To start with, some of the commenters might be surprised to learn about what, exactly, constitutes a federal offense. As documented by the Prosecution Project, in many cases the charges that federal prosecutors are pursuing against protesters dont involve violence or even property damage.

For example, a Texas man was charged with civil disorder for trying to barge through a police line and then passively resisting arrest by placing his arms underneath his body as he lay on the ground. Six individuals were charged with inciting riots, not because of actions they took at protests, but because of posts they made on social media. (As the blog Lawfare reports, the federal statute that they are charged with violating has long been criticized for infringing on First Amendment rights because it broadly prohibits a class of speech without tying that speech to any imminent action.)

But even when it comes to federal offenses that are truly violent and destructive, I have an instinctive skepticism about laws that do nothing but take acts that are already illegal and make them even more illegal.

If you are convicted of, say, destroying government property because you vandalized a police car, you will already be facing jail time and/or heavy fines. So why should vandalizing a police car at a protest incur an extra layer of punishment over doing the exact same thing on a regular day? If anything, its a lot more difficult to ascertain who did what at a protest than it is at almost any other time its very easy for peaceful protesters to be swept up in charges for violent acts they had nothing to do with.

More here:

First Five: Right to peacefully protest needs better supporters - McDowell News