In a recent development in California, a judge dismissed charges against two far-right agitators, Robert Rundo and Robert Boman, citing “selective prosecution” by the federal government. The judge, Cormac J. Carney of the US District Court for the Central District of California, asserted that the government engaged in bias by charging only right-wing rioters, neglecting left-wing agitators who perpetrated similar acts during a pro-Donald Trump rally in Berkeley on April 15, 2017.
Rundo and Boman, associated with the Rise Against Movement (RAM), a “far-right, white nationalist” group, were present at the Berkeley rally, which saw clashes with left-wing groups like Antifa and By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). The judge highlighted the preparedness for violence exhibited by left-wing agitators, armed with weapons such as pepper spray, fireworks, knives, and homemade bombs. These weapons were deployed against Trump supporters and law enforcement, resulting in confrontations.
Judge Carney expressed concern over the government’s failure to charge any left-wing individuals involved in anti-far-right activities and violent suppression of protected political speech. He deemed it “textbook viewpoint discrimination” and argued that the government overlooked instances of organized violence by Antifa and related far-left groups during pro-Trump events.
The judge emphasized the identical material characteristics of RAM and Antifa, both allegedly employing violence to silence protected speech, with differences only in their speech and beliefs. Carney questioned the government’s decision to charge only RAM members under the Anti-Riot Act, leaving Antifa and BAMN untouched, despite evidence suggesting their involvement in violence to shut down the rally.
The judge’s order included photographs depicting Antifa engaging in violence during the same protest for which the right-wing defendants were charged. The evidence revealed instances where left-wing protesters initiated fights, assaulted Trump supporters, and even carried improvised explosive devices.
Rundo and Boman claimed they intervened to protect a black man wearing a red hat who was being attacked by over 10 Antifa agitators. The judge’s dismissal of charges on grounds of selective prosecution led to Rundo’s release from jail. However, prosecutors promptly filed an emergency appeal to the Ninth Circuit, seeking Rundo’s re-arrest and arguing a potential flight risk through the southern border. Appeals judges subsequently confirmed Rundo’s arrest and barred lower courts from releasing him during the government’s appeal process. The conservative perspective may highlight concerns about potential bias in the prosecution, underscoring the need for equitable legal treatment regardless of political affiliations.