January 6 2021

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Jordan Fischer
@JordanOnRecord

Also of note: Robert Sanford went to a cult deprogrammer.

“Mr. Sanford was confronted with facts about the ‘stolen election’ conspiracy theory among others and how psychological manipulation is used to indoctrinate the followers of a conspiracy."

[ti-amie]

Elmo has stopped access to the aggregator "Thread Reader App".
This is an amazing exchange between the Judge and Carmen Hernandez, lawyer for a Proud Boy who is testifying.

Brandi Buchman
@Brandi_Buchman
Kelly: Has door been opened at all to notion that Mr Rehl used images of violence from prior rallies to encourage ppl to join the PBs based on his testimony already given. I've looked at transcript and saw what Mr. Kenerson laid out...

Kelly: I don't see how that door is not opened. That doesn't suggest all this video material are in at all but I don't see how that isn't impeaching of him in some degree to extent he's sending certain materials out there...

Kelly cont: ...saying implicitly or explicitly, we want ppl to join PBs because of this

Kelly is reading the transcript from Rehl's testimony from this portion now, asking Hernandez to address it in court.

Hernandez: That video the govt is trying to introduce did not mention the Proud Boys or recruiting for the PBs
Kelly: ok, just stay with me, before we get to the factual particulars, do you agree that opens the door tot he concept of recruiting based on violent videos?

Hernandez: As I tried to lay out in the emails, I don't think any of this is relevant
Kelly: Please stay on topic, we will never get through this if you don't stay on topic. Why hasn't door been opened
Hern: Because he doesn't ---
Kelly now reprimands her for turning her head.

It is heated now.
Kelly and Hernandez are going back and forth, voices raised. Kelly tells Hernandez she is being disrespectful.
"Listen to me right now, stay on topic and look at me respectfully, do you understand?" Kelly says

Hernandez: I always look at you respectfully and always respect the court's ruling. Which is not the case on the other side. I turn around so I do not disrespect the court
Kelly: No no that's an inherent problem

The problem i I have obligation under 6th A to represent my client. I understand the court is Hernandez: No, I'm asking a question and I try to respond to the court first.
Kelly: The reason I cut you off, and I'm sorry for that is because I tee something up for you...

Kelly cont:.. and you don't address it.... if I don't focus you on the question, we'll never get through this. Whether I do it or not, I don't want you turning your back to me disrespectfully again.
Hernandez: I would request the court allow me to make a record

Kelly: you're entitled, I'm trying to make an evidentiary ruling but you don't have a right to wander onto topics I haven't asked you about. so I'm asking you to address the question of whether door has been opened to impeach your client

Hernandez: my answer, as i put in email, i do not believe so for multiple reasons.

Her phone then goes off.

Kelly: And on top of that, let me remind counsel to turn off all of their devices.

Hernandez: I feel as if my ability to present direct examination has been hampered and I feel we have to present these issues in a scrambled manner.
That's the background of why I'm a little annoyed with this process...

Hernandez, a few moments later, says Rehl has been doxxed by an anti-fascist.
"Does he personally have some animus towards these people who believe they are violent? Yes. Have i brought that into the case? No. because I think that's irrelevant. But if govt is going to try...

Hern cont: "...and bring this video in, I think he's entitled to explain why in private msgs with his mother and brother he was talking nastily, not nastily, he was justified in feeling he was attacked. and its not personal, he wasn't the only person attacked by this person."

Rehl was fired from his job because of the doxxer, had a brick thrown through his home,... client should be able to explain why he felt this way.
shows restraint on his part

Let's back up and not talking aboubt things I haven't admitted but what I have through pre-trial rulings over defense objection, obviously. But I have admitted certain postings and reposting of certain videos as relevant after election related to rallies and rally-related conduct

Kelly: as evidence of the defendant's intent and motive. Your client is testifying on the stand that he did not do, all the things he did not do, and testifying about, in part, his motive and intent on 1/6. I don't see in any world in which the things I've already admitted as ...

K cont: ...relevant to his motive & intent are not in play in his cross-examination. I guess, I'm flabbergasted Ms. Hernandez that you would say, I don't think any of this could be part of his cross because he has chosen to testify as is his right & he's chosen to, in summary...

Kelly: assert his innocence on the stand, which is of course his right. But I don't understand how -- again, let's put aside things I haven't admitted -
Hernandez: the video they want to introduce is something you've already excluded

Kelly, I'm aware, but things ive already admitted for his motivation and intent are going to be permitted for his cross.....
Hernan: Obviously...
Kelly: ... I just want to keep in perspective where we are here....

Kelly cont: We're talking about things that are not in evidence already admitted for those purposes and that's fine but my point is only, i think and maybe devil is in details and I'm not as educated about the details as i need to be but...

Kelly:... my pt is only that it obviously should have been apparent to you, merely by taking the stand that a lot of this, anything already in, was going to be fair game.
Hernandez: correct, as long as its used properly..

Hernandez says she could have brought up the doxxing issue when Rehl's wife was on the stand. Could have brought up that he had a brick thrown into their home. Hernandez is adamant that govt is "attacking" Rehl with his personal emails talking about these people...

She argues: the msgs where Rehl slammed the person who doxxed him (who he says is antifa) to his family were personal, private, not about violence toward govt and that's what this case is about, bringing it is going to muddy the case

Hernandez says she is "distressed" over this coming in at this stage and Kelly tells her, he didn't order govt to give this preview and reminds her, at the close of the direct yesterday, he told her: when govt produces materials to you...

they should be prepared to highlight what I would rule on... (again going toward pt that this was all predictable)

We'll hash out the cross and what details should be, Kelly says.
K: Given that we've had the jury waiting, my thought is to the extent, and again, you've indicated this is news to you, but to extent I've admitted it already for intent & motive, that's fair game to cross him on..

K: With door being open to recruitment, without getting into particulars, I do think it is open. What it means as far as what the govt is trying to do here, I don't think we should burn more time on it here now - the jury is waiting and in part, I haven't had chance to look...

Kelly cont:..at details given the time this came in .
(This is all over email, it's not on PACER, btw)

Hernandez says FBI Boston office got involved with Rehl's doxxing episode and she wants that information produced to her.
H: was it antifa, not antifa, whoever it is, i am entitled to have that before i proceed with that direct examination.
K: Is govt planning on producing that?

Mulroe: She did email us june of last year for any contacts between rehl and a wide variety of topics. in response to that and other counsel, and general discovery process, we queried FBI sentinel database for their names, we produced everything we had, which ...

Mulroe cont: ...in some defendants, there was direct contact with FBI but no reports from Rehl to FBI about any doxxing or bricks. We produced what we did have and we asked her if she had any more particulars, dates, names of agents, locations she provide that and we ...

Mulroe: ...never heard back. i understand this morning she supplied us with a civil lawsuit complaint that makes reference to the alleged brick incident that happened in nov 2018, a full 2 years before parler posts issued here.

Mulroe: not to step into Mr Kenerson's lane but we certainly would question the relevance of that to the issues that are on the table for rehl's cross. Regardless, we'll make diligent efforts to find whatever documentation we can.

Mulroe: I'm told its possible, another individual may have made a report to the FBI and we're looking into that. but whatever relevance, this 2018 episode has to the testimony, i think that relevance can be fully captured in rehl's first hand subjective experience of...

M: ...whatever he experienced. whatever subsequent steps FBI took to look into this or find or didn't find about who was responsible, is not something, frankly, we have any duty to disclose or has any place before the jury.

Hernandez claims an FBI agent she spoke to in the courthouse this morning knew of Rehl's report about the doxxing in 2018.
H says of Rehl's future on cross: The government is going to try and savage him and his credibility.

Hernandez: I'm entitled to that information, under brady, giglio, rule 16. they're going to savage him and make him out -- they're going to do it... i guarantee that's what coming at him.. if they have information to negate the attacks on him, i think that's brady, giglio...

Hern cont: ...due process and I'm entitled to have it before he finishes his direct.

Kelly: you're not entitled to a ruling before you've even completed your direct before govt goes on cross.....so you'll have to make a strategic choice

Hernandez: how much time does it take to provide that information? (RE: fbi report)
Kelly: IDK but you don't need that information to complete your direct
Hernandez: in my pt of view, i do need that information for 6A.

Now Hernandez asks the court for 15 minutes so she can prepare herself because she's out of sorts. "I've been fighting at tilted windmills again"
There's a brief sidebar. Kelly grants 10 minutes.

[ti-amie]

There's more

Brandi Buchman
@Brandi_Buchman

And we are back. Zachary Rehl is on the witness stand before the jury enters.
Hernandez says the FBI agent who had alleged evidence of violence on Rehl's home; he was sent out of courtroom, perhaps to be unavailable... I don't know...perhaps to get this information...

(Kenerson's face says: this isn't the case)
Kelly: At the moment, there would be no reason for that agent, or govt to send that agent outside of the courtroom not to answer questions because I have no answers to pose to that agent.

They go back and forth. She interrupts Kelly at least once. Then Kelly asks the govt tor respond.

Mulroe: The agent went to try and track down and provide the information Ms. Hernandez has requested. Her suggestion that we may have banished him from courtroom to make him unavailable is simply absurd.

Hernandez: I said it was a possibility they sent him out to look for information and another possibility they sent him out...

After a few minutes, before the jury enters, Hernandez says she needs a personal break. Kelly permits it. She leaves. And Kelly says if jury comes in while she's out, he'll turn them right back around until she returns.

Hernandez is now back and the jury is coming in.

And now we continue the direct examination of Zachary Rehl.
Rehl is still under oath. He is in a dark suit, light shirt and blue and white striped tie.

(...)

Hernandez then says govt said in opening that Rehl brought a "fighting force" to DC and she wants to address this. Kelly says "literally, it was a motion I granted, i think, with no objection excluding charging decisions....."

The jury is coming back in momentarily.

And we resume.
Hernandez (for Rehl) begins with a video exhibit.
This is again the footage Rehl shot from 1/6 at time of initial breach. He said it wasn't his voice in clip saying "storm the (expletive) Capitol"
She wants to ask him if there is other info he can provide on this...

H: Any info you can provide about who yelled that out
R: I mean look, i have an iPhone, everyone who has an iPhone knows they're not cheap for a reason. the technology is designed to pick up sounds closest to the phone. I observed with this, there's a guy right behind me...

Rehl cont: ...screaming going "ahh--ahh--ahh." He's behind me at one point, then you'll hear him screaming and he'll sound closer than the person who says "storm the capitol"

H: Was the person you were describing on the screen?
R: no, he's right behind me. he's right behind me over here, (he gestures with his hand)...
It sounds like he's closer than he is, in short, he calims
Rehl says he video'd man who said storm the capitol when Rehl spun around

The video plays. Rehl is at first confused if he's supposed to point the guy out or not. The video plays again. It stops now when he sees the man who he claims shouted "storm the capitol." The man is older, white, gray-haired, goatee, wearing gray jacket/sweater

But then, Rehl's testimony is a bit confusing here; he's tells the jury he's not saying this man said it, just his opinion it could have been him because of where they were standing.

Rehl testifies that "you can hear my voice clear as day" in another clip, when the Pence motorcade passed by him and other PBs on 1/6 and they thought it was Trump. Rehl in that clip says, "that's donald (expletive) trump!"

You and PBs had no intent to attack the Capitol?
Objection, compound.
H: At this point, you personally had no intent if any -
Objection, leading. Sustained.
H: Did you or did you not intend to attack the Capitol?
R: "We" -
Objection. move to strike, non responsive.

H: What if any intent did you have at this point to attack the US Capitol? (this is from initial breach)
Rehl: Absolutely not, never did it once cross my mind to attack the Capitol

Hernandez asks if Nordean said anything about attacking the Capitol at this point and Rehl says no. Before she can even finish her sentence to ask if Biggs did too, Rehl answers no.

Rehl then doubles back to a question Hernandez started to pose about the man with the black megaphone but instead veers into his thoughts about what was happening during moment of initial breach.

Rehl: "I had a bunch of thoughts going at once because i thought you were asking me about guy with black megaphone --when we collided with this crowd, it was a rally crowd and my understanding was somewhere in this area...

Rehl: There were supposed to be stages set up. Now, I've been to multiple Trump rallies, everyone knows, at least, most ppl know, Trump attracts large crowds, some people camp out. Given that this scenario was unexpected, thought Trump would go to Capitol at all...

Rehl cont: ...I'm not trying to downplay anything at the Capitol that day. This scene here, it was a huge crowd of people trying to find the stages and rush them... that's what ppl do they want to be in the front, its like at protests, concerts.

Rehl: Not everybody, but a lot of ppl do. Like i said, ppl wait hours sometimes overnight to see Trump. To push those barriers and get up to that area, it didn't really phase me at the time

Hernandez brings up Parler post where Rehl shares a photo he took that is facing towards the Wash Monument on 1/6, large crowd. He says this is what he's talking about earlier, these are types of photos he would take that day.

The chat shows Rehl saying "THIS is what patriotism" looks like and he goes on to say govt should fear people when govt is tyrannical (paraphrasing original quote for speed). Hernandez asks him what that means

Rehl/: Well you can vote people out of ofc and if they feel their job is on the line, you can vote them out of office. That's what they fear. They receive a paycheck. That's their livelihood.
H: What did you intend by phrase, when govt fears its people
R: Protesting specifically

(...)

Hernandez asks about a text after rioting where Rehl says people should have stayed.

Rehl: What I meant was stay there, was, Democrats for example, when they show up somewhere - (he turns to jury to say this next part) - i definitely respect democrats but...

Rehl cont: They'll pitch a tent & they'll stay. They'll stay in a park -- let their voice be heard, basically. When that crowd was down there at the capitol (clears throat) those senators were still objecting. when people started leaving, that's when they started turning on trump

Hernandez: you think they started leaving because-- ppl started leaving because of the violence or because of the objections...?
Leading. Overruled.
Rehl: I don't understand the question.

Hernandez: What is your assessment today of how what happened on Capitol on 1/6, violence, destruction of property, how that affected the votes of the congressmen?
R: Like I said, that did have an effect on what they did. They were mad about it and they blamed Trump for it...

Rehl continued:..I guess you could say rightfully so, the people who committed violence, like i said earlier, ruined the legal process that Trump tried to put in place.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

The Washington Post :press:
@washingtonpost@press.coop
A former supervisory agent for the FBI has been arrested after the government alleged he entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and confronted police officers outside the building, telling them: “You are the Nazi. You are the Gestapo. … Shame on you!” https://wapo.st/42iRaRy #press

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Laura Abernathy @TheLauraAbernat

Surprised Pezzola attorney doesn’t push for a verdict instead of mistrial. In a separate trial (if DOJ brought it) the jury is more likely to convict whereas this jury isn’t likely to if pushed.

[ti-amie]

I followed a lot of this and while Pezzola is an obnoxious a***ole he wasn't a planner and director of the events. It's hard to be on a jury of any kind and they had a lot of material to sift through.

If I was on this jury I wouldn't want any of those MAGAt lawyers near me.

[ti-amie]

Updated

[Owendonovan]

I'll always have a problem with men calling themselves boys. Bunch of losers. I hope they end up in a section of prison where some POC, who have an ax to grind against white racists, run the show.