A federal judge in DC is holding a detention hearing in the cases of Capitol insurrection defendants Eric Munchel (who was photographed wearing tactical gear and holding a bunch of zip tie handcuffs) and his mother Lisa Eisenhart — the govt is arguing to keep both behind bars

Re: the zip tie handcuffs that Munchel and Eisenhart allegedly picked up inside the Capitol, AUSA Ahmed Baset says they were visible to lots of people passing by at the time but these two not only took them, but did so "with glee"
Baset says it's true that Munchel and Eisenhart aren't charged with physically hurting anyone, the evidence shows they were looking for lawmakers, who had been cleared out. "They should not be given credit for that," Baset argues.
Baset says that Munchel was in touch with the Proud Boys in Tennessee *after* Jan. 6 and talked about how he'd wanted to join their ranks before but didn't know how
Munchel's lawyer Sandra Roland argues that the Tennessee magistrate judge who granted pretrial release to Munchel and Eisenhart got it right in finding that the govt failed to show there were no combination of release conditions that would protect the community
Roland argues that the judge in DC, Judge Royce Lamberth, should be focusing on whether the TN judge's decision was "clearly erroneous," versus doing his own review from scratch to decide the detention issue. She also notes that Munchel turned himself in + videos from his phone
Roland argues that the release conditions ordered by the TN judge were reasonable — home confinement with third party custodian + GPS monitoring, which she says is basically like jail but without the COVID risk
Roland focuses on the fact that Munchel isn't charged with violence. She also says that the govt hasn't actually confirmed the person Munchel communicated with after the riot was affiliated with the Proud Boys, and says there's no ev. of ties with anti-government/milita groups
Roland argues Munchel went to DC to protest and send a message, which people do all the time. Lamberth jumps in and asks what message he was trying to send by carrying around zip tie handcuffs. Roland notes there's no evidence he used them.

"Luckily," Lamberth quips back.
Lamberth is pushing Roland to explain *why* Munchel picked up the handcuffs, and Roland deflects, saying the govt hasn't presented evidence about that, and there isn't anything in the record about him indicating what he planned to do with them
Next up is Gregory Smith for Munchel's mother Lisa Eisenhart, who the govt is also arguing to keep in custody. Smith says she's a longtime nurse with no criminal record and argues she isn't a flight risk, noting she made arrangements to turn herself in and doesn't have a passport
Smith is criticizing how long it's taken for the DC court to address detention for Eisenhart (and Munchel), noting the TN magistrate judge ordered release on Jan. 22 and decided even a three-day stay to allow the govt to appeal was too long (a DC judge then granted a longer stay)
Smith accuses the govt of overselling the evidence in seeking detention, noting that the magistrate judge in TN concluded the govt didn't back up a claim that Eisenhart was chasing after officers inside the Capitol
Smith says pretrial detention should be about risk Eisenhart poses between now and trial. What does govt fear she's going to do, he asks, "now that Donald Trump is no longer in office, now that the electoral vote has been confirmed, now that there’s a fence around the Capitol"
AUSA Baset is back up to reply to the defense arguments — he argues the factors that gave rise to Jan. 6 violence are still here, noting ongoing threat assessments about future demonstrations, alluding to one planned for early March (tied to QAnon: https://t.co/KXrxs6N1tR)
Responding to defense args that Munchel and Eisenhart aren't charged with any violence/destruction at the Capitol, AUSA Baset compares it to a burglar trying to get credit for not breaking a vase
It appears we are not going to get a ruling on detention for Capitol insurrection defendants Eric Munchel and Lisa Eisenhart today — arguments just concluded and Judge Lamberth said he wants to issue a ruling in writing as soon as possible, likely tomorrow

More from Zoe Tillman

A detention hearing is about to start in federal court in Arkansas in the case of Richard Barnett, the man photographed sitting in Nancy Pelosi's office (see: https://t.co/GAAENhkxf0). He's been in custody since his arrest

Prosecutors alleged Barnett was carrying a stun gun. He's charged with entering a restricted area w/ a weapon, violent entry/disorderly conduct, and theft. There isn't anything on the docket indicating what the govt/Barnett will be seeking as far as detention v. release


We're still waiting for the Richard Barnett detention hearing to start in Arkansas. Meanwhile, follow @o_ema for updates on initial appearances in DC federal court today for a few of the Capitol insurrection arrestees -->


Richard Barnett's detention hearing is underway in Arkansas — Judge Erin Wiedemann will decide if Barnett should stay behind bars. The first witness is FBI special agent Jonathan Willett, who was involved in the Capitol riot investigation

FBI agent walks the judge through surveillance videos that the agent says show Barnett walking in and out of Nancy Pelosi's office, with a "walking stick Taser" on his hip, as well as the widely disseminated photos of Barnett sitting in Pelosi's chair with his feet up
New, with more to come: DOJ under Biden is keeping up the previous admin's effort to take over Trump's defense against a defamation lawsuit filed by writer E. Jean Carroll — an effort Biden criticized during the campaign.

First brief under new admin: https://t.co/JihPuNXxHj


Story: DOJ is keeping up an effort to try to take over Donald Trump's defense against a defamation case filed by writer E. Jean Carroll — an effort Biden criticized as a candidate last fall.

Key phrase in tonight's brief? "institutional interests"
https://t.co/LTuq3vv58F


This is the latest case that tests DOJ's traditional role of defending the power and prerogatives of the executive branch — any executive branch, regardless of president. What's unusual is that Biden had weighed in on this case specifically.

DOJ says Trump's comments about Carroll — who accused him of raping her more than 20 years ago — were "crude and disrespectful." Notably, that language does not appear in DOJ's prev. brief filed 1/15. But DOJ says the case isn't about what's "appropriate"

A federal district judge in Manhattan had rebuffed DOJ's effort last fall to substitute the US govt for Trump as the defendant. If the government ultimately wins, it would likely spell the end of Carroll's suit, since the US is immune against libel suits

More from Government

Let me take a stab at this after years of reporting on Marine One, HMX-1, Continuity of Government, etc. None of this is definitive, but it could help explain what folks are seeing:

1.) HMX-1, which flies the VH-3D and VH-60N 'White Top' helicopters used to move... 1/X


the President and VP around, those helos being called Marine One or Two when either is onboard, need to train. The urban landing zones, including WH and VP Residence, are not simple to get in and out of. So, crews need some currency training. They are not just tasked with... 2/X

moving POTUS and VP to get them around the region and to Andrews AFB for long-haul flights, they are essential to Continuity of Government operations. This means that if a threat were to emerge, they need to be ready to snatch POTUS and VP in minutes. This is partially... 3/X

why they have a full forward operating location at Naval Support Activity Anacostia, just 3 miles from the WH. As such, practice is important and considering the state of things, it is critical now more than in any recent memory. 4/X

2.) Considering what happened last week, including mobs of Trump supporters screaming in unison to hang the VP for doing what the constitution states, absolutely despicable in every way, security has been tightened just as it has been all over. Using the helicopters instead.. 5/X
They shouldn't be.

The pattern is:
GOP in power - GOP dictates policy

Dems in power - GOP dictates policy


The Dems shouldn't legislate toward the GOP.

The GOP doesn't represent its constituents.

The GOP can push it's agenda on its own time.

If Dems push an agenda that actually helps people, it'll also actually help the GOP constituency.

The GOP won't. So give them nothing.

The Dems should ignore the GOP just like the GOP ignores the Dems.

Make them pay for every moment of obstruction.

Just a hard press on legislation that is unassailable and shine a light on the GOP.

Constant. Relentless. Unyielding.

Shut them out and shut them down.

The GOP is not a legitimate political party. It is an anti-democratic, fascist criminal syndicate with no interest whatsoever in governance.

Nobody should give them the slightest bit of credit or legitimacy ever again.

Not a fucking ounce.

Nobody should engage them in legitimate debate in Congress.

They should be pariahs and treated as unserious occupants of Congress.

Because these people were totally ok with their colleagues being killed in furtherance of the destruction of the insitution.

You May Also Like