Thread by @Brandi_Buchman

It is Day 54 of the Proud Boys seditious conspiracy trial here at the Prettyman courthouse in Washington, DC.

Proud Boy Zachary Rehl resumes testimony today and will come under cross examination by prosecutors. You don't want to miss this coverage. I start live at 9AM ET.

I'm here already at the courthouse and awaiting proceedings. Yesterday, when we left off, Judge Kelly said the jury would come back in at 9:30 a.m., so we'll get a bit of a later start today.

I intend to reserve most of my reportage on Rehl's testimony for my piece for @emptywheel this week.
But I will note this:

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1646086889483517952?s=20

The timeline Rehl testified to yesterday was often.... unclear, at best.

It's easier to testify on direct when you've been rehearsing (as is a person's right, of course). Cross-examination is a different animal. A much different animal. You can only prep so much for that. It will be very interesting to see how Rehl fares today.

He made several remarks yesterday on direct that effectively swung the doors wide open to prosecutors to attack his testimony.
From his "understanding" of the election certification to his assessment of what makes a man "grown"...

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1645885457564090374?s=20

Rehl also joined the chorus of Jan. 6 defendants who have proposed the argument below, or something close to it.
And from what I've seen, historically, this does not hold up well under scrutiny:

If Rehl completes his direct and cross today, and any redirect by his attorney Carmen Hernandez is wrapped up in a timely manner, the jury may also hear testimony today from Proud Boy defendant Dominic Pezzola (center, with graying beard).

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1646116375549681665?s=20

The defendants are here and so are the attorneys. We should be underway shortly.

And away we go. Judge Tim Kelly is on the bench.

Kelly: There were 2 issues teed up for me overnight. Let me address the one I think I can address quicker first. That's the 1 regarding Mr. Pezzola - his potential cross.

Kelly directs Metcalf and Roots to file one document to him. You're two people representing one client. (Sounds chilly!)
Having looked at it, I really don't see if all the govt is going to do, and Roots, you mentioned a stmt that Pezzola reported that Nordean said...

Kelly cont: The govt didnt respond to that or elicit that and it strikes me that it would be subject to a different analysis because unlike these other things, the video evidence doesn't really support any of the other things and govt is saying they're going out of their way...

Kelly: to say these things were untrue and just something they're going to suggest Pezzola is not telling the truth.
So, assuming we're just talking about the things the govt has laid out in its email re: Biggs and interaction with Mr. Samsel and what he said...

Kelly: and govt will make clear they don't think there's any evidence of that beyond what Pezzola has said, it seems to me, they get to do that with all the details that Mr. Pezzola elicited and obviously, I do think, Mr Pattis, you'll have a right to cross-ex on it....

Kelly: I dont see how I can sanitize it, Mr. Metcalf, in the ways you proposed, in terms of talking about a material fact or something like that...

Kelly: The details and elaborateness of what Pezzola said - it'll be hard to communicate the nature of what he said and how it was untrue w/o those details....
Metcalf: Similar to how your honor puts limitations on various different components of a trial, when you narrow down....

Metcalf: any witness with reference to their criminal history, you very easily could say that the questions presented to that individual haven't been arrested so forth -- what I'm proposing is around those similar lines...

Metcalf, loudly, cont: The govt is seeking to elicit that he lied and lied about a material fact. This eliminates prejudice... to allow us to get into details, opens up the door to who, what, when, where, why.
Kelly tells Metcalf not to shout.

Metcalf apologizes for shouting then: It calls into question what was the surrounding circumstances, what was going on with his atty and what advice was being given and the pressure put on him to essentially create and fabricate these lies...

Metcalf: It calls into question him being in jail, not getting medication at certain pts, suffering from withdrawals that then, I'm going to have to dive into.
I ask you to consider these things in their totality in addition to substantial prejudice of these details coming in

Kelly: It seems to me if he wants to explain why something he said is false, he has a right to do that.

Norm Pattis for Joe Biggs now tells Kelly he doesnt want evidence brought in about a gun and Joe Biggs. It will be associated with his client in ways that are hard for him to undo, he says.
"Even the govt doesn't believe Samsel saw it..."

Pattis also adopts Metcalf's prejudice argument this morning.
Kelly then says its possible on 403 grounds his ruling would be different on this if he didn't think govt was taking the position that it was false and elicit testimony that it was false, but we have a lot of video....

Kelly: None of that shows Biggs with a gun, and there's no evidence of this, including video evidence. I understand why you're making the argument but I'm just saying as I'm weighing 403 nature, if we did not have any video of day and jury wouldn't see from 20 different angles ..

Kelly cont: ...and be able to conclude, look, no evidence he had a gun, I might feel differently. I'll take your pt on the gun specifically and see if it changes my mind
AUSA Erik Kenerson: Having court instruct that there is no evidence of something seems off to me...

Kelly: In addition to govt eliciting this through questioning.... think about what that would say because that strikes me as having a lot of value here, whether there's no evidence of or govt doesn't contend... whatever you like, but it makes a ton of sense...

Kelly cont: ...obviously its not the govts position that Biggs did not have a gun. and if I'm going to allow this, we should be trying as hard we can to make clear to jury, there is no evidence of that or that's not the govt's position

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.

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1645881626625470464?s=20

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.

The jury has not even come yet (They've been waiting at least an hour) and before they all break, Kelly asks her how much more time she thinks she will use for direct and she says she doesn't know.

We are having A Morning.

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.

Hern: I'm going to ask you some questions about activities with the PBs and other events before 1/6. Let me talk first about Mr. Bertino. He mentioned term of "tip of spear" in his testimony
R: I remember hearing him say it on video

H: Have you ever used that term?
Rehl: I've never heard anybody say that.
Crosstalk between Hernandez and Rehl and Rehl says, "I've never personally said it, no."
They are warned about speaking too fast and crosstalk

H: In any face to face conversations, you use that term?
R: No, i never used that term (Tip of the spear)

Hernandez: let's talk about testimony that Charles Donohoe threw water bottle at police? Did you see it happen?
Rehl: No, i was not, nowhere near it at all
H: Did you speak to him or not before it happened?
R: No i did not

Rehl testifies that he had met Donohoe before and never saw him toss water bottle at police or "do anything violent toward police at all."
What about at Philly rally?
Rehl: No one committed any violence towards police
(She elicits this rally was in Sept 2020)

Hern: You were at the MOSD meeting on 12/30?
Donohoe made comments in that video.
Rehl: yes he did
H: Did you or did you not understand that he was agreeing to concept of MOSD as a self-defense
Objection. Leading. Sustained.
(We're running into the same problem as yesterday)

What was your understanding of Mr. Donohoe's position re: MOSD as a defensive unit
Objection. Speculation.
Kelly: He can answer asbed on what Donohoe said and did in video
R: I think he made it clear as day, purpose of MOSD was to reduce violence, protect our members, that's it

Rehl looks more tense today.
He also seems like he's a bit fidgety and anxious. He goes to touch the mouse for the computer in front of him and when Hernandez says, "Let's talk about Mr. Pezzola," he draws his hand back, then turns palm up, like an "IDK" gesture almost

Hernandez takes a beat after asking if Rehl knows Pezzola. Now brings up texts from Dec 2020 between Rehl and filmmaker Nick Quested. Nick sent Rehl a pic from the rally. The photo is at night of PBs marching in DC. Rehl is in picture with Tarrio and Pezzola.

Rehl: Now I know, its myself and Tarrio and Pezzola. But at the time, I did not know Mr. Pezzola.
Later he testifies:
We all went to the park, gave a speech to Trump supporters and that was that. That was it......
a picture is worth a 1k so this is a prime example of that.

H: Did anybody introduce you to Pezzola
Rehl: No
Ever spoke to him on phone?
Never spoke to him
Ever exchange Telegram msg with him directly?
R: No. Any other way? Not to my knowledge
H: Any other way?

R: If he popped up in MOSD chat, by chance, he maybe mentioned something, IDK, these guys have all weird names, insert any ridiculous name here, idk, but id dint speak to him knowingly at all...

Rehl testifies that he didn't know any PBs were involved in any violence on 1/6. Specifically, didn't know Pezzola (allegedly) broke a window until after the fact.
Someone in chat said one of our guys maybe busted a window, he says.

He didnt talk to Pezzola about the window being broken, Rehl adds.

Hernandez asks about damage to Capitol. Does he approve?
Rehl: I absolutely do not approve of any damage at the Capitol at all. Its a historic building and I -- absolutely not.

Did he see the window broken?
Rehl: Eventually I did, eventually when people were going up the steps going up the side, I saw people going up the side, I said, let's check out what ppl are doing, real calm up there, nothing goin on but rumors on ground that a window was broken...

Rehl cont: ...and that's all I knew. The capitol's huge, which window, I didn't know until I actually seen it.
H: But at time it was happening, you didn't see pezzola breaking that window?
R: No i wasn't in that area at all

Hernandez now doing clean up from his testimony yesterday: he bought the beer on his way to DC on 1/5, Rehl testifies.
Now she asks about the quantity. He says a case of 30...4 30-packs.

Hernandez asks about Dick Sweats.
Rehl didn't bring Sweats into MOSD, and says he thinks it was Jeremy Bertino who brought him in. Rehl says he was friends with Sweats but didn't bring him to MOSD.
"I brought in people I trusted I know would listen and stay out of trouble"

The PB who goes by handle of Leo Kuznetsov also wasn't someone Rehl brought into MOSD, he testifies.

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1633503798646788096?s=20

H: Did Rehl hug any members of the marching group (that joined PBs) on 1/6?
Rehl: Hug anybody? I don't know...
Rehl says he may have clapped someone on the back to greet them but "I don't know" he says again

Hernandez shows an aerial shot from 1/6, it looks to be from time where Pezzola is allegedly wrestling shield away from police officer. Rehl is off to side several yards away and video shows him looking down at his phone in a huddle

Rehl testifies that video footage shown in court is "deceptive" because it makes him appear closer to certain areas than he is; it was like a concert, so many people around you couldn't see above their heads.

Rehl testifies that he took pictures with his phone on 1/6 so "he could see what was happening later" in sections he couldn't put eyes on.
He motions to show how he did this, raising his hands above head and miming a phone in his hands, taking pictures

From aerial footage again, Hernandez asks Rehl to ID a group of people clustered near barricades.
R: I see myself and uh - yeah - that came in after all that spraying you seen

(Rehl has a habit of giving more testimony than he's asked for directly; it comes off defensive)

The video plays and Hernandez asks if Rehl can see himself hugging someone.

"Yeah that's Jenny," Rehl says, adding that she's a photographer.
H: Is she a PB?
No she's not, Rehl says.

Rehl says he and Jenny met at a rally in September.

Hernandez asks Rehl what he and Jenny were talking about and if he remembers.
Rehl: No, just uh, what's going on really. I mean, nothin --
Hernandez cuts in: And the video circles other people, you weren't with them at time? Nearby but not with them?
Rehl: Right there? No.

The video plays. (I'm not clear on timestamp)
The mob is pushing up against barriers and knocks one down, and as they do, police release a chemical spray. Rehl says at this time, IDing himself in video off to side, he was jumping up and down so he could see what was happening.

A couple of the Philly PBs he came with are in the picture. Its Brian Healion and Freedom Vy.

Hernandez: What time did you stop hanging around Biggs, Nordean?
Rehl: it was literally a minute from now (in video) maybe 2 mins top. Police threw another one of their garden hose spraying of hte crowd and I took off.

He says this was around 1:18 p.m.

Rehl manages to squeeze in side remarks as he testifies often, again, that sound defensive, defensive of Proud Boys, of what happened on 1/6. If jurors are looking for a more remorseful-sounding defendant, I can't say they're totally getting it here.

At that time (1:18ish), did he go past police, destroy any property at this period of time?
No I did not, Rehl testifies

Did Biggs follow Rehl on Parler? Biggs?
R: No I don't think so.
Did Tarrio?
I think he did, he followed a lot of people
Did Pezzola follow you on Parler?
I have no idea, I don't think so
Did you follow Pezzola on Parler?
I don't think so

When Tarrio was released from jail on 1/4, did he call you?
No
Any conversations with Tarrio on phone Jan 4, 5, or 6th?
Rehl: No

Hernandez plays footage from 1/6 from Los Angeles Times. It shows Charles Donohoe throwing something toward police in background as cops struggle to hold line against rioters.
Rehl says he was nowhere near this scene at all, doesn't see Biggs or Nordean in this area.

Hernandez: I think when we left yesterday, I asked you a couple questions... about the Biden presidency
H: Did you, on 1/6 or shortly thereafter, send any msgs about accepting the fact that Biden was president?
R: I accepted that fact prior to --I sent msgs to ppl where I...

Rehl cont: specified that i didnt think trump was going, i guess, whatever, to play out the legal process. and you know, i, i said to ppl the next day, we needed to start preparing for biden presidency.

H: Whatd that mean?
Rehl: There were a lot ppl holding out hope - again we spoke of Mastriano who was one of those guys who could pull a rabbit out of his hat and take the presidency legally. After 1/6, i knew how it worked -'end of of the line guys. gotta prepare for biden and..

Rehl cont:... he's the president now
H: do you accept that biden is president today?
R: yeah absolutely

(Rehl is still for a moment after this, but then fidgets with computer mouse in witness box)

Rehl testifies that definitions for degrees of membership in the Proud Boys "depends who you ask"
Rehl became a fourth degree, he says, because he protected another PB president from being "assaulted."

Rehl said this person was trying to spit on another PB chapter president and he stepped in the way. This was impressive to other PBs and he earned his fourth degree.

Hernandez starts to ask him about Telegram msgs.

Rehl: Telegram is miscategorized as a messaging app, but its a social media app with a different interface....
He launches into a lengthier explanation about group chats, fan pages, channels, and Hernandez stops him...

H: If you DM someone, it only goes to that 1 person?
Rehl affirms.
Group chats -
You were in some and not in others?
I was involved in a lot of group chats, Rehl says.

Hernandez: Max # of ppl for a group chat?
Rehl: The max I don't recall offhand, they were constantly upgrading software to make it easier for more and more people to add to this group...

Rehl says he thinks there were 100 or 200 people in one of the largest groups he was in on Telegram.
H: If somebody invites you or adds you - if somebody invites you, option to accept?
R: It depends on privacy settings. If privacy settings are really strict, you can prevent...

Rehl cont: ... ppl from adding you... [the interface] is too complicated to get into. People didn't have that privacy setting up, so it opened the door for people to send you invites all the time.

Hernandez elicits from Rehl: "90% of the people I know" turn off all the notifications for Telegram because when you're in multiple groups with multiple members, he'd get "30 messages per second" and it'd be "unbearable."

Rehl: All my notifications were off.
H: So if someone posted a chat, you won't get notified
R: I wouldn't unless they posted a pin, and that was a rare thing that the admin of that group chat would pin
H: Pinned for everybody in chat?
R: Everybody in the chat

H: If it was a pinned msg, you would get that notification?
Rehl: Yes unless it changed. it was 3 years ago

How often did he check his social?
Rehl: I mean, how often do you check Facebook or Twitter. I got banned off all social media, it was all I had, so when I got bored, I'd flip open phone and see what guys were talking about or whatever.

Hernandez is asking questions of Rehl as if he is a digital forensic expert. Truth is, he's not. So for the last few minutes, we're getting lengthy testimony from Rehl about how Telegram works, how he can or cannot tell who is seeing what msg

Rehl, as he testifies about how chats appear, he remarks, "now the government has showed you and stripped all that out --
Kenerson objects, non-responsive, move to strike. Sustained as to last, Kelly says

H: Your personal experience, did you often or did you not go back and read every msg sent?
Rehl: No, like I said, I was in a lot of chats, off the top of my head, I want to say over 100. If i were to go through and read every msg and chat of every person in entire organization...

Rehl cont: ...I don't think there's enough time in the world to do that. It's impossible.

There's a video of Pezzola inside the Capitol, smoking, recall that?
Rehl: I do
H: And he says something about taking the Capitol
R: Something like that

H: Was that or was that not on your phone?
Rehl: The video was on my phone, not really on my phone actually but my cloud, another feature of Telegram. Any video you may have clicked on to watch, you click on it and got ready to watch it, it'll save to cloud...

Rehl cont:... if someone sent an audio msg and you click on it, it saves to the cloud. it's actually a really annoying feature, but that's it. that's all it is.
H: Did you watch that video on 1/6?
Rehl: on jan 6? no.

Rehl adds a moment later: "No internet service on my phone at the time, text service, but I could barely get any app at all... at the height of the protest, there was barely any cell service."

Hernandez brings up a text from MOSD Main 2 on 1/7 where Rehlwrites "I find this hard to believe now. I'm proud as fuck of what we accomplished yesterday. But we need to start planning and we are starting planning for a Biden presidency. "

Now, above this msg from Rehl, E-Geezy writes: "Have faith brothers. We did our part yesterday, POYB"
A text above this one is from Joshua Maxstud and its blank, indicating it may have been deleted.

Hernandez asks what he meant in the msg: "I meant the protest, it never happened like 1/6 before. What I saw, was huge crowds of people waving flags, protesting and I was proud to be part of something like that. like I said, it was a historical moment.

The line about preparing for Biden presidency, Rehl says, was about telling people to "stop with the conspiracies"

A moment later, Hernandez elicits testimony from Rehl about what he says he saw on 1/6.

Rehl: I seen some people shaking some gates over there, honestly, when that was going down, I knew of protests going on at capitol grounds, i thought people were trying to get there earlier. some of the protests were being advertised to go on at 1pm. it was 12:53.

Hernandez: you're saying that's all you thought was happening?
Rehl: When we collided with that crowd of people that crowd was really rowdy and when they started shaking that gate, i heard it and i went over there to investigate the scene, see what's going on...

Rehl: I seen some people being rowdy, shaking barriers. At time going through my head, i thought these ppl must know where the stages are... you're giving me this look, but its the honest gods truth (clears throat)
H: Your perception was what you described in that moment?
R: Yes

Video now from initial barrier breach that was shot by Rehl. Hernandez asks if the voice in the video saying "fuck it storm the capitol" is his? Rehl testifies it is not.
He testifies he didn't hear anyone say that at the time but can hear it now.

Rehl testifies that he was furhter back in crowd as rioters breach barrier. He advanced forward to see what was happening.

(He's said this a lot today, often testifying that he's doing "investigating" of whats around him)

A man with a black megaphone was disrupting what Proud Boys, like Joe Biggs, were trying to say, like "fuck antifa," Rehl says, at the area of initial breach.

Rehl testifies that the man with the black megaphone told them: "'You can f-antifa all day long, this is where it's at,' something along those lines and pointing to the Capitol."
He continues: "He had his whole own crowd of ppl he showed up with when we met"

Rehl says he and the man holding the black megaphone never met before.

When Jeremy Bertino posted his podcasts - did Rehl watch them?
I very rarely watch any podcast as it is, I don't think I watched any of those.

Hernandez: The podcast from Biggs?
Rehl: No, I never watched them, that's not to say, I wouldn't have shared one to help them promote their little podcast. I don't like watching podcasts.

Hernandez goes back to MOSD. Rehl said it was set up, one reason, was to respond to stabbing of Bertino in Dec; and rein in violence of PBs?

Rehl says MOSD was supposed to show people how they were supposed to act....
Rehl: "...and ultimately make it a nat'l standard to avoid all future violence."

Rehl: MOSD was created sometime end of December, winter break.... no protests really going on at that time
And the event that PBs are talking about in the 12/30
video is 1/6?
Yes

Was 1/6 a PB rally?
Rehl: t was not a PB rally.
Hernandez: As the chapter prez of Philly, you sometimes had rallies?
Rehl: Yes, I've done events in Philadelphia...

Rehl says he didnt personally organize Sept 26, 2020 Proud Boy rally.

When you do Philly event in Sept? You have control over what's going to happen that day?
Rehl: Maybe for my members, I try, but at end of day, when push come to shove, I can only worry about myself

If I'm organizing an event, I have a lot more leeway and power to decide when and where we're going to meet up, speak or march around the city.
H: For event on 1/6, you were an attendee and MOSD role was just 1st event after 12/12 stabbing debacle?
R: First nat'l event

H: When you say 1st, you mean you intended to have more?
R: Yes, there were protests scheduled all throughout the month of January. Jan 10 in NY, Jan 18 in West Va and on 20th, if Trump was able to pull the rabbit out of his hat so to speak

H: Was MOSD supposed to react at these diff. events?
R: No not that I recall, the NY event was a moral local area, the Va. 2nd amendment rally was more local...
H: But you said MOSD was an entity created to be used at future rallies
R: yes, but not every single event that happens

Rehl says PBs from California wouldn't fly all the way out to Virginia for a 2nd Amendment rally, for example, but for a national event, they might travel

And now, Kelly stops Hernandez, asks her if its a good time for a break so we can go to lunch. She agrees and the jury is dismissed.

Due to the delays this morning, I don't think Pezzola is getting on the stand today.

Court breaks for lunch until 1:45 p.m. ET.

The jury doesn't sit on Thursday or Friday due to a scheduling conflict.

Yesterday, Judge Kelly suggested that attorneys will show up on Thurs. anyway to hash out lingering motions. We'll see where he lands on that at the end of the day today....
That said...

If Pezzola doesn't come out today, which, again, is highly unlikely as we have not even touched cross yet and don't return from lunch until 1:45, then that means he could testify next week.
But note: he's got to do direct, cross, and then there's potential redirect.

And none of that is going to move swiftly for the jury if objections are launched at length or parties get bogged down infighting with the judge.

So, will we get to closing arguments next week?
It's possible.
Do I have great confidence in that?
50/50.

The lawyers are trickling back into the courtroom....

Proud Boy defendant Zachary Rehl is back on the witness stand and Judge Kelly is returning to the bench.

Before the jury comes back, Nick Smith for Ethan Nordean asks what time parties will return Thursday to deal with lingering jury instruction issues. Kelly says 9:30 a.m. and by end of day, it should be done so they don't have to come back Friday.
And then...

Steven Metcalf, atty for Dominic Pezzola says he thought they would be done by lunchtime Thurs.
Kelly: From your mouth to god's ears
Metcalf: You may have to keep Ms. Hernandez from talking, good luck
Norm Pattis to Metcalf: You've managed to hurt both of her feelings!

The wisecrack at Hernandez, elicited laughter from many in the courtroom, and Hernandez gave it right back from the looks of it, but she was turned away from the mic, so I couldn't hear what she said.
Kelly, smiling, says... let me make the peace....

Now, back to business.
Hernandez wants to bring up how two of the people who traveled with Rehl to DC were charged with misdemeanors. Kelly says he's already excluded this before the trial began and she's dropping this now, in the middle of direct, so he won't hear the argument

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 fucking 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 fuckin 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

H: Message have anything to do with beating up cops?
Rehl: None of that is protest activity and I don't [inaudible]
H: Reviewed a lot of videos of Jan 6?
R: Yes
h: Statements from other people?
r: You could say that
h: From Donald Trump?
r: oh yes

H: And from other politicians?
R: correct
H: And today as you sit here, whats your opinion of what happened on 1.6?
Rehl: I think what ultimately unfolded, all the violence, was a disgrace, I do. Ultimately, its not the sole reason, but it didn't do any good...

Rehl cont: It didn't do Trump good that day. It disrupted the legal process and like i said, anybody who saw assaulted cops, theyre charged with that and rightfully so. At the time i was down there, it looked like a big giant protest..

Rehl: i saw a little bit of scuffles, nothing out of ordinary. I've been to many protests, things happen at protests sometimes but at the end of the day, i thought it was a protest, that's what i went there for and when i left, that's what it was

Hernandez elicits from Rehl: He says he doesn't know who Brother Hunter Jake Phillips is in PB chats.
She brings up a chat from after 6th, where Rehl says in future, "events will be much more organized, uniform in future"
What does that mean?

Rehl: It means exactly that. we're trying to organize and have a natl way of doing things so that way we can protect our members, reduce violence so its not chaos all the time

Hernandez brings up Jeremy Bertino (who has already flipped on PBs and pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy)... he was violent on 12/12?
Rehl says Bertino appears to be the aggressor that day and he remarks, "ironically he was in leader's chat"

That's the kind of behavior we wanted to rein in, Rehl says of Bertino

Rehl then testifies: I left the Capitol around 3:30 and went out and got drunk with my friends. Proceedings were suspended at some pt... lawmakers said they would object... after the riot happened, when I woke up the next day, it came out that...

Rehl cont: ...a lot of [inaudible] turned their back on Trump and revoked their intended objections and at that point, they blamed what happened at the Capitol for why they did it. I was hungover, stressed, hungry... i said a bunch of shoulda-coulda-woulda crap [in chat]

Rehl: After I got done eating, i chilled out, relaxed and i said to everybody, hey we gotta prepare for a biden presidency because that's what's gonna happen

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.

Hernandez then plays a video for jurors. It's hard to hear but its a video of someone in PA sharing their conspiracy theories about votes not being counted there. Hernandez elicits, yes, this was the kind of stuff Rehl was watching.

Hernandez shows Nov 4 text where Rehl writes on Parler "cant wait for the lawsuits"

Now we see video footage that Rehl shared on social media from Dec rally. He didn't create the video. Its from Rise Images and it features the woman being knocked over the crown of her head . PBs over trial say this woman is antifa.
What was Rehl's understanding of this moment?

Rehl: My understanding here is this woman took an American flag off somebody and swiped a knife at somebody's face and cut the bridge of their nose and somebody came over and knocked her out, yeah basically....Proud Boys particularly were pretty uptight about knives at the time

Was it your intent to promote violence when you shared the video?
Rehl: No, it was actually showing the reason why she was knocked out was because she had a knife and somebody stopped the threat. She was attempting to use it.

Hernandez has drawn at least two objections this afternoon from prosecutors for asking the same question - did Rehl commit violence or ever commit violence at an event specific or otherwise. He has said no both times this afternoon and he said no when asked before lunch.

Hernandez is taking her time looking through notes.

After taking a solid minute with the courtroom in silence, Hernandez asks for a sidebar. Husher on.

Husher off after roughly 2-3 minutes.
Hernandez holds her finger up and says II'll tell you in one minute when Kelly reminds her to use the mic because he can't hear her (she had turned to say something to AUSA Kenerson)
I observe Kelly leans back in his chair at this.

Now, video footage is pulled up. It is from inside the Capitol, senate wing, i believe, ts thick with people as they are already in the hallway and pouring in through the windows/doors. You can't see an inch of the floor. There is a line of police wildly outnumbered in a line

Hernandez: Did any of these officers ask you not to come into the building?
Rehl: No they did not.
The video continues. Rehl then IDs who is coming in through the busted open door: Freedom Vy, Isaiah Giddings

Rehl then proceeds to ID Brian Healion at this time.

The video footage continues. Rehl is watching closely. He yawns widely.
H: Were Biggs, Nordean, Tarrio or Pezzola in this group?
Rehl: No

Does Rehl know any of these people? (she circles a large area with several people, many faces turned away from CCTV)
No I do not

H: At this time, it your impression Pence wasn't in bldg?
Rehl: I had received a msg probably 10 minutes prior saying he was evacuated.
H: And as far you knew, no congresspersons were inside Capitol at that time?
Rehl: Correct, I was --Yeah.
H: What did that mean to you?

Rehl: It meant to me, at the time, I didn't know exactly why it stopped. Obviously, going in there, you could see a little bit, 2&2 together probably had something to do w/it. When I went in, ppl were getting led in at the time and that's ultimately why I decided to go in.

Hernandez now appears to be going slowly through her notes again.

Courtroom is quiet. I observe Norm Pattis has taken off his glasses and is squeezing the bridge of his nose.