ON STAND NOW at Proud Boys trial as defense witness: S. Fla. rabbi Former Proud Boy George Meza. Meza on his exit: 'We in some way turned on each other and I was voted out of the club.' But generally presenting a flattering view of Proud Boys & their ideology
Meza says Proud Boys rules barred those 'currently identified' as white nationalists. They're kicked out 'or they're supposed to be,' he says
More Meza: 'The average minority, the average foreigner felt very comfortable around the proud boys because we put our lives in danger to protect them.'
Meza, asked why White nationalists were not kicked out of Proud Boys: 'I don't know.'
Meza talks about weeding out PB members who couldn't control their drinking or their behavior and 'only have those who are somewhat upright.' (Yes, that's a direct quote.)
Meza under cross-exam denies that he & #ProudBoys sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. 'We were going to abide by whatever was decided upon,' Meza says repeatedly. He contends there was 'tampering' w/ ballots, but is 'agnostic' on whether it cost Trump win
Meza now seems to concede Proud Boys were sometimes proactive in going after perceived Antifa members. 'The reason we were in some way chasing them was the cops were blocking our access. We were in some way trying to go around the streets and confront Antifa….'
Meza: 'They were the ones with the weapons.' Says DC police were trying to keep the groups apart.
Random quote from Meza: 'Some kid trying to watch a smurf cartoon is not going to stumble across a Proud Boys meeting on YouTube.' Calls a lot of online chats about violence 'locker-room talk,' insists 'as a rule' they don't target others.
About mention of kicking ass: 'I would consider that hyperbole...It's just hyperbole...you have a bunch of tough guys feeling like heroes...You're going to have a lot of poetic, symbolic' statements
Meza says he still doesn't know why he was kicked out of #proudboys leadership chat. Prosecutor McCullough suggests it was because Meza repeatedly flagged anti-semitism in the chats.
Judge now warning the CHS who is on-deck to testify that she's under subpoena and cannot leave. Tarrio lawyer says she's receiving death threats. But woman will be held over until Monday to testify. Seems possible she could testify at a hearing later today away from jury
Judge Kelly to the CHS, still not publicly named in court: 'That’s’ a legal obligation to be present to testify.' She says she understands. McCullough seems to be saying they will arrange security for the witness, but is vague. Now some blaming back and forth.
Judge Kelly has dismissed jury for day. Now back to CHS "Jen Loh." Judge: 'If you all think there’s a potential factual basis for some sort of 6th Amendment violation, OK...Exploring that topic is not something we will do in front of the jury.'
Loh quoted publicly here now: nytimes.com/2023/03/24/us/… Kelly doesn't seem too worked up by recent disclosure by govt to defense about her being a CHS.
Kelly says the government has 'equities' too in her being a CHS. Judge: 'The fact that they [the govt] would wait to disclose it until they knew the person was being called doesn’t strike me as improper.' But he's trying to mitigate whatever problems timing caused for defense
Apparently there's an audio recording of Loh that highlights what defense says is a factual discrepancy between government position and something Loh is saying. We haven't heard it and the judge hasn't yet either.
Prosecutor McCullough says Loh told defense she didn't do any reporting to FBI on Proud Boys which she called 'our side.' Loh said she was tasked with providing info about 'Antifa and the border,' he said.
McCullough asks judge to limit defense questioning of Loh: 'I don't want insinuation that the government's done anything improper.'
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
HAPPENING NOW: AG Merrick Garland at Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing. Kicking off now. GOP senator(s) seem to have brought poster board visuals
Durbin wastes no time getting to prebuttal of expected GOP talking points, brings up Hunter Biden (although not by name, just as the president's son)
Durbin also praises Garland for not interfering in Hunter Biden probe, Durham probe or other special counsel probes. (Some Dems might fault Garland for not interfering more in Durham.)
Proud Boys trial drama: defendant Joseph Biggs' lawyer Norm Pattis proposes 'simple & elegant' solution that he withdraw from case in part due to his bar suspension related to Alex Jones case. Patiis also cites 'irreconcilable differences' with co-counsel Dan Hull
Judge Kelly says he is inclined to let Pattis go but not until another conflict issue with Hull is resolved. Hull gets up calls what Pattis said a 'complete falsehood.' Judge cuts him off. Hull keeps talking. Judge: 'Mr. Hull, take your seat, sir!' Hearing recessed may return
Court back in Session. Prosecutor Jason McCullough says a defense attorney for Biggs, Dan Hull, did get confidential information from another Proud Boy who's now cooperating with government & pled guilty, Jeremy Bertino. Prosecutor: 'It is not a nothingburger issue.'
At DC federal court this morning...Still in jury selection for Pelosi desk-sitter Richard Barnett....Proud Boys trial jury is chosen but we're in a semi-hiatus as defense lawyers argue, again, for change of venue based on juror bias...also lawyer issues to work through
Carmen Hernandez, lawyer for Proud Boy Zachary Rehl: 'We're getting smacked with the media attention out of Jan.6 committee right as we’re starting trial...This case is a perfect storm of those prejudicial aspects.'
Hernandez: "I have never, never experienced the level of prejudice and ill-will toward a set of defendants....It’s completely out of whack with what we consider due process and fair trial rights...This is worse than anything I have ever experienced."
A few thoughts on #SCOTUS this morning....1st oral arguments of 2023...The conservatives were vocal this morning and by conservatives I mean Justices Kagan and Sotomayor....(I published this look at Kagan during the holiday break politico.com/news/2022/12/3… )
The 1st case argued was both arcane and obscure. It's actually largely under seal. It's about whether attorney-client communications are privileged when there were mixed-purposes for the exchanges.
My somewhat tongue-in-cheek description of Kagan and Sotomayor as conservative is due to their arguing this morning that the unknown party pushing for a broader version of the privilege in connection with a tax investigation is looking to upset the apple cart...
Chairman Nadler: 'The justices own reporting requirements are severely lacking...Supreme Court justices cannot self police their own ethics and we shouldn’t expect them to.'
GOP already softening up Schenck w large graphic quoting the former evangelical preacher on his own credibility: 'In my 64-plus-years, I’ve not only believed a fair number of consequential lies, I’ve promulgated them.'