Some potentially revealing exchanges in recently unsealed 1/6 conspiracy charges against two defendants. Notable discussions in late December of funding, allusions to secret plans, and coordination with the Proud Boys. documentcloud.org/documents/2115… h/t @alanfeuer
The allegations indicate that the leader of this little crew, Denney, was principally involved in the assault on Officer Michael Fanone. He allegedly both crushed him with a riot shield within the tunnel (note the name tag in the first pic) and dragged him out into the crowd.
If, like me, you're curious about the timing, some info: The docs say FBI had tips identifying these two defendants within 24 hours of the 1/6 attack, got a search warrant on 1/18 and a second one 3 months later, but the arrests didn't happen until 12/7.
The FBI also interviewed Denney in late February, and he made a series of demonstrably false statements. So they clearly had more than enough to charge him in the spring—the guy who dragged Fanone into the mob—but waited until 11 months after the attack to do so for some reason.
The other defendant, Hazard, posted some highly incriminating statements on facebook.
Correction to the above: These two defendants were charged under seal on 12/7, but not actually arrested until six days later, on 12/13. I'd said above that they were arrested on the 7th; I regret the error.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A couple months ago I did a radio interview for The Truce and the conservative host asked me whether the (then upcoming) Trump trial would lead to people no longer doing business in New York, and I tried to be accommodating and say maybe some die-hard Trump Republicans you know..
But he pressed the point and demanded I take politics out of it. And I told him that these are very common cases and every NY lawyer like me will advise someone setting up a business that they should respect the formalities of its separate existence, keep accurate books, etc.
It appears the Special Counsel’s office filed under seal its support for a Garcia hearing to evaluate Walt Nauta’s lawyer’s alleged conflicts, and Judge Cannon has decided to have it out in public.
The issue is that discussing Stanley Woodward’s representation of three potential witnesses in the secret documents case would reveal the fact of their grand jury testimony. Cannon has decided in a conclusory line that isn’t reason enough, but it’s not clear why she thinks so.
It’s also kinda weird to strike not only the proposed sealed supplement but also the motion for leave to file under seal from the docket. Cannon has denied that motion, which presumably might be an appealable issue, but then excised what she denied from the record. Strange.
By popular request, I will try to explain. According to the govt’s motion, they proposed a protective order, Trump responded with an entirely different form, and then the govt came back with a form based on a case before Judge Nichols.
Transactional lawyers like myself call this the battle of the forms. You just keep sending each other different templates for an agreement, and consequently you delay the work of marking up the other side’s language and isolating the substantive issues between you.
What I find lamentable about DeSantis’s curriculum is the strong echo of antebellum pro-slavery ideology it contains, apportioning credit to the slaveholders and the slave system for supposedly improving enslaved people. I’ll explain.
The chattel slavery practiced in the southern states and the colonies before them was a hideously cruel cradle-to-grave form to bondage. The contemporaneous pro-slavery ideology held that slaveholders were civilizing and improving a savage race from a state of pagan incivility.
The historical record reveals this pro-slavery ideology to be nonsense. Enslaved peoples were the bearers of their own traditions and evidently resourceful and innovative without the intervention of the enslavers, and often to their great frustration.