Rob Rundo’s Fight for Justice: A Case of Political Persecution and Legal Injustice

We understand Rob has been viciously smeared by the legacy media. Today we are giving Rob a chance to tell his own story.

For the past seven years, Rob Rundo has been trapped in a legal battle that has brought into stark focus the dangers of political persecution within the U.S. legal system.

What began in 2017 as a series of minor altercations at two MAGA rallies has turned into a protracted and unjust legal ordeal. His case serves as a sobering reminder of the increasing political bias in our courts and the far-reaching consequences of selective prosecution from the FBI.

The Background: Minor Altercations at Political Rallies

The events that sparked Rob Rundo’s legal troubles began in 2017 at two separate political rallies—one in Huntington Beach, California, and the other in Berkeley, California. Both rallies were fraught with tension, particularly between supporters of President Trump and the radical left-wing group Antifa.

You can help Rob here.

On March 25, 2017, during a “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) rally in Huntington Beach, Rundo witnessed Antifa members using pepper spray on several people, temporarily blinding them. In the midst of the chaos, Rundo briefly became involved in a physical altercation with two masked Antifa members.

There were no injuries, no weapons involved on Rundo’s part, and no one filed a victim report.

Interestingly, police recovered weapons such as knives and pepper spray from the Antifa members at the scene—but no arrests were made.

The second altercation occurred on April 15, 2017, in Berkeley, during a “free speech” rally. Rundo had been invited to provide security. As tensions mounted, Antifa members threw fireworks and bottles into the crowd and began attacking a MAGA supporter. Rundo attempted to de-escalate the situation, but Antifa members were armed with clubs, fireworks, and homemade explosives. Despite the hostile environment, Rundo did not use weapons. His involvement was limited to minor altercations, and no injuries resulted.

You can help Rob here.

The Unconstitutional Prosecution and Weaponization of the Law

Despite the relatively minor nature of these altercations, Rundo’s case quickly spiraled into a years-long legal ordeal. In 2018, almost a year after the events in question, Rundo was arrested in a no-knock house raid, which was a dramatic and violent gesture, including being flash banged, and every item in his home was utterly destroyed and /or confiscated which shocked his family and neighbors.

He spent nearly a year in a federal prison before his case was finally presented in court.

In 2019, a breakthrough came when Federal Judge , Cormac Carney ruled that the Anti-Riot Act under which Rundo was charged was “unconstitutionally overbroad,” violating the First Amendment. This ruling led to the dismissal of all charges against him, signaling a brief moment of hope. The Anti-Riot Act was deemed so expansive that it could criminalize the exercise of free speech, a dangerous precedent for anyone engaged in political activity.

However, this victory was short-lived.

The Ninth Circuit Court overturned the ruling, and Rundo was re-indicted on the same charges, beginning the next phase of his battle—a battle that would go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal experts, including the Free Expression Foundation, filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Rundo’s case, emphasizing the unconstitutional nature of the Anti-Riot Act and its potential for stifling free speech.

Selective Prosecution and Unlawful Re-Arrest

In February 2024, Rundo’s case took another twist when Judge Carney dismissed the case once again, this time for “selective prosecution.” Judge Carney highlighted the glaring inconsistency in the application of the law: Antifa members, who had engaged in far more violent actions—such as the brutal assault of a Trump supporter by Eric Clanton using a bike lock in Berkeley—were never charged. Meanwhile, Rundo, who had only been involved in brief, defensive altercations, faced the full weight of federal prosecution.

Judge Carney noted that “No individuals associated with the left, who engaged in anti-far-right speech and violently suppressed the protected speech of Trump supporters, were charged with a federal crime… That is textbook viewpoint discrimination.” Rundo’s prosecution, despite the more severe actions of Antifa members, points to a clear example of political bias and selective enforcement.

You can help Rob here.

Despite the case being dismissed for a second time, Rundo was shockingly re-arrested 24 hours later. This unlawful re-arrest came under questionable circumstances and was heavily criticized by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim, who condemned the “shocking approach” taken by the government. Judge Kim, along with District Judge Carney, pointed out the overreach by federal prosecutors, citing concerns over their attempts to continue prosecuting a case already dismissed for selective enforcement of the law.

The Disproportionate Punishment

Throughout these proceedings, Rundo fully acknowledges his participation in the altercations but believes the punishment he’s received has been grossly disproportionate to his actions. He has spent over 24 months in custody, lost his career, his fiancée, his home, and had his life derailed. He was placed on the “no-fly” list, detained and interrogated repeatedly, and faced an unrelenting emotional, financial, and personal toll due to the charges.

After years of legal uncertainty and mounting pressure, Rundo pled guilty, despite believing the charges were politically motivated. His decision was driven by the desire to bring an end to the ordeal and regain some semblance of normalcy. The plea, however, did little to undo the damage to his life and his reputation.

A Call for Commutation of Sentence: A Path Forward

Now, after seven years of legal battles and personal loss, Rob Rundo is seeking a commutation of his parole sentence, which continues to be an ongoing burden on his life. Rundo’s case is a clear example of the increasing politicization of the U.S. legal system, where individuals are targeted not for their actions but for their political views. Granting clemency would not only correct the injustice Rundo has suffered but also serve as a reminder that justice must be impartial, free from political influence. It would offer Rundo the opportunity to rebuild his life and contribute positively to society after years of emotional and financial turmoil.

His story underscores the critical need for reform within the U.S. legal system—one that must uphold the rights of all individuals, regardless of political affiliation. By granting clemency, we would send a message that justice cannot be swayed by political agendas and that fairness must remain at the core of our judicial process.

You can help Rob here.

The post Rob Rundo’s Fight for Justice: A Case of Political Persecution and Legal Injustice appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

This article may have been paraphrased or summarized for brevity. The original article may be accessed here: Read Source Article.