Sunday, March 28, 2021

D.C. Court of Appeals ruling again demonstrates the failure to see the forest from the trees

 

On Friday the D.C. Court of Appeals court ruled that a mother and son duo, Lisa Eisenhart and Eric Munchel, should not be jailed before their trial for participating in the Capitol insurrection. Why? Because the district court handling their case “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 ruling noted that Munchel was just a waiter in Nashville, convicted twice for possession of marijuana in Georgia, where his mother resided and worked as a nurse. They were just “normal,” harmless people—save that what passes for “normal” in Trump World carries with it the suggestion that violent and unlawful behavior is “acceptable” and even “necessary” to maintain a single-party, authoritarian state that is fascist in nature and defined by white nationalism.

They both attended the “stop the steal” rally, both wore “tactical vests,” and Munchel carried a taser, and there was the implication that they had weapons in their backpacks. He “pumped fists” with a member of the far-right Oath Keeper militia. His mother appeared to be more “radical” eager to storm the Capitol, encouraging those around them to do so. Afterwards, Eisenhart met with the media and proclaimed that “This country was founded on revolution” and that “I’d rather die as a 57-year-old woman than live under oppression. I’d rather die and I would rather fight.”

For his part, Munchel told The Times of London that “We wanted to show that we’re willing to rise up, band together and fight if necessary. Same as our forefathers, who established this country in 1776…It was a kind of flexing of muscles…The intentions of going in were to fight the police. The point of getting inside the building is to show them that we can, and we will.”

The statements these two made certainly suggested that they both supported violent action for “the cause.”  Munchel was arrested by FBI agents on January 10; they found the tactical vest, zip ties, guns and a “large quantity of loaded magazines” inside his apartment. Eisenhart turned herself in when she learned that there was a warrant for her arrest. In February a grand jury returned an indictment of “obstruction of an official proceeding,” “unlawful entry while armed with a dangerous weapon,” “violent entry while armed with a dangerous weapon,” and “aiding and abetting violent entry with a dangerous weapon.”

The D.C. district court ordered them detained pending trial, since they were charged with felonies while carrying a dangerous weapon. The court stated that although they were not flight risks, it was nonetheless decided that detention was warranted because of the nature of their crimes, and given their previous statements to the media, they were deemed as capable of further similar actions.

But the appeals court ruling disregarded both the crimes they committed, and the suggestion of their own words that they were capable of undertaking additional felonious actions if given what they regarded as “fighting” reasons. It could be any time, between tomorrow and the next election; the question is whether or not they felt sufficiently deterred from such action. “Insurrection” and “sedition” are not terms to be taken lightly in regard to the events of January 6, put the appeals court seemed to think that they posed no further danger;  the riot  was over and the reason for it was no longer valid, since Joe Biden was “safely” in office.” Furthermore, they had not engaged in vandalism, did not engage in violence, and “were not involved in planning or coordinating the activities—seemingly would have posed little threat.”

The two Democrats on the appeals court did not directly order the two to be released, only “advising” that it be done; they suggested that they didn’t present a danger because their “bark” was worse than their “bite.” The court also suggested that since they hadn’t engage in the breaking down doors or windows, they were less “guilty” than those who did.  

Once more, we see a court failing to see the forest for the trees. A mob is made-up individuals, and they feed off of each other. Regardless of what they actually did or did not do while they were inside the Capitol building, they were motivated by the same thing, and they took “courage” in numbers. Without the presence of a mass of individuals like Munchel and Eisenhart, those who did engage in violence and vandalism would have been less likely to engage in those actions; with that mass of individuals, they could act and still be “anonymous.” Regardless of what they actually did, the mob of individuals served at the very least as “enablers” for those who did. The appeals court is sending to the wrong message to these enablers: as long as they didn’t commit acts of “violence” themselves, they really didn’t do anything “wrong.” This is the same “logic” that most Germans used to claim “ignorance” of the crimes of the Nazis.

With Donald Trump and his familiars continuing to use Fox News as their personal propaganda vehicle to spread the same tired election conspiracies and the same racial dog whistles and immigration paranoia that propelled Trump to the presidency in the first place, the “recruitment” of more fanatics willing to replace those who were arrested for the Capitol insurrections will be an easy matter, ready to answer the bell for another round of violence if they are provided a suitable “target.” Trying to overthrow an election even in “theory” is still just this side of treason, and that is a serious matter that cannot be easily dismissed for reasons of “relativity.”

As long as someone like Trump remains popular with a large segment of the population who do not recognize the danger he poses to democracy, people like Munchel and Eisenhart will remain a danger to society. It was individuals that stormed the Capitol, not some “anonymous” mob. Not one of them should be treated as if they are less “guilty” than any other, because it will be sending the wrong message to those contemplating the overthrow of elected government again. This wasn’t some harmless “family outing” that the appeals court seems to be suggesting the insurrection was to some of rioters.

No comments:

Post a Comment