Democrats Cross That Line

On Friday afternoon, the Delaney Hall ICE detention facility in Newark, New Jersey, became the stage for a confrontation that not only tested the principle of Equal Justice Under Law but also reignited debates over the inconsistent application of justice in American politics, particularly in relation to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The incident involved t

he arrest of Democrat Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and a chaotic clash with Democratic lawmakers-Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Robert Menendez Jr., and LaMonica McIver-amid protests against the facility’s reopening under the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement. This event, set against Border Czar Tom Homan’s caution of “Do not cross that line,” and the use of bodycam footage as evidence, drew sharp criticism from Democrats, who condemned it as an abuse of power, while conservatives, including defense attorney William “Bill” Shipley, pointed to a glaring double standard compared to the treatment of J6 defendants.

Absolutely 1000% this level of forceful contact would have resulted in a felony Sec. 111(a) charge in connection with Jan6 defendants.

That is “assault” on a federal officer under the definition of “assault” used by the Biden DOJ.

Convictions of hundreds of J6 defendants were… https://t.co/cj2VuCZPsG

– Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) May 10, 2025

The confrontation began when Baraka, denied entry to the facility as a non-congressperson, entered the gated parking lot, was ordered to leave, and was arrested for misdemeanor trespassing (18 U.S.C. § 1752). Videos captured a tumultuous scene where DHS alleged the group “stormed” the facility during a detainee bus arrival, claiming a female ICE officer was “body-slammed,” potentially violating 18 U.S.C. § 111 (assaulting federal officers). Lawmakers countered that they were “manhandled” by ICE, asserting their oversight authority and denying illegal entry. The bodycam footage, central to DHS’s case, remains unreleased, leaving its interpretation contested but pivotal to determining whether equal justice prevails.

Democratic leaders, including Gov. Phil Murphy, Sen. Cory Booker, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, decried the arrest as an attack on democratic principles, demanding a DOJ investigation into ICE’s conduct. Their outrage, however, clashed with their prior insistence that “no one is above the law,” a mantra used during Trump’s impeachments and legal battles. Critics on X accused them of hypocrisy, noting that hundreds of J6 participants faced severe consequences for similar actions, often based solely on video evidence. Enter William “Bill” Shipley, a defense attorney who has represented dozens of J6 defendants since October 2021. Shipley’s X post, reacting to the Newark incident, argued that the level of forceful contact alleged would have resulted in felony charges under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) for J6 defendants, with convictions often based on nothing more than video evidence like that now cited by DHS. He insisted, “There is no question but that this must be charged,” potentially as aggravated assault due to intent to commit another crime, facing 3-5 years in federal prison. Shipley’s commentary underscores a perceived double standard: J6 defendants, many of whom he defends, faced harsh penalties for minor altercations or trespassing, while Baraka and the lawmakers might escape equivalent scrutiny despite DHS’s allegations.

Shipley’s perspective is informed by his extensive work with J6 clients, many charged under the same statutes now invoked in Newark. During the Biden administration, the DOJ prosecuted over 1,200 J6 participants, with hundreds convicted for actions like those alleged here-physical contact with officers or unauthorized entry-often without direct evidence of intent to disrupt government proceedings. Shipley has been a vocal critic of this unequal application, arguing that the legal system favored political narratives over impartial justice. His post gains additional weight in the context of the Trump administration’s return and Pam Bondi’s appointment as Attorney General, reigniting discussions about reevaluating J6 prosecutions and ensuring consistent enforcement across political lines. The Newark incident, involving high-profile figures and bodycam evidence, mirrors J6 cases where video footage was decisive, yet the response differs starkly. Democrats’ defense of Baraka as a victim of federal overreach contrasts sharply with their demands for accountability against J6 participants, a point Shipley leverages to highlight hypocrisy.

Equal Justice Under Law demands that all face the same legal standards, regardless of status or political alignment. Baraka’s arrest aligns with this in theory, charged like any defendant for allegedly trespassing after warnings. DHS’s threat of further arrests, backed by bodycam footage, suggests a commitment to enforcing laws protecting ICE operations, which Homan insists target serious criminals. However, Baraka’s claim of being on public property and allegations of ICE “assaulting” lawmakers raise questions about whether federal agents are equally accountable. Shipley’s argument that J6 defendants faced felony charges for similar actions-often without the political clout of Baraka or the lawmakers-challenges the notion of equal justice. If the bodycam footage confirms DHS’s allegations, convictions could affirm accountability; if it shows ICE overreach, it may validate claims of federal abuse. Either way, Shipley’s post demands consistency: if J6 defendants were prosecuted for video evidence of minor infractions, the Newark participants should face equivalent consequences, regardless of their titles.

The incident reflects broader systemic challenges. Democrats’ “no one is above the law” rhetoric weakens when defending allies, mirroring Republican defenses of Trump that Democrats once criticized. X posts capture public skepticism, with some praising Homan’s “Do not cross that line” stance and others decrying it as authoritarian. Shipley’s commentary adds a layer of historical context, reminding that J6 defendants, many facing years in prison for actions less severe than those alleged in Newark, embody a precedent that demands equal application. The courts, starting with Baraka’s hearing, will weigh the bodycam evidence, determining whether justice prevails over political agendas. Until then, skepticism of all narratives is warranted, as Equal Justice Under Law remains an aspiration, not a guarantee, hanging in the balance between enforcement zeal and political protest.

🚨 BREAKING: Tom Homan TORCHES NJ Democrats After ICE Facility Chaos 🚨

White House Border Czar Tom Homan just dropped a BOMB on New Jersey Democrats after shocking bodycam footage revealed elected officials storming a federal ICE facility – interrupting the secure transport of… pic.twitter.com/VN2to6t9E9

— Project Constitution (@ProjectConstitu) May 10, 2025

Throw the Book at Them

Based on the incident, the following federal crimes could potentially apply. This is The Book that the DOJ could potentially throw at these Democrats, just as the Biden DOJ threw at J6 defendants.

1. Trespassing on Federal Property (18 U.S.C. § 1752):

   • Citation: 18 U.S.C. § 1752 – Restricted building or grounds

   • Description: Prohibits unauthorized entry or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds, particularly where federal operations are conducted or where the entry disrupts government functions.

   • Application: Mayor Baraka was charged with this misdemeanor for allegedly entering a restricted area of the ICE facility after being warned to leave. Lawmakers could also face this if evidence shows they entered without authorization, though they claim oversight authority.

   • Penalty: Up to 1 year in prison and/or a fine. Penalties increase if the trespassing involves intent to disrupt government operations.

2. Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Federal Officers (18 U.S.C. § 111):

   • Citation: 18 U.S.C. § 111 – Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees

   • Description: Criminalizes forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with federal officers (e.g., ICE agents) while engaged in official duties. Simple assault is a misdemeanor; use of a deadly weapon or causing bodily injury elevates it to a felony.

   • Application: DHS alleged that the group, including lawmakers, assaulted ICE officers, citing an instance of a female officer being “body-slammed.” If bodycam footage or other evidence supports physical interference by Baraka or others, this charge could apply. X user Shipwreckedcrew (William Shipley) specifically references this statute, arguing it should be applied as it was with J6 defendants.

   • Penalty: Misdemeanor: Up to 1 year in prison and/or a fine. Felony (with injury or weapon): Up to 8 years in prison and/or a fine.

3. Disorderly Conduct on Federal Property (40 U.S.C. § 5104):

   • Citation: 40 U.S.C. § 5104 – Unlawful activities

   • Description: Prohibits disorderly or disruptive conduct on federal property with intent to impede or disturb the orderly conduct of government business.

   • Application: The chaotic scene, with protesters and lawmakers converging at the facility’s gate during a detainee bus arrival, could be interpreted as disruptive to ICE operations. DHS’s claim that the group “stormed” the facility suggests potential for this charge, though the lawmakers’ oversight intent may complicate prosecution.

   • Penalty: Up to 6 months in prison and/or a fine.

4. Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241):

   • Citation: 18 U.S.C. § 241 – Conspiracy against rights

   • Description: Criminalizes two or more persons conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the exercise of their constitutional rights (e.g., rights of detainees or federal officers).

   • Application: One X post suggests this charge could apply if the group’s actions were coordinated to deny migrants’ or officers’ rights. However, this seems less likely without clear evidence of a premeditated conspiracy targeting protected rights, as the stated intent was oversight and protest.

   • Penalty: Up to 10 years in prison if no injury occurs; higher if injury or death results.

5. Interfering with Immigration Enforcement (8 U.S.C. § 1324):

   • Citation: 8 U.S.C. § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

   • Description: This statute criminalizes actions that harbor, conceal, or shield illegal aliens from detection by ICE or other federal authorities, including interfering with immigration enforcement operations.

   • Application: An X post references this statute, suggesting interference with ICE operations could apply. However, this charge is typically applied to harboring undocumented immigrants rather than protesting at a facility. It’s less likely unless evidence shows direct obstruction of detainee processing.

   • Penalty: Up to 5 years for first offenses; higher for repeat or aggravated cases.

6. Conspiracy to Commit Offense or Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371):

   • Citation: 18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

   • Description: Criminalizes two or more persons conspiring to commit any offense against the United States or to defraud the United States, requiring an overt act to effect the conspiracy.

   • Application: If evidence shows a coordinated effort among Baraka, the lawmakers, and protesters to illegally enter the facility or disrupt ICE operations, this charge could apply. Shipley’s post suggests this could elevate the case to a felony if intent to commit another crime (e.g., trespassing or assault) is proven.

   • Penalty: Up to 5 years in prison, or 1 year if the object is a misdemeanor.

These potential charges reflect the legal framework DHS and critics like Shipley argue should be applied, drawing parallels to J6 prosecutions where similar statutes were used. The outcome depends on evidence, particularly bodycam footage, and judicial interpretation, amidst a politically charged debate over equal justice.

Like this post? Become a Citizen Producer!