RICO is intended to prosecute any group of individuals attempting to profit from running a criminal enterprise. The charged individuals as a group having a 501c3 with verbose open records and a verbose paper trail of spending in the first place may even been seen as a possible mitigating factor against finding a RICO conspiracy.

1. Yes, the case is not about lawful protest, it’s about criminality, and in that context it’s being used to prosecute more than just criminality as it sweeps in leaders among the protestors not involved in criminality. It amounts to suppression of protestors and is a dangerous precedent to support from any level of government prosecution. This RICO case ends up being used in a way to prevent people from exercising First Amendment rights, a public protest is a form of petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances. What specific evidence has put all of these people into a category of criminality that isn’t just a sweeping catch all attempt using ‘anarchist’ activity (which is protected speech activity until acts occur, acts that are criminal activities done for protest are individually prosecuted)?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2. Who would or is actually profiting from the alleged criminal activity? That alone makes the RICO charges dubious.

You have no basis in support of prosecution beyond conjecture, and/or you are intentionally ignoring any larger context that doesn’t support your pitchfork desire for prosecution. There is nothing you have put forth that has any forethought or consideration of anything but the prosecutorial indictment claims alone.

I called out your position as bullshit, I didn’t call you an idiot asshole as a person. Learn to recognize the difference, and do better.