Posts

FBI Saw Itself “Managing What the Elephant Sees and Hears” in Advance of January 6

/96 Comments/in , /by

According to a report released yesterday by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC), on January 2, 2021, then FBI Washington Field Office Assistant Director Steve D’Antuono came away from some kind of exchange with then Deputy Director David Bowdich and described to two top WFO officials, Matthew Alcoke (in charge of counterterrorism) and Jennifer Moore (in charge of intelligence) how he tried to “tamp down” concerns about or plans for January 6.

Alcoke thanked D’Antuono for “ramp[ing] down” expectations, since really all the FBI’s WFO was doing was passing on information from partners like the DC Cops and Capitol Police.

Alcoke then made a shocking suggestion about intelligence sharing:

[M]anaging what the elephant sees and hears is sometimes the best way to control the elephant’s movements.

He seems to have suggested that the FBI might manage how the Federal government would respond to January 6 by managing what kind of intelligence the FBI passed on — and his assumption was that the FBI was only passing on intelligence from partners, not collecting any of its own.

It turns out that the Federal government — that elephant Alcoke imagined he might control — didn’t respond, not adequately. In the aftermath of that shoddy response, D’Antuono claimed that the FBI had seen nothing other than First Amendment protected activity.

During a briefing with reporters on Friday, Steven D’Antuono, FBI Washington Field Office assistant director in charge, told reporters that the bureau’s threat assessments leading up to Wednesday’s mobbing of the Capitol showed “there was no indication that there was anything other than First Amendment protected activity.”

Virtually every Federal official blamed local cops and the Capitol Police, insisting the Feds weren’t supposed to be the ones moving at all, the Capitol Police were.

D’Antuono, we’ve since learned, repeatedly tried to limit the investigation in the aftermath, playing a key role in thwarting any investigation into Trump’s actions for ten months.

Manage the elephant by controlling what it sees and hears.

A day after D’Antuono and Alcoke discussed tamping or ramping down, WFO personnel sent D’Antuono, Alcoke, and Moore a summary describing the following open source intelligence:

On January 3rd, an internal WFO email marked “for FBI internal use only” cited “unsubstantiated” open-source reporting that “ranges from threats to the DC water supply to armed insurrection to various groups threatening to kill those with opposing viewpoints.”156 Among the reports cited, the email noted an open-source post regarding January 6th that said “[i]t needs to be more than a protest. We need to kick doors down and fuck shit up” and another user commented, “will kill if necessary.”157

Another social media post stated, “I’m just waiting for the 6th so I can 1776 them… January 6th we burn the place to the ground, leave nothing behind.”158

The internal FBI-WFO email noted that a tipster reported that individuals on fringe websites were discussing an overthrow of the government if President Trump did not remain in office, and stated “[d]ate of attack 01/06.”159 A Parler user stated, “[b]ring food and guns. If they don’t listen to our words, they can feel our lead. Come armed.” 160

The email also reported social media posts that noted plans to bring firearms into the District and “set up ‘armed encampment’ on the [National] Mall,” and that the Proud Boys planned to “dress ‘incognito’ in order to more effectively target ‘antifa’ in the city.”161

A tipster from Georgia told FBI that the Proud Boys were planning to come to D.C. on January 6th and warned “[t]hese men are coming for violence.” 162 Another tipster told FBI that a Proud Boy told her they were planning an attack on January 6th to shut down the government. 163

Another tip stated “there is a TikTok video with someone holding a gun saying ‘storm the Capitol on January 6th.’”164

As the HSGAC report notes, even in spite of the two warnings about the Proud Boys and threats of violence, WFO concluded that this described just First Amendment protected activities.

Despite all of that reporting, the FBI summary concluded, “FBI WFO does not have any information to suggest these events will involve anything other than [First Amendment] protected activity” and that FBI had “identified no credible or verified threat to the activities associated with 6 January 2021.”165 This was also despite the fact that the Proud Boys were known to engage in violence, including at protests in Washington, D.C. in late 2020.166

As Alcoke described, the FBI marked the summary of these warnings “Internal” because sources were sensitive about sharing it outside the FBI.

A day after discussing “tamp[ing] down” concerns with Bowdich, D’Antuono just sent this entire email to the Deputy Director.

I just sent the whole thing, I don’t want him getting a sanitized version of events.

This is a report that attempts to do what January 6 Committee largely abdicated doing, looking at intelligence failures in advance of January 6.

The House Select Committee’s final report found that President Trump engaged in a multipronged effort to overturn the 2020 election by knowingly disseminating false and fraudulent allegations, pressuring state officials to submit false elector slates, pressuring DOJ officials to make false statements alleging election fraud, and calling on supporters to join him in Washington, D.C. on January 6 th and subsequently encouraging them to march on the Capitol.23 The House Select Committee’s report largely focused on President Trump’s role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election, and only briefly discussed federal intelligence efforts in the lead-up to the events of January 6th . 24 The House Select Committee report found that intelligence agencies, including FBI and I&A, had received intelligence on the potential for violence at the Capitol.25 This intelligence included discussions of the Capitol complex’s underground tunnels alongside violent rhetoric, information on the movements of violent militia groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, and numerous social media posts discussing storming the Capitol.26 The report also found that security agencies did not adequately prepare for and respond to the threat.27

At the direction of U.S. Senator Gary Peters, Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC), and following the Committee’s initial review of the security, planning, and response failures in advance of and during the January 6th attack, Majority Committee staff conducted a subsequent review focused on the intelligence failures leading up to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6th.

What it describes is utterly damning.

Yet, in spite of a laudable effort to do what J6C didn’t do, there are obvious gaps.

First, as described, HSGAC met the same kind of stonewalling others received.

The Committee received responses to many of its questions and numerous document productions from the agencies in its investigation, including DOJ-FBI and DHS-I&A. However, at various points throughout its investigation, the Committee encountered significant delays, incomplete responses, denied document requests (including documents required to be provided to the Committee under federal law), and refusals to make certain witnesses available to the Committee for interviews. The Committee sought to obtain the necessary information through voluntary compliance by the agencies in its investigation, but this lack of full cooperation hinders the ability of the Committee, and Congress more broadly, to effectively and efficiently conduct legitimate oversight of the Executive Branch.

The Chair of HSGAC, Gary Peters, has broad subpoena power. Yet this report remains wildly inadequate to the task of cataloging FBI’s failures to prevent January 6.

Worse, there are several known intelligence problems that it doesn’t address.

For example, it doesn’t chase down warnings floated in both militia leader trials in the last eight months.

It doesn’t pursue what happened after Oath Keeper “Abdullah Rasheed” called into an FBI tip line reporting on the November 9, 2020 GoToMeeting call in which Stewart Rhodes started talking about a revolution.

Listening to the meeting was Abdullah Rasheed, a Marine Corps veteran and a member of the far-right group from West Virginia. During testimony on Thursday at the trial of Mr. Rhodes and four of his subordinates, Mr. Rasheed told the jury that he was so disturbed by what he heard during the meeting that he recorded the conversation and ultimately called the F.B.I. to alert them about Mr. Rhodes.

“The more I listened to the call,” he said, “it sounded like we were going to war against the United States government.”

The testimony by Mr. Rasheed, a heavy-equipment mechanic, was clearly intended to bolster accusations by the government that Mr. Rhodes and his co-defendants — Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins and Thomas Caldwell — committed seditious conspiracy by using force to oppose Mr. Biden’s ascension to the White House.

[snip]

On Tuesday, prosecutors at the Oath Keepers trial played several clips of Mr. Rasheed’s recording for the jury. The jurors heard Mr. Rhodes make baseless claims about foreign interference in the election and declare that he would welcome violence from leftist antifa activists because that would give Mr. Trump an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act and call on militias like his own to quell the chaos.

“We’re not getting out of this without a fight,” Mr. Rhodes said. “There’s going to be a fight. But let’s just do it smart, and let’s do it while President Trump is still commander in chief.”

While Mr. Rasheed initially called an F.B.I. tip line to complain about Mr. Rhodes not long after the meeting took place, the bureau did not reach out to him until March 2021, two months after the Capitol was attacked. He also tried to warn other law enforcement agencies, he testified, writing to the Capitol Police that Mr. Rhodes was “a friggin’ wacko that the Oath Keepers would be better without.”

It doesn’t consider whether Shane Lamond, Enrique Tarrio’s MPD buddy who was charged in May with obstructing the investigation into Proud Boy activities in December 2020, tainted FBI’s own understanding of what would occur on January 6.

It only mentions the FBI’s own informants once, describing how FBI’s confidential human sources led the Bureau to believe the number of “protestors” on January 6 would be lower than in November and December — something any passing glance at social media would have debunked.

WFO sent an email that afternoon that appeared to rely only on its confidential human sources and other investigative leads, concluding, “[a]s of today, WFO has no information indicating a specific and credible threat. All [confidential human sources] and Guardians are not indicating anything specific and credible. Most of what WFO is seeing are random chatter with no specificity. […] WFO expects the number of participants to be fewer than the previous times – each time the numbers get smaller.”174

Most importantly, it doesn’t consider how FBI’s decision to pay a bunch of Proud Boys to inform not on the Proud Boys, but on Antifa, guaranteed that FBI would wrongly see things in terms of protestors and counter-protestors. Two witnesses testified at the Proud Boy leader trial that they were never asked to — nor would they have agreed to — inform on their buddies. Descriptions of seven other FBI informants similarly suggest the FBI had tasked a bunch of Proud Boys and friends to narc out Antifa.

If you pay a bunch of gang members to tell the FBI that their largely manufactured adversaries are the same kind of threat, rather than paying them to tell you about the attack on the Capitol the gang has planned, you have tainted your understanding of things at the outset.

And not even the behavior of those with good intelligence on the far right — those very same counter-protestors — led the FBI and DOJ to reconsider that understanding. When anti-fascists didn’t show up, DOJ concluded nothing would happened, not that the people who really did track what the far right had in mind had concluded that January 6 would be something different.

Former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue also told the Committee that then-FBI Deputy Director Bowdich gave a briefing the morning of January 4th to Acting Attorney General Rosen and Donoghue regarding January 6th, and that while they recognized the potential for violence, they felt “relief” that counter-protesters were not expected to attend in large numbers, as there would likely not be “a situation that concerned us so much, where you would have two different political factions fighting in the streets.”324

The HSGAC Report scratches the surface of how badly FBI did in advance of January 6. It suggests that FBI affirmatively tried to prevent the Federal government from responding with due concern.

But it doesn’t begin to consider how the FBI’s own relationship with the Proud Boys, in which the Bureau deemed the militia that would lead the attack on the Capitol as partners rather than adversaries, guaranteed that the FBI would miss the attack.

DOJ Arrests Enrique Tarrio’s Cop Buddy, Shane Lamond

/19 Comments/in , /by

On Friday, DOJ arrested the DC police lieutenant, Shane Lamond, whom Enrique Tarrio repeatedly used during trial in an attempt to claim he had cooperated with police and therefore hadn’t planned a seditious attack on the Capitol.

The indictment charges Lamond with one count of obstructing the investigation into the Proud Boys’ burning of the Black Lives Matter flag in December 2020, and three counts of lying in an June 2, 2021 interview when he claimed:

  • Lamond’s relationship consisted of just receiving tips from Tarrio instead of him providing confidential information to him
  • He never tipped Tarrio off to details of the BLM investigation
  • He didn’t provide Tarrio advance notice of the warrant for his arrest obtained on December 30, 2020

The case is largely built off Telegram communications obtained from Tarrio’s seized phone (which, remember, took a year to exploit, in part because Tarrio had good security for it).

One of the eye-popping details in the indictment is that of 147 Telegram texts Lamond and Tarrio exchanged between December 18 (when Tarrio took the blame for burning the BLM flag — though he’s not actually the one who burned it) and January 4, when he was arrested, 101 of their Telegram messages were auto-destructed.

Between December 18, 2020, and through at least January 4, 2021, LAMOND and Tarrio used Telegram to exchange approximately 145 messages using the secret chat function, utilizing end-to-end encryption and self-destruct timers. At least 101 of these messages were destroyed.

DOJ established what these texts said in significant part based on what Tarrio then told others about his communications with Lamond.

The case is largely built off the Telegram messages that would have been found on Tarrio’s phone when it was seized in January 4.

But not entirely.

Paragraphs 53 to 64 rely on Telegram texts sent after Tarrio’s arrest — and so must come from some other phone (possibly the one he borrowed after his arrest). They substantially pertain to January 6. I believe the March 16 grand jury that returned the indictment is the one that has been focused on January 6 cases.

That section includes language establishing that the investigation into the Proud Boys continues and Lamond knew of the investigation into the Proud Boys by January 7.

56. By January 7, 2021, LAMOND was aware of the Federal Investigation.

57. As part of the Federal Investigation, beginning on January 6, 2021, and continuing to the present, the FBI and USAO investigated and continue to investigate Tarrio’s, the Proud Boys”, and their associates’ participation in and planning for the January 6 Attack.

This is the kind of language that DOJ would use to lay out obstruction of a second investigation, the January 6 one. Given that the investigation is ongoing, it could put Lamond on the hook for ongoing obstruction of the investigation.

Yet they didn’t charge him for that, even though they describe that he told a lie about tipping off Tarrio to details about the January 6 investigation, in addition to tipping him off about the BLM investigation.

71. During the interview, LAMOND misleadingly stated that he had “one or two” conversations with Tarrio on January 6, 2021, or the day after, and that Tarrio had told LAMOND that Tarrio believed he could have stopped the January 6 Attack.

72. LAMOND did not disclose that Tarrio had identified to LAMOND an associate who was present at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 or that Tarrio had previously made comments about attending events in Washington, D.C. on January 6.

With no additional work, DOJ could charge Lamond with this lie too, and with it, obstructing a second investigation.

In other words, this looks like an opening gambit, one that invites Lamond to start cooperating in the January 6 investigation or risk being added to a conspiracy with a guy who just got convicted of sedition.

I’ve argued for years that a number of other investigative steps in the January 6 investigation were awaiting the Proud Boys trial and verdict.

Lamond’s prosecution is one of those things. And this indictment was structured to be an investigative indictment.

Update: Here’s a list of all the people IDed in this indictment.

Person 1: Someone whom Tarrio told on December 30, 2020, that, per his “contact,” the DA of DC had not yet signed his arrest warrant.

Person 2: Someone on MOSD who asked if Tarrio’s arrest would happen on January 6. (This should be available in the threads released at trial).

Person 3: An official with the Capitol Police Department whom Lamond likened hate crimes with political crimes.

Person 4: Another personal contact of Tarrio’s, he explained on January 1 that “he says that he doesn’t think they’re going to sign off on it.”

Person 5: Possibly a girlfriend of Tarrio’s. After he tells the person, “warrant was just signed,” she says, “Babe :/”

Person 6: Almost certainly Alex Jones, Lamond describes that it’s “fucking bad when Person 6 was the voice of reason and they wouldn’t listen to him.” Lamond parrots Jones’ cover story.

Person 7: After MD cops visited her house on January 6, Tarrio asked Lamond if she was on the suspect list.

How the Proud Boy Conspiracy Might Network Out in the Wake of the Seditious Conspiracy Verdict

/28 Comments/in , /by

Since at least August 2021, I have emphasized the import of the Proud Boys conspiracy because of the way Joe Biggs (and, I’d add, Enrique Tarrio) served as a nexus between the attack on the Capitol and the people who orchestrated the attack on the Capitol.

Because of Joe Biggs’ role at the nexus between the mob that attacked Congress and those that orchestrated the mob, his prosecution is the most important case in the entire January 6 investigation. If you prosecute him and his alleged co-conspirators successfully, you might also succeed in holding those who incited the attack on the Capitol accountable. If you botch the Biggs prosecution, then all the most important people will go free.

The point was echoed by Tarrio in a Gateway Pundit appearance after closing arguments, in which he called himself, “the next stepping stone.” And in a comment during closing arguments for which prosecutors got a curative instruction, Norm Pattis (the lawyer Biggs shares with Alex Jones) said, “this case will have impact on [the government’s] charging decisions in other cases.”

This post will explain how the Proud Boys seditious conspiracy verdict might network out, to other Proud Boys, in the weeks ahead. A follow-up will explain how it might network up.

The split verdict

Yesterday, a jury found Biggs and Tarrio guilty of all charges against them save two assaults charged under a co-conspirator liability theory: the one Dominic Pezzola committed in stealing the riot shield that he would then use to make the first breach of the building, and the one for throwing a water bottle for which Charles Donohoe, whose absence from the trial seems to have befuddled the jury, already pled guilty.

The sedition verdicts against Biggs, Tarrio, Ethan Nordean and Zach Rehl are the showy news result, but Pezzola’s fate may prove just as instructive for what this verdict means for others. In addition to charges for assaulting that cop, robbing his shield, and breaking the window, Pezzola was found guilty of obstructing the vote certification, but not conspiring with the others to do that (on which the jury hung) or to seditiously attack the government (on which the jury came back with a not guilty verdict).

Pezzola was found guilty of conspiring with the others to impede either cops or members of Congress from doing their duty, a conspiracy that carries a six year sentence rather than the twenty year max sentences the two other conspiracies carry. The government used that 18 USC 372 charge in this case and in the Oath Keepers’ case. As I’ve noted, it was only otherwise used to charge the men who attacked Brian Sicknick, though the conspiracy charge was ultimately dropped in guilty pleas. Using a slightly different description of the object of the conspiracy, all four members of the second Oath Keeper sedition group were found guilty of it (but then, they were found guilty of pretty much everything), three members of Rhodes sedition group were convicted of it (but not Rhodes or Thomas Caldwell), and four of six defendants in the lesser Oath Keeper conspiracy were convicted of it.

The Pezzola verdict may reflect his own testimony: He took the stand and claimed credit for his own assault, which he said had nothing to do with the other defendants, but tried to claim self-defense. (Here’s Brandi’s post on his testimony.) The jury seems to have believed that he had not agreed to enter into the two conspiracies — sedition and obstruction — that largely took form on Telegram threads he was not yet on, but their 372 verdict suggests they found he did agree on the day of the attack to work with the Proud Boys to chase Congress away from their job. I suspect that outcome may have relied on his willingness to take the stand.

In this split verdict, Pezzola’s outcome is pretty similar to that of Oath Keeper Kenneth Harrelson, who was convicted of the 372  conspiracy but not the sedition or obstruction conspiracies. Like Pezzola, he was convicted of obstruction individually.

In other words, most members of both militias were found guilty, not just of obstructing the vote certification, but of doing things to chase Congress out of their chambers, thereby preventing from doing their job. On that latter act — impeding Congress from doing their job — four separate juries have found more evidence to support a conspiracy than on obstruction.

The government may use these collective results to — as Tarrio and Pattis predicted — make further prosecutorial decisions.

The Proud Boy tools

As Brandi and I have both explained, prosecutors won a guilty verdict in this case by arguing that the Proud Boy leaders used others as “tools” of their conspiracy.

In response to a series of rulings, the theory evolved into a co-conspirator liability, with each “tool” presented at trial first premised — as Tim Kelly described in an order he released just before the initial  verdict — on the government’s proffer of their involvement based on some combination of a prior tie to the Proud Boys, participation on the chats in advance, and marching with the Proud Boys from the start on January 6. Judge Kelly did exclude some of the people the government had asked to include, marked by cross-outs below:

William Pepe; Christopher Worrell; Barry Ramey; Daniel Lyons Scott; Trevor McDonald; Marc Bru; Gilbert Fonticoba; Ronald Loehrke and James Haffner; Nicholas Ochs; Gabriel Garcia; Paul Rae; Barton Shively; a group that included A.J. Fischer, Dion Rajewski, Zach Johnson, Brian Boele, and James Brett; and another group that included Arthur Jackman, Nate and Kevin Tuck, and Eddie George.

But for the rest, Kelly issued a ruling finding the men participated in the attack launched on the Capitol as Proud Boys. It’s an important ruling not just because it helped prosecutors to prove the Proud Boy Leaders used force even without, themselves, having assaulted anyone, but because it used participation in the Proud Boys attack as an element of conspiracy in a way that does not depend on First Amendment protected membership in the militia. They were found to be tools of this conspiracy not because they were Proud Boys, but because of things they did as Proud Boys.

It is probably not a coincidence that the cases against many of these men have been languishing as prosecutors focused on the Leader conspiracy. The current status of the prosecution of those Kelly did include is as follows:

Nicholas Ochs (who did not march with the Proud Boys on January 6): Currently serving a four-year sentence for obstruction.

Dan Scott: Awaiting sentencing on obstruction and assault charges.

Christopher Worrell: Bench Trial for obstruction, civil disorder, and assault paused; due to resume May 11.

Gabriel Garcia: After Garcia got caught hob-nobbing with Matt Gaetz and Ivan Raiklin in violation of pretrial release, his then lawyer parted ways with him. He is scheduled to face trial on obstruction, civil disorder, and trespassing charges in August.

William Pepe: Currently the sole remaining defendant on a conspiracy, obstruction, and civil disorder indictment in which Pezzola and cooperating witness Matthew Greene were originally charged. His attorney, William Shipley, is trying to delay trial until the fall; he has a status conference before Judge Kelly today. Update: They extended this case to July 11 today.

Trevor McDonald: Trevor McDonald has not been publicly charged.

Marc Bru: Bru is scheduled for a Bench Trial on obstruction and civil disorder charges in July.

Gilbert Fonticoba: Fonticoba faces trial on obstruction and civil disorder charges in October.

Ronald Loehrke and James Haffner: Loehrke and Haffner remain charged by complaint, facing civil disorder and trespass charges, with an assault charge against Haffner. They have a status hearing scheduled May 9.

Paul Rae, Arthur Jackman, Nate and Kevin Tuck, and Eddie George: Joe Biggs’ co-travelers currently face charges including obstruction and — for some — civil disorder, assault, and theft. This case has been dawdling over conflict proceedings involving John Pierce. Two long-term loaner AUSAs, Christopher Veatch and Nadia Moore (the latter of whom delivered the rebuttal argument in the Proud Boy leader trial), dropped off the case after closing arguments in the Proud Boy Leaders trial, perhaps freeing them to return to their homes after two years of work. This case is bound to take on new form in the status hearing before Tim Kelly scheduled today. Update: In the status conference, they continued this case to July 11. This morning, Proud Boy Leader prosecutor Jason McCullough filed his appearance.

AJ Fischer and Zach Johnson: Fischer and Johnson are charged along with non-Proud Boys who were part of the Tunnel assault with civil disorder and, for the two Proud Boys, assault. The indictment was charged under the Major Conspiracy section and may reflect cooperation between militias. The defendants have a July status hearing. As she did in the Biggs co-traveler case, Moore dropped off this case after delivering closing arguments.

For all the named “tools,” a judge has found that they followed Biggs and Nordean on the day of the attack. Like Pezzola, it would not be a stretch to argue they entered into a conspiracy to impede the cops and members of Congress. For all but Ochs, Scott, and Worrell, the government could supersede the charges against the men to incorporate evidence presented in the Proud Boy Leaders trial.

Two other Proud Boy groups may be affected by this trial.

Rehl’s co-travelers: Three of the guys that Rehl recruited to join the Proud Boys on January 6 were charged in December 2021: Isaiah Giddings, Brian Healion, and Freedom Vy. Giddings pled guilty to the more serious trespassing charge in January, but his statement of offense was somewhat discredited by belatedly-discovered evidence presented at trial that Rehl had not just wanted to get a can of pepper spray to use on cops on January 6, but had done so. Healion and Vy are still awaiting indictment. Rehl’s testimony at trial — particularly the evidence that he may have assaulted a cop — may make it easier to charge them with felonies.

The KC cell: Like many other Proud Boy cases, the prosecution of the Kansas City cell — one of the few others charged as conspiracy from the start — has been languishing during the Proud Boy leaders trial, even in spite of the fact that there is a cooperating witness, Enrique Colon, and one who proffered but was unwilling to testify against his co-conspirators, Ryan Ashlock. There’s a likely additional reason this case has languished, to say nothing of the fact that prosecutors didn’t include this cell — not even cell leader Billy Chrestman — in their tools theory: the participation of an FBI informant, who testified under the name “Ehren,” in their cell, setting up the possibility that those defendants could claim their actions were incited by the government. More than any other set of Proud Boy defendants, however, the Leader trial likely harmed this group, because during “Ehren’s” testimony, he made it clear that he did what he did that day — including helping to prevent the police from closing the gates to the tunnels — of his own accord. Here’s how Brandi described it:

Following suboptimal testimony from Tarrio’s witnesses this week, defendant Ethan Nordean squeezed in witness testimony from an FBI confidential human source and Proud Boy who appeared in court using only his middle name, “Ehren.”

Unfortunately for the defense, “Ehren,” testified under cross-examination that he was not at the Capitol on Jan. 6 as an FBI informant in any meaningful sense. He was there, he affirmed, as a member of the Proud Boys. Though the spelling of his name was not reported into the record, “Ehren” would appear to be the individual that Jan. 6 internet sleuths have identified as “TrackSuitPB.”

In video footage, jurors could see how “Ehren” entered the Capitol carrying zip tie cuffs he said he acquired incidentally as a memento of sorts. At another point, he appears in capitol CCTV  footage flanked by Kansas City Proud Boys like William “Billy” Chrestman, Chris Kuehne, and others, as he helps place a podium under an interior electric gate to keep it from closing while others set chairs in the way. Police are seen working over and over to drop the barrier as rioters advanced.

Poking holes in the defense’s direct and indirect suggestions over these many weeks of trial that the FBI was responsible for guiding the violence of Jan. 6, “Ehren” admitted he wasn’t instructed by the bureau to obstruct the gate. Or enter the Capitol. Or impede police. In hindsight, he admitted, he shouldn’t have helped prop open gates police were trying to lower at all.

While he testified, evidence was also presented to strongly support the government’s claim that he was playing up the “informing” he offered to the FBI.

“Ehren” texted his handler on Jan. 6 at 1:02 p.m. ET just as barriers were overrun: “Pb did not do it, nor inspire. The crowd did as a herd mentality. Not organized. Barriers down at capital [sic] building crowd surged forward, almost to the building now.”

During his interviews with the FBI in the summer of 2021, he claimed he was standing 100 people back from the front of the first breach. In court, however, footage showed him more like 20 or 30 people back. He was also close to defendant Zachary Rehl at one point as Rehl filmed from the fore of the crowd.

Note that Ethan Nordean’s attorney, Nick Smith, called Ehren to give this fairly counterproductive testimony. Smith also represents two of the defendants in the KC Cell, siblings Corey and Felicia. They have a status hearing scheduled before Tim Kelly on May 16. As he did on the Biggs’ co-traveler case, Veatch dropped off this case after the Leaders closing arguments.

Altogether, there are 19 people already charged (the 17 tools less Ochs, Scott, Worrell, and McDonald, plus two Rehl co-travelers and the four remaining KC defendants), plus McDonald and a few others otherwise treated as co-conspirators, who might face superseding charges or — at the very least — a more damning set of evidence based on trial testimony presented at the Proud Boy Leader case. Prosecutors may take the Pezzola verdict as a gauge of what a jury will find convincing, including that the larger Proud Boys group conspired to impede the police and Congress on January 6. That may not only expose some of these defendants to one or more additional felonies, but lay out how a networked conspiracy worked to assault the Capitol on January 6.

Update: According to this Vice News interview with one of the jurors, one reason they didn’t convict Pezz on sedition is bc he “may not have been bright enough to really know about the plan.”

Dominic Pezzola, “Spazzo”, was acquitted on seditious conspiracy. What was the difference there? Why was he acquitted when the others were found guilty? 

Well, he wasn’t in leadership for one. And he only joined the Proud Boys in November or December of 2020.  So he didn’t have a whole lot of time before Jan. 6. They have the different tiers you know, level 1 to level 4. Spazz was a 2 or 3 and on a fast track because he was so expressive of being a bad boy. We actually deadlocked on Spazz at first. But we got through that and said not guilty. Another factor was just that he wasn’t the brightest bulb on the porch. And may not have been bright enough to really know about the plan. So I said, well, poor guy.  He should’ve listened to his father-in-law, who told him “don’t go.”

The juror’s testimony about the demeanor of Pezzola and Rehl in their testimony closely matches what Brandi found.

The “Diligent” Proud Boys Jury: “Can we also get a stapler, please?”

/79 Comments/in , /by

Yesterday, there were several interesting notes in the Proud Boys jury, including one — identifying a seeming discrepancy in their instructions — which led Judge Tim Kelly to note how diligent they were.

My favorite note, as I wrote at the time, asked for a stapler (I used to take off a point when students turned in papers using paperclips or dogeared pages rather than a staple).

I’d like to explain a different note, which may suggest where this jury is heading (and heading, it seems, in the reasonably near future). It asks:

  1. For counts 1 + 4, the conspiracy charges that have more than one goal listed, can one agreed upon objective of the conspiracy simultaneously satisfy both goals?
  2. We did not receive instructions on what to do if the jury does not reach unanimity on a charge. How should we proceed in this scenario?

The two counts in question were the seditious conspiracy charge, which the jury instructions describe this way:

Count One of the indictment charges that from in and around December 19, 2020, through in and around January 2021, the defendants participated in a conspiracy to do at least one of two things: (1) to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States, or (2) to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States by force.

And the instructions describe the fourth, interfering with a government agent, this way:

Count Four of the indictment charges that from in and around December 19, 2020, through in and around January 2021, the defendants participated in a conspiracy to prevent Members of Congress and law enforcement officers from discharging their duties, which is a violation of the law.

[snip]

First, that the defendant agreed with at least one other person to, by force, intimidation, or threat, (a) prevent a Member of Congress or a federal law enforcement officer from discharging a duty, or (b) induce a Member of Congress or federal law enforcement officer to leave the place where that person’s duties are required to be performed.

One scenario where the jury might pose this question is if they believed some or all of the Proud Boys had agreed to and succeeded in obstructing the certification of the vote (the 1512 conspiracy), which is pretty close to Count One(2) and Count Four(b), but didn’t believe some or all had taken up force against the government (which was a stretch in this case since the violence exercised here was via “tools” who attacked the cops).

The inclusion of the question about not reaching unanimity suggests the possibility of a hung count on these or another charge. That happened, for example, in the lesser Oath Keepers case, but the hung count could just pertain to one of the defendants (perhaps Zach Rehl, who said the least inflammatory things in advance of the attack, or Dominic Pezzola, who only joined the conspiracy at a late moment, or Henry Tarrio, who wasn’t present).

One way or another they were down to the nitty gritty questions when they sent this note at 10:47AM yesterday. The response could make or break the sedition charge, too. So the lawyers discussed it for hours.

While they were waiting for their answer to that, they asked the “diligent” question, what to do about a charge invoking Charles Donohoe’s role in throwing a water bottle, given that a different instruction told them not to make any inferences about why people weren’t charged (Donohoe pled guilty last summer). At 3:19PM on Monday, they had asked for the exhibit numbers pertaining to that charge, so they seem to be a bit perplexed by Count Eight, which charges aid and abet liability in an assault for throwing a water bottle.

Per Roger Parloff, it took the lawyers and Judge Kelly more than three hours before they sent back a response to the 10:47 AM note. So they likely got significantly further in their deliberations before they got those two answers.

Here are the jury notes and responses:

  1. Please provide exhibit numbers for Rehl’s phone crossing the barricade and Biggs suggesting they pull their masks up. Response
  2. Please provide the following exhibits: police shield, megaphone, org chart. Response
  3. Please provide a stapler (and exhibit 490A). Response
  4. Upcoming appointments (in response to a question from the Courtroom Deputy)
  5. Please provide exhibit numbers for the Donohoe water bottle throwing examples. Response
  6. Clarification on multi-purpose conspiracies and non-unanimity on a charge. Response
  7. Clarification on persons not present. Response

Update: Now the “diligent” jury is asking the Court to fix the typo in their verdict form.

The Long List of Reasons Why Potential Intimidation of Proud Boy Jurors Must Be Taken Seriously

/39 Comments/in , , , /by

Enrique Tarrio has already been investigated by a grand jury in Prettyman Courthouse for any role he had in threats to undermine a criminal prosecution.

That’s important background to Brandi’s report, at the end of her update on the Proud Boys trial, of how much of last week the trial was halted for a series of sealed hearings.

Apart from routine objections launched by the defense to even the most mundane of issues and separate from the unending series of motions for mistrial, last week featured a new and unwelcome variable: the sealed hearing.

A sealed hearing, or a hearing closed to the public and press, is typically held when sensitive or classified matters are being discussed by the parties. Trial days were stopped and started three times last week for sealed hearings that stretched for more than an hour. A press coalition moved to unseal proceedings on at least one of those days but was promptly denied by Judge Kelly for reasons he failed to describe on the record.

Though the exact reason was not disclosed by the court (nor would one expect it to be at this point), CNN reported that multiple sources said the sealed hearing was prompted after a juror raised concerns that she was being followed. Another juror has said they were “accosted” but no further details were available.

As CNN reported, a juror had become worried that someone was following her.

A juror told the court an individual came up to her outside of a Washington, DC, metro station and asked if she was a juror, multiple sources told CNN. The juror told court staff she had seen the same individual on several occasions and thought they might be following her.

Some jurors appear to be split on their views of the incidents, people familiar said. One juror told the judge he thought it was possible the interactions were random and it might have been someone experiencing homelessness in the area.

[snip]

When other jurors found out about the incident, they also began to look out for the individual and had taken at least one picture of the person, according to someone familiar with the matter.

Other jurors also told the court in sealed hearings this week that they had been “accosted,” one source told CNN, though it’s unclear to what extent.

But that report and some of the discussions I’ve seen elsewhere didn’t describe the list of reasons why such threats should be taken seriously.

First, there’s the fact that defendant Enrique Tarrio has already been investigated in this courthouse for his potential role in a threat against a judge. In 2019, Amy Berman Jackson put Roger Stone under oath and asked how he came to post an Instagram post of her with crosshairs on it. He blamed the “volunteers” who had made the meme — one of whom, he named, was Tarrio.

Amy Berman Jackson. How was the image conveyed to you by the person who selected it?

Stone. It was emailed to me or text-messaged to me. I’m not certain.

Q. Who sent the email?

A. I would have to go back and look. I don’t recognize. I don’t know. Somebody else uses my —

THE COURT: How big is your staff, Mr. Stone?

THE DEFENDANT: I don’t have a staff, Your Honor. I have a few volunteers. I also — others use my phone, so I’m not the only one texting, because it is my account and, therefore, it’s registered to me. So I’m uncertain how I got the image. I think it is conceivable that it was selected on my phone. I believe that is the case, but I’m uncertain.

THE COURT: So individuals, whom you cannot identify, provide you with material to be posted on your personal Instagram account and you post it, even if you don’t know who it came from?

THE DEFENDANT: Everybody who works for me is a volunteer. My phone is used by numerous people because it can only be posted to the person to whom it is registered.

[snip]

[AUSA] Jonathan Kravis. What are the names of the five or six volunteers that you’re referring to?

Stone. I would — Jacob Engles, Enrique Tarrio. I would have to go back and look

As CNN itself later reported, those whom Stone named were subpoenaed to testify about whether Stone had paid them to make threatening memes targeting his judge.

Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, had been helping him ​with his social media, Stone said under oath, as had the Proud Boys’ Florida chapter founder Tyler Ziolkowski, who went by Tyler Whyte at the time; Jacob Engels, a Proud Boys associate who is close to Stone and identifies himself as a journalist in Florida; and another Florida man named Rey Perez, whose name is spelled Raymond Peres in the court transcript​.

A few days later, federal authorities tracked down the men and gave them subpoenas to testify to a grand jury, according to Ziolkowski, who was one of the witnesses.

Ziolkowski and the others flew to DC in the weeks afterwards to testify.

“They asked me about if I had anything to do about posting that. They were asking me if Stone has ever paid me, what he’s ever paid me for,” Ziolkowski told CNN this week. When he first received the subpoena, the authorities wouldn’t tell Ziolkowski what was being investigated, but a prosecutor later told him “they were investigating the picture and if he had paid anybody,” Ziolkowski said. He says he told the grand jury Stone never paid him, and that he hadn’t posted the photo.

So four years ago, in this very courthouse, Tarrio or his associates were questioned about the circumstances of any participation they had in threatening a judge.

That wasn’t the only role the Proud Boys had in Stone’s witness tampering in that case. The first contact that Randy Credico had with FBI agents investigating 2016 was not the highly publicized grand jury testimony to which he brought his comfort dog Bianca. It was a Duty to Warn contact earlier that summer after the FBI had identified credible threats against him. Those credible threats came from the gangs, including the Proud Boys, that Stone hung out with.

In entirely unrelated news, Credico posted pictures showing him in Moscow last week.

It didn’t end with Stone’s guilty verdict, either. After the verdict, Stone associates got leaked copies of the jury questionnaires. Mike Cernovich started hunting down details on the jurors to retroactively cast doubt on the judgment, and Trump joined in the effort to create a mob. In the wake of those efforts, the jurors expressed fear and some regret at having served.

ALL 12 OF the jurors in the Roger Stone case have expressed fear in court filings on Wednesday. They worry they will continue to be harassed and they fear for the safety of themselves and their families if their identities are revealed.

According to The National Law Journal, jurors cited tweets from President Trump and remarks from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones as the reason “the threats to the jurors’ safety and privacy persist” after the trial ended in November.

One juror wrote, “I try to stay away from danger, but now it seems like the danger is coming to me.”

The jurors are looking to thwart the legal efforts of right-wing conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, who is attempting to make public the pretrial questionnaires the jurors filled out. Those questionnaires include jurors’ private information and employment history. The supposed aim of the petition to release the questionnaires is to vet them for bias in hopes of getting a new trial for Stone.

Another juror wrote, “Given the current climate of polarization and harassment, I do not want to draw any attention to myself, my family, or my employer in any way, shape, or form. It is intimidating when the president of the United States attacks the foreperson of a jury by name.”

“I am frightened that someone could harm my family simply because I was summoned and then chosen to serve on the jury,” another juror wrote.

The efforts to intimidate have continued to this case. During a period when Zach Rehl was reportedly considering a plea, Tarrio sent messages to other Proud Boys about remaining loyal.

“The bigger problem with that is the guys that are in prison right now are holding on to hope that everybody is f—ing staying put because they didn’t do anything wrong,” Tarrio said. “The moment that they think one of the guys flipped, it throws everything off and it makes everybody turn on each other, and that’s what we are trying to f—ing avoid.”

Asked about the audio message, Tarrio told Reuters he was simply trying to stop members from speculating that anyone had decided to help prosecutors who are examining the deadly insurrection. “What I was trying to avoid is them turning against each other because of media stories,” he said.

Trial testimony showed that witnesses for the defense — in this case Fernando Alonzo — made threatening comments about Eddie Block for posting the video of the Proud Boys he shot on January 6. [Warning: he used an ableist slur against Block, who relies on a mobility scooter.]

Witnesses for other January 6 defendant have been harassed, as when one January 6 participant confronted Sergeant Aquilino Gonell during the trial of Kyle Fitzsimons on assault charges.

[January 6 participant Tommy] Tatum also tried to confront another officer, this one with the Capitol Police, in a courthouse elevator on Wednesday. He recorded and posted clips of both exchanges with the officers and identified himself outside the courthouse.

U.S. Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, who is also testifying in the trial, said that Tatum told him that he should be ashamed of himself in an exchange near the bathroom inside the courthouse on Wednesday. Shortly after, Tatum got into an expletive-laden confrontation with David Laufman, an attorney for Gonell, after he tried to get into an elevator with Gonell, Laufman and an NBC News reporter.

NBC News separately heard Tatum make negative comments inside the courthouse about how he believed Gonell was acting. Outside the courthouse, Tatum recorded himself accusing Gonell of committing perjury.

The confrontations with Gonell came before the conclusion of his testimony in the case against Fitzsimons, who is accused of assaulting Gonell inside the tunnel. Gonell’s cross-examination by Fitzsimons’ federal public defender will continue on Thursday morning.

“For Sgt. Gonell to be accosted like that, within the courthouse and while he remains a live witness at trial, was outrageous and amounts to witness intimidation that promptly should be addressed by the court as well as the FBI and the Department of Justice,” Laufman, who is representing Gonell pro bono, told NBC News on Wednesday night.

Finally, there are other key players in January 6 — most notably former Green Beret, Ivan Raiklin, who played a key role in Operation Pence Card, the effort to pressure Pence to overturn the election — who lurk around all events associated with January 6. Fellow Proud Boy Gabriel Garcia, in a recent bid to avoid pre-trial release sanctions for going to CPAC after he told Judge Amy Berman Jackson he was coming to DC to observe — among other things — the Proud Boys trial, claimed that he hung out with Raiklin at CPAC to formulate his defense.

While at CPAC, Mr. Garcia was working on his defense to these charges. Indeed, he asked Congressman M. Gaetz, who is from Mr. Garcia’s home state, how and when could his defense team access the 40,000 hours of unreleased video Capitol Police have. Also, he and his counsel met, and conferred extensively with, attorney Ivan Raiklin, whom they may retain for assistance and trial preparation. Mr. Raiklin had spoken to Mr. Garcia on March 2 at CPAC, and he told Mr. Garcia to return the next day with his counsel to discuss at length defense strategies, which they did.

Former Army Captain Garcia is one of the Proud Boys who, in exhibits submitted at trial (here, Gabriel PB), was issuing the most chilling threats in advance of January 6.

None of this makes things easier for Tim Kelly, as he tries to sustain this jury long enough to get through deliberations. It’s not yet clear whether the jurors, watching testimony about the extent to which Proud Boys using intimidation to protect their organization, are seeing shadows, or whether there’s a real attempt to intimidate jurors before they start deliberating.

But given the history of individuals directly associated with the defendants, the threat is not an idle one.

Time is almost up for Proud Boys on trial for seditious conspiracy: Another week gone and another week begins in historic Jan. 6 case

/117 Comments/in , /by

From emptywheel: Thanks to the generosity of emptywheel readers we have funded Brandi’s coverage for the rest of the trial. If you’d like to show your further appreciation for Brandi’s great work, here’s her PayPal tip jar.

The Proud Boys seditious conspiracy trial, after three arduous months, is on the verge of its conclusion. Closing arguments in the historic case unfolding just steps away from the U.S. Capitol could come as early as this week though not before at least one of the defendants may testify. 

On Tuesday, when U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly takes the bench for the 53rd time in the trial’s proceedings, the final contours of the Proud Boys defense are expected to be outlined and any final attempts by the defendants to undercut what has been a massive presentation of damning evidence by the Justice Department will be made. 

If this trial has been a marathon, this is now the final leg, and as the defendants arrive at the finish line, they only have so much time left support their argument that they were not part of a conspiracy to forcibly stop the transfer of power on Jan. 6, 2021, nor were their efforts aimed at obstructing Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election. 

Last week, Norm Pattis, a defense attorney for Proud Boy Joseph Biggs, said the former Infowars contributor wouldn’t take the witness stand. To what may end up being his benefit, Biggs has been a largely quiet figure at trial, sitting mostly silently for weeks in a series of gray suits and dark-framed glasses as he occupies a corner of the defense table positioned furthest away from the jury. 

Pattis and his co-counsel Dan Hull have mostly managed to keep Biggs and questions about his specific conduct on Jan. 6, alleged or otherwise, limited. 

When it has come to the cross-examination of government witnesses who suggested Biggs was integral to the breaching of initial barriers on Jan. 6 alongside defendant Ethan Nordean or when it has come to claims that he played a central role in whipping people into a frenzy, Pattis has often worked to refocus the jury’s attention to matters tangentially-related, like philosophical or ideological points around protest, speech or assembly. 

Where that has failed outright or faced disruption through a series of sustained objections from prosecutors, Biggs’ legal team has invoked the suggestion that the violence of Jan. 6 was the byproduct of FBI interference or incitement or just pure herd mentality. 

In court this week, the only evidence Biggs presented was a roughly 90-minute video of a Proud Boys video teleconference meeting held on Dec. 29, 2020. The video, according to the defense, goes toward the claim that Proud Boys had only planned to engage in a peaceful protest and respond to antifa or leftist interlopers accordingly. 

The force of that video’s effect, however, may have been mitigated since Biggs said little in it to start and on top of that, it featured unsavory moments steeped in anti-Semitism and misogyny. 

For example, jurors heard Tarrio and fellow Proud Boys in the meeting laugh as Tarrio discussed wearing a “six-pointed star” on Jan. 6 and making their official colors white and blue, like the Israeli flag. 

As the men laugh in the clip, Tarrio is heard assuring them that Proud Boys would never elect a “small hat” to their elders’ council. A small hat is a presumed reference to a yarmulke. Then, at another unsympathetic moment in the meeting, one Proud Boy is heard recalling how at the Dec. 12 rally in D.C., a woman tried to walk past him in the crowd. 

She told him to “make a hole” so she could squeeze by. In the clip, the Proud Boy recounted what he thought in the moment to Tarrio and crew: “I’m about to make a hole and put you in it you fucking whore,”

The jurors, as such, have mainly been left to acquaint themselves with Biggs through footage of him on Jan. 6 where he is regularly seen exuberantly clutching a bullhorn or shouting angrily about antifa or marching past police barriers with fellow Proud Boys as the melee around them comes to a crashing head. 

The leader of the neofascist network, Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, is very unlikely to testify barring any last-minute changes of heart. Though he was absent from the Capitol on Jan. 6, prosecutors argue the Miami, Florida-based Proud Boy oversaw and coordinated the group’s efforts from afar and had intended to stop the certification for weeks. 

During the trial this February, jurors saw evidence to suggest that Tarrio had by Dec. 30, 2020, possessed and shared a key document entitled “1776 Returns” that contained a detailed proposal to occupy federal buildings in Washington, D.C.

It didn’t mention the U.S. Capitol building specifically and Tarrio has vehemently denied authoring the proposal or knowing the document’s origins. Nonetheless, in text messages shown to jurors last month where “1776 Returns” was discussed, Tarrio is seen vowing that his “every waking moment” consisted of thinking about a “revolution.”

This poked a large hole in the defense’s already-thin theory that Proud Boys only concerned themselves on Jan. 6 with the task of protecting innocent Trump supporters who wanted to rally unmolested by rabid leftists hiding in plain sight.

During trial last week, Tarrio’s attorney Sabino Jauregui entered text messages into the record between the Proud Boys leader and Shane Lamond, a D.C. police lieutenant. The messages, according to Jauregi, support Tarrio’s assertion that he informed police of Proud Boys activities and whereabouts regularly and that he didn’t obscure his intent with officers for Jan. 6. 

Almost all of the texts shown in court last week (there were 46) were from points long before Jan. 6. And while Tarrio has painted the relationship he had with Lamond as one of equal input, some of the texts suggest the relationship may have been lopsided and most of his messages to Lamond were short and sweet. 

Lamond is currently under investigation for his communications with Tarrio. He has not been charged with any crime and he has denied any wrongdoing. Lamond has, however, invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and has opted against testifying at the trial.  

The texts were varied; mostly showing Lamond asking Tarrio where Proud Boys would be during a rally or other high-profile event. The men were friendly, with Lamond calling Tarrio “brother” and Tarrio calling Lamond “bruv.” They discussed getting drinks. He told Tarrio in November 2020 just a few days before the Million MAGA March in Washington, D.C., that he didn’t want the ringleader of the extremist group to think cops were keeping “tabs” on him or the Proud Boys when they were in town. 

But, Lamond told him,  knowing their movements could help police keep counterprotesters away from them. 

Jurors also saw texts where Lamond warned Tarrio in the days before the Capitol assault, that alerts were going out to police that Proud Boys were on Parler talking about “mobilizing and ‘taking back the country.’” 

And in at least one eyebrow-raising message displayed in court last week, Lamond told Tarrio to text him on an encrypted channel. 

By the time Dec. 19 rolled around, Tarrio told Lamond if Proud Boys came to D.C. at all, it would be in “extremely small” numbers and without their traditional black and yellow colors. 

Ultimately, prosecutors say Tarrio instructed members to hide or delete communications about Jan. 6, and by assuming the role of the group’s “marketing” leader, Tarrio developed a means to control the flow of information about the alleged conspiracy internally and externally. 

Though prosecutors have seemed to concede that Proud Boys were, at least for a time, focused on groups like “antifa” when they prepared for political rallies, they argue that purpose shifted dramatically once Proud Boy Jeremy Bertino was stabbed following the Dec. 12, 2020 “Stop the Steal’ rally. Text messages and witness testimony offered in court have shown Proud Boys airing frustrations about police routinely after that episode. 

Once Tarrio was arrested on Jan. 4, 2021, for burning a Black Lives Matter banner in Washington, D.C. a few weeks prior, the animosity had ratcheted up. In video footage from Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, Tarrio’s familiar and a fellow member of the group’s so-called “Ministry of Self Defense,” Florida Proud Boy Gilbert Fonticoba, is seen wearing a shirt proclaiming Tarrio’s innocence in the face of his arrest. 

His shirt read: “Enrique Tarrio Did Nothing Wrong.” 

Meanwhile, in court on March 30, while appearing as a witness for defendant Zachary Rehl, former West Virginia Proud Boys chapter president Jeff Finley flatly denied that the organization held animosity toward the police. His testimony lost some credibility though once prosecutors presented him with a text he sent to the Proud Boys “Boots on the Ground” channel on the morning of Jan. 6. In the message, Finley urged: “fuck the blue.”

He told the jury with little remorse if that’s what the record showed, that’s what it showed. Finley struck a plea agreement with the Justice Department and is in the process of serving out a 75-day prison sentence now. 

As for Fonticoba, he is one of several Proud Boys who falls under the prosecution’s “tools” theory. That theory suggests the defendants relied on each other as well as other members of the network to be their foot soldiers on Jan. 6 so they could forcibly stop the certification. Among the “tools” of the conspiracy activated by the defendants, according to the Justice Department, are Proud Boys like Paul Rae, John Stewart, Gabriel Garcia, AJ Fisher, Nicholas Ochs, Arthur Jackman, James Haffner, Ronald Loehrke, Nate and Kevin Tuck, Eddie Geroge, Dion Rajewski, Briele Boele, James Brett, Zach Johnson, and others. 

Proud Boy leader Ethan Nordean of Washington State isn’t expected to testify before all is said and done. Nordean has had far greater exposure to jurors over the course of the trial in comparison to Biggs and this despite the fact that both of the men are alleged to have led dozens of Proud Boys and other people past police barricades in equal measure. 

Footage of a hard-drinking Nordean has been depicted in court alongside other evidence, including communications where the Proud Boy expresses an intense and unwavering outrage at a “stolen” election. Testifying for Nordean would be particularly risky given his proximity to several “tools” in the conspiracy, like Ronald Loehrke, who prosecutors say he recruited to be on the front lines of the breach. If Nordean were to come under cross, it likely wouldn’t take prosecutors long before they would open a door to questions about his efforts recruiting fellow Proud Boys to the alleged cause. 

Only defendants Dominic Pezzola and Zachary Rehl have indicated they would testify but it is less clear if Rehl will take the risk. 

On top of seditious conspiracy and other charges, Pezzola is alleged to have stolen a police riot shield on Jan. 6 as well. Video footage, prosecutors contend, plainly shows Pezzola using that shield to smash apart a window at the Capitol that would allow rioters to stream rapidly inside. Pezzola’s attorney Steven Metcalf last week said he was confident the Rochester, New York Proud Boy would testify on his own behalf. 

Pezzola’s wife, Lisa Magee, testified on his behalf last week. She was often a sympathetic figure. Pezzola may not have gone to D.C. at all, she recalled, if he had listened to sage advice from her father. 

She told jurors how her father had warned her husband on Jan. 5 to stay home and not go to D.C. And at the time, she recalled as she sighed in court last week, Pezzola agreed to stay home and out of trouble. Less than a month before, she testified, she called her reaction to seeing Pezzola’s face after it was splashed across the Washington Post following the Stop the Steal rally in December. 

She told jurors she recalled telling her husband plainly that he was “a fucking idiot.” 

But on the eve of the insurrection, she went out for a girls-night and Pezzola left for D.C. When she testified, she was convincing when she suggested that Pezzola’s activities with the Proud Boys were mostly kept away from her view. She expressed frustration with her husband. He had changed, she said, after inundating himself with politics and Fox News. He started drinking heavily. The Covid-19 pandemic hit his business hard. He was angered, she said, when protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd bubbled over and turned violent. She told the jury she didn’t know that her husband believed a civil war was imminent or if he was in the throes of a battle against good vs. evil, capitalism vs. communism, or freedom vs. tyranny. 

As a former U.S. Marine, her husband was a man who once devoted to a principle, would go to great lengths to uphold it, she said. 

But this quality can cut both ways. 

For the defense, Pezzola’s purported moral fortitude and ritualistic devotion to American ideals meant he would never dream of conspiring against the United States. For prosecutors, the trait meant Pezzola would act unflinchingly if he felt his version of America was under attack. 

And, prosecutors elicited, once Pezzola returned home from Washington, he got rid of his cell phone and was unable to be reached by his wife until Jan. 9. 

At trial last week, a witness for Pezzola, Steven Kay Hill, tried to give the Rochester Proud Boy and former Marine cover with his testimony. In short, Hill was set to argue that Pezzola did not steal the riot shield by the looks of it, but rather, that he was reacting to an overzealous police force that deviated from a policy that would have kept the mob calm on Jan. 6. It was essentially police who were to blame for the use of chemical irritants and less than lethal munitions, Metcalf argued. 

Metcalf walked Hill, a former police officer and law enforcement training instructor from New Mexico, through a series of video clips from the moments before and after Pezzola got ahold of the riot shield. On direct, Hill testified that the mob became incensed only after police fired a less-than-lethal munition into the crowd and hit a rioter, Joshua Black, in his cheek. 

Jurors saw a gruesome photo of Black moments after he was struck, a hole bored into the side of his face and blood at his feet. 

“They were angry. They were upset. They were pissed because one of their own has just been shot in the face,” Hill testified on April 6. 

Jurors saw footage of Black being approached by a police officer in riot gear after he is hit in the cheek. The officer appears to rest his hand on Black’s shoulder as both of the men are crouched down looking at each other. Hill conceded that while he couldn’t tell what was being said, it did appear the officer was extending aid. 

In video footage, the officer is nodding briefly while speaking to Black and they are flanked on either side by protesters and police. Prosecutors say it was at this moment that the officer was offering to help Black before attempting to take him behind police lines to treat his injuries. 

Hill told jurors this was “a mistake.” 

When the crowd saw the officer try to take Black, they only thought: ‘You’re not taking him. He’s one of ours,” Hill said. 

Black, injury be damned, would fall back in with the crowd and eventually make it all the way to the floor of the Senate. 

This moment played out almost simultaneously to the moment Pezzola “fell” to the ground, Metcalf argued, and incidentally grabbed a riot shield in the fracas. Metcalf stopped short of calling Pezzola’s possession of the shield self-defense but his client’s actions, he argued, could be chalked up to panic, not an intent to steal. 

On cross-examination however, prosecutor Conor Mulroe elicited that long before Black was hit in the face with a munition, the crowd was already at a fever pitch and clashing with police. 

Long before Pezzola got the shield, Hill testified, there was a lot of fighting and yelling directed at officers. For every 50 to 60 police officers on duty, Hill estimated, there were at least 500 to 600 protesters. 

Where the defense said Pezzola acted reflexively, prosecutors say Pezzola was opportunistic. 

Hill also testified that police didn’t fire indiscriminately into the crowd, as Metcalf had insinuated and he agreed that footage from Jan. 6 appeared to show police only targeting those rioters in the crowd who had visibly attacked officers. 

To support this, jurors heard police radio transmissions where officers are heard describing active police assaults in progress as they identify specific assailants in a hectic scene.

In court last Thursday, Hill said he couldn’t tell if Pezzola was being shoved from behind or not as he finally entered the fray. 

As for Rehl, should he testify, he runs the risk of unwinding whatever good favor his attorney Carmen Hernandez may have raised for him over the course of the trial. Hernandez, at the risk of being repetitive, takes every chance she can to remind jurors that Rehl had no weapons on him when he entered the Capitol. Rehl was a servicemember, a graduate, a husband, and a father, Hernandez has said. 

Rehl didn’t celebrate violence, Hernandez insists and he didn’t give anyone any orders on Jan. 6. But prosecutors have showed the jury a less favorable view of Rehl. They have shown the jury a Rehl who deeply lamented Trump’s election loss and worked hard at recruitment efforts. They have shown the jury a Rehl who, instead of retreating as officers were clearly overrun on the 6th, sent updates to Proud Boys in group chats. 

To that end, as a horde of rioters breached the building that afternoon, Rehl wrote, “Civil war started.” 

He pushed past barricades and broke into Senator Jeff Merkley’s office with other rioters and Proud Boys, including some members who prosecutors have said are “tools” of the conspiracy. 

Not one week in the Proud Boys seditious conspiracy trial has passed by smoothly and last week was no different. Apart from routine objections launched by the defense to even the most mundane of issues and separate from the unending series of motions for mistrial, last week featured a new and unwelcome variable: the sealed hearing. 

A sealed hearing, or a hearing closed to the public and press, is typically held when sensitive or classified matters are being discussed by the parties. Trial days were stopped and started three times last week for sealed hearings that stretched for more than an hour. A press coalition moved to unseal proceedings on at least one of those days but was promptly denied by Judge Kelly for reasons he failed to describe on the record. 

Though the exact reason was not disclosed by the court (nor would one expect it to be at this point), CNN reported that multiple sources said the sealed hearing was prompted after a juror raised concerns that she was being followed. Another juror has said they were “accosted” but no further details were available.

When things turned to ‘Ash’: Henry Tarrio’s first witness appears; plus a fight over informants ensues at Proud Boys sedition trial

/150 Comments/in , /by

From emptywheel, 4/2: Thanks to the generosity of emptywheel readers we have funded Brandi’s coverage for the rest of the trial. If you’d like to show your further appreciation for Brandi’s great work, here’s her PayPal tip jar.

The first witness for Henry Tarrio at the now 43-day-old trial was George Meza, a former Proud Boy turned self-professed rabbi who also goes by “Ash Barkoziba.” Meza was discharged from the U.S. military after going AWOL for over six months. These days, as prosecutors elicited, Meza offers prospective converts to Judaism medical exemptions for the Covid-19 vaccine online. 

If the aim of Meza’s testimony was, in some fashion, meant to persuade jurors that the Proud Boys as an organization were tolerant, ideologically passive, or nonviolent or further, that Tarrio’s oversight of the group meant greater standards were enforced that put checks on members who engaged in bigotry or hate, then Meza was unsuccessful. 

Appearing before jurors wearing angular dark-rimmed glasses and a long button-down shirt, Meza’s testimony was often contradictory. On direct examination, he told Tarrio’s counsel Nayib Hassan that he became a third-degree member of the extremist organization but he couldn’t recall when. He told the January 6 committee he joined the group in September or October of 2020.

He told Hassan the Proud Boys were a “reactionary movement” aimed to protect patriotic Americans from communist leftists and flag-burners. Anyone who held supremacist views would be kicked out of the Proud Boys or “should have been,” he said. 

When he was a member and participated in the Ministry of Self-Defense (MOSD) group chat he said he policed it for anti-Semitic and racist commentary. It was a responsibility he took upon himself, he admitted, because the group didn’t “do enough” to eject bigots from its ranks. 

They did, however, eject Meza. 

He was cagey about why he was ousted, his memory foggy on the finer points. During a pointed exchange with prosecutors during cross-examination, Meza also could not remember the exact date he was ousted but insisted it must have been prior to Jan. 3, 2021. Incidentally, Jan. 3 was the same date that members like Proud Boy Gabriel Garcia of Miami texted Tarrio, Biggs, and other members in MOSD that “yes sir, time to stack those bodies in front of Capitol Hill.” 

Prosecutors say evidence shows Meza was in the MOSD chats through Jan. 6 and wasn’t kicked out until after the insurrection. 

When he was an insider, Meza was a member of MOSD as well as the group’s Boots on Ground channel yet another text forum where, according to prosecutors, Tarrio and his now co-defendants Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Dominic Pezzola (as well as a host of other Proud Boys charged in separate indictments) coordinated efforts directly or indirectly aimed at disrupting Congress on Jan. 6, 2021. 

The defendants claim the groups were innocuous and largely served as spaces where members could sketch out methods of self-defense against antifa and other perceived enemies of patriots like Donald Trump or his supporters when pro-Trump events were underway. 

The mission of MOSD was about ensuring the “safety of other Proud Boys,” Meza testified.  There was talk of Jan. 6 in MOSD, he said, but he couldn’t recall specific discussions. He also brushed aside suggestions that the group used the space to do things like find “real men” willing to confront police when Jan. 6 rolled around. 

MOSD, he said, was a place where leadership could work toward things like the “thinning out” of members who were unable to curb binge drinking or other unruly behavior at rallies. But at the same time, Meza said Proud Boys did not shy away from taking matters into their own hands when they felt under duress.

After two pro-Trump events in D.C. in November and December 2020 —the Million MAGA March on Nov. 14  and the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally on Dec. 12—the Proud Boys were keyed up. Members had been stabbed during street brawls with antifa, he said. But, he admitted, he didn’t see the stabbings with his own eyes or who started it. 

People got bored. Bored and drunk. And stabbings occurred, he said.

But, he testified, this boys club also sincerely believed it was in the middle of a civil war with antifa. Meza described it as “somewhat of a peaceful civil war… for the most part.” 

Yet, he downplayed the Proud Boys as a drinking club akin to a “fraternity” where “locker room talk” flowed. When one member in MOSD discussed breaking people’s legs or hunting antifa down, for example, Meza said it was hyperbole. 

“It was always reactionary,” he volunteered to Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason McCullough. “It was a lot of poetic hyperbolic statements.” 

“When you’re on the receiving end of violence, does it feel better if it’s just hyperbole?” McCullough asked. 

Defense attorneys objected before he could answer. 

By the time Jan. 6 arrived, Meza testified that he was specifically focused on providing security for Latinos for Trump founder Bianca Gracia. He had been admitted to MOSD after the December 12 rally, he said. Text exhibits indicate Meza was a participant in the MOSD Main chat when Tarrio first out an invitation for a critical video conference hosted on Dec. 29, 2020. 

Ahead of that meeting, defendant Joseph Biggs eagerly told members in MOSD they would soon discuss the “need to make sure guys understand the chain of command” for Jan. 6. In clips from the teleconference played for the jury this February, Proud Boy Charles Donohoe—who has already pleaded guilty conspiracy to obstruct proceedings—is heard emphasizing a need for secrecy among MOSD’s operations.

There would be no social media posts about MOSD, Donohoe urged and at the meeting, Tarrio reiterated this point. Even in the MOSD text channel jurors saw this point was one of several Tarrio listed in a reminder post that was pinned at the top of the channel. When FBI Special Agent Peter Dubrowski testified about the Dec. 29 teleconference, he said while Tarrio, Biggs, and other leaders on the call did not discuss a strategic objective for January 6 that he heard, there was interest for those details expressed by other members. 

Tarrio just wouldn’t come out with it openly, Dubrowski said. He opted to keep information siloed. There was more than one teleconference for MOSD members in the run-up to Jan. 6, Dubrowski testified, but investigators were unable to successfully locate recordings of those videos if they existed. 

As for Meza, he would arrive in Washington on Jan. 5 to stay at the Phoenix Park Hotel.

His mission, he told the jury, was to escort Gracia and others in her entourage as a representative of the Proud Boys on Jan. 6. 

He was to ensure she got to and from the hotel and to the group’s rally. Tarrio, he said, was meant to speak at the Latinos for Trump rally from 10 a.m. to noon though he admitted, Tarrio’s name was never listed on the Latinos for Trump publicity flyer for the 6th. 

The Proud Boys ringleader was arrested on Jan. 4 and promptly received an order to stay out of  D.C. from law enforcement. 

Despite being tapped as security for the high-profile pro-Trump event that the very leader of the Proud Boys was supposed to speak at, Meza testified that he and Tarrio never had any communications about it before Jan. 5.

Further stretching the limits of logical belief, in addition to security for Gracia, Meza told jurors he was there on Jan. 6 as an “independent licensed journalist.” Putting aside the fact that there is no license issued to journalists independent or otherwise, McCullough elicited from the former Proud Boy turned rabbi that he was also interviewing people on the 6th who had never met Proud Boys before. 

The prosecution has alleged that the Proud Boys activated fellow members of their organization on Jan. 6 to breach police lines but further, that they understood their success in applying force to stop the certification would hinge also on raising the hackles of “normies” or everyday people at the rally in Washington. These “normies” were “tools” of the conspiracy, at times, almost as much as some members of the organization were, the government contends. 

McCullough pressed Meza on this point asking him several times if he was positive that he was ousted from MOSD prior to Jan. 3. Presenting a MOSD text chain to the jury, McCullough showed him where a Proud Boy using the handle “BrotherHunter Jake Phillips” told MOSD members: “So are the normies and ‘other’ attendees going to push through police lines and storm the capitol buildings? A few million v. a few hundred coptifa should be enough. I saw a few normie groups rush police lines on the 12th.” 

“Ever see that?” McCullough asked. 

“Never seen it,” Meza said. 

Meza also testified that he didn’t see another comment where “BrotherHunter Jake Phillips” asked, “what would they do if 1 million patriots stormed and took the capitol building. Shoot into the crowd? I think not.” 

Meza did not meet with Proud Boys, including some of the defendants, who gathered at the Washington Monument on the morning of Jan. 6. He told the jury he did not march with any of them when they descended on the Capitol. He said too that he had no cellphone communication with any of them and carried no radio. McCullough, however, showed Meza a picture of himself where a radio is clearly visible on his chest. He stands next to a Proud Boy from Miami he identified as “The Greek.” Also appearing alongside them in the picture is Josh Macias, the co-founder of Vets for Trump. 

This jogged his memory, Meza said. They had radio for the Latinos for Trump event, he said. But they never used them. Someone had given the radios to him but he couldn’t recall who and he said, in any event, they “never figured out how to use them.” 

Former Proud Boy Matthew Greene—who has pleaded guilty to conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding already—testified this January that he was tasked to program radios for Proud Boys on Jan. 6 but it wasn’t Tarrio, he told Nayib Hassan, who set him about this project.

When Nick Smith, defense attorney for Proud Boy leader and defendant Ethan Nordean, asked Greene whether those radios were ever used to plan an invasion on the Capitol, Greene also said no. 

Though he said he heard no specific plan for Jan. 6 if it existed, Greene said Proud Boys had steadily grown angrier and angrier as the day approached and members, by December, fully and openly expected a civil war was imminent. 

When Greene traveled to D.C with defendant Dominic Pezzola in a two-car caravan (Pezzola rode in a separate car, Greene rode with New York Proud Boy William Pepe), that hadn’t changed. When things finally clicked into place in his mind, he said, was when he saw Proud Boys lead rioters over barricades for the first time on Jan. 6. 

“Oh shit, this is it,” he recalled thinking.

“I personally had an abstract feeling that Proud Boys were about to be part of something, the tip of the spear, but I never heard specifically what that could be. But as people moved closer to the Capitol, I was in the moment, putting two-and-two together and saying, well, here it is,” Greene testified on Jan. 24. 

Like Meza, Greene was not a high-ranking member of the Proud Boys. 

Greene stuck close to defendant Dominic Pezzola on Jan. 6 as they breached barriers and ascended scaffolding around the Capitol. 

At one point on the 6th, when Greene saw Pezzola clutching a police riot shield, Greene said it was then that he started to question what he was really doing there. Greene stayed close enough to Pezzola long enough to watch him have his picture taken with the riot shield, Pezzola’s hand making the “OK” hand gesture that extremist experts say is associated with the white power movement. Meza told the jury Proud Boys were instructed by the group’s leadership to use the hand signal to antagonize the media. 

Other testimony from Meza was likely just as unhelpful for the defendants.

As video footage played in court from a violent breach of the Columbus Door near the East Rotunda, police clearly struggling to keep the mob at bay, Meza testified that he was escorting two women out of the Capitol after the door was breached. He never saw it breached, he said. He was walking away and three seconds later, the door was open. He asked jurors to believe he never saw protesters stream through that same door 10 to 15 seconds later because things were “so densely populated.” 

He understood the purpose of going to D.C. on Jan. 6 was to “stop the steal,” he testified. And when McCullough asked him plainly whether he believed that the people who went inside the Capitol were “heroes”, Meza was unabashed. 

“Yes I do,” he said. 

Meza’s testimony will resume on Monday since his cross-examination did not conclude Friday. And much to the defense’s chagrin, presiding U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly has agreed to admit evidence into question that will tie the Proud Boys ever closer to the sedition charge they each face. 

The government wants to cross Meza on a series of key details around Jan. 5 at the Phoenix Park Hotel in downtown D.C. 

This was the same hotel where Tarrio would meet that night with Oath Keepers founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy in November, Bianca Gracia, Joshua Macias, former Oath Keeper attorney Kellye SoRelle and others, in an underground parking garage. 

Prosecutors argue that Meza’s proximity to Gracia as well as his testimony on his stated purpose—security guard for Jan. 6 related events—should grant the government the right to question him about what he heard or what he saw happen in Gracia’s hotel room. 

Judge Kelly was not initially inclined to let this line of examination run, suggesting it was beyond the scope and that conversations in the hotel room prior to a rally were First Amendment-protected activity. But McCullough kept at it. 

“It squarely refutes the idea this is all done for First Amendment [reasons], your honor,” McCullough said. “He is in a room with the head of the Oath Keepers, with the Latino for Trump folks who have just met with Tarrio in a garage earlier that evening and now he is continuing to engage with Bianca who we have heard on direct is thick as thieves—[strike that]. They are very close is what we have heard. That is relevant. There is a connection with this individual when this is all supposed to be about Latinos for Trump and ‘we’re going to a rally from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.’.”

In a text message extracted from Proud Boy Gabriel Garcia’s phone after Jan. 6, McCullough said Meza said he told other Proud Boys things were “planned in our hotel room the night before by Oath Keepers and Three Percenters. 

In the sentence just before this in the text message, Meza writes, “I’m thrilled with what happened and don’t know why people keep saying it was antifa [or] BLM.” 

Ethan Nordean’s attorney Nick Smith argued this was exculpatory since it appeared to rest responsibility on other extremist groups. But these were Meza’s statements, Kelly found, and therefore, he now agreed with the government: they were relevant and Meza could be questioned about them because “at least,” Kelly said, it was an “implication” that Proud Boys planned to stop the certification with the other groups. 

Tarrio’s next witness is teed up for Monday after much commotion: FBI informant Jennylyn Salinas, also known as “Jenny Loh.” 

Loh’s anticipated appearance threw proceedings into disarray last week as defense attorneys claimed they had no idea Loh was an informant. Loh maintains she told her handlers nothing about her interactions with the Proud Boys and that once the government became aware that she could be called to testify in the case, her informant relationship ended completely. Prosecutors say Loh, who was associated with  Latinos for Trump, was an informant from April 2020 through this January and only received a single payment from the bureau after sharing footage with agents of people harassing her at home. Loh has said that her communications with the FBI were not about Proud Boys but the threat that antifa posed. 

Sabino Jauregui, another defense attorney representing Tarrio, told Judge Kelly on Friday that Loh would be able to testify that in at least 100 different Telegram channels or group chats with multiple Proud Boys, she never saw any chatter of plans to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6. How relevant that will be remains to be seen. There’s no indication that Loh, even if she was a member of dozens of Proud Boy channels, would be hipped to information closely guarded by leadership. 

The government has maintained that Loh never informed on Proud Boys specifically. Jauregui insisted she would often talk to her FBI handler about Biggs and Tarrio in particular. Defense attorneys claim Loh tried to convince one of the defendants to get rid of his attorney.

McCullough offered to share a 36-minute recorded interview with Judge Kelly involving Loh and her FBI handler where, the prosecutor said, it would become clear that Loh was not reporting on Proud Boys.

Kelly has been treading carefully around informant issues that continue to arise in the trial. The defense has issued subpoenas to several witnesses who they say are confidential human sources that would vindicate the Proud Boys. For example, Judge Kelly recently quashed a subpoena from the defense for  Massachusetts Proud Boy Kenny Lizardo. Lizardo attended the meeting with Tarrio and Rhodes in the parking garage at the Phoenix. 

Lizardo, Kelly found,  had a “reporting relationship” with the FBI and intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment right if called. 

Just for Perspective: Investigations Take Longer When Presidents Don’t Wiretap Themselves

/31 Comments/in , , /by

A few weeks ago, Peter Baker marked the day that the January 6 investigation has taken as long as the time between the burglary to Nixon’s resignation.

I reacted poorly to Baker’s claim to offer perspective; even on past presidential investigations, he has been overly credulous. And there’s really no comparison between Watergate and January 6, particularly if one compares — as Baker does — time-to-resignation under a still-sane Republican party with time-to-indictment in the MAGAt era. The comparison offers no perspective.

But I thought I’d take Baker up on the challenge, because the Watergate investigation offers a worthwhile way to demonstrate several of the reasons why the January 6 investigation is so much harder. (I plan to make running updates of this post because I expect feedback, particularly from people who know the Watergate investigation better than me, will help me fine tune this explanation.)

Same day arrests

In Watergate, the burglars were arrested in the act of breaking into the DNC headquarters.

On January 6, the cops tried to (and in a relative handful of cases, did) arrest people onsite. But this is the challenge they faced when they tried: Every attempted arrest required multiple officers to focus on one individual rather than the mob of thousands poised to invade the Capitol; every arrest was a diversion from the effort to defend the Capitol, Mike Pence, and members of Congress, with a woefully inadequate force.

In the case pictured above, the cops made a tactical decision to let Garret Miller go. After assuring the cops he only wanted to go home, just 33 minutes later, Miller burst through the East door with the rest of the mob.

There wasn’t a great delay in arrests of January 6 rioters, though. Nicholas Ochs, the first Proud Boy arrested, was arrested on January 7 when his flight home from DC landed in Hawaii.

Q-Shaman Jacob Chansley was arrested on January 8. The first person who would be convicted of a felony by a jury, Guy Reffitt, was arrested on January 15 (his son had tipped the FBI about him before the attack). The first person known to later enter into a cooperation agreement, Jon Schaffer, was arrested on January 17. Miller, pictured above, was rearrested January 20. VIP Stop the Steal associates Brandon Straka and Anthime “Baked Alaska” Gionet — the former of whom did provide and the latter of whom likely provided useful information on organizers to earn misdeamenor pleas — were arrested on January 25 and January 17, respectively. Joe Biggs — now on trial for sedition and an utterly critical pivot between the crime scene and those who coordinated with Trump — was arrested January 20, the same day that Joe Biden would, under tight security, be sworn in as President, the same day Steve Bannon’s last minute pardon was announced.

Kelly Meggs, the Oath keeper who facilitated cooperation among three militias who was convicted with Stewart Rhodes of sedition last November, was arrested on an already growing conspiracy indictment on February 19.

In the first month then, DOJ had already taken steps in an investigation implicating those who worked with Trump. The table below includes the arrests of some of the witnesses who will have an impact on an eventual Trump prosecution. There are others that I suspect are really important, but their role is not yet public.

Trial delays

The Watergate burglars didn’t go to trial right away. They were first indicted on September 15, 1972, 90 days after their arrest. Those who didn’t plead out went on trial January 8, 1973, 205 days after their arrest. Steps that John Sirica took during that trial — most notably, refusing to let the burglars take the fall and reading James McCord’s confession publicly — led directly to the possibility of further investigation. Nixon wouldn’t even commit his key crimes for over two months, in March.

That’s an important reminder, though: the Watergate investigation would have gone nowhere without that trial. That’s unsurprising. That’s how complex investigations in the US work.

Many people don’t understand, though, that there were two major delays before anyone could be brought to trial for January 6. First, COVID protocols had created a backlog of trials for people who were already in pretrial detention and for about 18 months, would limit the number of juries that could be seated. Efforts to keep grand jury members safe created similar backlogs, sometimes for months. In one conspiracy case I followed, prosecutors were ready to supersede several defendants into a conspiracy in April 2021, but did not get grand jury time to do so until September.

To make that bottleneck far, far worse, the nature of the attack and the sheer volume of media evidence about the event led DOJ to decide — in an effort to avoid missing exculpatory evidence that would undermine prosecutions — to make “global production” to all defendants. That required entering into several contracts, finding ways to package up media that started out in a range of different formats, getting special protective orders so one defendant wouldn’t expose personal details of another (though one defendant is or was under investigation for doing just that), then working with the public defenders’ office to effectively create a mirror of this system so prosecutors would have no access to defense filings. It was an incredibly complex process necessitated by the thing — the sheer amount of evidence from the crime scene — that has made it possible to prosecute so many of the crime scene culprits.

Here’s one of the memos DOJ issued to update the status of this process, one of the last global updates. Even at that point over a year after the attack, DOJ was just starting to move forward in a few limited cases by filling in what remained of discovery.

The first felony trial coming out of January 6 was that of Guy Reffitt, which started on March 3, 2022, a full 420 days after the event. Bringing him to trial that was made easier — possible even — because Reffitt never went into the Capitol itself, so didn’t have to wait until all global discovery was complete, and because there were several witnesses against him, including his own son.

The delays in discovery resulted in delays in plea deals too, as most defense attorneys believed they needed to wait until they had seen all of the discovery to make sure they advised their client appropriately.

Lots of people thought this process was unnecessary. But the decision to do it was utterly vindicated the other day, as DOJ started responding to defendants claiming that Tucker Carlson had found video that somehow proved their innocence. As I noted, prosecutors were able to point to the video shown by Tucker Carlson that he said vindicated Jacob Chansley and describe specifically when an unrelated defendant, Dominic Pezzola, had gotten what was effectively Chansley’s discovery.

The footage in question comes from the Capitol’s video surveillance system, commonly referred to as “CCTV” (for “closed-circuit television”). The Court will be familiar with the numerous CCTV clips that have been introduced as exhibits during this trial. The CCTV footage is core evidence in nearly every January 6 case, and it was produced en masse, labeled by camera number and by time, to all defense counsel in all cases.3 With the exception of one CCTV camera (where said footage totaled approximately 10 seconds and implicated an evacuation route), all of the footage played on television was disclosed to defendant Pezzola (and defendant Chansley) by September 24, 2021.4 The final 10 seconds of footage was produced in global discovery to all defense counsel on January 23, 2023. Pezzola’s Brady claim therefore fails at the threshold, because nothing has been suppressed. United States v. Blackley, 986 F. Supp. 600, 603 (D.D.C. 1997) (“For an item to be Brady, it must be something that is being ‘suppress[ed] by the prosecution.’”) (quoting Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)).

While discovery in this case is voluminous, the government has provided defense counsel with the necessary tools to readily identify relevant cameras within the CCTV to determine whether footage was produced or not. Accordingly, the volume of discovery does not excuse defense counsel from making reasonable efforts to ascertain whether an item has been produced before making representations about what was and was not produced, let alone before filing inaccurate and inflammatory allegations of discovery failures.

You may think the thirteen month delay for discovery was a waste of time. But it just prevented Tucker Carlson from being able to upend hundreds of prosecutions.

Obviously, most of the trials that have occurred in the last year won’t directly lead to Trump. Some will. I’ve said for 22 months that I think the Proud Boy trial is critical — and that won’t go to the jury for another two or three weeks yet. There are a number of steps that, I suspect, DOJ has been holding on pending the results of that trial, because so much else rides on it.

The Stewart Rhodes trial was likely helpful. I’ve suggested DOJ may use Danny Rodriguez as a way to tie Trump and Rudy Giuliani to the near-murder of Michael Fanone on an aid-and-abet theory. And there are a few more sleeper cases that seem to have greater significance than what went on at the Capitol that day.

Update: On May 4, 2023, a jury found four of the five Proud Boy leaders guilty of sedition. This trial was an important precursor for other investigative steps.

The legal uncertainty

In the Nixon case, there were fairly well established crimes: burglary, and obstruction of a criminal investigation.

I won’t say too much on this point, because I already have. But in this case, prosecutors were (and undoubtedly still are) trying to apply existing statute to an unprecedented event. One law they’ve used with a lot of the rioters — civil disorder — was already being appealed elsewhere in the country when prosecutors started applying to the January 6. Since then its legal certainty has been all-but solidified.

Far more importantly, the way prosecutors have applied obstruction of an official proceeding, 18 USC 1512(c)(2), has been challenged (starting with Garret Miller–the guy in the aborted arrest photo above) for over a year. That’s precisely the crime with which the January 6 Committee believes Trump should be charged (I advocated the same before their investigation even started in earnest); but I’m not sure whether Jack Smith will wait until the appeals on the law get resolved.

Still, DOJ has spent a great deal of time already trying to defend the legal approach they’ve used with the investigation.

Update: On April 7, the DC Circuit reversed Carl Nichols, holding that 18 USC 1512(c)(2) does not require a documentary component. That opinion raised new questions about the meaning of “corrupt purpose” under the statute. The Circuit rejected Fischer’s request for a rehearing, clearing the possibility of an appeal to SCOTUS. On May 11, the DC Circuit heard Thomas Robertson’s challenge to the same statute. Its decision in that case will almost certainly be the first DC Circuit ruling on “corrupt purpose” under the statute.

The insider scoop

For all the delays in setting up the January 6 Committee, it (and an earlier Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry into Jeffrey Clark’s efforts to undermine the vote) got started more quickly than Sam Ervin’s committee, which first started 11 months after the burglary.

Yet it only took Ervin’s Senate investigators about two months to discover their important insider, whose testimony would provide critical to both Congressional and criminal investigators. On July 13, 1973, Alexander Butterfield first revealed the existence of the White House taping system.

For all the January 6 Committee’s great work, it wasn’t until her third interview, on May 17, 2022, before Cassidy Hutchinson began to reveal more details of Trump’s unwillingness to take steps against his supporters chanting “Hang Mike Pence.” Even Hutchinson’s remarkable public testimony on June 28, 2022, when she described Trump demanding that his supporters be allowed to enter the Ellipse rally with the weapons Secret Service knew them to be carrying, is not known to have provided the kind of Rosetta stone to the conspiracy that disclosure of Nixon’s White House taping system did. In later testimony, Hutchinson provided key details about a cover-up. And her testimony provided leverage for first J6C and then, in at least two appearances, grand jury testimony from Pat Philbin and Pat Cipollone, the latter appearance of which came with an Executive Privilege waiver on December 2, 2022, 23 months after the attack.

Cell-xploitation

This brings us to the biggest difference in the timeline. Once the Senate and prosecutors learned that Nixon had effectively wiretapped himself, it turned the investigation into a fight over access to those materials.

The parts of the draft Nixon indictment that have been released describe a fairly narrow conspiracy. The proof against Nixon would have comprised, in significant part:

  • The report John Dean did disclaiming a tie to the break-in
  • Proof of payments to Howard Hunt
  • White House recordings, primarily from several days in March 1973, proving that Nixon had the payments arranged

That is, in addition to the James McCord confession and John Dean’s cooperation, any charges against Nixon relied on recordings Nixon himself had made, the import of which were made all the more salient with the disclosure of the 18-minute gap.

One thing likely made the January 6 prosecution easier: The sheer amount of data available to prosecutors using subpoenas. We have yet to see any of that with regards to organizers (though we know that Denver Riggelman, with far weaker subpoena power, was able to do a detailed map of ties between Trump, organizers, and mobsters).

There will undoubtedly be a great deal of evidence obtained from cloud companies. The only hint of this process we know about yet involves the emails from Jeffrey Clark, Ken Klukowski, John Eastman, and one other person, who is not a lawyer. DOJ had obtained emails from them with a warrant by last May. They have undoubtedly done the same for dozens of other subjects (beyond those arrested from the crime scene, where they have done so as well), but we won’t know about it until we see it in indictments.

But even that is not always easy. DOJ has spent seven months so far getting Peter Navarro to turn over emails from his Proton Mail account covered by the Presidential Records Act. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly just issued an order requiring him to turn the emails over, but it’s not clear whether he’ll further obstruct this effort to simply enforce his normal record-keeping obligations.

But one challenge that didn’t exist fifty years ago makes prosecutors jobs much harder: the need to obtain and exploit individual cell phones to obtain encrypted communications — things like Signal and Telegram chats — not otherwise available. In Enrique Tarrio’s case, simply breaking into the phone took most of a year. In Rudy Giuliani’s case (his phones were first obtained in the Ukraine investigation starting on Lisa Monaco’s first day on the job, but the results would be available with a separate warrant here), it took a nine month Special Master review. In Scott Perry’s case, his speech and debate claims will be appealed to SCOTUS. The table below shows whose phones we know to have been obtained, including how long it took to exploit the phones to the extent that became public (It does not show known cloud content obtained; much of that remains secret.)

The point being, even for the Proud Boys and Oath Keeper cases, you had to get one phone, use it to get probable cause on the next guy, then get his phone to use it to get probable cause on the next guy. This process is very obviously at the stage where both Alex Jones and Roger Stone would be in prosecutors’ sights, as well as much of the fake elector plot. But that’s still several steps away from people like Mark Meadows, who would necessarily be involved in any Trump prosecution.

Privilege

When DOJ subpoenaed the two Pats last summer, multiple media outlets reported that subpoenaing the White House counsels was particularly “aggressive.”

Two top lawyers who worked in the White House under former President Donald Trump have been subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury investigating the events leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, people familiar with the matter said, in the latest sign that the Justice Department’s probe is entering a more aggressive phase.

Mr. Trump’s White House counsel Pat Cipollone and his deputy Pat Philbin received subpoenas in recent days seeking documents and testimony, the people said. [my emphasis]

But as coverage of, first, Mike Pence’s two aides and, then, the two Pats being compelled to testify about topics Trump had claim was privileged noted, it’s not actually a new or particularly aggressive thing to ask White House counsels to testify. Indeed, John Dean’s cooperation — the most important part of holding Nixon accountable — arose after he had gotten himself deeper and deeper into Nixon’s cover-up.

And in spite of the Nixon precedent that said there were limits to Executive Privilege, and in spite of the DC Circuit ruling that the import of investigation January 6 overcame Trump’s Executive Privilege claims, even with Congress, Trump has used — and DOJ has been obligated to navigate — a series of privilege claims to delay the investigation.

As I’ve noted, there are close to thirty key witnesses or subjects whose attorney-client claims have to be carefully addressed to avoid blowing both that case and those of any downstream investigation.

In the case of Scott Perry, DOJ has spent six months trying to get into his phone. That delay is not a sign of lassitude. On the contrary, it’s a sign they’re including subjects who very rarely get investigated in the investigation.

Update: On April 21 and 22, seven-plus months after DOJ seized his phone (which is often how long exploitation takes), Boris Epshteyn spent two days interviewing with Jack Smith’s prosecutors though not — at least by description — appearing before the grand jury. He played a key role in both January 6 and the stolen documents case.

Cooperating witnesses

According to this timeline, John Dean started cooperating on April 6, 1973, almost ten months after the arrest of the burglars, though just a few weeks after the day of Nixon’s crimes as alleged in the draft indictment.

As noted on this table, there were people who entered into cooperation agreements more quickly than that, but it’s not clear who of them will help prosecute those closer to Trump. As I keep noting, I’m really dubious of the value of Brandon Straka’s cooperation.

There are maybe 30 to 35 known known cooperators in January 6, but most only cooperated against their buddies, and most of those prosecutions didn’t much build prosecutions related to Trump.

This table only includes a few of the cooperating witnesses — the first (Schaffer, the nature of whose cooperation is still totally obscure), the dubious cooperation of Straka and, potentially, Gionet, the most important of at least five Proud Boy cooperators, Jeremy Bertino, and the most important of at least eight Oath Keeper cooperators, Joshua James.

James, along with a few of the other Oath Keeper cooperators, might help prosecute Roger Stone. But there is no one on this list who has the goods on Trump, like John Dean did. No one even close.

That said, we wouldn’t necessarily know if someone closer to Trump were cooperating. Even some people who are secondary cooperators remain entirely obscure, both that they are cooperating, and the extent of their knowledge. I suspect several people are cooperating — I even have specific people in mind, based on other details. But we won’t know anytime soon if someone has flipped on Donald Trump.

And given the ferociousness of his supporters and the aggressiveness of Trump’s obstruction that’s a good thing.

Update, May 26: I’ve updated the table below to reflect the Oath Keeper sentences and the Proud Boy verdict.

Judge Kelly’s Basis for His “Tools” Determinations

/6 Comments/in , /by

Since the beginning of the Proud Boys case, there has been an ongoing dispute about the government’s “tools” theory of the conspiracy, which argued that there were a bunch of people (which was trimmed after pre-trial hearings) whom Proud Boy leaders used to execute their conspiracy. This post explains that dispute.

These people are not accused or alleged to be part of one of the parallel conspiracies charged against the Leaders, and so normal hearsay rules will not apply as normal. But they are people who, the government alleges, the Leaders pulled together as recruits to make the attack happen.

Part of this dispute pertains to whose actions at the Capitol can be shown, as video evidence, to the jury in association with the Proud Boy Leaders. I think the case presents what I call a “view-say” exception, in which assaults committed by associates in places at the Capitol where no Leader was present, may or may not be shown to the jury. On the first day of trial, for example, Judge Kelly deferred on whether assaults that took place in the Tunnel should be shown, since no Leader was present.

But a big part of the debate pertains to how many of the communications on one or another of the Telegram threads the Leaders used to organize the Proud Boys can be introduced as evidence.

Last Friday, Judge Kelly issued his order on the issue verbally in what takes up about 80 pages of transcript. I wanted to lay out his logic here, so it is broadly accessible.

First, let me clarify an issue that came up on Monday, as we argued this, about who might count as a tool. On the one hand — it seems to me that the tools fall into two buckets for purposes of this case generally, as the Government has argued it. On the one hand, you have people whom the defendants or their cooperator — or their co-conspirators marched toward the Capitol on January 6th to whom they had some alleged nexus or relationship in the, sort of, physical effort of what happened that day on January 6th. And in — separately, you have the group we’re dealing with here, which is Proud Boys whom the defendants and their co-conspirators hand-selected to join the MOSD. Of course, there’s some overlap between these two groups of people. But I certainly don’t think, over the argument of some defendants, that someone ultimately had to be in one group for their statement to — or their conduct to be relevant for the — to this case. In other words, to be a tool, you didn’t have to necessarily believe — belong to both of those, sort of, groups.

I’ll next note that, again, by and large with regard to the tools evidence, I didn’t see any true hearsay issues there. It’s clear to me that the bulk of these statements, at least, were not offered as assertions but rather as circumstantial evidence of the tools’ motive and intent in the days leading up to January 6th. And to the extent they are assertions of the tools, they would fall under Rule 803(3) which allows statements expressing the declarant’s motive, intent, or plan to be admitted for the truth of the matter asserted.

But, of course, after clearing the hearsay bar, statements must still be relevant and satisfy Rule 403 balancing. So here’s the line I drew on that front. Where a purported MOSD tool’s statement expressed a more specific, concrete intent to use force or to act unlawfully on January 6th, I admitted them. But — or at least where the statement could — where you could infer that. But where, in my view, a statement was less specific, or tended to be more — a general reference to violence or perhaps even to a joke, I excluded them.

For — as for those I admitted, I think the statements are relevant/admissible because they do shed light on what the purpose of the MOSD was, which is a central issue in the trial. As I mentioned, the defendants have consistently argued — and even opened on the idea — that the MOSD was intended to create more of an organizational structure and a hierarchy at rallies for defensive purposes. And in short, the Government’s theory is that, at least with regard to January 6th, it was intended for an offensive purpose.

Thus, I think that the state of mind, in the days leading up to January 6th, of those that the co-conspirators and the defendants in this case vetted to be in the MOSD is relevant. And it’s an important factor supporting — and it is an important factor that, sort of, reinforces their relevance that the evidence shows that the defendants and their co-conspirators did select them. In fact, as Mr. Rehl says in Exhibit 503-10, everyone in the group was, quote, Represented by someone who trusted them to be there. That’s a little bit of a butchering of that quote, but I think that’s the essence of it.

The relevance of these exhibits is further buttressed by the fact that these statements were not rebuked by any of the defendants or their co-conspirators that were present in these chats as MOSD organizers. Now, we’ve talked about this a lot. I think, ordinarily, the idea that a single individual’s failure to respond to a comment in a chat — the idea that that can be relevant or some kind of adoptive admission in some way is a stretch in general, and it’s probably not a theory that would fly in a typical situation. Certainly, the bigger the chat that there is, the more public it is, and all the rest. But I think, here, that the failure to do so — not of one person, but collectively of all the people at issue, the four defendants here who were in those chats, plus their alleged co-conspirators — all those people’s non-responsiveness to some of these things is relevant, and it bolsters the overall relevance of the exhibits I decided to admit, especially because it’s clear that at least some of the defendants — again, there is evidence here — some of the defendants were monitoring the MOSD chats to ensure they stayed on topic.

Indeed, the stated rules of the MOSD chat made clear that the members had to stay on topic, and on a couple of occasions to which the Government has directed me, defendants or co-conspirators did, either in the group or amongst themselves, rebuke members’ suggestions that they viewed as outside the MOSD’s parameters. For example, in Exhibits 505-20 and 505-21, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Bertino, and Mr. Tarrio criticize an MOSD member in the MOSD Op group for suggesting that the group discuss what to do about, quote, Unaffiliated Proud Boys wearing colors, closed quote. Stewart admonished that there was nothing to talk about because the MOSD has a mission; either get with it or eff off, and that they were there for a reason. And Mr. Tarrio followed up by instructing everyone to focus. Mr. Bertino stepped in to emphasize that the member’s comment was not appropriate in the MOSD chat because the group had a mission and they didn’t want to be distracted from it. And in Exhibit-525-7, Defendant Biggs messaged Defendant Tarrio expressing in the — that the MOSD chat had already become annoying because members were talking about other events.

So importantly, in weighing whether to admit certain tools exhibits and drawing the line I did, I admitted only those exhibits where I thought there was a stronger inference that the comment would have drawn a rebuke from one of the defendants or one of their co-conspirators if the mission of the MOSD had truly only been defensive in nature.

So for all those reasons, I found the handful of the exhibits I admitted on this theory — the tools theory — were relevant, and also, satisfied Rule 403.

Before I move on to the categories of the documents, as one more offshoot of the tools issue — it doesn’t go to the admissibility of these documents, but it goes to the grounds for admissibility of statements made to — by other people, including the defendants, to the tools — I want to address one additional point that came up on Monday. Counsel for Mr. Nordean argued to me that several exhibits that the Government offered as co-conspirator statements could not have been in furtherance of the conspiracy simply because the statements at issue were made to non-co-conspirators, including tools. But in the United States v. Tarantino, the D.C. Circuit explained that if a statement, quote, Can reasonably be interpreted as encouraging a co-conspirator or another person to advance the conspiracy, or as enhancing a co-conspirator or another — or other person’s usefulness to the conspiracy, then the statement is in furtherance of the conspiracy and may be admitted. That case is 846 F.2d 1384 at 1412, a D.C. Circuit case from 1988. So to the extent that Mr. Nordean objected on that basis to several of the exhibits I’m about to discuss, particularly those involving the defendants’ or the co-conspirators’ statements to tools, that argument is foreclosed by Circuit precedent.

Pezzola

How J6C’s Obstinance on Transcripts Enabled Dominic Pezzola’s Attempt to Sow Conspiracy Theories

/51 Comments/in /by

On Friday, lawyers for Proud Boy Dominic Pezzola (who are among the more conspiratorial of the Proud Boy defense attorneys) filed a motion for a mistrial claiming that the “Winter Palace” document Enrique Tarrio received from one of his at least three girlfriends was created by the government. Here’s how the document was admitted as evidence last Thursday.

At issue is testimony that Samuel Armes provided to the January 6 Committee (and, as we’ll see, a grand jury) regarding his recognition that a document he created as part of imagining how an attack on the electoral certification would happen was altered to become the Winter Palace document.

Pezzola’s lawyer, Robert Root (who joined his team days before trial started) argued that when Judge Kelly ruled the document was admissible back in December, defense attorneys had not yet seen Armes’ testimony, and so could not argue that Armes — who claimed he had been trained to be a spook — was a government agent framing the Proud Boys.

According to the Politico article, Ms. Flores also gave an interview to the Jan. 6 Committee. And Ms. Flores reportedly testified that Armes was the author of the entirety of “1776 Returns” and that this FBI and CIA member or associate asked her to share it with Tarrio.

If true, this means that the most damning document in this trial was authored by the intelligence community—someone “groomed” by the FBI itself. And this CIA and FBI asset requested Tarrio’s friend to share the document with Tarrio just prior to January 6. [emphasis original]

The filing relies heavily on this Politico story, which extrapolates about a communication the January 6 Committee had with the girlfriend in question, Eryka Flores, but which was not released as a transcript.

In my opinion, this filing was designed first and foremost as bait for Jim Jordan to claim that even the Proud Boy prosecution is just the Deep State trying to frame Donald Trump, and only secondarily as yet another of the often frivolous motions for a mistrial defense attorneys have lodged in this case.

But the government has responded in here, partly by (inappropriately, in my opinion) mocking the illogic of Pezzola’s challenge, before going on to explain how the testimony of Armes, at least, totally rebuts Pezzola’s claims.

The government strongly disagrees with Pezzola’s characterization of both the facts and the record with respect to these assertions. The government robustly agrees with defendant Pezzola that it would have been egregiously improper for a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community to have conducted a domestic intelligence operation targeting Enrique Tarrio, a U.S. Person, and providing him with a plan to “storm” (or “occupy” or “sit in”) House and Senate Office Buildings on January 6. It would have been even more improper for a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community to send this plan to the leader of the Proud Boys when, just months before, then-President Trump had exhorted the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” during a nationally televised debate. And it would have been egregious indeed for a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community to send such a document to the leader of the Proud Boys in advance of January 6, in the wake of the violent attacks the Proud Boys were associated with in Washington, D.C., on November 14, and December 12, 2020. Surely, had the government planted such a document in the inbox of defendant Tarrio (ECF 660 at 5), one would hope that the U.S. Intelligence Community would have hewed to the truth of what happened on January 6 and included the Capitol as one of the targeted buildings.

The filing notes that, contrary to the claimed late notice with the release of the transcripts, the Proud Boys already received October 7 grand jury testimony from Armes that tracks his J6C testimony, a transcript from Flores’s May grand jury testimony showing her invoking the Fifth repeatedly, and a third witness describing receiving the document from Flores on a date that would be before she sent it to Tarrio on December 30.

The information that Samuel Armes drafted a document that inspired portions of the Government Exhibit 528-1 was disclosed to defense counsel by the government on November 16, 2022, when it provided counsel with a copy of Armes’ October 7, 2022, grand jury testimony.

[snip]

Armes testified that he shared his “wargaming” exercise in the form of a three- to five-page Google document with “Erika Flores” sometime between August 2020 and January 2021. 7/18/2022 HSC Tr. at 12; 10/6/2022 Grand Jury Tr. at 26. When asked why Flores told the House Select Committee that Armes had drafted the document, he testified “I guess she is just blame shifting.” 7/18/2022 HSC Tr. at 20. Armes surmised that Flores had taken his “ideas as an inspiration, and her or some group of people then turned it into ‘1776 Returns.’” Id. Indeed, when subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury in this case on May 3, 2022, Flores answered only brief biographical questions and then invoked her fifth amendment right not to testify repeatedly in response to more than 50 transcript pages worth of questions by the government about the “1776 Returns” document. That transcript was provided to defense counsel on November 16, 2022.1

1 On that same day, counsel were provided with the grand jury transcript of another witness who testified that a girlfriend of Enrique Tarrio known as “Erika” had messaged a document to the witness about two weeks before January 6 and asked the witness to fill in the names of people to participate in an “infiltration plan.” The witness further recalled that the individuals were to dress like they belonged in the buildings and to have set up prior meetings to gain access. Compare Government Ex. 528-1 at pages 3, 6.

The third witness may be Jeremy Liggett, whom J6C investigators suggested had some tie to the document as well.

There are just three problems with this.

First, as Politico reported today, Flores didn’t invoke the Fifth to the J6C.

Two investigators familiar with her interview — an informal, untranscribed appearance in early 2022 — say that while she was a reluctant witness and initially planned to plead the Fifth, she ultimately agreed to answer some questions about the document.

“Instead of pleading the Fifth, we did an interview with her,” one of the investigators said, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe information the committee had not publicly released. “She gave us the name of Samuel Armes as the name of the individual who wrote the document.”

[snip]

The select committee investigators said they found Armes to be more forthcoming than Flores, who they said exhibited a “general apprehension.” Flores didn’t respond to messages and emails seeking comment.

“She acted like she didn’t know what it was at all,” said one of the investigators.

The two investigators said Flores indicated she had shared the document with Tarrio to impress him during a sensitive phase in their relationship and disclaimed specific knowledge about its contents.

The Stone-related witnesses very carefully manipulated the J6C, and Flores’ decision to testify may be an example. At the very least, Pezzola may have basis to demand that Kelly immunize Flores.

Another problem is that Jocelyn Ballantine is formally on the government response. I’ve noted before how insanely stupid it is for DOJ to have her in an increasingly senior role in the January 6 committee, and discovery disputes like this are precisely why.

The third problem with all this is that DOJ should be able to get Google metadata associated with the document to provide more clarity about the document. Perhaps a later witness will explain efforts to do so (thus far, it has just been introduced as an attachment to a Telegram text). But there are outstanding questions that may have answers.

In any case, this is now the second time that J6C’s refusal to turn over transcripts has endangered this prosecution.