Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Non-Violent Capitol Hill Trespasser Timothy Hale-Cusanelli’s Racist Views Do Not Justify Continued Detention Without Bail

Non-Violent Capitol Hill Trespasser Timothy Hale-Cusanelli’s Racist Views Do Not Justify Continued Detention Without Bail

Appeals Court upholds detention without bail. The fervor to take down those individuals who participated in the protest and riot on Jan. 6 has let loose a wrecking ball that is pulverizing core constitutional rights.

Last week, a federal appellate court affirmed the continued imprisonment without bond of Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, one of more than 500 people who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Hale-Cusanelli has now been jailed in a maximum security federal lockup for almost six months.  He is kept in 23-hour-a-day isolation – conditions similar to those imposed on terrorists detained at in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

(Ironically, this fact that doesn’t seem to bother most liberals who, for anyone else, decry solitary confinement as inhumane.)

What awful actions did Hale-Cusanelli engage in to warrant such a draconian penalty?  Was he violent?  Did he attack the Capitol Police? Did he put his feet on Nancy Pelosi’s desk or wear a furry hat with horns? Did he eat someone’s liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti?

None of these.

On Jan. 6, Hale -Cusanelli simply entered the Capitol through doors that had already been kicked open and waited in line with others to use the restroom facilities.  When he heard that there had been a shooting inside the building, he left.  He did not assault anyone, damage any property, or organize any of the events of that day.

What he did do – prior to Jan. 6 – was express to others odious opinions about blacks, women and Jews.

And however the court tries to dress it up, it’s because of those repugnant – yet constitutionally protected – views that he sits in jail today.

In this sense, the greatest threat to our Republic from Jan. 6 comes not from the events of that day, but from how our government has responded to them.

Background

On Jan. 6, Hale-Cusanelli was a 31 year-old sergeant in the United States Army Reserves who was employed as a private security officer at the Naval Weapons Station Earle in Colts Neck, New Jersey.

That day, he drove by himself from New Jersey to Washington, D.C. for the Stop the Steal rally.  He arrived around noon at the end of President Trump’s speech, and heard Trump encourage people to walk to the Capitol.

Hale-Cusanelli wore a suit and tie to the event – a fact that indicated, as the court correctly observed, that he did not come armed for battle.  He made his way to the Capitol, and entered through doors that were already open.  He thereafter left the building after hearing that someone had been shot.

He Speaks to a Colleague

After returning from Washington, D.C., Hale-Cusanelli told a friend of his that he was at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and showed him some videos he had taken on his cell phone.  That friend then confidentially reported Hale-Cusanelli to the Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS).

NCIS placed a wire on the friend to surreptitiously record a conversation with Hale-Cusanelli about his participation at the Capitol.

During the conversation, Hale-Cusanelli admitted to entering the Capitol and using hand signals to beckon others to “advance.” He described feeling an “adrenaline rush” and a sense of “purpose” that day.

He also told the friend that he believed that civil war was the “most likely” and “simplest” outcome of the political divide in the county but expressed that he did “not … actually want that,” and said that the simplest solutions are not always the best ones.

Hale-Cusanelli then recited Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Hale-Cusanelli thereafter was arrested and indicted on seven counts involving trespass and disorderly conduct in connection with the events of Jan. 6.

The Bail Reform Act

In 1984 (the irony of this year is not lost), Congress passed the Bail Reform Act – a  law that made it legal for the government to deny bail in federal criminal cases if certain special circumstances applied.  The law was intended to be used against the most dangerous criminals in the most serious cases.

In fact, in United States v. Salerno, the Supreme Court held that “[i]n our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial … is the carefully limited exception.”

Thus, in order to secure a detention order (the name of the court order denying a criminal defendant the right to bail), the statute requires that the government prove by clear and convincing evidence that nothing short of detention “will reasonably assure … the safety of … the community.”

In making this determination, courts must consider four factors:

  • The nature and circumstances of the offense charged
  • The weight of the evidence against the person
  • The history and characteristics of the person, and
  • The nature and seriousness of the danger to any person

Bail Decision

The district court weighed the four factors and ruled that Hale-Cusanelli was so dangerous that bail was inappropriate.

Taking the four factors in turn, the court found that because Hale-Cusanelli “was not charged with any offenses involving violence or destruction of property,” the first prong tilted toward release.  In fact, the district court judge conceded that “if I was just looking at what the defendant did on January 6th, he would be a free man right now.”

In contrast, the district court found that the second factor, the weight of the evidence, favored detention because the evidence demonstrated that “defendant did what the government says he did on January 6th.”

The decision thus came down to the last two factors: Hale-Cusanelli’s history and the future danger he presented to others.

History and Danger

The district court described Hale-Cusanelli’s history as “the most difficult prong in this case.”  After all, he had a solid employment history, was a military veteran with a security clearance, and had no criminal record.

However, NCIS had interviewed 44 of Hale-Cusanelli’s coworkers, and 34 of them had described him “as having extremist or radical views pertaining to the Jewish people, minorities, and women” and stated that he had made abhorrent statements about them such as that “babies born with disabilities should be shot,” that “Hitler should have finished the job,” and that “Jews, women, and blacks were on the bottom of the totem pole.”

NCIS also discovered that, prior to Jan. 6, Hale-Cusanelli had uploaded a series of videos to a YouTube channel in which he expressed racist and anti-Semitic sentiments.  Memes conveying similar views were recovered from his phone, as well.

Despite Hale-Cusanelli’s use of such repellent language, however, not one of the 44 people interviewed accused him of ever engaging in violent or threatening behavior.

Because, said the district court, “we don’t typically penalize people for what they say or think,” it turned its focus on a singular youthful indiscretion in which Hale-Cusanelli was involved a decade earlier.

In 2010, when Hale-Cusanelli was just 20 years old, he was a rear passenger in a car with three other occupants when one of those passengers used a PVC “potato gun” – a piece of plastic tubing that uses pneumatic pressure to launch objects into the air – to fire frozen pieces of corn at the home of another adolescent.

The car in which Hale-Cusanelli was a passenger was pulled over by the police, and the driver consented to a search.  The police discovered the potato gun and bag of frozen corn cobs in the trunk.

The words “White is Right” was written on the side of the PVC piping, along with a drawing of a confederate flag.

Despite that, the police report of that incident stated that the investigating officer concluded that there wasn’t “any bias related intent involved with this particular offense.” The officer found that no one residing in the targeted house was of African American descent, and the occupant who launched the corn at the house said he did so because he was angry at the homeowner’s son due to a prior dispute over stolen bicycles.

Not only did the car not belong to Hale-Cusanelli, but there was no evidence that the potato gun was his, that he had any role in using it, or that he even knew the person whose house was targeted.

The matter was resolved with a plea to disorderly conduct.

Nevertheless, in 2021, the district court glommed onto this episode, which it concluded was “some evidence of [Hale-Cusanelli] actually acting out” on “neo-Nazi beliefs.”

The judge concluded that the potato gun incident demonstrated that Hale-Cusanelli had acted in the past on his “animus against groups of people in this country,” and therefore that he might do so again.

The district court therefore held that the only way to assure the safety of the community pending trial was for Hale-Cusanelli to remain detained without bail.

Appellate Decision

Hale-Cusanelli appealed the detention order to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel affirmed the district court.  The panel consisted of two Democrat-appointed judges (Tatel and Williams) and one Republican appointee (Rao).

Here are the pleadings on appeal that set forth the details of the allegations and legal arguments:

U.S. v. Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli – DC Circuit – Memorandum In Support of Interlocutory Appeal – 5-27-2021

U.S. v. Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli – DC Circuit – Supplement to Memorandum In Support of Interlocutory Appeal – 5-27-2021

U.S. v. Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli – DC Circuit – Memorandum In Opposition to Interlocutory Appeal – 6-07-2021

U.S. v. Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli – DC Circuit – Reply Memorandum In Support of Interlocutory Appeal – 6-14-2021

That the two Democrats would cave to political pressure was hardly unexpected.  But Rao’s acquiescence was surprising.  She has been a solid conservative – notably in her dissent in the case allowing the congressional subpoena for President Trump’s tax returns from Mazars and in her authorship of the decision upholding the Department of Justice’s dismissal of the prosecution against Gen. Michael Flynn.  Here, however, she simply went along to get along.

With a hopeful eye on an eventual elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court in a future Republican administration, and having encountered resistance in her confirmation to the D.C. Circuit because of some of her writings prior to becoming a judge, Rao likely was unwilling to invite the inevitable controversy that would attend a dissent in this case.

Shamefully, the D.C. Circuit minimized the significance of the fact that Hale-Cusanelli did not fire the potato gun in 2010 or that the person who had fired it chose the house because of a prior dispute having nothing to do with racial animus. The Circuit stated that although “the victim was not African American,” the shooter could have been motivated by anti-Semitism, but “the officer apparently made no effort to determine whether the victims were Jewish.”

The Circuit also held that although the responding officer credited the shooter’s explanation that he targeted the victim due to a dispute with his son related to stolen bicycles, “the district court was not required to agree.”

But if one’s liberty can be taken away based on nothing more than “what ifs,” we would all be in jeopardy.  A system where speculation and hypothesis alone can justify imprisonment is one that is ripe for governmental abuse.

Perhaps realizing as much, the court stated that “even were we to conclude that the district court erred by finding that the potato gun incident was motivated by racial animus,” Hale-Cusanelli’s remarks to a colleague about an impending civil war and reference to Thomas Jefferson’s “Tree of Liberty” quote made it reasonable to conclude that he posed a risk of engaging in hate-motivated violence in the future.

But such speech, however benighted, is constitutionally protected, and therefore cannot by itself be the basis for indefinite pretrial detention.

Indeed, in Terminiello v. Chicago, the Supreme Court declared that one of the purposes of free speech is to invite dispute even where it stirs people to anger, and that the right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas is “one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.”

Jan. 6 as Pretext

Unquestionably, Hale-Cusanelli’s bigoted beliefs make him unsympathetic.  It’s very easy to shrug our shoulders at his situation and say “serves him right.”

But, as Justice Felix Frankfurter once said, “the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.”

And the bigger takeaway from this case is that the hyperbolic phrase “January 6th Insurrection” has become a shibboleth to progressives – a contemporary version of “Remember the Alamo!” – that is invoked to justify transforming our national law enforcement apparatus into a Bolshevik Cheka committed to crushing those who don’t subscribe to leftist orthodoxy.

Hale-Cusanelli’s case is a perfect example of how, using January 6 as cover, our national law enforcement apparatus – investigative agencies, prosecutors and courts – have become a Thinkpol that sniffs out and banishes to the gulag those whose opinions they dislike.

Recently, former FBI Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi stated on MSNBC that “people sitting in Congress right now” and “people in and around the former president” are the “command and control element of a terrorist group” that needs to be “attacked and dismantled.”

And earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin vowed to weed out “extremism” from the ranks of the military.

The Justice Department has implemented a new system to “methodically track” domestic terrorism cases nationwide within the FBI, and, as reported by The Herald, the National Security Council has released a plan “to identify government employees who may pose a domestic terrorism threat, with a number of federal agencies working on new policies and programs to root out potential domestic extremists in law enforcement and in the military.”

Indeed, like Hale-Cusanelli, many non-violent individuals who were present at the Jan. 6 melee have been tagged as domestic terrorists, denied due process and held in isolation without bail.

Author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza has pointed out, “While many politicians bewail the plight of political prisoners abroad, like Navalny in Russia, they ignore the startling reality that America now has its own political prisoners, indefinitely held on trumped-up charges.”

Conclusion

The fervor to take down those individuals who participated in the protest and riot on Jan. 6 has let loose a wrecking ball that is pulverizing core constitutional rights.  The left views this as acceptable collateral damage, but it’s not.

The Supreme Court has been clear that “[i]n our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial … is the carefully limited exception.” By allowing a person’s thoughts and constitutionally-protected expression, however loathsome, to justify jailing him, the D.C. Circuit, bowing to political correctness, has permitted the exception to swallow the rule.

Here, Hale-Cusanelli was not preventively detained because his release presented an unmanageable risk of danger. He was detained because he espoused reprehensible views.

No doubt the judges here thought they were honoring America’s deeply held tenets of tolerance by keeping Mr. Hale-Cusanelli imprisoned.  But over two centuries ago, a more famous Hale remarked, “I greatly fear some of America’s greatest and most dangerous enemies are such as think themselves her best friends.”

To be clear, judges are not enemies in the typical sense.  But when they ignore the law to suit the political pieties of the day, they lay down their shield and pick up a sword.

And that weapon, unlike a potato gun, does real damage.

———————-

Ameer Benno is an appellate and constitutional law attorney. He was the Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018 in New York’s Fourth Congressional District, and he frequently appears on national television and radio to give legal and political commentary. Follow him on Twitter at @AmeerBenno.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

rabid wombat | July 11, 2021 at 7:49 pm

The speech most repugnant is the most protected….

    Ben Kent in reply to rabid wombat. | July 11, 2021 at 9:40 pm

    Progressives are always looking for a pretext to justify their actions to grab more power and expand government control.

    Example: Rahm Emanuel’s famous saying…

    . . . . . . . . . . . .> > > > > > “Never let a crisis go to waste”
    Note: Rahm Emanuel worked in the Clinton and Obama administration

    Jan 6 they took it to a new level. Actually blowing the riot out of proportion – calling it an “insurrection” so that they have a PRETEXT to go after political opponents.

    This was not an “insurrection” and they know it. But they tried as long as they could to make it seem that way – withholding information – such as the cause of death of Sicknik (He’s the Capitol Hill Police officer – who died of natural causes – but the DNC allowed their buddies in the media to report for months that he died at the hand of a protestor.) And they used it as a pretext for a second impeachment of Trump – just to tarnish him and try to keep him off the 2024 ballot.

    We now have political prisoners and a purge in the military. I thought that these things only happened in the USSR. Most people who still remember the USSR are scratching their heads wondering how the USA could have been so badly misled.

    FREE THE POLITICAL PRISIONERS. RESTORE LIBERTY.

    MattMusson in reply to rabid wombat. | July 12, 2021 at 6:48 am

    Not anymore.

TheOldZombie | July 11, 2021 at 7:59 pm

“But Rao’s acquiescence was surprising. She has been a solid conservative ”

I understand why she did it. This guy is apparently racist and those guys are always the hardest for people on the right to defend. We don’t have very many people on the right that will defend these people because of fear of being tainted a racist or a supporter of racists. You can call them stupid a million times but the moment you defend them the left will call you a racist. Stupid, because people on the right are going to get called racist no matter what, but it is a real thing that the right deals with and frankly fears on a constant basis. Especially politicians. I submit that judges, especially federal judges, are just another version of a politician.

Should he get bail? Yes.

Should he be charged? I’d go as far to say if the only thing the government says is that he walked inside the capital, used the bathroom, and than left the answer should be no. How in the hell did they find seven counts to charge him with?

    Milhouse in reply to TheOldZombie. | July 11, 2021 at 11:44 pm

    I’d say that if he found the doors of a public building open and unguarded during normal opening hours, he was not on notice that he was not allowed to enter. The same implied license that allows a person to enter someone’s property by the front gate and walk along the path provided directly to their front door should be presumed to cover such a situation too.

    If he knew he was not permitted to be there then he should be charged — only after every single trespasser, at every single one of the last four years’ riots, has been tracked down by the same means and similarly charged, and his sentence should be linked to theirs.

      Milhouse: I’d say that if he found the doors of a public building open and unguarded during normal opening hours, he was not on notice that he was not allowed to enter.

      The evidence is that he encouraged others to breach the police line, so he clearly knew he was not allowed to enter.

        Ben Kent in reply to Zachriel. | July 15, 2021 at 10:49 am

        Seriously Zach. You justify 6 months in prison waiting trial because he encouraged others to cross a line that others were already crossing ?

        So, you must be for locking up half the BLM protesters because they “encouraged” others to riot, trespass, loot and burn.

        If you are not willing to have the same treatment for Progressives then you’re just another hypocrite.

          Ben Kent: You justify 6 months in prison waiting trial because he encouraged others to cross a line that others were already crossing ?

          The question concerned Milhouse’s mistaken idea of the charges involved.
          Hale-Cusanelli is charged with felonious behavior, but that’s not why he was denied bail.

          Ben Kent: So, you must be for locking up half the BLM protesters because they “encouraged” others to riot, trespass, loot and burn.

          State laws vary, but the basic principles remain. The presumption is release.

          Hale-Cusanelli was denied pre-trial release because the evidence against him is substantial, because there is evidence he attempted to destroy evidence, and because he believes he is part of a civil war that could result in people being killed. The court therefore considers him a possible threat to the public, including any witnesses against him, and to the process of justice. They considered his arguments otherwise, and found them to be unconvincing. He will remain in jail until his trial or until he convinces the court he will abide by the law if released.

          Ben Kent: You justify 6 months in prison waiting trial

          You do realize that poor, often minority defendants are sometimes locked up for months simply because they are too poor to pay the bail? Where have you been all this time!? Some even falsely plead guilty just so they can go home and work to support their families.

          (As this results in an unwarranted racial disparity, it’s an example of systemic racism.)

    Edward in reply to TheOldZombie. | July 12, 2021 at 10:27 am

    So, in short, Rao’s afraid of being called names. Slightly longer, she’s afraid of being called names and not being invited to the best parties.

    The “jurists” have decided that his political ideas provide ample reason to release their inner Roland Freisler. Maybe they figure it’s appropriate in his case. They only differ from Freisler in degree and stridency.

    So great to see these Fascists pee on the Constitution they swore to uphold.

Political prisoner. If the liberals locked him up for speech they don’t like and think his ideas are dangerous that is problematic. There is a lot of liberal speech that I don’t like and Rules apply to all.

    Bisley in reply to r2468. | July 12, 2021 at 12:30 pm

    And the courts are too corrupt, politicized, cowardly, or whatever, to do anything about it. This guy should have been immediately released without bail. He should have a cause of action against those who ordered him arrested and incarcerated, with no evidence he violated any law (other than what they try to manufacture).

So can we start throwing Marxists into prison now, too?

We’re gonna need a lot more prison space.

    TheOldZombie in reply to JHogan. | July 11, 2021 at 8:09 pm

    A huge prison. Probably need to take a piece of land, preferably an island, and build a giant wall around it. You go in and you don’t come out. Unless you need to rescue the President who stupidly flew over the island and crashed landed onto the island. Also you’ve got 24 hours to do it or you die.

    I wonder do we have any parts of America that would fit the bill? 😉

“To be clear, judges are not enemies in the typical sense.” History is being rewritten around us. Thinking of a character that Burt Lancaster played.,

The people who are so recklessly cheering for the petty and vindictive abuses of that portion of Jan 6 protesters who did little more than trespass have traded a short term gain for what is likely to be a very painful future.

This fellow undoubtedly holds odious beliefs. Those beliefs and his vile speech are protected by our Constitution. In using his beliefs as a pretext to justify pretrial confinement, solitary confinement at that, is going to reverberate.

In the not too distant future when an antifa or blm or other d/progressive actor or ally is similarly treated by a red State or the next r administration the folks cheering this today have zero grounds for complaint.

In this, as in many recent events, the d/progressive have chosen to discard Locke in favor of Hobbes. Ultimately they will come to regret that decision.

    JHogan in reply to CommoChief. | July 11, 2021 at 10:39 pm

    The new rules are whoever controls the federal government can use its power to harass, persecute, imprison, and prosecute their political enemies.

    The Lefties are not going to like what happens if the shoes is ever on the other foot. Which helps explain their desperation to change election laws to enable maximum fraud.

    Too bad Trump didn’t know about this rule change when he took office. First thing he would, or should, have done is fire every single Obama appointed federal government official he legally could. Overnight. By the second day of his admin. And then go from there.

    Think of the possibilities presented when that Bernie Bro tried to assassinate a couple of dozen Republican Reps. ‘Attempted armed Insurrection and political assassination!!!!’. Clearly a major crackdown on leftist ‘extremists’ would be more than justified.

      MattMusson in reply to JHogan. | July 12, 2021 at 6:52 am

      You must also have an enthusiastically compliant press and Collaborators in the FBI and DOJ.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to JHogan. | July 12, 2021 at 9:33 am

      “The Lefties are not going to like what happens if the shoes is ever on the other foot”

      Republicans and conservatives will not do this. It is not in their nature. They would dare the confrontation or even the denunciation from their opponents, so the left does not need to worry about the right.

      However, the left does need to worry about the left. You do not get to keep your rights and freedom just because you are on the left. Under their construct, you have no rights other than to serve the collective will which is determined by the leadership of the collective, and should you in any way displease that leadership, by opposing it or simply not being enthusiastic enough with its dictates, then you get the bullet to the back of the head.

      They threw away that “unalienable rights from God” stuff long ago, and if the source of your rights and freedoms is no greater than the mind of the men who have power over you, you are screwed.

        CommoChief in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | July 12, 2021 at 9:58 am

        BSR,

        Don’t be so sure of that. All it really takes is a DA and Sheriff who will arrest, book, fingerprint, search for outstanding warrants and priors.

        One thing about these antifa and blm mobs is that they don’t seem to be interested in violent confrontation, arson, looting ECT in red States and red Counties.

        They seem terrified to venture out of the areas controlled by their ideological allies in any sustained way. Areas controlled by sympathetic d/progressive Governors, Mayors and DA are their preserve.

        Most left-wing ideologues subscribe to the Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic (e.g. politically congruent), relativistic (e.,g, :ethical) religion that denies a woman and man’s dignity and agency, reduces human life to a property, and demands that people defer and bray to mortal gods and goddesses, minorities, experts, in single/central/monopolistic, often wicked solutions.

    Edward in reply to CommoChief. | July 12, 2021 at 10:36 am

    The problem is that Antifa and BLM tend to avoid locations where LEOs and ADAs tend to vigorously enforce the laws. It’s a shame but, sadly, most simply are not stupid when it comes to avoiding real trouble from either the law or the locals.

      They did try to branch out last year, and hilariously, got run out of town by locals (backed up by local law enforcement). They ran away like the pathetic little soyboi cowards they are. Some great videos of these encounters are (or were) on YouTube.

The prosecutor must be a proud man.
“So, father. What did you do today at work?”
“I put a man into federal prison for twenty years because he used the bathroom in the capitol building.”
“Oh. By the way, I’ve changed my mind on following you into the business. I’m going to become a piano player in a whorehouse because it has a better reputation.”

How are they going to top this?

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant is a criminal of the lowest order. Not only did she intentionally violate the traffic laws of our nation in a flagrant and deliberate manner, but our investigators have discovered she belongs to a patriarchal cult who abides by the rule of a single male in charge of hundreds of females, and sells her children to a murderous industry! Some of you may say “All she did is cross the road” but we cannot overlook these terrible circumstances, and I ask you to sentence Miss Chicken to death! What do you say, my fellow citizens in the jury?!”

“Fry her! Fry her!”

    georgfelis: “I put a man into federal prison for twenty years because he used the bathroom in the capitol building.”

    That hasn’t happened. Hale-Cusanelli is being held because he has been deemed a danger to the public, but only until trial. Most of the other participants have been released on bail.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2021 at 9:50 am

      Apparently you missed the the entire point of the story. The man has odious beliefs, He is even going for that Hitler look if you go by the photo of him. However, in this country, we are not supposed to use governmental power to persecute people for their beliefs. He has not shown any indication towards violence or danger. Holding him in inhuman conditions to include perpetual (until trial – whenever that is) solitary confinement is an arbitrary and capricious exercise of governmental power,

      You do not want police and judicial authorities with this sort of power. It will be abused, as it is now, if not curbed. One day someone could find your ideas odious and therefore “dangerous,” and you and/or like minded people held in solitary confinement indefinitely (until your trial) for your beliefs vice any act you may have committed.

      He at worst is a trespasser, and the facts as admitted by the government even place that in doubt. He walked up to the capital. Finding the doors open and people wandering in and out, he wandered in. When he knew violent activities were taking place, he left.

      Why is this man in solitary confinement without bail? They are letting actual murders out on bail and even no bail in various states and cities now. They let out actual convicted felons from jails across the country because of COVID and before that for overcrowding of prisons.

      Don’t take the side of oppression just because you disdain the oppressed, unless you are willing to also toss away civil society. You will not like it when the arbitrary hand of oppressive power lands upon you or those you love. Do not through away freedom and decency for the cheap and momentary thrill of tormenting someone you do not like.

Solitary confinement seems vey hard to justify, As per the Vox article linked in this article id agree that solitary confinement should be removed from the justice system.

Its interesting to note that 70% of those charged have been released pending hearing that’s compared to the average of 25% for federally indicted people.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | July 12, 2021 at 9:58 am

    Solitary confinement has a place and that is to segregate dangerous prisoners from the general population for a cooling off period or as severe punishment for things like violent attacks on guards and fellow inmates. It should, however, be limited in duration to something like three or five days.

    Example, two inmates get into a physical altercation. No ne is seriously injured. They are both placed in solitary confinement for three days to keep them apart and to cool off without charging them for assaults, etc., and going through the administrative or judicial process to extend their sentence.

    This sort of use of solitary confinement, which was also used on Manafort, is cruel and the stuff of dictatorships. It has no place in a country that values decency and freedom.

      Brave Sir Robbin: The man has odious beliefs, He is even going for that Hitler look if you go by the photo of him.

      Sure. Dressing up as Hitler and being a racist is protected speech. What is not protected is participating in the storming of the Capitol in the furtherance of what he saw as a civil war.

      Brave Sir Robbin: He has not shown any indication towards violence or danger.

      That is not correct. Hale-Cusanelli expressed his opinion that he was participating in a civil war and that it was acceptable that people would die. Shortly before the insurrection, he discussed leaving his employment “in a blaze of glory.” All of this indicates someone who might engage in violence. Certainly the court could reasonably be concerned about his violent tendencies.

      Brave Sir Robbin: You do not want police and judicial authorities with this sort of power.

      The bail law applies to everyone. In any case, he can appeal to a higher court.

      Brave Sir Robbin: He at worst is a trespasser

      That is not correct. He admitted to egging on the rioters to push past the police line.

      Brave Sir Robbin: Why is this man in solitary confinement without bail?

      Has Hale-Cusanelli asked to be transferred out of restrictive housing? Accused insurrectionists are being held in restrictive housing because there is a concern about attacks if they were held in the general prison population. However, no one should be in solitary confinement for any extensive period of time, and other security measures should be found.

      Brave Sir Robbin: Do not through away freedom and decency for the cheap and momentary thrill of tormenting someone you do not like.

      It has nothing to do with tormenting the accused, but due process. Has he been given due process? The appeals court says he has.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2021 at 10:22 am

        “The appeals court says he has.”

        Apparently, I may not disagree with a court.

        “Brave Sir Robbin: He has not shown any indication towards violence or danger.”

        You in reply: “That is not correct. Hale-Cusanelli expressed his opinion….”

        Enough said. You want people jailed for their “opinions.”

        And the things you said he did, he did not do, according to the article. At worst, he is a trespasser. He did not engage in any violent behavior, and never has. What then is the cause to detail him without bail and to hold in solitary confinement? Oh, right, you answered that. He “expressed his opinion.”

          Brave Sir Robbin: Apparently, I may not disagree with a court.

          Of course you can disagree, but you’ve provided no valid reason that the courts are wrong.

          Brave Sir Robbin: Enough said. You want people jailed for their “opinions.”

          In a bail hearing, your statements, your opinions, can matter in terms of determining whether you remain a danger to the public. Indeed, your opinions can be used at trial to ascertain guilt.

          Brave Sir Robbin: And the things you said he did, he did not do, according to the article.

          We referred to the court record, which includes recorded conversations with the accused.

          You could argue that the court is wrong, and that he is not a danger to the public, but your argument appears to be that the court can’t even consider whether he is a danger to the public or not.

          Conversing with Zachriel has a decent comparison to the old saw about wrestling with hogs.

      I’m willing to bend a little on solitary in these cases, because it’s either solitary or general population, and putting these political prisoners into GenPop would result in massive casualties over the course of their imprisonment. Still, putting trespassers into prison without bail for over a year until trial is simply strong-arming ordinary people who SHOULD be only liable for perhaps a $50 trespassing charge like hundreds of other people over the years in much the same situation.

      Release ’em. The US should not have political prisoners.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to georgfelis. | July 12, 2021 at 6:56 pm

        “I’m willing to bend a little on solitary in these cases, because it’s either solitary or general population, and putting these political prisoners into GenPop would result in massive casualties over the course of their imprisonment.”

        If the authorities are worried about these inmates being attacked by other inmates, the solution is NOT solitary confinement for the endangered inmates. It is removal of those inmates and their placement in a facility in which they are not threatened instead of being subjected to torture by the state.

        The canard about putting someone in extended solitary confinement “for there own protection” is a Fauccian. It is not meant to protect them. It is meant to torture them.

        A judge should order the sate place these inmates in a safe and human condition of confinement within a few days time, or order them released on bail.

    n.n in reply to mark311. | July 12, 2021 at 10:10 am

    Implying a mass violation of civil rights in progress for a disordered environment that was forced by a congressional invitation to enter, summarily withdrawn, and one unarmed woman murdered for a property crime, effectively breaching a fence.

Thanks, Ameer, for this very important article.

Ameer Benno: Here, however, she simply went along to get along.

Or she considered the case on its merits and made her decision accordingly. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Hale-Cusanelli expressed his opinion that he was participating in a civil war and that it was acceptable that people would die. Shortly before the insurrection, and while wearing a Hitler mustache, he discussed leaving his employment “in a blaze of glory.” All of this indicates someone who might engage in violence. Certainly the court could reasonably be worried about his violent tendencies.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2021 at 10:03 am

    “Hale-Cusanelli expressed his opinion that he was participating in a civil war and that it was acceptable that people would die.”

    That is not supported by the article.

    From the article: “He also told the friend that he believed that civil war was the “most likely” and “simplest” outcome of the political divide in the county but expressed that he did “not … actually want that,” and said that the simplest solutions are not always the best ones.”

    In other words, he fears a civil war. He is not expressing a desire for one, much less actually being in one now.

      Brave Sir Robbin: That is not supported by the article.

      It’s supported by the court records. The appeals court considered that he had said he didn’t actually want a civil war, but they concluded:

      the District Court would have to weigh those statements against others where Appellant acknowledged that guns would be used in a civil war and that people would die, to which Appellant replied “Thomas Jefferson said the tree of liberty should be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Conditional Release at 20. It is not obviously wrong to conclude that these statements, taken as a whole, demonstrate a potential danger to the community. This is particularly so when viewed with other statements Appellant made just prior to January 6, such as proclaiming a “final countdown” and an intention to leave his employment in a “blaze of glory.”

      Brave Sir Robbin: In other words, he fears a civil war. He is not expressing a desire for one, much less actually being in one now.

      In the recorded conversation with the CHS, Hale-Cusanelli described “the adrenaline, the rush, the purpose” he felt on January 6, which he compared to “civil war.”

    n.n in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2021 at 10:06 am

    So, a thought crime implying the potential for opening a mass abortion field, a witch trial, a warlock judgment, diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment) and plausible in lieu of probable cause.

      n.n: So, a thought crime implying the potential for opening a mass abortion field, a witch trial, a warlock judgment, diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment) and plausible in lieu of probable cause.

      Have no idea what you are going on about. Just addressing the first clause, it’s not a thought crime, but a consideration of whether he is a continuing danger to the public. The district court, and the appeals court agreed, that there is reason to believe he is still a danger to the public.

    CommoChief in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2021 at 10:12 am

    Zach,

    The record as presented here, doesn’t demonstrate ‘violent tendencies’. It demonstrates a guy who likes to shoot off his mouth; speech. None of his offensive and unpopular speech, individually or collectively, demonstrate anything other than he almost certainly has Nazi sympathies.

    His choice of ideology and grooming habits, even a ‘Hitler’ mustache shouldn’t be grounds for his pretrial confinement as a ‘danger’ to the public. His co-workers knew his habits. They didn’t seek out LEO or mental health intervention to have him locked up as a danger.

    If holding and expressing a non mainstream ideology is enough evidence of threat to confine someone pretrial then I hope you would demonstrate the courage of your convictions.

    Turn yourself over to the authorities and make a full confession.

      CommoChief: The record as presented here, doesn’t demonstrate ‘violent tendencies’. It demonstrates a guy who likes to shoot off his mouth; speech.

      The statements of someone who shoots off his mouth about civil war then participates in what he sees as a civil war, encouraging others to push past the police line protecting the Congress can be used not only in a bail hearing, but at trial. How did you think it worked?

        CommoChief in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2021 at 10:44 am

        Glad to know that you you fully endorse these standards for use against your fellow travelers in antifa and blm and environmental movement, students who sit in ECT.

        Speech opposed to certain policies combined with trespass = pretrial confinement. I shudder to think of the consequences for the various d/progressive groups and individuals who engage in assault, arson, violence, looting, property crimes in furtherance of their ideology.

        If that’s the course you want, you deserve to receive it. By the way have you turned yourself over to the authorities, confessed your sins and voluntarily agreed to confinement while your actions, thoughts and ideology are scrutinized?

          CommoChief: Glad to know that you you fully endorse these standards for use against {} antifa and blm and environmental movement, students who sit in ECT.

          Those who engage in violence should be held to account. Those who are accused have the right to bail, but they can be held if the evidence indicates they remain a danger to society.

          CommoChief: Speech opposed to certain policies combined with trespass = pretrial confinement.

          A federal grand jury charged Hale-Cusanelli with “Civil Disorder; Aiding and Abetting; Obstruction of an Official Proceeding; Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds; Impeding Ingress and Egress in a Restricted Building; Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building”.

          Pre-trial confinement is because the court determined he remained a danger to the public. His best bet is to convince the judge that he will abide by the law until trial.

          CommoChief: I shudder to think of the consequences for the various d/progressive groups and individuals who engage in assault, arson, violence, looting, property crimes in furtherance of their ideology.

          Most would be charged under state laws, but the basic principles will be the same. Those who engage in violence should be held to account. Those who are accused have the right to bail, but they can be held if the evidence indicates they represent a danger to society.

          Really. How else did you think it worked? Or should work?

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | July 12, 2021 at 11:22 am

          The question was have you turned yourself in the authorities, confessed your sins and agreed to confinement while awaiting review of your thoughts, speech and actions?

          Since you would have surrendered your electronic devices along with your belt and shoelaces had you done so then the answer is no.

          You lack the courage of your convictions.

          CommoChief: The question was have you turned yourself in the authorities, confessed your sins and agreed to confinement while awaiting review of your thoughts, speech and actions?

          The district court found that there was sufficient evidence that Hale-Cusanelli was guilty of the crime to sustain the indictment, and that the U.S. had met its burden under the law of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Hale-Cusanelli would pose a danger to the community if released.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | July 12, 2021 at 11:53 am

          Zach,

          As ever you seek to sidestep the questions and redirect to your favored topic.

          My final words to on this matter; by casting aside custom here in endorsement of pretrial confinement for what amounts to trespass plus unpopular speech you are opening your ideological allies and fellow travelers to the same treatment.

          Actions have consequences. I suggest you prepare to receive them when the time comes. Sooner than you believe.

          CommoChief: As ever you seek to sidestep the questions and redirect to your favored topic.

          We re-directed back to the actual topic.

          CommoChief: by casting aside custom here in endorsement of pretrial confinement for what amounts to trespass plus unpopular speech you are opening your ideological allies and fellow travelers to the same treatment.

          Your factual errors have already been pointed out. It was more than simple trespass.

          How did you think bail worked? Should work?

          Sanddog in reply to CommoChief. | July 12, 2021 at 1:22 pm

          No, it wasn’t more than simple trespass. He walked through open doors, used the bathroom and left as soon as the capitol police officer shot a protester. Those are not the actions of someone who came to participate in a “civil war”. Stop the nonsense. His opinions, odious as they may be are protected speech. We punish actual actions, not speech. His actions amount to simple trespass.

          Sanddog: No, it wasn’t more than simple trespass.

          Hale-Cusanelli admitted to encouraging others to break through the police lines, so he was part of the larger drive to storm the Capitol. He also said he felt he was part of a civil war.

      FOAF in reply to CommoChief. | July 12, 2021 at 6:02 pm

      So zach and marky mark, if Hale-Cusinelli belongs in jail what do we do about Democrat icon Al Sharpton whose antisemitic rhetoric directly incited nine murders?

        FOAF: if Hale-Cusinelli belongs in jail what do we do about Democrat icon Al Sharpton whose antisemitic rhetoric directly incited nine murders?

        If Sharpton were indicted for assault, then his utterances could certainly be used to determine whether he posed a threat to the public.

        https://www.jta.org/2019/05/20/united-states/al-sharpton-cops-to-cheap-rhetoric-in-the-past-in-a-controversial-talk-to-reform-jews

          FOAF in reply to Zachriel. | July 13, 2021 at 2:22 pm

          So this half-hearted non-apology 30 years after the fact makes it ok with you that all those people were murdered. Gotcha, for zach the only good Jew is a dead Jew.

          FOAF: So this half-hearted non-apology 30 years after the fact makes it ok with you that all those people were murdered.

          Who said it was okay? Your claim concerned making bail after indictment by a grand jury. Hale-Cusinelli’s case has yet to be adjudicated, but he has been denied bail because there was evidence presented to the court that Hale-Cusinelli could be a threat to the public.

          Was Sharpton indicted for murder? No. Because he didn’t commit murder under the law. However, if he had been indicted, then his rhetoric could certainly be used at the bail hearing and at trial.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2021 at 10:13 am

    “Certainly the court could reasonably be worried about his violent tendencies.”

    So, call up the pre-crime unit, and lock him away, in solitary confinement, no less, for something you fear he may do?

    Sounds pretty dictatorial and contrary the entire notion of innocent until proven guilty and that now apparently archaic stuff. Watch carefully what you say, or else!

    In addition, he has not exhibited any violent tendencies. He did once ride in the car of someone who, perhaps unbeknownst to him, used a potato gun that was kept in the trunk of that car. Other than that, absolutely no history of criminality or violence.

    I must say, your ideas expressed here, that people should be locked away in solitary confinement for things they say, are as dangerous as his. But I will vigorously condemn any one who locks you away simply for expressing them, and more vehemently condemn also placing you in eternal solitary confinement just because someone finds you opinions revulsive.

      Brave Sir Robbin: So, call up the pre-crime unit, and lock him away, in solitary confinement, no less, for something you fear he may do?

      Duh. That’s how the federal bail system works. If there is substantial evidence of a crime, and the person is deemed a danger to the public, he can be held until trial. The accused can appeal, or try to convince the judge he is no longer a threat.

        mailman in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2021 at 6:25 pm

        Because, you fucking mental pigmy, it’s the alleged crimes one has committed that is used at bail hearings not fantasies about what a certain persons opinions are.

        I mean humour us here and engage that fucking pea you call a brain. There are people who have been held in solitary confinement for 6 months who haven’t had their time in court and are, at worst, charged with trespass and nothing more serious than that yet you see no issues what so ever with this?

        If you are really ok with people being held indefinitely by the State then fuck you you fucking fuck 😂😂

          mailman: it’s the alleged crimes one has committed that is used at bail hearings not fantasies about what a certain persons opinions are.

          A person’s utterances can be used to help determine whether someone seeking release on bail could be a danger to the public.

          mailman: There are people who have been held in solitary confinement for 6 months who haven’t had their time in court and are, at worst, charged with trespass and nothing more serious than that yet you see no issues what so ever with this?

          Hale-Cusinelli is not charged with simple trespassing, but aiding and abetting the storming of the Capitol. Restrictive housing is being used to protect the accused, but there should be other security measures should be possible.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2021 at 7:07 pm

        “Duh. That’s how the federal bail system works.”

        Actually, it does not. The man some indirect and vague missives, one of which was that he hoped there would be no civil war. He made no explicit threat and no history of violent or criminal behavior. There is no evidence or accusation he was part of any violent conspiracy. Denial of bail is completely uncalled for, as is his being held in solitary confinement.

          The very fact this mental pigmy is all in one indefinite detention tells you all you really need to know about Democrats. They are all for imprisoning people based solely on what Democrats THINK these people are thinking.

          Brave Sir Robbin: Actually, it does not.

          The federal law allows the court to consider whether a defendant could be a danger to the public.

          Brave Sir Robbin: The man some indirect and vague missives, one of which was that he hoped there would be no civil war.

          The “indirect and vague missives” about civil war, but then participates in what he sees as a civil war, encouraging others to push past the police line protecting the Congress, can be used not only in a bail hearing, but at trial. How did you think it worked?

          Brave Sir Robbin: There is no evidence or accusation he was part of any violent conspiracy.

          No. He’s accused of aiding and abetting and destroying evidence.

          The United States moves the Court to order that Defendant be detained without bond pending trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B) because there is a serious risk that, if released, Defendant will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to threaten, injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness. Much of the United States’ evidence in this case was gathered by CHS, and Defendant has shown an intent to obstruct or destroy evidence: he deleted his Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter accounts before he was arrested; he deleted videos of the Based Hermes Show from YouTube before he was arrested; he hid the suit and tie that he wore to the Capitol at an undisclosed location before he was arrested; and he discussed with CHS his intent to destroy additional evidence so as not to be arrested with it.

          mailman: The very fact this mental pigmy is all in one indefinite detention

          The detention is not indefinite, but just until trial, or until he can convince the judge he will abide by the law if he were released.

Y’all want to keep playing footsie with people that will shoot you in a heartbeat.
The time for games is over

Capsaicin_Addict | July 12, 2021 at 9:06 am

“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” –H.L. Mencken

From Nazis braying Jew privilege to neo-Nazis braying White privilege, so much progress (i.e. unqualified monotonic change): one step forward, two steps backward. That said, Baby Lives Matter.

Fat_Freddys_Cat | July 12, 2021 at 10:20 am

I guess it would be naive of me to ask if the Sixth Amendment still applies? Just out of curiosity when was that repealed?

    Which commercial contract was that an Amendment to? Can’t be referring to the Constitution and the Sixth item in the somewhat misnomered Bill of Rights*, the Constitution is now officially dead and ignored.

    * For those in Rio Linda, the Bill of Rights does not confer any rights, it does stipulate protection for certain rights which God (not the government) grants every person at birth.

“With a hopeful eye on an eventual elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court in a future Republican administration…”

And this instance is ample reason to strongly oppose any such elevation. When confronted with a clear Constitutional issue, she punted to “go along and get along” with the Socialist/Communist Roland Freisler wannabes.

Antifundamentalist | July 12, 2021 at 11:05 am

This is the modern incarnation of McCarthyism. You may or may not be an actual Conservative, but to accused of being one is sufficient to have your life ruined. All Conservatives are racists.

In DC even the judges are corrupt to the core.

If what has been said about Mr. Timothy Hale-Cusanelli is true, then how many of his supervisors and commanders have been fired for not taking action prior to January 6th?

Since the answer is likely Zero, how can we believe what is being said about him?

    mailman in reply to CaptTee. | July 13, 2021 at 5:38 am

    Prior to January 6 when you had actual adults in charge his opinions weren’t crimes. But you can sure as fuck guarantee all wrong think, under a Democrat Junta, are crimes against humanity now. Had this guy remained in employment past January I very much doubt he would have remained an employee for much longer in to the year. His opinions would have guaranteed him being fired. Thats just how things are being run now actual fascists are in power.

      mailman: Prior to January 6 when you had actual adults in charge his opinions weren’t crimes.

      Hale-Cusanelli is not being charged for his opinion, however, his utterances can certainly be used as evidence against him, not just in a bail hearing, but at trial. How did you think it worked?

henrybowman | July 12, 2021 at 8:08 pm

“That friend then confidentially reported Hale-Cusanelli to the Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS).”

My grasp of unofficial liberation history is somewhat weak in this area. How have such “friends” traditionally been rewarded? Cyanide in the sauerkraut? Botulism in the borscht?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend