Is There a Chorus Building for DOJ to Look Into Possible Federal Charges Against Kyle Rittenhouse?
Derek Chauvin was indicted on federal charges in Minnesota after a Motion For New Trial was filed following his conviction in state court
One thing is certain about the Merrick Garland-led Justice Department of the Joe Biden Administration — they are clearly responsive to the demands of the “Social Justice Warrior” (SJW) demographic of the current Democrat Party establishment and identity-based interest groups.
Reading and listening to the post-verdict coverage of the jury’s exoneration of Kyle Rittenhouse, I fear the SJW types inside the Civil Rights Division of DOJ will prove themselves malleable enough to bend to the demands of the radical left.
It could be coincidental but the blanketing of the airwaves with this messaging seems to me to be more purposeful:
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwaldThe use of the phrase "cross state lines" -- as if it's some inherently nefarious act that demonstrates evil intent rather than something people who live in border towns do every day -- was one of the most preposterous parts of the media's narrative deceit, and they can't stop. https://t.co/Tl6Yow1yLw
And this is what I is fear the messaging might be about: 18 U.S.C. Sec. 239:
(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.—
(A) In general.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—
(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(I) death results from the offense;
(B) Circumstances described.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that—
(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim—
(I) across a State line or national border; or
This is the “Shepard Byrd Act Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009,” named after Matthew Shepard and Michael Byrd, two men whose murderers were motivated by their victim’s homosexuality (Shepard) and African-American race (Byrd).
Congress included a “Certification Requirement” in this statute — findings that must be made by the Attorney General before prosecution under this statute can be initiated. The certification required is as follows:
(b) Certification Requirement.—
(1) In general.—No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that—
(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;
(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or
(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.
Note the disjunctive between (C) and (D). It is only necessary that the Attorney General certify that one of these factual circumstances apply before DOJ can bring a federal case under this statute.
Do not for a minute believe that DOJ has not been inundated, from outside and inside, with demands that the Civil Rights Division actively pursue a grand jury investigation of Kyle Rittenhouse, assuming they haven’t already started.
In my opinion, the facts of the case do not fit within the legislative intent behind the statute — there is no evidence that Rittenhouse was motivated in any respect by the race of any of the persons he shot. The simple fact is that none of them fit within the “protected” classes identified in the statute.
My fear is that the SJWs who now control DOJ will take a more expansive view of the statutory language, and will focus on the following:
Whoever… willfully causes bodily injury to any person … through the use of … a firearm … because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person…
I expect there to be an argument made that the two references in the statute to “any person” do not necessarily limit the application of the statute to circumstances where “any person” is the same individual. I expect there to be an effort to read the statute expansively and to argue that an injury caused to any victim if motivated by “hate”, falls within the statute even if the person injured or killed was not the person at whom the “hate” was directed.
The argument will be that the protests in Kenosha following the Blake shooting by Kenosha police were protests for racial justice, and a substantial number of the protesters were racial minorities.
The argument will be that an inference can be made that Kyle Rittenhouse came to Kenosha, arming himself along the way, with a motivation to stop or hinder these racial justice protesters, i.e., he was motivated to be out on the street with a firearm because of the racial composition of the protest groups.
When he used the AR15, he injured and killed others out of a motivation to stop or hinder protesters based on the race of the protester groups.
His conduct took place during the course of his travel across a State line.
To justify the certification of such a prosecution, they will likely rely on (C) — “the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.”
The repetitive chorus in the media from talking heads and pundits — including some former federal prosecutors — about him “crossing state lines” seems likely to be the result of the wide circulation of “talking points” emphasizing that fact in a way that will be used to justify DOJ taking up the issue.
This would be an extraordinarily weak reading of the statutory language. But with the SJW types at Main Justice, winning isn’t always the point. The federal prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse would be a vehicle by which to warn all counter-protesters who come out in response to “racial justice” grievance protests that they are risking federal prosecution by the Biden Justice Department in doing so.
The protests are justified because they are motivated by “injustice” on the part of police and white patriarchal society and privilege. But counter-protesters risk being illegal because they are motivated by racial animus directed at the protesters.
Those leading the Biden DOJ have already proven themselves willing to be the “Storm Troopers” for left-wing interest groups. Pursuing a prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse would simply be another chapter in the same book.