Zip Tie Guy Eric Munchel Gets a Second Chance at Release
The DC Circuit just remanded the case of Zip Tie Guy Eric Munchel and his mother Lisa Eisenhart for reconsideration of their bid for release. Robert Wilkins wrote the opinion, joined by Judith Rogers; Gregory Katsas dissented in some but not all of the opinion.
I wrote here and here about how this was a close case. As such, this opinion will provide important guideposts for other January 6 making similar arguments.
The opinion agreed that January 6 posed an urgent risk to our democracy, generally presenting a broad authority to detain people. But it also emphasized that only some of the participants in the insurrection pose enough of a danger to afford exceptional authority to detain people.
It cannot be gainsaid that the violent breach of the Capitol on January 6 was a grave danger to our democracy, and that those who participated could rightly be subject to detention to safeguard the community. Cf. Salerno, 481 U.S. at 748 (“[I]n times of war or insurrection, when society’s interest is at its peak, the Government may detain individuals whom the government believes to be dangerous.” (citations omitted)). But we have a grave constitutional obligation to ensure that the facts and circumstances of each case warrant this exceptional treatment.
In the case of Munchel and his mom, the opinion found that the analysis of the danger that Munchel and his mom present to the community was not forward looking, and because they had not done a number of things — actually broken through barricades, assaulted cops, planned the operation, or abetted that process — their dangerousness was not sufficient to make their unwillingness to follow release conditions a factor. In particular, without the special circumstances of the vote certification and the violent mob, the mother and son likely would not pose the same threat to our country.
Here, the District Court did not adequately demonstrate that it considered whether Munchel and Eisenhart posed an articulable threat to the community in view of their conduct on January 6, and the particular circumstances of January 6. The District Court based its dangerousness determination on a finding that “Munchel’s alleged conduct indicates that he is willing to use force to promote his political ends,” and that “[s]uch conduct poses a clear risk to the community.” Munchel, 2021 WL 620236, at *6. In making this determination, however, the Court did not explain how it reached that conclusion notwithstanding the countervailing finding that “the record contains no evidence indicating that, while inside the Capitol, Munchel or Eisenhart vandalized any property or physically harmed any person,” id. at *3, and the absence of any record evidence that either Munchel or Eisenhart committed any violence on January 6. That Munchel and Eisenhart assaulted no one on January 6; that they did not enter the Capitol by force; and that they vandalized no property are all factors that weigh against a finding that either pose a threat of “using force to promote [their] political ends,” and that the District Court should consider on remand. If, in light of the lack of evidence that Munchel or Eisenhart committed violence on January 6, the District Court finds that they do not in fact pose a threat of committing violence in the future, the District Court should consider this finding in making its dangerousness determination. In our view, those who actually assaulted police officers and broke through windows, doors, and barricades, and those who aided, conspired with, planned, or coordinated such actions, are in a different category of dangerousness than those who cheered on the violence or entered the Capitol after others cleared the way.
The District Court also failed to demonstrate that it considered the specific circumstances that made it possible, on January 6, for Munchel and Eisenhart to threaten the peaceful transfer of power. The appellants had a unique opportunity to obstruct democracy on January 6 because of the electoral college vote tally taking place that day, and the concurrently scheduled rallies and protests. Thus, Munchel and Eisenhart were able to attempt to obstruct the electoral college vote by entering the Capitol together with a large group of people who had gathered at the Capitol in protest that day. Because Munchel and Eisenhart did not vandalize any property or commit violence, the presence of the group was critical to their ability to obstruct the vote and to cause danger to the community. Without it, Munchel and Eisenhart—two individuals who did not engage in any violence and who were not involved in planning or coordinating the activities— seemingly would have posed little threat. The District Court found that appellants were a danger to “act against Congress” in the future, but there was no explanation of how the appellants would be capable of doing so now that the specific circumstances of January 6 have passed. This, too, is a factor that the District Court should consider on remand.
I suspect mom, at least, will get bail on remand. And I suspect other defendants will try to argue (some with likely success) that they fit the same categories as Munchel and his mom — willing participants in an insurrection, but not key enough players to detain awaiting trial.
Among the principles it lays out:
January 6 was a Constitutional risk, but some defendants were only a threat on that day with that mob
As noted, the Circuit agrees that January 6 presented such a risk to the country that extraordinary detention authorities may be necessary. It included a list of circumstances — similar to the ones that Beryl Howell laid out — that reach this heightened level of risk. Some defendants (particularly the far right lone actors who did not engage in violence personally) will likely be able to ask for review of their own detention. But others — including some of the Oath Keepers — will have the case for their detention reinforced because of their role aiding and abetting a concerted attack on democracy.
DC District judges can review detention remotely
While dicta, a footnote complains that it took so long — until they had been transported to DC — for the two to have a detention review in DC. It asks why a District judge could not have conducted the review remotely.
While COVID-19 issues caused a delay in the appellants’ transport to the District of Columbia, the record does not indicate why a D.C. District Judge could not have heard this matter prior to February 17, even if the appellants were in another location. Ultimately, this issue, while troubling, is not presented as a ground for reversal in this appeal.
This is something that has come up in other cases, repeatedly. This panel, at least, seems to agree that a DC District judge can review detention remotely.
DC District judges don’t have to defer to the local Magistrates’ decisions if there’s new evidence
Munchel and his mother argued that once the Magistrate in Tennessee judged them not to be a danger, the District had no authority to review that determination. The Circuit disagrees, but only with regards to the circumstances of this case, where the government provides new evidence to the District.
The statute concerning review of a Magistrate Judge’s release order says nothing about the standard of the district court’s review, see 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a), and we have not squarely decided the issue.3 We need not break new ground in this case, because as the appellants maintain in their briefing, Munchel Reply Mem. 8, n.3, the government submitted substantial additional evidence to the district judge that had not been presented to the Magistrate Judge, including the 50- minute iPhone video, a partial transcript of the video, and several videos from Capitol CCTV.4 As a result, this was not an instance where the District Court made its dangerousness finding based on the same record as was before the Magistrate Judge. Here, the situation was more akin to a new hearing, and as such, the issue before the District Court was not really whether to defer (or not) to a finding made by the Magistrate Judge on the same evidentiary record.
3 This court stated long ago, in dictum, in a case arising under the predecessor Bail Reform Act that district courts review such prior determinations with “broad discretion.” Wood v. United States, 391 F.2d 981, 984 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (“Evaluating the competing considerations is a task for the commissioner or judge in the first instance, and then the judges of the District Court (where they have original jurisdiction over the offense) have a broad discretion to amend the conditions imposed, or to grant release outright, if they feel that the balance has been improperly struck.”).
Before we’re done, I wouldn’t be surprised if the DC Circuit is asked to weigh in directly on the standard of review here.
DC District judges can consider whether a defendant will abide by release conditions
Munchel and his mother had tried to limit when a District judge can consider whether they will abide by release conditions, not to reconsider bail but only to revoke it.
Second, we reject the argument that the District Court inappropriately relied on a finding that appellants were unlikely to abide by release conditions to detain them, because that factor is applicable only to revocation of pretrial release. The District Court’s finding as to appellants’ potential compliance is relevant to the ultimate determination of “whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure . . . the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) and (g). Indeed, other courts have found a defendant’s potential for compliance with release conditions relevant to the detention inquiry.
While failure to abide by release conditions is an explicit ground for revocation of release in 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b), it defies logic to suggest that a court cannot consider whether it believes the defendant will actually abide by its conditions when making the release determination in the first instance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142.
This has come up with other defendants. That said, this opinion as a whole says that a refusal to abide by release conditions by itself is not enough to detain someone. This part of the ruling will be particularly impactful for those detained because either a belief in QAnon or Nazism suggests a general disdain for our existing government.
A taser counts as a weapon
Munchel and his mother also argued that their alleged crimes don’t merit detention because the taser Munchel brought with him is not a weapon. Not only did the Circuit disagree, but it also readily applied the analysis to Eisenhart’s abetting exposure.
Third, we reject Munchel and Eisenhart’s arguments that the charged offenses do not authorize detention. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(E), detention is permitted if the case involves “any felony . . . that involves the possession or use of a . . . dangerous weapon.” (emphasis added). Two of the charges in the indictment meet this description: Count Two— entering a restricted building “with intent to impede and disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business . . . while armed with a dangerous weapon,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) and (a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting charge for Eisenhart); and Count Three—violent entry or disorderly conduct, again “while armed with a dangerous weapon,” in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(1) and (e)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Indictment, ECF No. 21 at 2. The Bail Reform Act thus explicitly authorizes detention when a defendant is charged with committing certain felonies while possessing a dangerous weapon, as is alleged in this indictment.5
5 Eisenhart’s argument that a taser is not a dangerous weapon— which Eisenhart raises for the first time in reply, and which Munchel seeks to adopt in his reply—is without merit. The relevant statute, 40 U.S.C. § 5104(a)(2)(B), defines the term “dangerous weapon” to include “a device designed to expel or hurl a projectile capable of causing injury to individuals or property. . . .” While the record contains no evidence or proffer as to how Munchel’s taser operates, a taser is commonly understood as a device designed to expel a projectile capable of causing injury to individuals. See Cantu v. City of Dothan, 974 F.3d 1217, 1224–25 (11th Cir. 2020); Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 443 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] taser uses compressed nitrogen to propel a pair of ‘probes’—aluminum darts tipped with stainless steel barbs connected to the taser by insulated wires—toward the target at a rate of over 160 feet per second. Upon striking a person, the taser delivers a 1200 volt, low ampere electrical charge. The electrical impulse instantly overrides the victim’s central nervous system, paralyzing the muscles throughout the body, rendering the target limp and helpless.” (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted)). Thus, at this stage, the evidence sufficiently demonstrates that Munchel’s taser is a dangerous weapon under the statute.
This ruling matters specifically for Richard “Bigo” Barnett (who also brought a taser with him), but also holds that the weapons enhancement on the 1752 and 5104 charges that other defendants face will merit detention. The Circuit also readily approved Eisenhart’s exposure on account of Munchel’s taser. That matters because many defendants are charged with abetting certain conduct that merits detention.
Detention analysis remains individualized
Munchel and his mom, like virtually all defendants arguing for release, have compared their own case to that of others who got released. Because Munchel only raised this in his reply, the Circuit didn’t address the comparison per se. But said that the District Court is in better position to review such claims.
Finally, Munchel and Eisenhart argue that the government’s proffer of dangerousness should be weighed against the fact that the government did not seek detention of defendants who admitted they pushed through the police barricades and defendants charged with punching officers, breaking windows, discharging tasers at officers, and with planning and fundraising for the riot. See Munchel Reply Mem. at 9–12. Appellants did not raise this claim before the District Court and the government did not substantively respond to it on appeal because Appellants raised it for the first time in Munchel’s reply. Whatever potential persuasiveness the government’s failure to seek detention in another case carries in the abstract, every such decision by the government is highly dependent on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, which are not fully before us. In addition, those facts and circumstances are best evaluated by the District Court in the first instance, and it should do so should appellants raise the issue upon remand.
As several people watching the hearing for Connie Meggs’ attempt to get release, every detention fight going forward will have to account for this one. With its broad support for holding conspirators accountable for the violence of others, it may not help Meggs all that much. But it will crystalize these ongoing detention disputes.
Update: I’m wrong. Judge Amit Mehta just released Meggs.
Both sides on the long and ongoing taser debate have acted in bad faith in detailing the dangers posed by tasers.
Governments have had to be drug kicking and screaming against their will to the recognition that tasers, in a multitude of conditions, absolutely constitute lethal force. Hence finally and only relatively recently have US police departments come to classify police taser use as “less lethal” force [than gun] and no longer “nonlethal force,” with many of their criteria for taser use shared with lethal force procedures.
There can be no pulling back from public’s side from this realization; the legacy of the victims of police taser use who paid the price to get to this point deserve nothing less.
OT but I would like to hear an opinion from one of the lawyers here present.
Bannon criminal probe in N.Y. includes embedded investigators from state attorney general’s office
Is this going to run afoul protection against Double Jeopardy or do the prosecutors have their bases covered ?
The article says that the state is pursuing a civil case, whist Vance is investigating possible criminal activity.
Yes. Note that individual DA’s in NY can pursue criminal cases, for the AG to do so putatively requires the Governor’s consent. That is a little screwed up, but such is my understanding.
That separation (state – civil; district – criminal) is in Trump’s case. The article says it isn’t known whether Bannon’s investigation will result in civil suit, criminal charges, or both. He has as yet only been charged federally.
In late January, Andrew Weissman had this to say about Trump’s pardons: https://www.justsecurity.org/74241/the-gaps-in-trumps-pardons-how-the-biden-administration-can-still-pursue-justice/
Thanks ATST for that. Clarifies that the double jeopardy protection may not apply and why. Good news maybe.
I’d be interested in seeing the opinions of some of the lawyers here on the plausibility of pursuing those “loophole” prosecutions.
This paragraph helps me out a lot:
Maybe C. MEGGS wasn’t involved in the over-all insurrection planning, coordinating and recruiting like K. Meggs was, or at least the Government didn’t show that she was, [even though she obviously planned and prepared for the family excursion with her husband.]
4:56 PM · Mar 26, 2021
Thanks as ever, harpie, for pursuing this potentially loose/threatening end.
Mehta seems to me like he’s trying to balance on a razor’s edge with these distinctions based on what defendants “are capable of.” He faces risks either way (release/reoffend versus detain/appeal/precedent) and they are non-trivial, slippery slopes indeed.
Check me on this: so the appeals court is saying that if the defendant refuses to accept the release conditions, then the district court has to release the defendant?
“Wearing an ankle monitor chafes my skin, so I’m not going to wear one.”
“You’re asking me to pay too much cash bail, so I’m not going to pay it.”
“You are preventing me from traveling to my favorite golf course, so I’m not going to abide by that.”
“Prohibiting me from getting together with my regular “concealed carry poker club” buddies, who happen to be my co-defendants, is not acceptable.”
Where, pray tell, is the limit beyond which a defendant’s refusal to abide by pre-trial release conditions is grounds for detention?
IANAL, and God knows IANA judge, but I thought the whole point of pre-trial release CONDITIONS meant that if you don’t agree to abide by them, you get returned to custody.
Joseph Heller would be proud.
We’ve just voted out Milo Minder Binder now we’ve caught-22.
I may well be misreading this, but I don’t think the argument is over whether they will accept the release conditions.
I think it is whether they will abide by them after they are released.
The prosecutors were arguing the risk of breaking the agreement was too great. The defense was saying the accused weren’t risks of dodging the trial or otherwise violating the agreements.
That’s not how Marcy characterized the entire opinion in the sentence I put in the blockquote.
Yes, exactly. And, Peterr, pre-trial release should, with appropriate terms and conditions under §3142, always be granted. The DOJ are acting like idiots on this. I assume they are trying to flip defendants, but this is just bogus. That is easier done with defendants on the outside with easy access to counsel.
Does the accused not also have an obligation to assent to the terms and conditions before release is granted?
Marcy’s statement is pretty damning, and if I’m reading it wrong, could someone please spell out what she means when she says the opinion as a whole puts forward that idea that “a refusal to abide by release conditions by itself is not enough to detain someone”?
Um, please review the terms “may”, “special circumstances”, and the difference between “detention” and “revocation” thereof.
Logically, it would seem to be about whether someone agrees to be bound by conditions in order to obtain release from pre-trial detention. Otherwise, they would not continue to be detained for violating them, but re-arrested for violating those conditions.
The issues are safety – would the defendant pose a danger to themselves or others, if released – and the likelihood that they would appear for trial and other compulsory process. Holding a defendant to coerce cooperation is not an officially valid purpose. Nor, it is finally being recognized, is holding them because they are too poor to put up a bond.
So can someone explain the sentence I pulled from the post?
IF I am reading the opinion correctly (big if) by refusal they aren’t talking about upfront defiance. I think they were detained before they had an opportunity to accept anything. Instead this is like a scenario if they are released upon acceptance of conditions and later the person doesn’t report a contact they’re supposed to, that won’t be grounds in and of itself to send them back into detention — the prosecutors would still need to demonstrate that it makes the person dangerous, a flight risk, etc.
I think someone else would need to weigh in on how the response to a violation of conditions would work — what standard of evidence is needed, where the burden of proof lies, what happens with repeat cases, etc.
OK, but those initial conditions are predicated on some sense of such things as risk of flight or danger to the community. When prosecutors ask for a certain amount of bail, they have to justify why it’s $5M versus $5K, for example. If prosecutors can’t justify their request, the judge (in theory) shoots them down.
Similarly, doesn’t the judge ask the defendant “are you willing to abide by these conditions?” before granting the prosecution’s request? If the judge says “You’ve got to turn over your passport,” you don’t get released until that passport is delivered. But Marcy’s comment that the court is saying “a refusal to abide by release conditions by itself is not enough to detain someone” seems to say that if the defendant says “no” they are not automatically going to end up detained.
Given that, why would any defendant say “Yes”?
At some level this is funny. Son and Mom outing, to participate in an attempt to over throw the American government. You could almost make a 70’s sit com out of it. On the other hand, they were part of an unlawful event and people died because of it. Just because they didn’t break down doors and windows they only followed, they might get bail. Gee when I look around North American and we’ve had riots, the people who follow into the stores to loot are treated about the same as those who broke the windows and doors to start with. Of course we’re not big on bail in Canada and most are released on their own..
It might be a fine distinction in law, that the mother and son duo are different from those who broke down the doors and windows, because they only followed, but we’ve all seen enough situations where the person sanding around or sitting in the car were arrested, held in jail, tried, and convicted for the same crime as those who actually did the crime. . if I’ve mixed up the difference in laws, I’m sure I’ll be corrected.
The judges making these decisions are way out of my league when it comes the law. What would interest me is, if they are less harmful or dangerous to society or the american democracy, how high would their bail be set. For that matter if they aren’t going to be all that dangerous, why set bail at all, just let them go on their own recognizance.
Tazers, not as lethal, tell that to the relatives of those who have been tazered to death by cops. In B.C. we have a rather infamous case where Robert Dziekanski was tazered to death at YVR by 4 RCMP officers. They are only slightly less lethal than guns, depending upon the gun or the heart condition of the person being tazered.
I’m sure we are going to hear and read a lot of interesting arguments in these cases. If the question is whether these insurecitionists are going to be a danger to the country and others, its hard to say. Will they obey their bail conditions? If they’re committed to the cause, most likely they won’t. Those people are usually few and far between, based on my experience with this type of thing in Canada. In a crowd of enviornmental protesters you only usually have one or two who will defy injunctions and refuse to leave a site. Those have gone to jail.
When I think back on the news coverage of the riots/insurrection all of those people looked dangerous. They had gained entry through violence, if not of their own, of others. Ought they all to be kept in jail? It could get expensive if all of those who participated were in jail and then what purpose would it serve, given people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There will be those who were clearly in leadership positions and then there are those who will be in “follower” positions. Is there really a difference if their goal was to over throw the American government? Is there a difference between followers and leaders in this case given a number of people were killed or died by their own hand, because of what happened? I don’t know if the courts would look at that. In the end, I guess they’ll look at whether they will be a danger to society at large and the various levels of government.
I think you mean a 50s sitcom.
1850s, that is.
70’s sitcom – I assume you’re alluding to Citizen Smith, a real British TV series.
The sad thing is these judges aren’t out of your league when it comes to the law. They are entirely predictable and most decisions have little to do with reading a law, but how they feel about interpreting it. It’s why our laws always appear racist, because the people interpreting them hold racist views. The rationale being used by these judges has zero basis in the law.
That is an uninformed, and asinine, load of crap.
Sure thing, our legal system is a well oiled machine…I’ve read some of your other comments, I take this as a compliment
It was most certainly not a compliment.
Son and Mom outing. Father and son outing. Take a family member to a Capitol insurrection.
The Hidden Hand Of Facial Recognition In The Capitol Insurrection Manhunt
I understand the analysis that there weren’t sufficient grounds for saying the charged people would violate release conditions.
I’m not clear what happens next, though, to ensure that release conditions are met. In cases like this, are they subject to government monitoring? Or is it a matter of self-reporting and tips from other people?
I’m also curious if government claims of violations of release conditions are generally swiftly enforced, or if they typically involve lengthy review by the courts.
Trump et al. created that unique opportunity specifically in order to obstruct democracy.
I think it’s pretty fair to say anyone bold enough to storm the Capitol is bold enough to trespass on others property if they feel that person is a political enemy. This reasoning by these Dem appointed judges is why the entire judiciary is full of it. “Well, your honor, I only needed to rob that bank once to be financially secure, of course it’s no longer necessary for me to rob another bank. It was just the series of events that unfolded.”
I think you wanted to make a right turn when you got on the intarwebz. You don’t have any idea what the judges’ politics are – and you *shouldn’t*.
I think you’re too uninformed to say anything informative or intelligent, but at least you keep trying. You might luck into it some day
I agree with PJ. And you need too mind your manners. You are relatively new here and off to a very inauspicious beginning.
Well, if YOU think that, then clearly these three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are mistaken!
Could a moderator please free my comment here, when you get a chance? THANKS!
Sorry to be a pain, but could you check on two comments about Georgia at the end of the “Days After” post?
Lol, also done!
Much appreciated, bmaz!
1] Robert Leon WILKINS [b. 1963]
a] Judge United States District Court for the District of Columbia
December 27, 2010 – January 24, 2014; Appointed by Barack OBAMA
b] Judge United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Assumed office January 15, 2014; Appointed by Barack OBAMA
2] Judith Ann Wilson ROGERS [b. 1939]
a] Associate Judge District of Columbia Court of Appeals
September 15, 1983 – March 11, 1994; Appointed by Ronald REAGAN
b] Chief Judge District of Columbia Court of Appeals
c] Judge United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Assumed office March 11, 1994; Appointed by Bill CLINTON
3] Gregory George KATSAS [b. 1964]
a] Judge United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit;
Assumed office December 8, 2017; Appointed by Donald TRUMP
Ah, facts. Those stubborn little things. Many thanks for the information.
What’s your point? The Dem appointed judges made this decision, did you even read it or what you posted or are you a little slow?
Next comment I see like this, you will be done here.
[This will make more sense…I HOPE…once my second comment is out of moderation]
As Zoe Tillman says:
9:15 AM · Mar 26, 2021
Further in that thread, Tillman:
KATSAS is the shortest serving member of the Federal Judiciary of these three judges…by a long shot.
Katsas had served in the GW BUSH DOJ and was in the WH Counsel’s office for TRUMP from January 20, 2017 until December 2017, when he was appointed to his present position. He clerked for THOMAS.
It wouldn’t surprise me if “Katsas’ views on pretrial detention” would differ, depending on who is being evaluated for pre-trial detention.
Meanwhile, in Tennessee, if I’m driving while Black and my tail light is out….
Once released, lets not forget that these “fellers” are back in the FBI domain! Looking over your shoulder cant be that fun.
Yes. And, given expected release terms and conditions, totally amenable to any and all monitoring, electronic and otherwise. That is okay.
That’s something that’s been on my mind since the first arrests and pre-trial releases. I know that some investigators viewpoint on releasing arrestees is that it allows the investigators to continue to observe methods and contacts. In the case of the Capitol insurrection, there are still bad actors who haven’t been identified, and connections that haven’t yet been made.
“It cannot be gainsaid that the violent breach ” seriously “gainsaid”
I’m sorry, are you “Kim Hanson” or “HanTran”? Pick one and stay with it.
A couple days ago, Marcy retweeted this from Josh Gerstein:
8:24 PM · Mar 27, 2021
LINK to Government’s Response to Tia PUGH’s Motion to Dismiss, in ALABAMA, 3/26/21
Politico/Gerstein first [3/15] calls the law “controversial” and then, on 3/27, use the phrase “critics say is racist.”
Maybe it’s NOT the law itself, but the way in which the law has been wielded,
including by the TRUMP/BARR DoJ, that’s “controversial” or “racist”.
Those people never imagined that law might be used against them.
From the 3/15 article:
But PUGH’s case is evidently not like the others from
the MAY 31, 2020 unrest in Mobile, Al. From the 3/26 Government filing:
This is from the case Gerstein wrote about in the 3/15 article:
Something else I found interesting about the PHOMMA filing.
[ARRGG I don’t know what to call it. :-/ ]
Also referenced in the PHOMMA filing, this report:
MCCA Report on the 2020 Protests and Civil Unrest
More from that report:
From the conclusion:
What I’d like to see:
a discussion comparing the level of violence in certain cities to the content of TRUMPs/BARRs tweets/speeches/interviews.
May 29th to June 1st
“by far the most violent for many major city law enforcement agencies”
5/25/20 George FLOYD is killed by Minneapolis police officer Derek CHAUVIN
5/30/20 BARR lays blame for violence:
5/31/20 TRUMP tweets:
5/31/20 TRUMP tweets:
6/1/20 TRUMP and BARR violently clear protesters at Lafayette Square for Trump’s bible photo-op
6/2/20The Lincoln Memorial is occupied by masked men dressed for battle
PLANELOADS OF THUGS
6/1/20 Viral Facebook post by a man in Emmet Idaho, and
shared and added to by Idaho Three Percenters :
9/1/20 TRUMP to Ingraham:
8:53 AM · Sep 1, 2020
I thought that junk was debunked. Also “Antifa America”, what a fucking joke.
Well, it was, but that never matters! According to the story, the local sheriff even debunked it when it was quite new…
[PS: Thanks for all your support above!]
For the record, the “planeload” of protestors never existed. The hotly anticipated “threat” in Idaho never materialized, except in the sense that over-eager self-deputized counter-protestors created a ruckus when someone located a vehicle of outsiders in a rural area. When you’re itching for a confrontation, it turns out you can create one if you try.
TRUMP / PROUDBOYS
Call and Response
1] At the debate:
1/6/21 12:08 PM
[link in next comment]
Proud Boys march down Constitution Ave. chanting Where’s ANTIFA?
12:08 PM · Jan 6, 2021 [VIDEO]
The Proud Boys marching/chanting was 8 minutes after TRUMP started speaking at the rally.
1] CARAVAN of TRUMP THUGS tries to run BIDEN campaign bus
off the road in TEXAS.
2] FBI says they are investigating that
3] TRUMP tweets:
TRUMP and STEWIE RHODES and the OATH KEEPERS
9/10/20 TWITTER bans RHODES
9/12/20 TRUMP [on what he’ll do if there are
threats of riots on election night:]
1/6/21 1:38 PM Stewart RHODES writes on
OATH KEEPER Signal chat “DC OP: Jan 6 21”:
Six hours later:
7:41 PM RHODES on Signal chat “DC OP: Jan 6 21”
Ah, Stewart Rhodes. So deft at supplying the code words (those liberals are “communist” insurrectionists) for Trump to employ in public. And of all the labels applied by the coalition formed by White nationalists and the current GOP, “communist” has the most sticking power. It no longer means what we always thought it did. Instead it has become a grab-bag of connotations: BLM, destroyers of so-called Southern heritage, AOC, threats to your “freedom” to pretend everyone is a Protestant just like you, and people who wanna take your guns.
“Communism” is a big Roger STONE bogey man as well, probably since Nixon.
He had a brain fart in 2016 and said “soviet” instead:
8/1/16 Stone to Frank Morano:
That’s right, Ginevra. Communism is simply a word Rhodes uses in a grab bag fashion to instill fear and motivate people to react. But I think Biden has a handle on redirecting the narrative. The media needs to pay attention if they care about democracy. Here’s an interesting observation:
“Biden’s revolution is not being televised” – John Stoehr, 3/29/21
“Reporters are missing the biggest political story of their lives.”
“This is what the president said: “I want to change the paradigm. I want to change the paradigm. We start to reward work, not just wealth. I want to change the paradigm.”
“While Reagan’s brand of conservatism was broadly attractive during an age in which Russian Communism was still a potent threat in the world (a waning threat but still potent), Biden’s brand of liberalism may end up being equally attractive during an age in which autocracy is on the rise. Biden said: “It is clear, absolutely clear … this is a battle between the utility of democracies in the 21st century and autocracies. If you notice, you don’t have Russia talking about Communism anymore. It’s about an autocracy. Demand decisions made by a leader of a country—that’s what’s at stake here. We’ve got to prove democracy works.”
Kelly MEGGS said he had never had military training, but he took classes [with Connie and their son] with a former Marine.
There’s a photo in this thread of that guy [Andrew Smrecek] wearing a t-shirt that says:
KEEP FIGHTING COMMUNISM
7:18 PM · Mar 24, 2021
Kelly Meggs did security for Roger STONE after that.
Marcy wrote about MEGGS / STONE here:
MUNCHEL and EISENHART get home detention/ supervision/location monitoring.
4:26 PM · Mar 29, 2021
From the screenshot:
Marcy links to 21-3010 at the beginning of this post.
Marcy links to 21-3010 at the beginning of this post:
Good. Almost all of them ought to get home detention with very restrictive monitoring and conditions. What the government has done to push this detention garbage is disgusting.
Yeah, I agree, plus they have more time to spend on other work they have to do.
What do you think of Connie Meggs going home and Kelly staying in jail?
Individually, I don’t know. Just think you should always give pre-trial release if possible, and then roll up defendants the second they violate the terms and conditions thereof.
Graydon YOUNG, too:
9:53 PM · Mar 29, 2021
New today from Jane MAYER:
[This meeting about House Resolution 1 and Senate Bill 1 took place on January 8]
Inside the Koch-Backed Effort to Block the Largest Election-Reform Bill in Half a Century On a leaked conference call, leaders of dark-money groups and an aide to Mitch McConnell expressed frustration with the popularity of the legislation—even among Republican voters. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/inside-the-koch-backed-effort-to-block-the-largest-election-reform-bill-in-half-a-century
Jane Mayer March 29, 2021
This is hilarious!
Zoe Loefgren is Chairperson of that committee:
Yeah, right, those policy groups are “nonpartisan”. It’s too bad there’s no legal consequences to that kind of activity.
BIDEN’s first judicial nominees:
7:07 AM · Mar 30, 2021
The number of federal cases against individuals involved in
the Capitol Hill Siege jumped overnight from 336 to 349.
Capitol Police provided more than 14,000 hours of Jan. 6 footage to lawmakers Thomas DiBiase made the disclosure in connection with a criminal case.
I wonder if this first bit might be a reference to the bombs:
Oh, they almost certainly would have preserved all of it. This was not a “normal circumstance”.
12:24 PM · Mar 30, 2021
Marcy writes about that article in a thread here:
12:56 PM · Mar 30, 2021
This seems to be what NORDEAN is doing in his new filing…pretending they were disorganized and surprised about the insurrection.
Here’s the filing. The part I’m talking about begins on page 6, but I’m having a difficult time figuring out how to say what I want to say.
Defendant NORDEAN’s Notice of New Evidence […]
There were TWO CHANNELS set up.
The one for the leaders/planners had maybe 12 members.
What the superseding indictment said was that [my capitals]:
From the superseding indictment:
I am shocked, shocked I say!!
From the NYT:
The Justice Department is said to be investigating Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida over a possible sexual relationship he had with a 17-year-old girl.
Tuesday, March 30, 2021 5:47 PM EST
Mr. Gaetz, a Republican and a close ally of former President Trump, is being investigated over whether he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old and paid for her to travel with him, according to three people briefed on the matter.
Investigators are examining whether Mr. Gaetz violated federal sex trafficking laws, the people said. A variety of federal statutes make it illegal to induce someone under 18 to travel over state lines to engage in sex in exchange for money or something of value.
As to Gaetz, the “Not Really A Man Act”?
Maybe this is why he’s talking about an early retirement to Newsmax. Or possibly the house of many doors.
He says his father’s wearing a wire because family is being extorted.
Laura Rozen has the screenshots here:
8:13 PM · Mar 30, 2021
My, my, my, Daddy Gaetz has an interesting history…and $500,000,000.
Marcy retweeted this on 1/31:
12:00 PM · Feb 1, 2021
It’ll be interesting to hear who the ex-DOJ official is who Matt Gaetz claims is extorting his family.
I first started commenting about Joel Greenberg on ew in early 2019. At first I thought he might have connections to Henry Greenberg (aka Oknyansky), the Russian who Caputo arranged to meet with Stone in 2016. I couldn’t find any links between Joel and Henry. But they both did have a connection with Stone. And Matt Gaetz had connections with both Stone and Joel Greenberg.
Some months later I became concerned about Joel Greenberg’s use of blockchain when he was Tax Collector in Seminole County, Florida.
So, I commented about that on ew. I think I also mentioned something about Stone’s suspicious connections to cryptocurrency.
Then, in the summer of 2020, I commented about Joel Greenberg being suspected of sex trafficking. I also thought he might have been in a photo with Stone and Proud Boys. Since then, I’ve been wondering if Matt Gaetz or Roger Stone would eventually factor into the sordid tale.
Apparently he was implicated by a Florida tax collector who got busted. (Also this started last summer, so it’s not on Biden.)
This day just keeps getting better.
From The Hill (I know, I know):
Ethics upholds Gohmert’s $5,000 metal detector fine
The House Ethics Committee said Tuesday that it is upholding the $5,000 fine levied against Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) for bypassing a security screening to enter the House chamber.
Gohmert had appealed the fine issued by the House sergeant-at-arms on Feb. 5, days after House Democrats voted to enact the punitive measure to enforce compliance with the metal detector screenings established in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Another one bites the dust: Liddy has died.
Oooo, Roger Stone will be running his finger around his shirt collar today. His hero bites the dust and the wolves are circling closer and closer. As I said the day keeps getting better, for us, not Stone. Or Gaetz. Or Gohmert.
Two Capitol Police officers sue Trump for ‘physical and emotional injuries’ suffered in riots
March 31, 2021 at 6:17 a.m.
Hemby was at the center east front Columbus doors around 2 PM and got pinned between the mob and the door.
This is where and when OATH KEEPER RHODES was standing and PROUD BOYS BIGGS et al., and OATH KEEPER “stack” breached.
Some of this timeline is here:
Gonna be the voice of caution again here, it may make for a nice news flash, but not sure this lawsuit is going anywhere. I’ll be stunned if it makes it past Iqbal/Twombley and 12b6 stage.
I understand, but I appreciate having this information from their perspective.
…and I wouldn’t mind if stuff like this lawsuit nagged Trump for the rest of his life.
I prefer litigation be serious and designed to last, not sensationalistic and designed to harass.
I do too.
Zoe Tillman has the documents, of course!
9:16 AM · Mar 31, 2021
5:44 PM · Mar 30, 2021