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