Join Amazon Prime for exclusive deals, fast shipping, and endless entertainment! Sign up now!
A California judge that saw the hypocrisy threw out charges against two conservative political activists, noting the federal government engaged in “selective prosecution”. The conservatives were charged but not the liberals they fought against who did the same thing. Robert Rundo and Robert Boman attended a Trump rally in Berkeley April 2017 as part of the Rise Against Movement group that fights Antifa.
The judge thought this was wrong
And did what he could. One of the Antifa groups that pushes to shut conservatives down and start fights is By Any Means Necessary or BAMN.
Judge Cormac J. Carney wrote on Feb. 21, “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. And they used those weapons, as well as their bodies, against Trump supporters and law enforcement.”
An emergency appeal was filed
But one of the conservatives was arrested the next day. The appeals court wrote on Feb. 22 that Robert Rundo, “is to remain in custody pending resolution of appellant’s motion to stay release pending appeal. No lower court may order his release absent further order of this Court.”
The judge objected that the feds only charged one side while admitting the other side did the same thing or worse.
“No individuals associated with the left, who engaged in anti-far-right speech and violently suppressed the protected speech of Trump supporters, were charged with a federal crime for their part in starting riots at political events. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination. Most telling in this case is the government’s silence as to why it never pursued a case against a single member of Antifa or related far-left groups with respect to their violent conduct at pro-Trump events.”
The judge saw the discrimination
This is being done to shut down free speech.
“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. At the same Trump rallies that form the basis for Defendants’ prosecution, members of Antifa and related far-left groups engaged in organized violence to stifle protected speech.”
Carney continued and included pictures,
“Of the 20 people arrested at the April 2017 Berkeley rally, the government charged only Defendants and other members of RAM under the Anti-Riot Act. The government charged no members of Antifa, BAMN, or other far-left groups under the Anti-Riot Act for their use of violence to shut down the rally. To put it simply, RAM and Antifa, which both appear to use violence to silence protected speech, are identical in material respects—the only difference is their speech and beliefs. By many accounts, members of Antifa and related far-left groups engaged in worse conduct and in fact instigated much of the violence that broke out at these otherwise constitutionally protected rallies to silence the protected speech of the supporters of President Trump. That is constitutionally impermissible. 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.”
