Judge: Feds Can’t Pick and Choose, Must Prosecute All Rioters Equally
Judge Throws Out Charges Against Far-Right Agitators, Citing Selective Prosecution
A judge in California made a bold move by dismissing charges against two far-right political agitators, accusing the federal government of engaging in “selective prosecution.” The judge argued that while right-wing rioters were charged, the far-left agitators they clashed with, who committed the same acts of violence, were not held accountable.
Robert Rundo and Robert Boman, members of the Rise Against Movement (RAM), a far-right white nationalist group, attended a pro-Donald Trump “free speech” rally in Berkeley in 2017. They engaged in violent confrontations with left-wing groups like Antifa, particularly By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), who aimed to disrupt and provoke fights at right-wing events.
Violence Erupts as Antifa Clashes with Trump Supporters
“Antifa and related far-left groups decided they needed to ‘shut this down.’ … They came prepared for violence, bringing weapons including pepper spray, fireworks, knives, and homemade bombs,” wrote Judge Cormac J. Carney of the US District Court for the Central District of California. “And they used those weapons, as well as their bodies, against Trump supporters and law enforcement.”
However, after prosecutors filed an emergency motion to appeal, one of the right-wing agitators, Robert Rundo, was arrested the following day. The Ninth Circuit ordered that he remain in custody pending the resolution of the appeal, emphasizing that no lower court could release him without further order from the appeals court.
Judge Objects to One-Sided Prosecution
Judge Carney strongly objected to the fact that federal prosecutors only charged right-wing participants, despite acknowledging that left-wing agitators engaged in similar or even worse conduct during the same event. He argued that this constituted “textbook viewpoint discrimination.”
The judge pointed out that no individuals associated with the left were charged with federal crimes for their role in inciting riots and suppressing the protected speech of Trump supporters. He highlighted the government’s silence regarding why they never pursued cases against any members of Antifa or other far-left groups for their violent actions at pro-Trump events.
Selective Prosecution and Double Standards
“Defendants have established selective prosecution. There is no doubt that the government did not prosecute similarly situated individuals. Antifa and related far-left groups attended the same Trump rallies as Defendants with the expressly stated intent of shutting down, through violence if necessary, protected political speech,” Judge Carney argued. “The government cannot prosecute RAM members such as Defendants while ignoring the violence of members of Antifa and related far-left groups because RAM engaged in what the government and many believe is more offensive speech.”
The judge’s order included photographs of Antifa engaging in violence at the same protest for which the defendants were charged, further supporting the argument of selective prosecution.
Evidence revealed that left-wing protesters had specifically targeted the pro-Trump rally to incite violence, which they successfully did. Reports from local police documented instances of assault, pepper spray attacks, and even the possession of an improvised explosive device by Antifa members.
Rundo and Boman claimed that they intervened to protect a black man wearing a red hat who was being assaulted by over 10 Antifa agitators.
In 2018, the US Attorney for the Central District of California proudly announced federal charges against four local members of white supremacy groups involved in attacks at political rallies. The case was being handled by the Terrorism and Export Crimes Section of the DOJ’s National Security Division.
The Controversial Anti-Riot Act and First Amendment Concerns
The government charged the defendants under the Anti-Riot Act, a rarely-used law that has faced criticism for violating the First Amendment. The judge noted that the law was created in the 1960s with the intention of imprisoning communists and black agitators, raising doubts about its constitutionality.
In 2019, the charges were dismissed, as the court found the Anti-Riot Act to be in violation of the First Amendment. However, in March 2021, the appeals court overturned the ruling. In August 2023, Rundo was extradited from Romania.
On February 21, Judge Carney once again dismissed the charges based on the argument of selective prosecution.
Although Rundo was initially released from jail, prosecutors swiftly filed an emergency appeal to the Ninth Circuit, requesting his re-arrest and detention without bail, expressing concerns that he might flee through the southern border if not held.
On February 23, the appeals court confirmed that Robert Rundo had been arrested and lower courts were prohibited from releasing him while the government’s appeal was ongoing.
What is the importance of maintaining an impartial and unbiased approach to prosecuting crimes, regardless of the political beliefs of the individuals involved, and how does this contribute to the integrity of the criminal justice system
T Antifa members were seen throwing punches, using pepper spray, and even wielding knives during the clashes with right-wing supporters. Despite this evidence, no charges were filed against them by the federal government.
Judge Carney’s decision to dismiss the charges against Rundo and Boman was based on the principle of equal treatment under the law. He stressed that prosecuting only one side of a political conflict while ignoring the actions of the other side is a clear violation of constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection.
The judge’s ruling has sparked a wide debate on the issue of selective prosecution and double standards in the criminal justice system. Critics argue that the government’s failure to hold far-left agitators accountable for their violent actions creates a dangerous precedent and undermines the fundamental principles of fairness and justice.
Supporters of the judge’s decision argue that it is imperative for the government to remain neutral and unbiased in its prosecution of criminal offenses. They claim that targeting specific groups based on their political beliefs not only violates the rights of individuals but also threatens the democratic principles upon which America was founded.
The case raises important questions about the responsibility of law enforcement and prosecutors in ensuring that the criminal justice system remains impartial and unbiased. It highlights the need for a consistent and fair approach to prosecuting crimes, regardless of the political ideologies of the individuals involved.
Ultimately, Judge Carney’s ruling serves as a reminder that justice should be blind and that all individuals, regardless of their political affiliations, should be held accountable for their actions. Selective prosecution not only undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system but also erodes public trust and confidence in the government’s ability to maintain law and order.
Moving forward, it is crucial for prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to carefully review cases involving political conflicts and ensure that equal treatment and due process are upheld. Upholding the principles of fairness and justice is vital for the functioning of a democratic society. Without it, the very foundations of our legal system are at risk.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...