned buildings.
"Part of the strategy is, you sue everybody and you get people out bit by bit, and the whole enterprise sort of pays for itself," Mr. Blumberg said.
It is the kind of behavior that housing activists say is common among landlords seeking to tap into the city’s heated housing market by forcing out rent-regulated tenants. And it comes as state lawmakers in Albany are negotiating rent-regulation laws that govern 1 million apartments in New York, which Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to strengthen.
Avi Schick, a lawyer representing the Orbach Group, called the landlord fair and committed to upgrading the buildings, many of which were in poor condition when they were purchased. "They inherited enormous problems and fixed them," Mr. Schick said.
When the buildings were taken over, Mr. Schick said, many tenants were not using their apartments as their primary residence, a violation of state regulations and grounds for eviction.
Regarding lawsuits, Mr. Schick said they involved mostly market-rate tenants and were primarily for chronic nonpayment of rent. "If tenants are paying their rent, as low as it might be, no one’s doing anything to them," Mr. Schick said.
The Orbach Group’s actions have drawn the scrutiny of the New York State attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, though officials declined to provide details because they did not want to discuss a continuing investigation. But some tenants received a letter from Mr. Schneiderman’s office in January notifying them that the office was "investigating complaints of tenant harassment" in their buildings, including the use of private investigators, "frivolous eviction proceedings" and "aggressive, unwanted buyout offers to vacate rent-stabilized units."
Regarding problems with an investigator, Mr. Schick said the Orbach Group "hired a company that employed him and we cut ties with them years ago." As for the surveillance cameras, Mr. Schnick said they were used only "in instances when the manager had become aware that a tenant wasn’t actually living in the apartment."
Some of the buildings’ longtime tenants pay very low rents in an area straddling Morningside Heights, where one-bedrooms can rent for $3,000, and Manhattan Valley, which has a growing influx of students and businesses serving them, along with a decline in longtime low- and middle-income Dominican and Puerto Rican residents.
The gates erected across the bottom of the stoops seem to strike at an ingrained New York City tradition of treating a stoop as an outdoor living room, a place to congregate, to relax and to be part of the street scene, particularly in warm weather.
The gates do not prevent gathering in a literal sense, but make relaxing unwieldy and unpleasant because they must be constantly opened and closed, some tenants said. Some also called them a safety hazard.
"If you open them, you block the sidewalk, and if you close them, it’s an impediment to the safety of the building if you’re being followed," said Vincent Simplicio, a former New York City police officer who said he had tangled with Orbach lawyers in Housing Court over the legality of the lease his common-law wife holds to their apartment.
"It’s their stoop — they should have access to it," he said on a recent evening, pointing to a group of tenants who looked almost like an exhibit in a cage, separated from the sidewalk by the gate.
"The stoops allowed the block to stay close as a community — it’s where everyone gets together, and the gates have definitely blocked that," said Anyale Contin, 26, who was raised and still lives at 263 West 109th.
Mr. Schick, the company’s lawyer, said the gates were installed partly in response to tenants who "complained about some of the behavior of those congregating" on the stoops. He said the gates had made the buildings safer and reduced disorderly behavior.
The Orbach Group has been buying dozens of buildings in the Columbia area in recent years, and managing them under various realty group names. It now owns more than 50 buildings, a mixture of market-rate and rent-regulated units, including the buildings on the West 109th Street block, said Larry Wood, supervising organizer at the Goddard Riverside Law Project.
Mr. Wood said his group had provided legal help to over 200 tenants living in Orbach-owned buildings.
Market-rate units in Orbach buildings are marketed under the name CoSo Apartments — an abbreviation for Columbia South — whose website describes Columbia’s growth and grandeur, and has an interactive map showing Orbach buildings in relation to the campus.
Some tenants say the website and signs might imply an affiliation with the university, especially to naïve renters.
Mr. Schick said the CoSo marketing strategy was just one of many ways the firm finds tenants, including using numerous brokers and agents. He dismissed as "silliness" the claim that the firm was trying to resemble Columbia.
A spokesman for Columbia, Robert Hornsby, said that the university did not refer incoming students to CoSo Properties, and that if Orbach representatives had posted listings on Columbia’s off-campus housing board, university officials were unaware of it.
"Columbia has no affiliation with the private real estate owner offering these residential properties and would be concerned about a business’s website being confused with the university," Mr. Hornsby said in a statement.
Some longtime tenants say the buildings feel increasingly like dormitories, in many cases for Chinese students at Columbia. The two groups ignore each other. On a recent weeknight, no greetings were exchanged as a series of Chinese students squeezed past longtime tenants on stoops.
One student from China, Zhou Meichen, who is a student in a master’s statistics program at Columbia, said she and two other students each paid $1,150 a month for their apartment, which she found through a Chinese-speaking agent in New York.
"We had agents show us other apartments, but this was cheaper," Ms. Zhou said, adding that living space was tight, "but I’m studying most of the time anyway."

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

What we talk about when we talk about Iran 

Saeed Kamali Dehghan London Guardian

(A  profound animosity fueled by ignorance and prejudice hurts both sides DAF)

So much has changed since the disputed election in 2009 but Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have proved to be worthy opposition leaders

It is hard to do justice to Iran. So much is left unsaid amid arcane disputes about the number of centrifuges spinning in a fortified bunker, or an assumed threat that may or may not one day endanger others. It is a country too often misunderstood and taken out of context.
Yet, digging deeper into its intriguing realities never disappoints. This week, Tehran was the scene of a familiar funeral procession held for the victims of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Whenever newly unearthed bodies are returned it brings back excruciating memories from some three decades ago.
Such events are always close to the heart of those families who have lost their loved ones in that futile, eight-year war. It is not so much for the general public, or the younger generation at least, who are wary of the state’s usual hijacking of these funerals for its own propagandistic purposes.
But something about this occasion was different: among the bodies paraded were those belonging to 175 Iranian divers who were captured by Saddam Hussein’s forces nearly 30 years ago and buried alive while handcuffed, according to Iranian officials.
The divers are believed to have been captured in 1986, after the failure of Iran’s secret offensive Karbala-4 – helped by US intelligence provided to the Iraqis. During the war, the US extended vital support to Saddam and later turned a blind eye to the Iraqi leader’s use of chemical weapons. Huge numbers of people in Iran, youth included, reacted with outrage in the past month to the 175 divers’ death and wrote extensively in their honour online.
It is easy to forget that the people who were in charge in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war are still at the helm. The current president, Hassan Rouhani, once served as the deputy military commander, even being involved in the secret Iran-Contra affair that created a huge scandal for the Reagan administration (when it emerged that the US was covertly shipping arms to Tehran to secure the release of hostages). Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, was then the country’s president. Mir Hossein Mousavi, now an opposition leader under house arrest, was the prime minister.
But those involved in the US in the 1980s are now part of history. Reagan is dead and Robert McFarlane, his national security adviser, has dropped out of the spotlight, while many of today’s big names in the US were barely known at the time of the war.
It is no surprise why a tragedy that took place three decades ago still fuels mistrust between Iran and the US. (Americans may be quick to cite the infamous hostage crisis in return.)
That was about this week, but around this time of the year six years ago, something totally different happened. In June 2009, as the results of what was widely believed to have been a stolen election were announced on TV, Mousavi, a dark horse presidential candidate, said: "I won’t yield to this dangerous foul scenario." And he didn’t.
Today, unrepentant as ever, Mousavi, his wife, Zahra Rahnavard and another opposition leader, Mehdi Karroubi, remain under house arrest in Tehran without being put on trial. Their supporters, many of whom are among those who expressed sympathy for the 175 divers this week and others who rallied behind Rouhani in 2013 elections, are still yearning for change. Mousavi and Karroubi have proved to be worthy opposition leaders, even though Rouhani, who was elected on promises of ending their house arrest, has not achieved much on the home front despite his achievements in the foreign domain.
Reform, not revolt, is what many believe is the answer. If a free election is held in Iran tomorrow, my bet would be on the likes of Mousavi or the former president Mohammad Khatami, who is facing immense restrictions and ban on using his name and picture in the local media.
So much has changed since those bloody days in 2009. A new president has put an end to the acrimonious years under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Meanwhile, the former president’s close allies are being arrested and put on trial almost one by one. Ahmadineajd has become sidelined, though there are suggestions he is eyeing a comeback for next year’s parliamentary elections.
Good things have happened in between, bad things too. Despite improvements made by Rouhani, the country’s hardline judiciary has been deaf to the message Iranians sent by voting for a president who promised to open up the country and improve relations with the west. The country’s intelligence apparatus is carrying out a campaign of harassing and jailing anyone who dares to differ in public.
We are so overwhelmed that we are failing to keep up with violations in Iran. News of new activists receiving hefty jail sentence (read 8, 12 or 14 years) has become so normal that it barely registers as a news story.
As if domestic pressure was not enough, Iranians are constantly bombarded from abroad. Blanket sanctions imposed by the US and its European allies continue to disrupt life for ordinary people in Iran, from anything such as access to high-quality medicine to the ever-increasing prices of staple foods. Thanks to sanctions, the young, aspirational people of Iran – the most pro-western nation in the Middle East – are isolated from the outside world.
In the latest showdown over sanctions, the US is threatening to confiscate nine used but newly bought passenger planes Iran obtained after bypassing the punitive international measures to renew its old air fleet. So many innocent Iranians have died in recent years because of that ageing fleet, yet the US is trying to stop the new handful of planes. How disgraceful.
As Laura Secor once delicately put it in a New Yorker article in 2012: "Our options are bad, our objectives are ambiguous, and the Iranian people stand as hostages between their government and ours."

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Eleven months after Eric Garner's death, his grave is covered by a lush patch of grass in Union County, N.J. His mother, Gwen Carr, is pulling together money for a headstone. Credit Mark Kauzlarich/The New York Times
Beyond the Chokehold: The Path to Eric Garner’s Death

By AL BAKER, J. DAVID GOODMAN and BENJAMIN MUELLER NY TIMES
 

Eric Garner was lumbering along a sidewalk on Staten Island on a July day when an unmarked police car pulled up.

The plainclothes officers inside knew Mr. Garner well, mostly for selling untaxed cigarettes not far from the nearby Staten Island Ferry Terminal.

Mr. Garner — who at 6 feet 2 inches tall and 395 pounds was hard to miss — recognized them, too. Everyone did, at least among those who hawked cigarettes and cheap goods on that stretch of Bay Street along Tompkinsville Park. For years, they played a cat-and-mouse game with the New York City officers who came to arrest them.

As the officers approached, Mr. Garner, 43, shouted at them to back off, according to two witnesses. He flailed his arms. He refused to be detained or frisked. He had been arrested twice already that year near the same spot, in March and May, charged both times with circumventing state tax law.

But on that sweltering day in July, the officers left him with a warning.

"It was the first time I ever saw them let him go," said John McCrae, who watched the encounter near the park. Mr. Garner took that experience to heart, Mr. McCrae said.

"You figure if it stops them the first time," he said, "it might get them to stop the second time."

The next time came later that month: July 17, a Thursday.

One of the officers, Justin Damico, returned, accompanied by a different partner, Daniel Pantaleo. As they moved in, a cellphone camera held by a friend of Mr. Garner recorded the struggle that would soon be seen by millions.

The chokehold. The swarm of officers. The 11 pleas for breath.

Mr. Garner’s final words — "I can’t breathe" — became a rallying cry for a protest movement. On screens large and small, his last struggle replayed on a loop. Official scrutiny and public outcry narrowed to focus on the actions of a single officer.

But interviews and previously undisclosed documents obtained by The New York Times provide new details and a fresh understanding of how the seemingly routine police encounter began, how it hurtled toward its deadly conclusion and how the police and emergency medical workers responded.

This was not a chance meeting on the street. It was a product of a police strategy to crack down on the sort of disorder that, to the police, Mr. Garner represented. Handcuffed and motionless on the ground, he did not receive immediate aid, and the apparent lapses in protocol prompted a state inquiry. The first official police report on his death failed to note the key detail that vaulted the fatal arrest into the national consciousness: that a police officer had wrapped his arm around Mr. Garner’s neck.


Medical Workers Attend to Eric Garner

The actions of emergency medical technicians, from arriving at Eric Garner’s motionless body to wheeling him away on a stretcher, were captured in a cellphone video.

Mr. Garner’s death was the start of a succession of police killings that captured national attention and ignited debate over race and law enforcement. From Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., to Walter Scott in North Charleston, S.C., to Freddie Gray in Baltimore, the deaths of black men at the hands of the police have faced a level of scrutiny that would have been unlikely just a year ago, before Mr. Garner died and before a grand jury in December declined to bring charges in his death.
 
Nearly a year after the fatal encounter on Staten Island, the actions of the officers, their commanders and the emergency medical workers remain the subject of official investigations.

Even as those investigations have yet to yield any public conclusions about the case, the intervening months have allowed the events that led to Mr. Garner’s death to come into clearer focus.

Cellphone video gave the world an unobstructed view of the chokehold, which was found to be a cause of Mr. Garner’s death, along with the compression of his chest by officers who helped to handcuff him. For all the clarity the video seemed to provide, the focus on the chokehold left largely unexplored crucial events before, during and after the fatal confrontation.

Tensions had been building well before July 17. That day, a lieutenant from the 120th Precinct, on his way to a meeting, saw a group of men on Bay Street and recognized them as a chronic source of problems in the area, said Lou Turco, the head of the lieutenants’ union. The lieutenant called the precinct. Officers Damico and Pantaleo were sent to address it.

At the scene, the two plainclothes officers moved in, and the supervisors who arrived moments later never gained control. Two witnesses said they heard a sergeant tell the officers to ease up as they held Mr. Garner down on the sidewalk. "Let up," a beauty store manager, Rodney Lee, recalled hearing the sergeant say that day. "You got him already."

For minutes as Mr. Garner lay on the ground, he was not given oxygen by the responding emergency medical personnel, who were from Richmond University Medical Center.

"If someone was choked out, probably they need oxygen right away," said Israel Miranda, president of the Uniformed E.M.T.s, Paramedics and Fire Inspectors F.D.N.Y. Local 2507, which does not represent the Richmond University medical personnel.

In the hours after Mr. Garner died, an initial five-page internal report prepared for senior police commanders, known as a 49, did not refer to contact with his neck. The report, as well as the actions of supervisors involved, is part of the review by the New York Police Department, a spokesman said.

Instead, the report quotes by name a witness who described seeing how "the two officers each took Mr. Garner by the arms and put him on the ground." That same witness, Taisha Allen, later said she told the grand jury on Staten Island that she saw a chokehold. She said the statement attributed to her in the report was not accurate.

Without video of his final struggle, Mr. Garner’s death may have attracted little notice or uproar. Without seeing it, the world would not have known exactly how he died.

The video images were cited in the final autopsy report as one of the factors that led the city medical examiner to conclude that the chokehold and chest compression by the police caused Mr. Garner’s death. Absent the video, many in the Police Department would have gone on believing his death to have been solely caused by his health problems: obesity, asthma and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. The autopsy report, which is confidential, was provided by a person close to Mr. Garner’s family.

"We didn’t know anything about a chokehold or hands to the neck until the video came out," said a former senior police official with direct knowledge of the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his access to confidential department information. "We found out when everyone else did."

A Site of Disorder

It was March of last year and Gjafer Gjeshbitraj had had enough. A landlord on Bay Street, Mr. Gjeshbitraj went online to 311, the municipal hotline’s website, to complain about men loitering outside his Staten Island apartment building.

They gathered there to sell cigarettes and drugs, he said. One was named Eric.

The business of loose cigarettes is simple and longstanding. Drive to Pennsylvania or Delaware or a nearby Indian reservation. Return to heavily taxed New York City with cheaper boxes of cigarettes. Sell for a profit. Repeat.

For years, such cigarettes had been sold around Bay Street and the park, a poor and working-class area whose population swells each day with those bound for the welfare office across the street. Some readily opt to buy cigarettes individually at $1 or less, rather than a whole pack for 10 times that.

Mr. Garner was among a handful of men, mostly middle-aged and black or Hispanic, who sold near the park. He used the money to help support his wife, Esaw, and their six children.

"We met because I asked him to have a place there to sell cigarettes," said Hiram Guzman, who sold loose cigarettes alongside Mr. Garner for years. "He said, ‘You do whatever you want.’ That was about six years ago."

To the local merchants, Mr. Garner was a daily presence — a friendly face to some and an unwanted competitor to others.

To the Police Department, he was a "condition," a nettlesome sign of disorder well known in the 120th Precinct, whose ranks are filled with officers who also call Staten Island home.

Teams of officers, such as the one Officer Damico belonged to, are supposed to address such conditions. Commanders are grilled at weekly meetings on how well the conditions are being addressed.

That intense focus is borne of a policing strategy — variously known as quality of life or "broken windows" policing — that was popularized by William J. Bratton during his first tour as New York’s police commissioner in the mid-1990s. It remained in place when he returned in 2014, and it continues to be the lodestar of his crime-fighting approach, even as city leaders debate the merits of less punitive measures for minor offenses in this era of lower crime.

On Staten Island, Tompkinsville Park provides a microcosm for that approach. The park and surrounding streets, familiar to veteran Staten Island officers from past drug arrests, have seen improvements, including renovated apartment buildings on Victory Boulevard. But the area remains a magnet for crime and complaints.

The spot where officers approached Mr. Garner on July 17 had already that year been the site of at least 98 arrests, 100 criminal court summonses, 646 calls to 911 and nine complaints to 311.

Among the most consequential of those complaints appeared to come from Mr. Gjeshbitraj, 47. He said in a recent interview that he complained only after physically fighting with the men on the block who sold drugs. The cigarette sellers, he said, provided cover for more illicit activities.

(Though police officials understood the Eric of his complaint to be Mr. Garner, Mr. Gjeshbitraj said he was referring to someone else.)

The complaints eventually reached Police Headquarters, where leaders track spikes in 311 calls for problems such as noise or graffiti as harbingers of more serious crime. Staten Island commanders were briefed in March on the conditions around Tompkinsville Park, a triangle of land just south of the borough’s main courthouse. Mr. Gjeshbitraj was not the first to lament the disorder there. But after his March complaint, he saw swift changes, mostly in the form of arrests.

Despite the extra attention, he said the problem persisted.

Gjafer Gjeshbitraj, a landlord on Bay Street, had complained to the city about men loitering outside his apartment building, selling drugs and cigarettes. Credit Andrew Spear for The New York Times

In June, a unit of officers recorded video of the cigarette sales around the park. The Times viewed some of the footage.

The footage was viewed by police commanders. Word trickled back to the local precinct: There were complaints; this condition persists; officers need to address it.

"We chased him; we arrested him," one police official said of Mr. Garner, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the department’s internal investigation has yet to be disclosed publicly. "But once you’ve chased a guy, what’s a warning going to do?"

The Times tried to reach each of the officers listed as taking part in Mr. Garner’s arrest — some in person, others by phone or through their lawyers. None provided a comment or responded to requests to talk about the encounter. Department policy precludes officers from speaking publicly without authorization.

A Fatal Encounter

Most days Mr. Garner could be found around Bay Street. He played chess and checkers on stools near the curb, peeled off dollar bills for children when the ice cream truck came around and served as a kind of peacekeeper for the motley regulars who occasionally found themselves at odds, said friends and those who knew him from the neighborhood.

On July 17, Mr. Garner had just come from eating lunch with a 23-year-old friend, Ramsey Orta, when a scuffle broke out in front of them on Bay Street. One man accused another, known locally as Twin, of talking inappropriately with his daughter. The girl’s father punched Twin in the face; Mr. Garner shot up from the stoop. "You can’t keep doing this; there are kids out here," Mr. Garner said, as he held the men apart, according to Ms. Allen.

The men went on their way. Soon after, Officers Damico and Pantaleo arrived.

For Officer Pantaleo, 30, who joined the department in 2006, it was not a typical call. He usually worked in a plainclothes unit focused on violent street crime.

But that afternoon, Lt. Christopher Bannon, driving by, had spotted a group that included Mr. Garner on the sidewalk. He called the precinct to tell officers to "get out there," according to the former police official. Officer Pantaleo was ordered to go with Officer Damico, 26, an officer since 2010.

With Officer Pantaleo behind the wheel of an unmarked police car, the two officers, in shorts and T-shirts, circled twice, watching Mr. Garner. As they approached, many on the block recognized them as officers and believed they had come in response to the fight, witnesses said; that they moved to arrest Mr. Garner was a surprise.

As the two officers closed in on Mr. Garner, Mr. Orta began taking video that would total about 16 minutes and would be shown to the grand jury impaneled on Staten Island in September to hear evidence in the case against Officer Pantaleo.

"We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Officer Damico told Mr. Garner, according to a transcript of the videos prepared by the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau and reviewed by The Times.

The transcript documents nearly two minutes of back-and-forth between the officers and Mr. Garner preceding the chokehold — footage not included in the widely circulated clip of Mr. Orta’s video, first posted by The Daily News six hours after Mr. Garner died.

"For what, what did I do?" Mr. Garner said.

"For selling cigarettes," Officer Damico replied.

In the course of the encounter, officers tried to grab his arms at least twice, according to the transcript.

"Don’t touch me please, do not touch me," Mr. Garner told them.

Officer Pantaleo, anticipating an arrest, radioed for backup before swinging one arm over Mr. Garner’s shoulder and around his neck and another under his arm, an attempt to twist the larger man’s body to the ground. The pair rammed against the plate glass window of Bay Beauty Supply; by that time, at least four uniformed officers had arrived.

As Officer Pantaleo and other officers pressed Mr. Garner onto the sidewalk, a uniformed patrol sergeant, Kizzy Adonis, entered the tight frame of the video. It was not clear exactly when a second sergeant, Dhanan Saminath, arrived. In the report, both described arriving after Mr. Garner was on the ground.

The beauty store manager, Mr. Lee, said he heard the female sergeant say, "Let up, you got him already." An officer looked up but did not let go, Mr. Lee said.

Before the grand jury, Mr. Lee said he testified briefly about what he saw, but left feeling the jurors, who were able to ask questions, were uninterested. "They didn’t ask me nothing," he said.

Mr. Orta also told the grand jurors that a sergeant instructed officers to ease up. "Let him go, let him go, he’s done," Mr. Orta recalled her saying.

In the video, Officer Pantaleo, who moved from holding Mr. Garner’s neck to pressing his head to the pavement, Officer Damico and two uniformed patrol officers, Mark Ramos and Craig Furlani, helped handcuff Mr. Garner. As they did so, Mr. Garner repeated, "I can’t breathe."

Ms. Allen also testified about the medical response to a Staten Island grand jury. Credit Andrew Spear for The New York Times

Edward D. Mullins, the head of the sergeants’ union, said the officers and their supervisors did nothing wrong. Officers can take action without sergeants present and regularly do, he said. The lack of any reference to contact with Mr. Garner’s neck in the initial police report was not troubling, Mr. Mullins said, because the Internal Affairs Bureau would later prepare its own, more detailed report.

In addition, Mr. Mullins said, "no one" at the scene thought a chokehold was used.

He said the sergeants were still "being kept inside," or off the streets, pending results of the department’s investigation.

A lawyer for Officer Pantaleo, Stuart London, declined to comment and pointed to a summary he provided in December of the officer’s statements to the grand jury. Officer Pantaleo testified to trying a takedown move during the arrest and said he began holding Mr. Garner’s neck out of fear that they would both crash through a glass storefront.

"He thought that once E.M.T. arrived, everything would be O.K.," Mr. London said at the time.

Difficulty Breathing

Officers in the videos did not appear to respond to Mr. Garner’s pleas. Sergeant Saminath reported Mr. Garner had difficulty breathing and called an ambulance, but he said Mr. Garner "did not appear to be in great distress," the report said.

The department’s Patrol Guide, its manual of rules, calls for officers to immediately send a person with a life-threatening medical condition — "apparent heart attack, breathing difficulties" — to the nearest hospital.

At 3:32 p.m., officers radioed for an ambulance, said a city official, who requested anonymity to discuss details of the response that remained under investigation by state authorities. About a minute and a half later, another request was made. Both were categorized as "unknown," a low priority.

Sergeant Adonis told investigators that she "believed she heard the perpetrator state that he was having difficulty breathing," according to the department’s initial report. Sergeant Saminath said the ambulance he requested arrived about five minutes later.

Witnesses said the officers did not react in accordance with Mr. Garner’s medical distress. (After his death, current and former officers said those at the scene might have believed his pleas were part of a ruse to avoid arrest.)

But even after emergency medical workers arrived, the response appeared disorganized.

Their actions, from arriving at Mr. Garner’s motionless body to wheeling him away, were captured in an eight-minute video recorded by Ms. Allen, who lives in the area and was on the block shopping for sandals. The video of the medical response has not been as widely understood as those of the physical struggle recorded by Mr. Orta.

An ambulance crew arrived unaware of Mr. Garner’s condition, or that police officers were involved. A stretcher was not immediately brought to him. A bag with oxygen equipment that should have been near his body at all times was carried away.

Ms. Allen said in an interview that when medical workers arrived, they casually asked Mr. Garner to wake up, appearing to believe he was "faking it," she said, recounting her testimony before the grand jury.

At first, one emergency medical technician, Nicole Palmeri, leaned over Mr. Garner to feel for a pulse, first on his wrist and then his neck, according to Ms. Allen.

As Ms. Palmeri checked for a pulse, another E.M.T., Stephanie Greenberg, walked back to the ambulance to retrieve a stretcher. An E.M.T. trainee followed her, walking away from Mr. Garner with the oxygen equipment.

Five medical workers were there: the two medical technicians, the trainee and two paramedics who arrived later and are not seen on video. They were from Richmond University Medical Center. Supervisors from the Fire Department are routinely dispatched to serious medical calls, but the Garner call was not initially considered serious. No supervisorsassisted in his medical care on the scene.

Ms. Palmeri did not respond to phone messages or a letter left with a relative. Ms. Greenberg declined to comment.

Mr. Miranda, the union leader for city medical technicians, said he thought the care could have been more aggressive. "I didn’t see any real attempt initially to treat the patient."

A hospital spokesman declined to comment, citing patient confidentiality, but said the medical technicians are still being kept on non-patient duty, while the paramedics have returned to normal duty.

Ms. Allen said the medical response and Mr. Garner’s prior ailments seemed to preoccupy the prosecutors and grand jurors when she testified. Mr. Garner had acute asthma, hypertension and a history of diabetes. He was also obese; these conditions were all listed as contributing factors to his death.

Several times during her testimony, which is kept secret under grand jury rules, Ms. Allen said prosecutors urged her to watch her words. When she said Mr. Garner did not appear to have a pulse, a prosecutor stepped in. "Don’t say it like that," she recalled the prosecutor saying. "You’re only assuming he didn’t have a pulse."

A prosecutor also interjected when she told jurors how Mr. Garner was taken to the ground. "I said they put him in a chokehold," Ms. Allen recalled saying. " ‘Well, you can’t say they put him in a chokehold,’ " she said a prosecutor responded.

A spokesman for the Staten Island district attorney’s office declined to comment, citing restrictions on grand jury proceedings.

Roughly four minutes after medical workers arrived, Mr. Garner was lifted onto the stretcher, with the emergency medical staff assisted by police officers.

At 3:44 p.m. — 12 minutes after the first request for an ambulance — emergency medical workers upgraded the seriousness of the situation to the highest priority level, or Segment 1. They did so, the city official said, because Mr. Garner was in cardiac arrest.

Sergeant Saminath instructed Officer Damico to ride in the ambulance with Mr. Garner. Mr. Garner was declared dead at 4:34 p.m. at Richmond University Medical Center.

An autopsy was performed the next day. "On external examination of the neck, there are no visible injuries," according to the final report. On the inside, however, were telltale signs of choking: strap muscle hemorrhages in his neck and petechial hemorrhages in his eyes. No drugs or alcohol were in his system.

The results of the examination contrasted sharply with the Police Department’s initial account, titled "Death of Perpetrator in Police Custody, Within the Confines of the 120 Precinct." It contained no mention of any contact with Mr. Garner’s neck.

Struggling to Move On

Eleven months later, a lush patch of grass in a faded field in Union County, N.J., is all that marks Mr. Garner’s grave. His mother, Gwen Carr, said she was waiting for the ground to settle as she tried to gather money for a headstone. Frustration and anger remain over his death as many of its central players have struggled to move on.

Ramsey Orta, the man who recorded the deadly confrontation, is facing charges for gun and drug offenses that his family believes are retaliation by the police. Both arrests were made after Mr. Garner’s death.

The family of Mr. Garner is in talks with the city about a financial settlement. "If we haven’t made progress with resolving it by the anniversary of his death, we will go forward with a lawsuit," Jonathan Moore, their lawyer, said.

One of Mr. Garner’s granddaughters, Kaylee, now runs to the television when activists appear, chanting "Hands up, don’t shoot" and "No justice, no peace."

"It’s cute, but it’s a shame at 3 years old that she knows that," Mr. Garner’s wife, said. "She should be reciting the A B Cs."

Visits with hip-hop stars and protest organizers have not muted the pain of her husband’s death. "Empty, empty," Ms. Garner said, lifting a cup of coffee from beside an ashtray. "From day to day, I don’t even know what to do sometimes."

Reverberations from death after death of unarmed black men have not helped Mr. Garner’s family. "It’s like a vision that I’m seeing again, seeing my son dying again," Ms. Carr said.

New York City leaders, including Commissioner Bratton, are changing how minor criminal offenses are handled, exploring ways to make the outcomes less punitive and mulling a new form of warnings in lieu of arrest or summons.

Earlier this year, the Police Department created a new centralized unit, the Force Investigation Division, to investigate fatal police encounters.

In a written response to questions, Mr. Bratton said the creation of the unit "was not a direct result of the Garner incident but rather something that I recognized a need for on a more general basis." He said the notion of retraining predated Mr. Garner’s death, but added that "there is no question that the Garner incident added new dimensions and certainly new immediacy."

Though the Police Department has concluded its investigation into Mr. Garner’s death, the results — and any internal discipline that may come for officers — are delayed until a civil rights inquiry by the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York is completed. An investigation by the Civilian Complaint Review Board, an independent agency that investigates police misconduct, has been similarly delayed.

Stephen Davis, the Police Department’s top spokesman, declined to respond to a list of questions about Mr. Garner’s death and the police response because of "the ongoing federal and departmental reviews into this matter."

In the only inquiry completed so far, a Staten Island grand jury found Officer Pantaleo committed no crime when he used a chokehold — a technique banned by police rules.

Daniel M. Donovan Jr., who was the Staten Island district attorney, fought to keep secret the testimony and other evidence presented to the grand jury. In May, Mr. Donovan was elected to Congress.

Elected officials and civil liberties advocates have unsuccessfully tried to pry open the grand jury transcripts. Separately, lawyers from the civilian review board argued before a Staten Island judge on Friday for access to the transcripts.

"Efforts to obtain N.Y.P.D.’s investigative file of the incident from the N.Y.P.D. have been unsuccessful," the board’s lawyers wrote in legal filings.

On a recent afternoon, steps from where Mr. Garner was arrested in July, a dozen men congregated on the stoop of a Bay Street building owned by Mr. Gjeshbitraj, the landlord who named an "Eric" in his 311 complaint. A man sweating through a red tank-top turned his back to a companion, who put a cigarette in his palm. He raised it to his lips and walked away.

Mr. Gjeshbitraj said in a recent interview that he no longer called the city or the police to complain about the conditions around his building, as he had frequently in the months and years before Mr. Garner died.

"The last time I called the cops, someone got choked to death," he said. "Eric got killed because I called."

Nate Schweber and Benjamin Weiser contributed reporting, and Elisa Cho and Alain Delaquérière contributed research.

Wednesday, June 03, 2015

The Agency

From a nondescript office building in St. Petersburg, Russia, an army of well-paid "trolls" has tried to wreak havoc all around the Internet — and in real-life American communities.

By ADRIAN CHEN NY TIMES

Around 8:30 a.m. on Sept. 11 last year, Duval Arthur, director of the Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness for St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, got a call from a resident who had just received a disturbing text message. "Toxic fume hazard warning in this area until 1:30 PM," the message read. "Take Shelter. Check Local Media and columbiachemical.com."

St. Mary Parish is home to many processing plants for chemicals and natural gas, and keeping track of dangerous accidents at those plants is Arthur’s job. But he hadn’t heard of any chemical release that morning. In fact, he hadn’t even heard of Columbia Chemical. St. Mary Parish had a Columbian Chemicals plant, which made carbon black, a petroleum product used in rubber and plastics. But he’d heard nothing from them that morning, either. Soon, two other residents called and reported the same text message. Arthur was worried: Had one of his employees sent out an alert without telling him?

If Arthur had checked Twitter, he might have become much more worried. Hundreds of Twitter accounts were documenting a disaster right down the road. "A powerful explosion heard from miles away happened at a chemical plant in Centerville, Louisiana #ColumbianChemicals," a man named Jon Merritt tweeted. The #ColumbianChemicals hashtag was full of eyewitness accounts of the horror in Centerville. @AnnRussela shared an image of flames engulfing the plant. @Ksarah12 posted a video of surveillance footage from a local gas station, capturing the flash of the explosion. Others shared a video in which thick black smoke rose in the distance.

Dozens of journalists, media outlets and politicians, from Louisiana to New York City, found their Twitter accounts inundated with messages about the disaster. "Heather, I’m sure that the explosion at the #ColumbianChemicals is really dangerous. Louisiana is really screwed now," a user named @EricTraPPP tweeted at the New Orleans Times-Picayune reporter Heather Nolan. Another posted a screenshot of CNN’s home page, showing that the story had already made national news. ISIS had claimed credit for the attack, according to one YouTube video; in it, a man showed his TV screen, tuned to an Arabic news channel, on which masked ISIS fighters delivered a speech next to looping footage of an explosion. A woman named Anna McClaren (@zpokodon9) tweeted at Karl Rove: "Karl, Is this really ISIS who is responsible for #ColumbianChemicals? Tell @Obama that we should bomb Iraq!" But anyone who took the trouble to check CNN.com would have found no news of a spectacular Sept. 11 attack by ISIS. It was all fake: the screenshot, the videos, the photographs.

In St. Mary Parish, Duval Arthur quickly made a few calls and found that none of his employees had sent the alert. He called Columbian Chemicals, which reported no problems at the plant. Roughly two hours after the first text message was sent, the company put out a news release, explaining that reports of an explosion were false. When I called Arthur a few months later, he dismissed the incident as a tasteless prank, timed to the anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Personally I think it’s just a real sad, sick sense of humor," he told me. "It was just someone who just liked scaring the daylights out of people." Authorities, he said, had tried to trace the numbers that the text messages had come from, but with no luck. (The F.B.I. told me the investigation was still open.)

The Columbian Chemicals hoax was not some simple prank by a bored sadist. It was a highly coordinated disinformation campaign, involving dozens of fake accounts that posted hundreds of tweets for hours, targeting a list of figures precisely chosen to generate maximum attention. The perpetrators didn’t just doctor screenshots from CNN; they also created fully functional clones of the websites of Louisiana TV stations and newspapers. The YouTube video of the man watching TV had been tailor-made for the project. A Wikipedia page was even created for the Columbian Chemicals disaster, which cited the fake YouTube video. As the virtual assault unfolded, it was complemented by text messages to actual residents in St. Mary Parish. It must have taken a team of programmers and content producers to pull off.

And the hoax was just one in a wave of similar attacks during the second half of last year. On Dec. 13, two months after a handful of Ebola cases in the United States touched off a minor media panic, many of the same Twitter accounts used to spread the Columbian Chemicals hoax began to post about an outbreak of Ebola in Atlanta. The campaign followed the same pattern of fake news reports and videos, this time under the hashtag #EbolaInAtlanta, which briefly trended in Atlanta. Again, the attention to detail was remarkable, suggesting a tremendous amount of effort. A YouTube video showed a team of hazmat-suited medical workers transporting a victim from the airport. Beyoncé’s recent single "7/11" played in the background, an apparent attempt to establish the video’s contemporaneity. A truck in the parking lot sported the logo of the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

On the same day as the Ebola hoax, a totally different group of accounts began spreading a rumor that an unarmed black woman had been shot to death by police. They all used the hashtag #shockingmurderinatlanta. Here again, the hoax seemed designed to piggyback on real public anxiety; that summer and fall were marked by protests over the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. In this case, a blurry video purports to show the shooting, as an onlooker narrates. Watching it, I thought I recognized the voice — it sounded the same as the man watching TV in the Columbian Chemicals video, the one in which ISIS supposedly claims responsibility. The accent was unmistakable, if unplaceable, and in both videos he was making a very strained attempt to sound American. Somehow the result was vaguely Australian.

Who was behind all of this? When I stumbled on it last fall, I had an idea. I was already investigating a shadowy organization in St. Petersburg, Russia, that spreads false information on the Internet. It has gone by a few names, but I will refer to it by its best known: the Internet Research Agency. The agency had become known for employing hundreds of Russians to post pro-Kremlin propaganda online under fake identities, including on Twitter, in order to create the illusion of a massive army of supporters; it has often been called a "troll farm." The more I investigated this group, the more links I discovered between it and the hoaxes. In April, I went to St. Petersburg to learn more about the agency and its brand of information warfare, which it has aggressively deployed against political opponents at home, Russia’s perceived enemies abroad and, more recently, me.

Seven months after the Columbian Chemicals hoax, I was in a dim restaurant in St. Petersburg, peering out the window at an office building at 55 Savushkina Street, the last known home of the Internet Research Agency. It sits in St. Petersburg’s northwestern Primorsky District, a quiet neighborhood of ugly Soviet apartment buildings and equally ugly new office complexes. Among the latter is 55 Savushkina; from the front, its perfect gray symmetry, framed by the rectangular pillars that flank its entrance, suggests the grim impenetrability of a medieval fortress. Behind the glass doors, a pair of metal turnstiles stand guard at the top of a short flight of stairs in the lobby. At 9 o’clock on this Friday night in April, except for the stairwell and the lobby, the building was entirely dark.

This puzzled my dining companion, a former agency employee named Ludmila Savchuk. She shook her head as she lifted the heavy floral curtain to take another look. It was a traditional Russian restaurant, with a dining room done up like a parlor from the early 1900s, complete with bentwood chairs and a vintage globe that showed Alaska as part of Russia. Savchuk’s 5-year-old son sat next to her, slurping down a bowl of ukha, a traditional fish soup. For two and a half months, Savchuk told me, she had worked 12-hour shifts in the building, always beginning at 9 a.m. and finishing at 9 p.m., at which point she and her co-workers would eagerly stream out the door at once. "At 9 p.m. sharp, there should be a crowd of people walking outside the building," she said. "Nine p.m. sharp." One Russian newspaper put the number of employees at 400, with a budget of at least 20 million rubles (roughly $400,000) a month. During her time in the organization, there were many departments, creating content for every popular social network: LiveJournal, which remains popular in Russia; VKontakte, Russia’s homegrown version of Facebook; Facebook; Twitter; Instagram; and the comment sections of Russian news outlets. One employee estimated the operation filled 40 rooms.

Every day at the Internet Research Agency was essentially the same, Savchuk told me. The first thing employees did upon arriving at their desks was to switch on an Internet proxy service, which hid their I.P. addresses from the places they posted; those digital addresses can sometimes be used to reveal the real identity of the poster. Savchuk would be given a list of the opinions she was responsible for promulgating that day. Workers received a constant stream of "technical tasks" — point-by-point exegeses of the themes they were to address, all pegged to the latest news. Ukraine was always a major topic, because of the civil war there between Russian-backed separatists and the Ukrainian Army; Savchuk and her co-workers would post comments that disparaged the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, and highlighted Ukrainian Army atrocities. Russian domestic affairs were also a major topic. Last year, after a financial crisis hit Russia and the ruble collapsed, the professional trolls left optimistic posts about the pace of recovery. Savchuk also says that in March, after the opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was murdered, she and her entire team were moved to the department that left comments on the websites of Russian news outlets and ordered to suggest that the opposition itself had set up the murder.

Savchuk told me she shared an office with about a half-dozen teammates. It was smaller than most, because she worked in the elite Special Projects department. While other workers churned out blandly pro-Kremlin comments, her department created appealing online characters who were supposed to stand out from the horde. Savchuk posed as three of these creations, running a blog for each one on LiveJournal. One alter ego was a fortuneteller named Cantadora. The spirit world offered Cantadora insight into relationships, weight loss, feng shui — and, occasionally, geopolitics. Energies she discerned in the universe invariably showed that its arc bent toward Russia. She foretold glory for Vladimir Putin, defeat for Barack Obama and Petro Poroshenko. The point was to weave propaganda seamlessly into what appeared to be the nonpolitical musings of an everyday person.

In fact, she was a troll. The word "troll" was popularized in the early 1990s to denounce the people who derailed conversation on Usenet discussion lists with interminable flame wars, or spammed chat rooms with streams of disgusting photos, choking users with a cloud of filth. As the Internet has grown, the problem posed by trolls has grown more salient even as their tactics have remained remarkably constant. Today an ISIS supporter might adopt a pseudonym to harass a critical journalist on Twitter, or a right-wing agitator in the United States might smear demonstrations against police brutality by posing as a thieving, violent protester. Any major conflict is accompanied by a raging online battle between trolls on both sides.

As Savchuk and other former employees describe it, the Internet Research Agency had industrialized the art of trolling. Management was obsessed with statistics — page views, number of posts, a blog’s place on LiveJournal’s traffic charts — and team leaders compelled hard work through a system of bonuses and fines. "It was a very strong corporate feeling," Savchuk says. Her schedule gave her two 12-hour days in a row, followed by two days off. Over those two shifts she had to meet a quota of five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and 150 to 200 comments on other workers’ posts. The grueling schedule wore her down. She began to feel queasy, she said, posting vitriol about opposition leaders of whom she had no actual opinion, or writing nasty words about Ukrainians when some of her closest acquaintances, including her own ex-husband, were Ukrainian.

Employees were mostly in their 20s but were drawn from a broad cross-section of Russian society. It seemed as if the agency’s task was so large that it would hire almost anyone who responded to the many ads it posted on job boards, no matter how undereducated or politically ignorant they were. Posts teemed with logical and grammatical errors. "They were so stupid," says Marat Burkhardt, who worked for two months in the department of forums, posting 135 comments a day on little-read message boards about remote Russian towns. "You see these people with a lot of tattoos. They’re so cool, like they’re from New York; very hip clothing, very hip tattoos, like they’re from Williamsburg. But they are stupid." In office conversation, they used gay slurs to refer to Petro Poroshenko and called Barack Obama a monkey. Management tried to rectify their ignorance with grammar classes. Others had "politology" classes to outline the proper Russian point of view on current events.

Yet the exact point of their work was left unclear to them. The handful of employees I spoke with did not even know the name of the company’s chief executive. They had signed a nondisclosure agreement but no official contract. Salaries were surprisingly high for the work; Savchuk’s was 41,000 rubles a month ($777), or as much as a tenured university professor earns. "I can’t say they clearly explain to you what your purpose there is," Savchuk says. "But they created such an atmosphere that people would understand they were doing something important and secretive and very highly paid. And that they won’t be able to find a job like this anywhere else."

Savchuk is 34, but her taste in clothes runs toward the teenage: The night of our dinner she wore a plaid dress and a billowing neon yellow jacket, and her head was swaddled in a fuzzy hood with animal ears. She credits her innocent appearance for allowing her to infiltrate the Internet Research Agency without raising alarms. While employed there, she copied dozens of documents to her personal email account and also plied her co-workers for information. She made a clandestine video of the office. In February, she leaked it all to a reporter for Moi Raion, a local newspaper known for its independent reporting. The documents, together with her story, offered the most detailed look yet into the daily life of a pro-Kremlin troll. Though she quit the agency the day the exposé was published, she was continuing her surveillance from the outside. She brought a camera to our dinner in hopes of documenting the changing of the shifts, which she planned to post to the VKontakte page of Information Peace, the group she founded to fight the agency. Her ultimate goal is to shut it down entirely, believing that its information warfare is contributing to an increasingly dark atmosphere in Russia. "Information peace is the start of real peace," she says.

But at 10 minutes after 9 p.m., still no crowd had entered or left 55 Savushkina. Finally, around 9:30, a group of five young people approached the building and walked inside. Savchuk perked up, grabbed the camera and began to film the scene. Now more started filtering in, each of them stopping at the guard desk to check in. I counted at least 30 in all. Savchuk told me with pride that she believed the agency had changed its schedule to confound journalists, who began to stake out the place after her exposé.

Savchuk is accustomed to antagonizing powerful people. She has been a longtime environmental activist in the town of Pushkin, the suburb of St. Petersburg where she lives; her main cause before the troll farm was saving forests and parks from being paved over by well-connected developers. Last year she even ran for a seat on her municipal council as an independent, which in Russia requires a level of optimism bordering on delusion. On Election Day, she told me, state employees — health care workers, teachers, law enforcement, etc. — came to the polls wielding lists of candidates they had been "encouraged" to vote for, all of them associated with United Russia, the governing party of Vladimir Putin. (She lost her race.) Savchuk has filed a lawsuit against the Internet Research Agency for violating labor rights laws, citing the lack of official contracts. She has enlisted the help of a well-known human rights lawyer named Ivan Pavlov, who has spent years fighting for transparency laws in Russia; he took on Savchuk’s case in hopes that it would force the agency to answer questions about its business on the record.

Several Russian media outlets have claimed that the agency is funded by Evgeny Prigozhin, an oligarch restaurateur called "the Kremlin’s chef" in the independent press for his lucrative government contracts and his close relationship with Putin. When a reporter from the opposition paper Novaya Gazeta infiltrated the agency posing as a job seeker, she discovered that one of the team leaders was an employee of Prigozhin’s Concord holding company. (The reporter was familiar with her because the woman was famous among journalists for having been deployed by Prigozhin to spy on Novaya Gazeta.) The suspicion around Prigozhin was bolstered when emails leaked by hackers showed an accountant at Concord approving payments to the agency. If the speculation is accurate, it would not be the first time that Prigozhin has used his enormous wealth to fund quixotic schemes against his enemies: According to Novaya Gazeta, a documentary he backed, which later ran on the Kremlin-controlled NTV, claimed that the protesters who participated in the enormous anti-Putin demonstrations of 2011 were paid agents provocateurs, some of them bribed by United States government officials, who fed them cookies. "I think of him as Dr. Evil," says Andrei Soshnikov, the reporter at Moi Raion to whom Savchuk leaked her documents. (My calls to Concord went unreturned.)

Savchuk’s revelations about the agency have fascinated Russia not because they are shocking but because they confirm what everyone has long suspected: The Russian Internet is awash in trolls. "This troll business becomes more popular year by year," says Platon Mamatov, who says that he ran his own troll farm in the Ural Mountains from 2008 to 2013. During that time he employed from 20 to 40 people, mostly students and young mothers, to carry out online tasks for Kremlin contacts and local and regional authorities from Putin’s United Russia party. Mamatov says there are scores of operations like his around the country, working for government authorities at every level. Because the industry is secretive, with its funds funneled through a maze of innocuous-sounding contracts and shell businesses, it is difficult to estimate exactly how many people are at work trolling today. But Mamatov claims "there are thousands — I’m not sure about how many, but yes, really, thousands."

The boom in pro-Kremlin trolling can be traced to the antigovernment protests of 2011, when tens of thousands of people took to the streets after evidence of fraud in the recent Parliamentary election emerged. The protests were organized largely over Facebook and Twitter and spearheaded by leaders, like the anticorruption crusader Alexei Navalny, who used LiveJournal blogs to mobilize support. The following year, when Vyascheslav Volodin, the new deputy head of Putin’s administration and architect of his domestic policy, came into office, one of his main tasks was to rein in the Internet. Volodin, a lawyer who studied engineering in college, approached the problem as if it were a design flaw in a heating system. Forbes Russia reported that Volodin installed in his office a custom-designed computer terminal loaded with a system called Prism, which monitored public sentiment online using 60 million sources. According to the website of its manufacturer, Prism "actively tracks the social media activities that result in increased social tension, disorderly conduct, protest sentiments and extremism." Or, as Forbes put it, "Prism sees social media as a battlefield."

The battle was conducted on multiple fronts. Laws were passed requiring bloggers to register with the state. A blacklist allowed the government to censor websites without a court order. Internet platforms like VKontakte and Yandex were brought under the control of Kremlin allies. Putin gave ideological cover to the crackdown by calling the entire Internet a "C.I.A. project," one that Russia needed to be protected from. Restrictions online were paired with a new wave of digital propaganda. The government consulted with the same public relations firms that worked with major corporate brands on social-media strategy. It began paying fashion and fitness bloggers to place pro-Kremlin material among innocuous posts about shoes and diets, according to Yelizaveta Surnacheva, a journalist with the magazine Kommersant Vlast. Surnacheva told me over Skype that the government was even trying to place propaganda with popular gay bloggers — a surprising choice given the notorious new law against "gay propaganda," which fines anyone who promotes homosexuality to minors.

All of this has contributed to a dawning sense, among the Russian journalists and activists I spoke with, that the Internet is no longer a natural medium for political opposition. "The myth that the Internet is controlled by the opposition is very, very old," says Leonid Volkov, a liberal politician and campaign manager to Alexei Navalny. "It’s not true since at least three years." Part of this is simple demographics: The Internet audience has expanded from its early adopters, who were more likely to be well-educated liberal intelligentsia, to the whole of Russia, which overwhelmingly supports Putin. Also, by working every day to spread Kremlin propaganda, the paid trolls have made it impossible for the normal Internet user to separate truth from fiction.

"The point is to spoil it, to create the atmosphere of hate, to make it so stinky that normal people won’t want to touch it," Volkov said, when we met in the office of Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation. "You have to remember the Internet population of Russia is just over 50 percent. The rest are yet to join, and when they join it’s very important what is their first impression." The Internet still remains the one medium where the opposition can reliably get its message out. But their message is now surrounded by so much garbage from trolls that readers can become resistant before the message even gets to them. During the protests, a favorite tactic of the opposition was making anti-Putin hashtags trend on Twitter. Today, waves of trolls and bots regularly promote pro-Putin hashtags. What once was an exhilarating act of popular defiance now feels empty. "It kind of discredited the idea of political hashtags," says Ilya Klishin, the web editor for the independent television station TV Rain who, in 2011, created the Facebook page for the antigovernment protests.

Russia’s information war might be thought of as the biggest trolling operation in history, and its target is nothing less than the utility of the Internet as a democratic space. In the midst of such a war, the Runet (as the Russian Internet is often called) can be an unpleasant place for anyone caught in the crossfire. Soon after I met Leonid Volkov, he wrote a post on his Facebook wall about our interview, saying that he had spoken with someone from The New York Times. A former pro-Kremlin blogger later warned me about this. Kremlin allies, he explained, monitored Volkov’s page, and now they would be on guard. "That was not smart," he said.

The chain that links the Columbian Chemicals hoax to the Internet Research Agency begins with an act of digital subterfuge perpetrated by its online enemies. Last summer, a group called Anonymous International — believed to be unaffiliated with the well-known hacktivist group Anonymous — published a cache of hundreds of emails said to have been stolen from employees at the agency. It was just one hack in a long series that Anonymous International had carried out against the Kremlin in recent months. The group leaked embarrassing photos of Putin allies and incriminating emails among officials. It claimed to have hacked into Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s phone, and reportedly hacked his Twitter account, tweeting: "I’m resigning. I am ashamed of this government’s actions. Forgive me."

The emails indicated that the Internet Research Agency had begun to troll in English. One document outlined a project called "World Translation"; the problem, it explained, was that the foreign Internet was biased four to one against Russia, and the project aimed to change the ratio. Another email contained a spreadsheet that listed some of the troll accounts the agency was using on the English-language web. After BuzzFeed reported on the leak, I used the spreadsheet to start mapping the network of accounts on Facebook and Twitter, trying to draw connections.

One account was called "I Am Ass." Ass had a Twitter account, an Instagram account, multiple Facebook accounts and his own website. In his avatars, Ass was depicted as a pair of cartoon buttocks with an ugly, smirking face. He filled his social-media presences with links to news articles, along with his own commentary. Ass had a puerile sense of humor and only a rudimentary grasp of the English language. He also really hated Barack Obama. Ass denounced Obama in posts strewn with all-caps rants and scatological puns. One characteristic post linked to a news article about an ISIS massacre in Iraq, which Ass shared on Facebook with the comment: "I’m scared and farting! ISIS is a monster awakened by Obama when he unleashed this disastrous Iraq war!"

Despite his unpleasant disposition, Ass had a half-dozen or so fans who regularly liked and commented on his posts. These fans shared some unusual characteristics. Their Facebook accounts had all been created in the summer of 2014. They all appeared to be well-dressed young men and women who lived in large American cities, yet they seemed to have no real-life friends. Instead, they spent their free time leaving anti-Obama comments on the Facebook posts of American media outlets like CNN, Politico and Fox News. Their main Facebook interactions, especially those of the women, appeared to be with strangers who commented on their physical appearance. The women were all very attractive — so attractive, indeed, that a search revealed that some of their profile photos had been stolen from models and actors. It became clear that the vast majority of Ass’s fans were not real people. They were also trolls.

I friended as many of the trolls on Facebook as I could and began to observe their ways. Most of the content they shared was drawn from a network of other pages that, like Ass’s, were clearly meant to produce entertaining and shareable social-media content. There was the patriotic Spread Your Wings, which described itself as "a community for everyone whose heart is with America." Spread Your Wings posted photos of American flags and memes about how great it was to be an American, but the patriotism rang hollow once you tried to parse the frequent criticisms of Obama, an incoherent mishmash of liberal and conservative attacks that no actual American would espouse. There was also Art Gone Conscious, which posted bad art and then tenuously connected it to Obama’s policy failures, and the self-explanatory Celebrities Against Obama. The posts churned out every day by this network of pages were commented on and shared by the same group of trolls, a virtual Potemkin village of disaffected Americans.

After following the accounts for a few weeks, I saw a strange notification on Facebook. One account, which claimed to be a woman from Seattle named Polly Turner, RSVPed to a real-life event. It was a talk in New York City to commemorate the opening of an art exhibit called Material Evidence. I was vaguely aware of Material Evidence, thanks to eye-catching advertisements that had appeared in subway stations and on the sides of buses throughout New York City: a black-and-white photo of masked men in camouflage, overlaid with the slogan "Syria, Ukraine … Who’s Next?" Material Evidence’s website described it as a traveling exhibition that would reveal "the full truth" about the civil war in Syria, as well as about 2014’s Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine, through a combination of "unique footage, artefacts, video." I clicked on the Material Evidence talk and saw that a number of other trolls had been invited, including my old friend I Am Ass.

Walking into Material Evidence, mounted last September in the cavernous ArtBeam gallery in Chelsea, was like walking into a real-life version of the hall of mirrors I’d stumbled into on Facebook. A sign at the front declared that the show did not "support a specific political goal," but the message became clear as soon as I began to browse the images. Large, well-composed photos testified to the barbarity of the Syrian rebels, bent on slaughtering handsome Syrian soldiers and innocent civilians alike. A grim panorama showed a gymnasium supposedly used by rebels to torture prisoners. There was a heroic, sunlit portrait of a Syrian Army officer. A room hidden behind a curtain displayed gory photos of rebel-caused civilian causalities, "provided by the Syrian ministry of defense."

Then there were the pictures from the Ukrainian revolution, which focused almost exclusively on the Right Sector, a small group of violent, right-wing, anti-Russian protesters with a fondness for black balaclavas. Russian authorities have seized upon Right Sector to paint the entire revolution, backed by a huge swath of Ukrainian society, as orchestrated by neo-fascist thugs. The show’s decision to juxtapose the rebellions in Syria and Ukraine was never clearly explained, perhaps because the only connection possible was that both targeted leaders supported by Russia.

On the floor in front of many of the photos sat the actual items that appeared in them, displayed under glass cases. How, exactly, did organizers procure the very same battered motorcycle helmet that a Ukrainian protester wore in a photo while brawling with riot police? Who had fronted the money to purchase a mangled white van, supposedly used by Syrian rebels in a botched suicide bombing, and transport it to New York City? Few answers were forthcoming from Benjamin Hiller, the Berlin-based German-American photojournalist who was put forth as the curator of Material Evidence. He sat at a table in the front of the gallery, a heavyset bearded man dressed entirely in black. He told me that the show had been organized by an independent collective of European, Russian and Syrian war photographers who were fed up with the one-sided view of conflicts presented by Western media. He said they simply wanted to show the "other side." Hiller claimed that the funds to rent the space, take out the ads, transport the material and create a $40,000 grant advertised on the Material Evidence website had been raised through "crowdfunding." (Hiller has since left the organization and says that because of the show’s "misinformations" and "nonjournalistic approach," he "does not want to be affiliated anymore with the project.")

When I got home, I searched Twitter for signs of a campaign. Sure enough, dozens of accounts had been spamming rave reviews under the hashtag #MaterialEvidence. I clicked on one, a young woman in aviator sunglasses calling herself Zoe Foreman. (I later discovered her avatar had been stolen.) Most of her tweets were unremarkable song lyrics and inspirational quotes. But on Sept. 11 of last year, she spent hours spamming politicians and journalists about a horrific chemical plant explosion in St. Mary Parish, La. The source field on Twitter showed that the tweets Zoe Foreman — and the majority of other trolls — sent about #ColumbianChemicals were posted using a tool called Masss Post, which is associated with a nonworking page on the domain Add1.ru. According to online records, Add1​.ru was originally registered in January 2009 by Mikhail Burchik, whose email address remained connected to the domain until 2012. Documents leaked by Anonymous International listed a Mikhail Burchik as the executive director of the Internet Research Agency.

In early February, I called Burchik, a young tech entrepreneur in St. Petersburg, to ask him about the hoax and its connection to the Internet Research Agency. In an article for the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, the German journalist Julian Hans had claimed that Burchik confirmed the authenticity of the leaked documents. But when I called Burchik, he denied working at the Internet Research Agency. "I have heard of it, but I don’t work in this organization," he said. Burchik said he had never heard of the Masss Post app; he had no specific memory of the Add1.ru domain, he said, but he noted that he had bought and sold many domains and didn’t remember them all. Burchik suggested that perhaps a different Mikhail Burchik was the agency’s executive director. But the email address used by the Mikhail Burchik in the leak matched the address listed at that time on the website of the Mikhail Burchik I spoke with.

In St. Petersburg, I finally had a chance to compare notes with Andrei Soshnikov, the young investigative journalist at Moi Raion to whom Ludmila Savchuk leaked her documents. Soshnikov is an indefatigable reporter: During one investigation, he had gone so far as to create a 3-D computer model of a roadway in order to calculate how much asphalt had been stolen during its construction. He was one of the first journalists to expose the Internet Research Agency when he went undercover and got a job there in 2013. Since then, he had followed the agency’s Russian trolls as obsessively as I had been tracking their English counterparts.

I showed Soshnikov a YouTube video posted on Facebook by one of the trolls. The video was a slick animated infographic about the faults of the United States Secret Service. What had caught my attention was the narrator. He sounded just like the voice from the videos spread during the Columbian Chemicals and Atlanta shooting hoaxes: a man trying desperately to sound American but coming off as Australian instead.

Soshnikov instantly recognized the style of the animation. It was made, he said, by an outfit called Infosurfing, which posts pro-Kremlin infographics on Instagram and VKontakte. Soshnikov showed me how he used a service called Yomapic, which maps the locations of social-media users, to determine that photos posted to Infosurfing’s Instagram account came from 55 Savushkina. He had been monitoring all of the content posted from 55 Savushkina for weeks and had assembled a huge database of troll content.

He brought up Infosurfing’s YouTube channel, and as we scrolled down, I noticed several videos in the same style as the Secret Service animation. In fact, Infosurfing had posted the exact same video on its own account — except instead of the unfortunate Australian voice-over, it was narrated in Russian. It was the most tantalizing connection yet: It seemed as if the man in the hoax videos had worked for an outfit connected to the same building that housed the Internet Research Agency.

Still, no one had heard of any department that might have orchestrated the hoax. The English-language trolling team was an elite and secretive group. Marat Burkhardt, who worked in the forums department, was asked to try out for an English-language team but didn’t get the job. The only person I spoke with who worked in the English department was a woman named Katarina Aistova. A former hotel receptionist, she told me she joined the Internet Research Agency when it was in a previous, smaller office. I found her through the Anonymous International leak, which included emails she had sent to her bosses, reporting on the pro-Putin comments she left on sites like The Blaze and Politico. One of her assignments had been to write an essay from the point of view of an average American woman. "I live in such developed society, so that people have practically ceased to walk on foot," she wrote. When I emailed Aistova, she wasn’t eager to talk. She told me she had been harassed by critics of the Internet Research Agency after her email appeared in the leak; some men had even come to her door. She would meet me for an interview, but only if she could bring her brother for protection. I agreed, and we met at an out-of-the-way Chinese restaurant.

Aistova and her brother made an unusual pair. She was a short young woman with midlength brown hair, dressed all in black: sweater, leggings, big wedge boots. She insisted on paying for my coffee. "You are a Russian guest," she said. He, by contrast, was a hulking skinhead with arms full of Nazi-themed tattoos, most prominent among them a five-inch swastika on his left biceps. "My brother, he looks like a strongman," Aistova said, giggling. He wore a black T-shirt emblazoned with the skull-and-crossbones insignia of the SS Totenkopf division, which administered the Nazi concentration camps. I asked him what his T-shirt meant. "Totenkopf," he grunted. During the interview he sat across the table from Aistova and me, smiling silently behind his sunglasses.

Aistova said that she worked for the Internet Research Agency for a month and a half. The majority of her work was translating news articles from English to Russian. The news articles covered everything from Ukraine to traffic accidents. On a few occasions, her bosses asked her to leave comments on American news sites about Russia, but she said that they never told her what to say. She loves Russia, she told me. She truly believes that Putin is just trying to help the people of Eastern Ukraine, and that his actions are being unfairly spun by the Western media. "I was like, Hey, you guys, you are saying these bad things about Putin, but people are suffering."

But she claimed to harbor no ill will toward the United States. She wants to visit New York City, she said, and see the locations from "Breakfast at Tiffany’s," one of her favorite films. "I don’t feel aggressive toward America. We’re the same people, we just speak different languages," she said. After the interview, we shook hands outside the restaurant. "You seem like a journalist who will tell the truth," she said. "I wish you luck on your story."

On my last morning in St. Petersburg, I returned to 55 Savushkina. The clouds had lifted after a miserable week of snow and howling wind. At a few minutes before 10, my translator and I positioned ourselves on the sidewalk in front of the entrance, hoping to catch some of the trolls as they began the day shift. This was not a very well thought out strategy. Any employees arriving so close to the start of their shift didn’t have time to talk to a journalist even if they wanted to. A large van lurched to a halt in front of us and deposited a half-dozen young people, who hurried in the door before we had the chance to approach them. A bus stopped halfway down the block, and another gaggle of workers emerged. They waved off my translator’s inquiries with annoyed grunts or stone-faced silence. A young man smoking a cigarette said he didn’t work inside the building. He finished his cigarette and promptly went inside the building.

At 10 a.m. sharp, the flow of workers stopped. I decided we might as well try walking inside. I had read of other journalists who tried to enter the building, only to be kicked out immediately, so I entered with some trepidation. Two men in suits guarded the turnstiles. My translator and I approached a receptionist behind a desk and asked if we could speak with someone from Internet Research. (It dropped the "Agency" on moving to 55 Savushkina.) She informed us that Internet Research was no longer a tenant. "A couple of months ago, we had to say goodbye, because it was giving the entire building a bad reputation," she said, matter-of-factly.

She pointed to a board that displayed a makeshift directory of the building’s current occupants. The names were printed out on small scraps of paper, and none of them were Internet Research. But I did recognize one: "FAN," or Federal News Agency. I had read some news articles claiming that FAN was part of a network of pro-Kremlin news sites run out of 55 Savushkina, also funded by Evgeny Prigozhin. Former Internet Research Agency employees I had spoken to said they believed FAN was another wing of the same operation, under a different name. I asked to speak to someone from FAN. To my surprise, the receptionist picked up the phone, spoke into it for a few seconds and then informed us that Evgeny Zubarev, the editor in chief of FAN, would be right out to meet us.

Zubarev, who looked to be in his 50s, had close-cropped salt-and-pepper hair and a weary face. He greeted me with a handshake and invited me into his office. We made our way through the turnstiles and signed in with the guards, then took a brief walk down a long hallway to FAN’s two-room office on the first floor. It was unusually quiet for an online news operation that, according to Zubarev, had a staff of 40 people. The newsroom was equipped for a sizable team, with about a dozen identical black desktop computers sitting on identical brown laminate desks, but only two young reporters sat at them. The shades were drawn and the furniture looked just barely unpacked.

As we sat at Zubarev’s desk, I told him about the articles I’d read accusing FAN of being a Kremlin propaganda outfit. He shook his head in indignation. He turned to his computer and brought up FAN’s website, pointing to the masthead and the certificate number that showed FAN was an officially registered Russian mass-media organization. "FAN is a news agency," he declared. It had stringers and reporters in Ukraine, and in many former Soviet states; they did original reporting, sometimes at great personal risk. Zubarev himself was a veteran journalist who covered the annexation of Crimea for the Russian news agency Rosbalt before joining FAN. But ever since reports linked him to the Internet Research Agency, he had faced questions about his integrity.

"We understand being in this building may discredit us, but we can’t afford to move at the moment," Zubarev said with a sigh. "So we have to face the situation where reporters like you, Mr. Chen, come in here and ask us questions every day."

Zubarev said he believed that he and FAN were victims of a smear campaign. I asked him who would do such a thing.

"Listen, that’s my position, not a confirmed fact," he said. "It’s possible that there are some business interests, I don’t know. Maybe it’s an attack on our investors." But when I asked who those investors were, he declined to comment. "I can’t discuss the identities of investors," he said. "That’s in my contract."

I left St. Petersburg on April 28. One day later, FAN published an article with the headline "What Does a New York Times Journalist Have in Common With a Nazi From St. Petersburg?" The story detailed a mysterious meeting in St. Petersburg between a New York Times journalist — me — and a neo-Nazi. Its lead image was a photo of a skinhead giving an enthusiastic Nazi salute. But it was not just any skinhead. It was the skinhead whom Katarina Aistova brought to our meeting and introduced to me as her brother. As I learned from reading the article, Aistova’s "brother" was in fact a notorious neo-Nazi named Alexei Maximov.

The article explained that Maximov, who goes by the nickname Fly, is a member of Totenkopf, a prominent skinhead group in St. Petersburg. He reportedly served nine years in prison for stabbing a man to death. Just a month before I met him, Maximov again made headlines when, during an investigation into beatings of immigrants around St. Petersburg, the police found weaponry and Nazi paraphernalia in his apartment.

The story made no mention of Katarina Aistova or the Internet Research Agency. Instead, the article claimed I met with Maximov because I wanted his help in creating a provocation against Russia. Maximov told FAN that I requested to meet him because I was "very keenly interested in sentiment among Russian nationalists." He continued: "He evidently needed stories about how the murderous Kremlin regime persecutes free Russian people. It’s not the first time I’ve come across such requests on the part of Western journalists, but I’m not going to help them with this. Many want to see in Russian nationalists a ‘fifth column,’ which will function on orders from the West and sweep away the Kremlin." Apparently I was trying to foment a mini-Euromaidan, right there in St. Petersburg.

The article was illustrated with photos of my meeting with Aistova and Maximov. One photo appears to have been shot surreptitiously through the restaurant window while we sat and talked. The point of view is such that Aistova is barely visible; indeed, at first glance, I seem to be having a friendly chat with a skinhead over a cup of coffee. Another photo, this one taken outside the restaurant, somehow makes me look deep in conversation with Maximov, even though I distinctly recall that Aistova was standing between us.

I had to admire the brazenness of the scheme. I remembered how, at the restaurant, Aistova had sat next to me so I had to twist around to talk to her, while Maximov sat silently across from us. Apparently they had arranged themselves so it could appear, from the right perspective, that I was meeting Maximov alone. I emailed Aistova to ask her to explain what happened. She responded only: "I would also like you to explain yourself and the situation!!" (A few weeks later, when I tried calling her by phone, she pretended I had the wrong number.)

Over the course of a few days, the sensational story circulated among a network of small pro-Kremlin blogs. In fact, the FAN story itself had been aggregated from another pro-Kremlin news site called People’s News, which Andrei Soshnikov, the Moi Raion journalist, has reported also operates out of 55 Savushkina. As it spread, it mutated to become even more alarming. One website suggested I was working for the C.I.A.; another, the National Security Agency. A YouTube channel called Russia Today — not the well-known state television channel but a knockoff — posted a slick video about the meeting, set to a pounding dubstep soundtrack. Disconcertingly, it included a photo of me leaving my hotel. The video currently has more than 60,000 views. Many of those views were a result of a familiar pattern of social-media promotion: Dozens of trolls on Twitter began tweeting links to the video using the hashtag #ВербовкаНацистов — "Recruitment of Nazis." The hashtag trended on Russian Twitter.

After recovering from the initial shock, I began to track the campaign against me. I had practice, after all, from my months spent on the trail of the Internet Research Agency. I Googled the various Russian spellings of my name every hour to catch the latest posts as soon as they surfaced on LiveJournal and VKontakte. I searched Twitter for the URL of the YouTube video to catch every post.

A few days later, Soshnikov chatted with me on Skype. "Did you see an article about you on FAN?" he asked. "They know you are going to publish a loud article, so they are trying to make you look stupid in front of the Russian audience."

I explained the setup, and as I did I began to feel a nagging paranoia. The more I explained, the more absurd my own words seemed — the more they seemed like exactly the sort of elaborate alibi a C.I.A. agent might concoct once his cover was blown. The trolls had done the only thing they knew how to do, but this time they had done it well. They had gotten into my head.


Adrian Chen

Rosewood