Also picking up this hearing already-in-progress: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1352728718674956290

Infamous "zip tie guy" Eric Munchel is, according to one witness, an adherent of an "non-violent ideology," and "pro-law enforcement." The FBI agrees that is what Witness-1 said.

A government attorney is up now: "We ain't playing fucking nice no god damn more," Munchel allegedly said, expressing a desire to "fuck things up."

"I want that fucking gavel," Munchel allegedly said when he entered the Senate Gallery.

"Yes. They coordinated their actions together," an FBI agent says, when asked whether Munchel and his mother "acted as a team."

The government says the investigation is ongoing. Federal public defender Alpert raises an objection on relevance. "My point is that this investigation is far from over."

"I think you've made your point. I think your position is clear. You need to move on," the judge says.

"Regardless of the words stated by Mr. Munchel, he did not engage in any actual violence, correct?" Alpert asks the FBI agent. The FBI agent hedges and refers to the evidence. The defense goes on.

The FBI agent confirms all of the defense's more specific questions which end with, paraphrasing here: "Most of what Munchel was doing was following his mother around?"

"Correct," the FBI agent says.

No re-direct from the government.

Defense is moving for several exhibits to be placed into evidence and asks they all be placed under seal.

An email from Munchel's employer that testifies he was a good employee but that he can't return to work. Next is a statement from a character witness in favor of the defendant as a generally "helpful" and "kind person."

Another exhibit is a photograph that purports to show the court a fuller picture of a previous image submitted by the government. Another exhibit is a video from Munchel's camera showing an interaction with local police officers.

Another exhibit is a 12-minute-ish long video showing his and his mother's entry into the U.S. Capitol Building. Another exhibit is a fuller picture of security camera footage already provided by the government.

No objections from the government. All admitted. 1-3 and 5-8 will be placed under seal. [Correction: defense did not request exhibit number four be placed under seal.]

Defense says Munchel missed a prior court date because he was never notified. Also proffering a childhood friend who would become Witness-4--says they participated in Boy Scout activities for years together as well as cross country running and theater.

Defense calls Peggy Miller as their first witness. A Nashville resident with two daughters whose brother is staying with her. She's known Munchel from when they both lived in Florida "for approximately four years." Considers him family. They call each other "son" and "mom."

Miller says Munchel isn't violent to her knowledge. Says she is willing to allow him to live with her before his trial. Says she understands the obligations of a third-party custodian and goes through the motions here. "Yes, absolutely, I would," report him if he breaks the rules

Defense is done with Miller. Government re-directs.

Government notes that Munchel stayed with Miller the weekend before he was arrested. She corrects: "A day and a half." He came over initially to talk with one of her daughters--allegedly after work. Before he turned himself in.

Miller says Munchel never mentioned the possibility of being arrested. He told her he had been doxxed on social media was "not true" and that he "feared for his life." Miller says she eventually told him to turn himself into the police.

Munchel gave the Miller daughter a cell phone. The mother says this was "for safe keeping" due to the videos on the phone. He was apparently worried those videos would disappear. He wanted them to be "handed over properly."

"He wanted my daughter to turn it over to his attorney," Miller clarifies after the government attempts to trip up the witness by asking her if Munchel was worried the police would hide the (presumed-to-be-exculpatory) evidence.

Defense re-directs. (Sorry, the government just finished cross-examination.) Asks whether Munchel ever turned his phone off. Miller confirms this. Alpert wants to know about the details of why the phone was turned off. Miller says it was to preserve potential evidence.

Miller says Munchel vehemently denied the "zip tie" characterization of him on social media.

Miller says Munchel initially showed up at her place around 1 a.m. on January 9th. She suggested he not go to work the next morning--though he was scheduled to do so. Says he was actively looking for a lawyer by this time.

Defense wants to call Witness-2. No name is given here.

W2 is a personal friend of Munchel from Florida who has known him for roughly four years. She worked with him in Florida and both of them eventually moved to Nashville--but they did not move together. They then worked together again at a downtown bar as servers.

W2 says Munchel was a "very hard worker" and a "team leader" who always "knew what to do" and "how to handle a situation." Says he always cared for other employees, would walk them to their cars at night, etc.

W2 also says she is willing to keep Munchel walking the straight and narrow if he is released. Says she has never seen him engage in an act of violence.

W2 says she learned about Munchel's participation in the insurrection by seeing posts on Facebook calling him a "terrorist" and says she knew it "wasn't true" so she called him to talk about the situation. She also posted by replying to a video and made a comment in his defense.

W2 says she first saw Munchel around 1 am after he got off work. (So this is the Miller daughter.) Confirms she saw that Munchel's phone "was overrun with calls and messages," according to the defense. Said he was in work clothes when he arrived. They discussed his staying there.

Miller daughter confirms her mother's story. Says the family advised him not to go to work but to find a lawyer the next day. Said they later learned about the FBI looking for him and they then advised him to turn himself in.

Miller daughter helped Munchel obtain his first attorney on Sunday, January 10. He learned about the FBI's interest in him around 11 a.m. that day. Says she helped to make the arrangements to surrender himself.

Miller daughter repeatedly answers questions from defense attorney Alpert that suggest he made no attempt to hide or flee from law enforcement, or to hide or alter evidence from the cellphone.

Munchel told the Miller daughter that he had a pocketknife with him in Washington, D.C. which he put in a backpack just before entering the Capitol.

Defense is done. Government will now cross.

Milller daughter tells the government that she learned about everything via social media but that she did not know he was known as the "zip tie guy" until later.

Miller daughter appears to say she supported the rally leading up to the insurrection. (The connection is bad and the witness is not very loud. Will confirm this.)

Miller daughter says she was not really aware of what happened at the Capitol until Munchel came to see her at 1 a.m. because she wasn't watching or paying attention to the news. May have been vaguely aware something went down.

Government draws some blood here...

Asks if she supported the insurrection. She appears to hesitate before saying no--again, hard to say with a poor connection. Government asks why she hesitated.

Miller daughter takes the bait.

"It's not something I would have done," she tells the AUSA. "If there was just a bunch of people being let in...from what I can tell, he went in to see that his mom was okay."

Miller daughter gets a bit combative with the government saying that the media characterization of Munchel was wrong. Government says they didn't ask about that.

Miller daughter does affirm, however, that she did not support the insurrection.

The witness is done. She leaves the line, sounding a bit miffed. The defense can't be happy with how this went.

Judge asking some procedural questions about evidence. He's got some videos to view. He will do that after argument.

Judge notes superseding complaint charges Munchel with 18 U.S.C. §371 (conspiracy) and 18 U.S.C. §231 (civil disorder) each carry maximum five-years in prison. Says everyone was operating on the assumption that this was known. (Defense says a physical copy hasn't been received.)

AUSA arguing for detention: "It's important not to lose sight of the nature of the conduct here. This was not a momentary lapse of judgment." Says he wasn't just there to protect his mother. "This was a culmination of a plan to rise up."

"They were ready to 'rise up, band together and fight, if necessary,'" AUSA notes, citing them. Says Munchel fist-bumped members of the far-right Oath Keepers militia to indicate support for them while on the way to the Capitol.

"We're going straight to federal prison if we go there with weapons," Munchel's mother says. Munchel agrees. So they then put the weapons in the backpack. Government is citing publicly-available video footage here.

AUSA notes that Munchel and his mother had several opportunities to leave but didn't take advantage of any of them. Says he "grew excited" amidst the chaos and the sound of breaking glass. Notes that he shouted out his desire to "fuck" things up just before entering the building.

As for the zip ties, the government says it's ridiculous that he intended to return them to the police. Because he never did. While he didn't show up with the zip ties, he picked up at least four, his mother picked up one and didn't ever put them down.

The government says that Munchel's behavior when he entered the Senate Gallery is the "most chilling thing."

"God only knows what would have happened in that room," had they found the lawmakers. Assert that he and his mother would have used the flexicuffs if they could.

Government says they don't have to speculate here. Says the evidence is all on video. Says they point was to stop Joe Biden from becoming the president of the United States. Says he doesn't respect the laws of the country.

"This is a person who put on body armor and entered the halls of Congress to stop President Biden from taking the oath of office."

AUSA cites the "radicalization" element. Says he is a danger and still poses a risk. He doesn't believe Biden won the election and his right is to protest but he didn't protest. Instead, he engaged in "the attempted overthrow of a lawfully elected president."

Government doesn't believe there's evidence to support a flight risk finding but that Munchel wouldn't abide by court orders because of his lack of respect for the laws.

"[He] traveled to Washington dressed for combat," the AUSA says when asked to reconcile Munchel's statements with the character evidence presented by the defense about his alleged disdain for violence.

"Is there any evidence that he fucked shit up?" the judge asks the government. The government concedes that there is no evidence but calls his behavior "violent." Admits: "there's no evidence he destroyed property, no."

The judge: "is there any evidence that he fought anyone"

Again the government concedes there is none.

Judge asks whether there is evidence Munchel negatively interacted with law enforcement during the siege.

Government says his mother shouted at a cop with her boy at her side but there's no evidence Munchel himself did.

Judge wants to know if the government thinks Munchel put something "more dangerous" than a stun gun inside his backpack based on the federal prison conversation with his mother. The government draws that inference, yes.

Judge going a bit hard on the government.

Says the identification of Munchel prior to the FBI's arrest warrant was strictly due to the efforts of "private citizens" on social media--phrases this in the form of a question.

After a long pause, AUSA says: "correct."

Judge adds that if Munchel immediately turned himself in, there wouldn't be anything to turn himself in for because there wasn't an active criminal case until later--again phrases this as a question.

(Getting the picture?)

Another pause from the government. Another "Correct."

Judge presses the AUSA. "Are you trying to detain him simply because he has views?" Wants to know if there's any real "future danger" from the defendant.

Slight paraphrase: "Are you saying he'll join up with a mob and try to overthrow the government?"

Exasperated AUSA: "I don't know what form that will take," but goes on to say that overthrowing the government is part of Munchel's ideology. Notes his rally attendance, etc.

Defense closing argument. Starts off by noting that tasers are not illegal. Says she wants her client released. Accuses the government of "imputing the thoughts, feelings and sentiments" of the entire mob (and his mother) "onto Mr. Munchel."

"Isn't that the risk you take when you make yourself a part of that mob?" the judge fires back.

Alpert says no, just because a crowd was yelling something, it doesn't mean her client was yelling something.

"We need to bring the focus back to whether Munchel poses a flight risk or a danger to the community," the defense says. Notes the presumption of release under the Bail Reform Act, the burden is on the government.

"It is unfortunate for Mr. Munchel [because the] photographs of him have made him the posterchild for this moment. But that is one snapshot in time." Says that is not who Munchel is. Notes people with far worse allegations make bail in federal courts across the country.

Defense returns to the well of character witness regarding Munchel's alleged non-violent demeanor. Says the suggestion that he had another weapon is "a stretch" and notes that a large gun wouldn't have fit into a backpack anyway. "There's no indication he brought firearms."

character evidence*

Defense notes his support network, cites his prior time in the Boy Scouts, says he has maintained gainful employment, says his criminal history is ancient and only related to marijuana (legal in D.C.). "There is nothing to indicate that he is radical or has been radicalized."

Defense argues he is not a flight risk. Says he has no passport. Says he sought out "family" once his name "started popping up everywhere" and that he turned himself in as soon as he realized the FBI was after him.

"It was an effort to try to figure out what the heck to do," Alpert says of his decision to stay with the Millers.

"He was in custody 15 minutes after the arrest warrant was actually issued," Alpert notes. Says he didn't even wait for an attorney before turning himself in.

Defense again references the effort to maintain the evidence on his phone. Says all of the above shows he understands the consequences of his actions and that he will show up for court appearances.

Defense says he has no ties to anti-government groups. Says he has respect for law enforcement. Says the video evidence will show how he interacted with police officers. Says that he tried to stop people from engaging in dangerous or violent acts once he was in the Capitol.

"They're really only in there for about 11 minutes," Alpert says, reiterating the argument that he was only there "because his mother wanted to be there." Says he didn't do anything with the zip ties. Says the government lied about what the video evidence will show.

Specifically, the defense is referring to the claim that Munchel and his mother was "in hot pursuit" of police and that she yelled at the officers. Adds that they were largely just observers and not part of the violent mob.

Defense citing multiple rioters/insurrectionists who have been released on bail. Idea here is these people were actually violent, actually stole things, attacked people, etc.

Government gets the last word, notes that over 100 people have been charged, and says they could give just as many examples of people who have been detained. Says the "conduct on that video is egregious" and if the video doesn't convince him, then nothing else will.

The judge is aghast.

Says the video is what the government wants to sentence him on and that isn't what the court is supposed to make their decision on today. "Why is that enough?"

"People died, okay? People died!" the government attorney basically shouts back. "The conduct of that video speaks volumes about what Mr. Munchel is willing to do."

Judge says/asks: "I won't disagree that it's shocking conduct, but you're saying that because he engaged in shocking conduct there's no condition" of bail the court "can impose" that would secure his attendance in the future? The government says the conduct is key.

Judge wants to know if Munchel engaged in the conduct largely because of the rally. Asks if there are any future rallies planned that Munchel might attend that would result in similar conduct in the future.

Another AUSA chimes in to say that Munchel has "an extreme belief" about the results of the election and that many people believe the election was stolen. "He represents the extreme of the extremes."

Says if he encounters people who don't share his position, "the concern is that won't be able to control himself."

Says "it strains credulity" to think he is not a danger to the community.

"You wouldn't want me to believe he's never encountered people with different views in his life, would you?" the judge asks.

The second AUSA attempts to bring in new evidence. The defense objects. The judge says we are done with proving evidence. He will take a brief recess to review the videos.

And we’re back. Okay, so not so brief.

Judge commends the lawyers. Says it’s a testament to the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. Thanks the witnesses for the defense...

Commends the witnesses by noting that many criminal defendants don’t have anyone willing to “stand up for” them.

Judge going through statutory boilerplate and noting that the COVID pandemic offers another dimension. Says “liberty is the norm.”

“Having reviewed the video,” the judge says, “from an emotional standpoint, Mr. Schrader’s [the DOJ attorney] arguments have a lot of appeal.”

Judge Jeffery S. Frensley is simply decimating each and every argument made by the government. Says his criminal history is old and irrelevant; has a right to his views and opinions; has a right to own guns; has maintained employment; turned himself in as soon as he could.

"There is no risk of flight by Mr. Munchel and that does not form a basis on which to detain him."

But wait:

"As I said in questioning during argument, mobs are dangerous, they're inherently dangerous. Whether it's a mob at a sporting event, concert, political protest or intent on doing damage...in this case, it appears, that Mr. Munchel chose to be a part of that mob."

Says it is "not clear in this case" if there was an intent to harm. Says there "is evidence on both sides of that coin."

"It's not clear what his motive was. It's not clear what his intent was." But adds that it was clear what his actions were.

Judge says he followed the mob who interrupted the government and counting of votes.

"There's been no evidence presented to me that Mr. Munchel engaged in advanced planning...it seems clear that there isn't much of a plan." Says Munchel repeatedly asked his mom what her plan was

"I asked the government point blank what that danger was and they referred to his radicalization the views that he holds," the judge said, "and his prior actions."

ERIC "ZIP TIE GUY" MUNCHEL MAKES BAIL:

"The court believes that in light of this, Mr. Munchel does not pose an obvious and clear danger to the safety of this community."

Cites, as a major factor, Munchel's "apparent and clear respect for law enforcement." Judge admits this is "counterintuitive" because he clearly broke the law but notes that there are multiple videos of him being very buddy-buddy with and deferential to police officers.

"Mr. Munchel is entitled to his opinions," the judge notes. "They are protected by the Constitution...he doesn't have a right to do what he did, but that's an issue for another day."

"Release is appropriate," the judge says because there are conditions the court can secure that will maintain the safety of the community between now and Munchel's trial. "Munchel will be released."

No violating state or federal law, must alert pre-trial services if any change in address, must appear in court and serve any sentence as directed, must reside with Ms. Miller as third-party custodian (who will supervise him and report on him if he violates any conditions).

Must report to pre-trial services as directed, must call pre-trial services "at a minimum" of once per week, must continue to actively seek employment, traveling limited to the MDTN, may not travel outside the continental U.S., may not go to D.C. unless for court.

Must avoid all contact with potential witnesses, other defendants or co-conspirators, must not abuse alcohol, must submit to substance screening or testing, must not possess any firearms, restricted to home detention with Ms. Miller except for certain approved activities.

Must submit to location monitoring as directed, must pay for the program based on ability to pay, must report within 48 hours to pre-trial services, must quarantine for 14 days before appearing in person in light of the pandemic.

After several minutes of back-and-forth and another recess, the judge temporarily stayed his ruling until 10 a.m. on Monday. So, while he was granted bail, he will not be able to make bail until Monday afternoon, at the earliest.

Full story here for @lawcrimenews with @KlasfeldReports: https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-siege/zip-tie-guy-who-invaded-the-capitol-with-his-mom-should-remain-jailed-ahead-of-trial-feds-say/

Fidel @threadreaderapp unroll si us plau.