Thread by @Brandi_Buchman

Good morning. It is Day 56 of the Proud Boys seditious conspiracy trial. Cross of Zachary Rehl continues at 9:30AM ET. For the opening bid today, we have a lovely scene from the Potomac where a single branch hangs by a thread. (Relatable much?) I will report live for @emptywheel.

So let's talk a bit about what happened yesterday.

Proud Boy Zachary Rehl took the witness stand after much anticipation and a lengthy direct last week. On Monday, he finally came under cross-examination by AUSA Erik Kenerson.

Perhaps the most notable thing to emerge during Rehl's cross was his exchange with Kenerson when the prosecutor began to zero in on an image of a man in the crowd, wearing identical attire to Rehl. As Kenerson pressed Rehl on whether the man in the photo at a distance was him...

He also implied that this man was holding something in his hand in the pic. That something, per prosecutors, may have been pepper spray. Through his line of questioning, Kenerson suggested the man was Rehl and Rehl was using the pepper spray against police

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1648009607791403012?s=20

From the stand, Rehl struggled to ID the man in the crowd photos when the image was at a distance even though the features of the attire were still relatively clear. Closer up, Rehl was able to ID himself but overall, when it came to this and answering questions about...

himself, his location on Jan. 6 and who was around him while he was at the TV tower erected at the Cap, he sounded hesitant overall.
TBVH, Rehl struck me as being quite aware of the tightrope he was walking w/Kenerson. Other times, not so much. Usually when his emotions flared.

When he was under direct examination by his attorney Carmen Hernandez, Rehl was adamant that he did not partake in any violence, didn't assault police & did not see any violence.
Outside the presence of the jury, Kenerson called this a "choir boy" defense

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1645892819436081153?s=20

On cross, Rehl stuck to this testimony and again denied assaulting any officers on 1/6.
Whether the jury believed Rehl really couldn't ID himself, and arguably more importantly, whether the jury believed Rehl may have actually pepper sprayed officers, I'm not sure.

But I will say, if the aim at least in part by AUSA Kenerson was to raise solid skepticism about Rehl's credibility, then he may have succeeded yesterday or did some major damage.

Another interesting development was Rehl's testimony, or well, a lack thereof, around PB Isaiah Giddings. Giddings came to DC with Rehl and others for the 6th:

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1648007124851499010?s=20

Kenerson asked Rehl if he could identify the man who was standing next to the man that Kenerson was implying was Rehl. (Still with me?)
Rehl said he couldn't. When asked if it was Giddings, he couldn't say. When asked if he knew what Giddings wore, he didn't know.

This line of questioning triggered an objection from Rehl's attorney and she grew a bit heated. Outside the presence of jurors, Hernandez said the government was putting up "BS" and "strawman" arguments and she seemed particularly miffed with the Giddings mention.

She told Judge Kelly that she wanted the government to provide her with any and all materials related to Giddings. But the govt said it already has.
Giddings pleaded guilty already and as @emptywheel notes this morning -

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1648303136006701057?s=20

We should be underway soon.

Some fun color from the courtroom: We have been here so long that I now see defense attorney Steven Metcalf appears to have transitioned from suits for fall to his suits for spring. He is wearing a light-colored suit today and stands out in the sea of navy blue, gray and black.

And away we go.

Judge Tim Kelly begins with a few outstanding issues.
I've already excluded all the Kalamazoo evidence, so that takes care some of things that you raised, Ms. Hernandez. That's all out. With regard to text messages and North Carolina, I will let govt go into text msgs..

Kelly: To impeach the tesitmony of Rehl to extent he's presenting his membership in the club and the nature of the Proud Boys, to the extent he has on his direct talked about how they were things other than politics or violence but entrepreneurship et al...

Kelly: i think they do impeach his testimony and I think he also testified that at times violence was an unintended consequence (he did say this)... I also think on direct, the aperture of the rallies at issue was expanded by testimony about Sept. rally...

So rallies outside the aperature I had admitted previously only for certain purposes. I think the govt gets to ask him about these and obviously redirect will include -- Ms. Hernandez, I take your pt no violence did in fact occur and seems fair pt to raise on redirect but...

I think these do impeach his testimony in ways I laid out, so I'm going to allow that, Kelly says.

next issue.
Hernandez raised issue over factual basis for Giddings. I gotta say, I had never seen - I was not aware that the rule of evidence you cited had ever been applied....

Kelly cont: in this situation but there is some caselaw that exists where govt says this is an accurate statmt, that govt be prepared to prove X and adoptive admission. At least you have relevance and other things to get over but I think you are right that..

Kelly cont: ..a portion of this should be admitted. The govt has hte better argument that it should be the broader stmt that they proposed but the basic pt that some portion of factual basis for Giddings plea can be admitted because its relevant and its not...

Kelly cont: the government cannot claim hearsay... This doesn't come up that often but there is some caselaw in this circuit suggesting that. I don't know how it comes in or how you propose we put it before the jury but I think Ms. Hernandez has the better part of the argument

Kelly asks govt to weigh in, tells Hernandez she can weigh in next.
Hernandez: I haven't seen the government's response to my request for the Giddings document. I've been here working since early this morning so I don't know if they responded or what else they want to introduce

H: I object to introduction of Rule 106 materials. I assume, given they will try to introduce stuff that has nothing to do with that narrow issue. The narrow issue is the pepper spray --
Kelly interrupts: What they are proposing, I think this is on email, its...

The entire paragraph you referenced in the statement of offense. You had one or two sentences you wanted, but it just lays out the entire context (Paragraph 19 and 27)
Hernandez says 27 is hearsay and she objects.

Literally, hearsay is the objection govt has made to the rest of it, Kelly says
Its admission of party opponent, Hernandez says. Its an admission when govt introduces client statement ... inaudible she trails from mic... that's the govts stmt its hearasy.

Kelly: But there's no principled argument that you're making regarding paragraph 27. Whatever representations govt has made with signature of Giddings are all on equal footing.
Hern: No, that's what Im saying, basic rules of evidence don't put us on equal footing

Hernandez says paragraph 19 in Giddings statement of offense contains too many "extraneous issues" (second pic is para 27)

Here is the complete statement of offense from Isaiah Giddings: justice.gov/usao-dc/case-m…

Kelly: There are times when I have admitted pursuant to rule 106 and I think usually the position of the other party is that its not in for the truth, just to provide context. I think. In this particular instance of course, that's not 100% the case, so whats govt view...

Kelly: of how 106 and hearsay rule interact in light of Ms. Hernandez's point that parties are not on equal footing when it comes to submitting hearsay
AUSA Erik Kenerrson: This issue more broadly was litigated in motions in limine in December.

Kene: The defense position back then is the govts position here. She's right, if you intro on 106, you cant intro something said 6 wks ago. The pt of 106 is you can put into context... 106 has been used during this trial to introduce by the defense by their clients that at times

Ken cont: ...are linked to what the government... the court is the gatekeeper for what is put in context...

Kelly: Lets put aside temporal question of how far we will stretch this. If something comes in under 106, it may not come in for truth depending on circumstances but...

Kelly: it could come in for truth to provide context and other party says ok, i accept that with additional stmt or I'll forgo it if i don't like additional context.
Kenerson: Correct... its context dependent.. depending on how close it is and whether linked and all that, it...

Ken: could come in for its truth.... we're not seeking to introduce the entire document under rule 106. we're seeking to introduce not just paragraph this came from but the sentence itself. the sentence hernandez put in her email.... the impression she wants the jury to get....

Kenerson cont: is to say, whatever time this plea was entered, the govt did not believe Mr. Rehl sprayed officers & what the govt put in the statement of offense right after what Giddings had to say, puts in context what govt believes, he was ready had he gotten the can of spray

First sentence from paragraph 27 should go in if there was no evidence entered about Giddings guilty plea, Kelly says.
Hernandez says its not just that the other party says they want it in that it comes in, the test is not context, its in fairness. I'm asking for 1 sentence...

Hernandez: I made an explicit request for Brady, if they have it, they have to produce it. They should have produced it a long time ago...if in fact the court will allow statement of offense in, paragraph govt wants in, then court must explain to jury how it comes in...

Hernan: And make sure they understanding this is a cooperation plea agreement with Giddings and why? because that means he has to produce all that information to the govt. If it were just a regular plea ag, I'd say you wouldn't have to explain all that...

Hernandez: I ask the court tell the jury that Giddings pleaded guilty to a non-violent offense. Thats my question. Its not a question of context. Its a question of fairness... the question of whether Rehl would have intended to deploy it...I think I even left that sentence...

Hern: not to be incomplete, but frankly, it's not even relevant. What Mr. Giddings believed - not only is not relevant, it violates my client's confrontation clause. Because what Giddings believed is not admissible even if he were testifying. He doesn't get to give an

opinion unless there's a factual basis and I would be entitled to confront whatever other stmts the govt wants.... I have a 6A confrontation right. Giddings is a cooperating witness, govt can put him on stand anytime if govt wants to fill in gaps.

Kelly: I guess neither party chose to cross-ex him on his incentives in terms of his cooperation
Hern: We're not on equal footing. I considered calling him but he is a person beholden to the govt. The govt will file a substantial assistance motion to reduce his sentence...

Hern: I can't offer him anything for his testimony, the govt can... you can see the progression of his statements... the govt has interviewed him multiple times and listed him as a witness and chose not to put him on...

Kenerson says he isn't sure what Hernandez is after. if it comes in, its as adopted stmt of US... its not coming in as a stmt of Isaiah Giddings. If it did, all this for the truth of the matter and incentives would be in play but their not. In terms of context of US...

this is exactly the type of thing that rule 106 compliments.
Kelly: You are right - that's the whole basis of the exception Ms. Hernandez has invoked because its a stmt of the United States. She didn't pt this out directly but the opening para. of the stmt of offense says...

Kelly: This is what the govt will be prepared to prove at trial. That's why there's some authority out there, not a lot but it does come up, that this can be admitted the way she would like to admit it.
I'm going to admit it but under Rule 106, I do think the whole para comes in

All of paragraph 19 comes in, first sentence of paragraph 27, Kelly says.
Then: I don't know how this comes to the jury. It could just be something I read that says, this is a stmt that the govt has adopted and just read it. You all can think about that.

Hernandez objects on confrontation clause. There's nothing from Giddings she wants to come in where Giddings says Rehl was angrier than he had ever seen him - nothing has to do with the pepper spray.

If you want it in, it'll come in with surrounding context. If you don't want it because of confrontation clause, then it won't come in.
Hern: I understand the court's ruling but I don't think for reasons I've already stated, it's not coming in fairness in connection w/1 stmt

Hernandez: Again, your honor, I'll cite due process clause... the govt has obligation to not allow misleading or incorrect info to go to jury.... that's my argument and I'm not asking for.... that's just my argument and if court wants further, I'll expound on it

Kelly: Very well. I've ruled and if it comes in, it comes in as I've indicated and if you want to forgo --
Hern: I don't know if other defendants have other issues with confrontation paragraphs...(Biggs, Rufio, Nordean mentioned)
No one pipes up yet.

Hernandez: I sent an email to chambers around 9:30 because govt came up with another video that had never been produced and unbeknownst to me, there's been conversation between govt and defense counsel about source of video...

Hern: As court knows, govt never made an allegation in this case... that they sought to bring in. First time I saw these videos was after my client testified and as I told court, 15 minutes didn't give me enough time. Its a video of a crowd. You have to stand there...

Hern: and look at it for a long time. APparently, another video was submitted. I was already here and working and apparently didn't see it. I'm going to ask for time to review this video -- actually, first I move to strike. It violates courts order procedures...

Hernandez: I believe its a rule 16 violation. Dont know when govt got it. I understand convo prosecutors had with other counsel not with me, they may have gotten this from an anonymous source. I don't know. It may be a body worn camera

Hernandez says govt is still producing global discovery and then she says, if she missed it and its her fault and that's a 6a violation, its on her.
Hern: Neither of us (Rehl) were aware of this. It's an explosive allegation govt is making and I don't know where its coming from.

Hernandez: The govt will have to explain this. I'm making these stmts 2nd and 3rd hearsay, it wasn't told to me exactly. But again, this is similar problem to Kalamazoo stuff. Govt is getting videos from internet, we don't know where they're coming from...

Hern cont: or how accurate they are.... so govt can explain where it came from, how long they've had it, whether previously produced it and all that, the whole thing I will move to strike.

Hern: On the next to last few days of trial, to come up with this, they've never this argument at trial... Giddings was obviously asked about pepper spray or bear spray... these videos are grainy... video produced this morning, I'm not even sure where to look....

Kenerson says the video is somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 minutes.
Kelly: I do think in contrast to Kalamazoo issue I excluded, obviously, the govt - the only reason we're here is because this isn't something govt introduced in case in chief

Kelly: I have to consider this is cross of your client who denied assaulting anyone in his direct examination. That's a diff posture if all the sudden the govt on last day of affirmative case decided we've got this video we want to put into case in chief

Hern: Rule 16 would require govt to produce these materials where my client testified or did not testify. The Giddings materials - I don't want to say misled, not what I'm suggesting, but there's judgmental reliance...

Kenerson: I want to note a couple of things at the outset. We're here because Rehl decided to take the stand. We're here because he decided to take the stand and testify over and over and over and over again that he did not assault anyone on 1/6.

Ken: That was his decision to take the stand and testify to that. Obviously he knows what happened on 1/6. That's the first point. Second pt is, the video the govt introduced yesterday was authenticated by Rehl.

Kenerson; The court has multiple ways to authenticate evidence, including cross, looking at videos that have been admitted and are viewed as authentic. There was nothing about the video intro'd yesterday that was inconsistent w/hordes of video already in from west plaza...

Kenerson: We are also, Mr. Rehl, its Tues April 18 2023 right now - we also had a four-day weekend in the middle of his testimony because some combination of Hernandez and Jauregui decided they wanted him to go thru end of day with his testimony on Thurs.

Kenerson: The govt had extra time to try and find impeachment materials. We found them, we're using these materials. It could not be any more a central pt to Rehl's credibility on stand and what he testified to his intent and action on 1/6, these materials. Its also open source..

Kenerson: Anyone including Ms. Hernandez could have located it. The bodyworn materials were uploaded in 10/21, second batch 11/21. Ms. Hernandez also has CCTV videos avail from Capitol and cameras, that we note, corroborate authenticity of this video and body-worn cam govt will..

Ken cont: seek to introduce later today. No need to strike. We've produced these materials as we've become aware of them. What the court has required is more than what the law requires in terms of producing cross materials. We've provided materials as we've learned of them & they

Kenerson cont:.. go to credibility of Mr. Rehl.
Kelly: the video is law enforcement body worn footage?
Yes, the body-worn came in oct and nov 2021. Kenerson says.
Then, notes he would have to back to learn which production these videos are in but knows no later than 11/30/21.

Hernandez: They haven't proved that's Mr. Rehl and the bodyworn camera doesn't seem to me, in time I've spent looking at them -- the video introduced shows a person the govt claims is Rehl with his hand outstretched, no pepper spray seen in hand...

Hernandez: The second body worn camera shows person govt says is Rehl and again, shows no pepper spray or plume nothing to indicate there's been a spray and no reaction from other side.
Kelly: I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

Hernandez: This is not a fair process. Do not blame my client for getting on the stand and testifying that he didn't assault anyone. He didn't assault anyone.
Kelly: I take it as their explanation that they had more time to get impeachment materials. I get your point ...

Kelly: ..but it goes to weight, not admissibility.

It's 10:28. Jury has been waiting for an hour.

Hernandez says what the govt is doing with its case is "grotesque." Then she stops herself, calls "decorum" on herself.
Kelly: You're correct I should enforce the decorum rules so one party doesn't call what the other party is doing grotesque

Hernandez says Conor Mulroe laughs in her face, that's inappropriate.
Kelly says if that's happening, that is inappropriate.

Yesterday, her interruptions were so constant that Judge Kelly threatened to put attys in time out for doing this. Literally, he said "time out."

Kelly proposes: We will take a 5-minute recess while I'm on the bench so you can watch a 4 minute video.
Hernandez: Let me explain what is required to view this video....

Hernandez is still going - "its just not fair."
Kelly: I think I've resolved every issue but this one so hopefully we'll proceed promptly after we take a brief recess for you to be able to review the video. It's the same incident as the incident we were talking about yesterday...

Kelly: I understand you want time to see it, and I'm going to give you that time. But I'm pointing out, its not a new incident. It's the same incident your client was crossed about yesterday.
Hernandez interrupts: I don't know that. The 2 videos I reviewed last night to my eye..

Hern cont: there were inconsistencies in the videos but again, I don't have the materials necessary to stop and slow it down.
Kelly: I don't want to burn any more time. We'll take a 10 minute recess and then we'll proceed.
Norm Pattis for Joe Biggs wants to speak.

Pattis says defense and govt has reached an agreement on instruction for Biggs that court can read to jurors. In sum it will say: During cross of Rehl, govt confronted Rehl with prior stmts, admitted for impeachment. Can shed light on Rehl's but no one else's state of mind.

And now we are on a 10 minute break.

And we are back. Judge Kelly is on the bench.

Judge Kelly: I'll note for the record, we do not have Ms Hernandez with us -- no, no, I'll also note we also don't have counsel for Mr. Tarrio.
Pattis: Someone else in lawyer's lounge but they are on their way.

It was hard to hear Pattis a moment ago but to clarify above, it appears he was saying he thought someone had been sent to go get Sabino Jauregui (For Tarrio) and Hernandez. Kelly waited a few minutes on bench. Then asked Pattis if someone was sent to the lounge. Then Pattis went

Hernandez is here. Jauregui is not quite yet but Tarrio's other atty, Nayib Hassan IS here and so he is represented. Now Rehl will take the stand and we will resume cross-examination by AUSA Erik Kenerson.

But before we can do that, Judge Kelly starts first - its the same video already in evidence but a different perspective entirely.
'I think you've been given sufficient time and obviously, you'll have opportunity to redirect your client," Kelly says.
Hernandez objects.

Hernandez walks up to the witness stand now and whispers something to Rehl. He stands up and hunches over to hear her as he is already in the witness box.
Now Pattis for a sidebar.

Now, the jury finally enters. They were asked to come in at 9:30 a.m. It's 11:01.

Kelly tells jury that we will have to stop proceedings because of a conflict with juror proceedings tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Then Kelly asks for parties to join him on sidebar.

I am begging the trial gods, please, for the love of all that is holy, let's get to this cross examination before noon today.

Thread broke:

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1648342997115781120?s=20

I'm continuing in this main thread here though.

Rehl testifies that he was preparing for the worst, over and over again. Including when Kenerson asks him if he was preparing for the worst when he told Aaron Wolkind he wanted to bring a 12-inch dildo to an event to beat people with.

Rehl testifies he wouldve used cans of mace to protect women who were trying to speak out against assault at the NC event
Kenerson rolls past it, reading msgs. Aaron Wokind said: burn their fucking eyes out
R: He appears to be talking shit
Ken: You said fuck yeah
R: Again, yes

Rehl is starting out hot today. He is very sharp in his answers, very short with Kenerson.

Ken: On direct, you testified about Jeremy Bertino yelling at police on 12/12 and you said ironically he was a leader, remember that?
Rehl: Something along those lines
Ken: you're aware Tarrio made Bertino a member of MOSD?

Rehl: Thats what I came to understand, I don't have long history with Beritno myself
Kenerson asks Rehl if he's read Bertino's posts on Parler with violent rhetoric (didn't catch the whole bit but Bertino talked about death to traitors etc)
Rehl upvoted it. Rehl now says...

Rehl: Somebody you know might share something and you just like it to bump the algorithm up. That's how you end up with more followers. The whole thing is about how many followers you can get.
K:You wanted the algorithm to know you like this msg?
Rehl: its how you get followers

Did Rehl know Henry Tarrio made John Stewart a leader of MOSD?
Rehl says he didnt have input on this.
Did he know Tarrio made Aaron Wolkind a chapter leader? (Kenerson quotes some of Wolkind's more violent talk)
Rehl says he doesn't know, had no input on this

You're aware Tarrio made Biggs a leader of MOSD?
Objection by Hernandez. Overruled.
Kenerson: That's the same Biggs who wanted to "be the zamboni and roll over motherfuckers?"
Rehl: Can't comment on his state of mind

You also testified about a few measley signs getting burned and the whole world coming to a halt 1000s of biz ruined by democrats burned by antifa and BLM... this is war on true Christianity, a war on Americanism, you upvoted that post as well?
Objection. Sidebar. Husher on.

Rehl: Again, I upvoted a lot of things.
Ken: On 1/1/21, you upvoted Biggs post on Parler that read 2021 is the year we mindfuck and physically beat the shit out of antifa, just wait.
Hernandez objects asking for exhibit number
Kelly I don't think we have ref to exhibit

Hernandez says I as Rehl's counsel don't know where these documents are coming from.
Kelly asks to her hear on sidebar. Husher on.

It really drives me crazy when the thread breaks, so I'm going to pop those tweets that snuck out of this main thread earlier into a few posts here with an asterisk (*)

*Kenerson: You testified that you went to a rally in NC on Aug 29? Rehl: That is correct yes Kenerson: By fall of 2020 you were ready to use violence at rallies? Rehl: I would say prepare for the worst.

*Ken: Hoping for right chance to use violence? Rehl: no, that's not accurate at all, i always prepared for violence in case we rec'd it from the left. Ken: At Fayetteville NC rally, there was a rumor that busload of antifa would show up. That was false. Rehl affirms.

*Ken: And you were ready to fuck them up? Rehl: Yes and for good reason. It was a rally for women to speak out against sexual assault. There were counterprotesters who were going to silence them and yes I did, i was prepared to stop anyone who was trying to...

*Rehl cont:... silence people's voices to be heard Ken: You were ready to spray antifa as soon as they came into range? Rehl: No as soon as ppl tried silencing the voices of women who want to be heard....

*Now Kenerson brings up a series of text messages. Rehl says these are "little text messages" and that they do not describe what was going on in detail that day (of NC event)

*Kenerson: At end of pg is your conversation with Mr. Wolkind Rehl: Again, out of context, doesn't show picture of entire situation

Again, those tweets with an asterisk (*) are the ones that broke from the megathread of my coverage today.
Now the house is in order and we return to the sidebar.

Sidebar from earlier lasted roughly 5 minutes or so.
Once husher is off, Kenerson resumes:

Kenerson: Tarrio also made Ethan Nordean a leader of MOSD?
Rehl: Yes he was marketing
Kenerson: Ash Barkoziba aka George Meza was invited to MOSD by Tarrio?

Another sidebar. Husher on

Its going to be another long, long, long day and another unproductive week if it keeps going like this. I have to wonder exactly what the jurors must think at this point.

Husher is off.
kenerson: You're aware that Meza was invited by Tarrio to MOSD:
Rehl: At time, I wasn't very are, wasn't paying attn to people's picks were
AJ Fisher, Paul Rae?
Again I was not aware of other people's choices

Kenerson: You put up a fundraiser to go to DC on 1/6?
Rehl: I put up a fundraiser to raise money for future events. Events. With an S.
Ken: your purpose in putting up that fundraiser was to smash commies
Objective. overruled.
R: That's what ppl think it is for, it's just a joke

I cannot stress to you enough how irritated Mr. Rehl sounds this morning.

It was a joke, i can't explain it to people who don't organize in activism.
hernandez objects, she;'s overruled and keeps talking. Its private conversations with his brother.
Rehl: It's taken out of context.
Its published to jury.
Hernandez objects, relevance and scope.

Kenerson reads Rehl's dec 29 text "imagine making a fundraiser to go smash commies and getting 5k in less than 24 hours lol"
Rehl: Yeah, like I said, at the end of it, lol, its a joke
K: You like to joke about smashing commies?
R: Its a joke

Kenerson: You testified that Tarrio never called to defund the police or anything along those lines correct/
Objection scope from Hernandez, misstatement objection from Jauregui
Rehl: What are you suggesting I said?

Ken: When you were asnwering questions for Mr Jauregui, your testimony was that Tarrio never called to defund the police
Rehl: I don't even remember this conversation but are you saying I said that Enrique didn't want to defund the police

Kenerson moves on.
Rehl: Some people thought they knew what nuking is, and they wanted to nuke the chats. Obviously, you read these chats and they were wrong.
But they were nuked?
Some people attempted to, Rehl says...

The new MOSD chat that was set up after Tarrio was arrested was MOSD MAIN 2. Rehl says "I believe that was the name."
Kenerson: Tarrio wasn't originally added to that chat?
R: I cant count who all was added to what chat

Ken: but the group photo for that new chat was ACAB (all cops are bastards)?
Rehl: like I said, I don't remember
Hernandez objects.

Husher is off.
Kenerson asks Rehl if recognizes the group photo from MOSD MAIN 2.
Rehl says it waas a photo posted in group at some pt.
Objection scope, relevance, foundation. Overruled.

The Celebrite report shows the "ACAB" group photo in the extraction.
Rehl: ACAB? I see ACAB.
Kenerson: That stands for all cops are bastards?
Rehl: You tell me. I could't tell you. It's been around since the 1950s
Hernandez objects she says there's a "legend under the picture"

I'm looking at what is on the screen in media room, so I can't see a legend, or I'm unclear what she's referring to.
But the husher is back on.

I'll tell you one thing, if he's smart, Mr. Pezzola is paying attention very carefully to how this is all going for Mr. Rehl.

Husher is off.
Kenerson brings up an exhibit just for Rehl to start.
Rehl says its same thing as before.
Thats what it appears to be, Rehl says as he stares at monitor.

Hernandez: The details
Kelly: He's already --
Jauregui: I think they should both come in
Kelly: They are. It will be admitted and ready to publish

Rehl: It appears different than what you just showed.
Kenerson: Oh did it?
Rehl: Apparently
Kenerson: Why do you say apparently?
Rehl: Because the text was longer and has more words under it.
Ken: This says MOSD Main 2 under this?
R: On this presentation, yes

Rehl says its different than the last one.
Kenerson reads it to Rehl: it says start time: 1/4/21 12:50:03PM, then underneath that, last activity: 1/7/2021 4:50:14pm
Rehl: I have no idea what this is referring to

Kelly asks for a sidebar now. It lasts roughly a minute

Sidebar over.
Kenerson zooms in even closer. The wording under ACAB photo says "all cops are bastards"
Rehl: Like I said, it does not.
Kenerson starts to ask where letters are positioned under the image.
Rehl: Can you pull the other one up?

Ken: I'm asking about this one Mr. Rehl
Objection 403 from Hernandez.
Kelly calls for sidebar.
Husher comes off after a minute or so.

Kenerson: The wording "ACAB" ends towards the left side of the BB? correct?
Rehl leans into monitor: Little closer to the middle but
Kenerson now asks for another exhibit to be brought up. Its the first exhibit showing ACAB photo that Rehl has insisted is different from stand.

But Kenerson now has Rehl walk through it and Rehl now confirms the placement of the slogan "all cops are bastards" under ACAB photo is the same.

Kenerson: Rehl, familiar with Trump's stand back and stand by comment
Rehl: I mean who wasn't
Ken: on 1/5 you decided standing by was over
Rehl: Again it was a joke
You knew on 1/5 that normies were attacking antifa?
Rehl says correct

Kenerson: And you knew the shit would hit the fan?
Rehl, light paraphrase here, says it was a basic statement that people who weren't aware of what the PBs were doing wouldn't understand

Ken: See a mesage you sent to a group of people in Philadelphia?
The text message is published.
Ken: you texted them at 10;31 am, normies out here fighting cops and burning flags in honor of the PBs

Rehl: Yes I was shocked that people were showing up and fighting antifa
Same msg thread where you said shit would hit the fan?
R: In ref to normal people showing up and fighting activists yes

Ken: you testified that you would always coordinate with police when hosting events?
Rehl: when i was personally doing the events I did

Kenerson: On 1/6, group you were leading shut down street to traffic?
Rehl: Wasn't really open to traffic, it was closed down and police gave us escort up/down street

Ken. brings up video footage from 11:53 a.m.
The PBs are in video, very large group, walking in mass in street after two cars pass.
Ken: you didn't coordinate that takeover of the street with police that time?
R: I was talking about when we coordinated w/police at food trucks

Kenerson says he's not talking about the food trucks.
Hernandez objects as Rehl is answering.
Kelly turns to Rehl and gently reminds him about crosstalk, speaking as atty is making objection.
And there's a sidebar (didn't see who called for it)

Ken: This takeover of the street we just witnessed, you didn't coordinate with police
R: Again as you saw Enrique coordinated with police for this, as you text from Shane Lamond.
Objections, crosstalk.
Kelly tells Rehl: you can explain your answer AFTER you answer the question

Rehl: I didnt personally coordinate that..
Thank you was that hard? Kenerson says, drawing lots of objections.
Ken: you were proud of that takeover of the street?
Objection overruled

Kenerson: You were proud that police were pissed off?
Rehl laughing a bit: they were probably pretty pissed off that's what I said

Now Kenerson shows a still from video from the Capitol after breach as police are being hit with pepper spray, rioters clashing.
Ken: Still looking for the stages at this point?
Kenerson plays video

Kenerson: Thats what you decided to film on 1/6?
Rehl: Yes, I heard a noise and started recording, like i said

At 1:15:21 PM you texted everyone raided the Capitol?
R: Thats what I said yes
K: So sometime between breach of Peace Circle and first barrier, you understood, there was no stages?
Rehl says no, answers longwinded, it was the same thing as over events

K: You said last week nothing happened out of the ordinary on 1/6?
Rehl: like i said, I seen some scuffles, that was certainly a scuffle protesters who got out of hand were removed by cops like in that video. Like i said, i seen some scuffles

Ken: you said you saw nothing out of the ordinary
yes because I've been to a lot of protests
So to you, raiding the seat of government was nothing out of the ordinary?
You're twisting my words. There's no seat of govt at BLM plaza and we went there in large numbers as well.

You tesxted that same group at 1:43, we're at a standstill, cops are dropping concussion bombs and pepper spraying, people are pepper spraying back fighting riot cops
The word stand still, describes to you what I'm doing right now?

Kenerson stands at podium, drinks from his water bottle.
Am I at a standstill with the police right now?
Objection. Overruled.
I didn't say that right here

You said cops were dropping concussion bombs?
R: That was an incorrect statement... i saw flash bangs but didn't know what they were
Kenerson: Flashbangs not out of the ordinary?
Rehl: not at protests?
Ken: People pepper-spraying cops or fighting riot cops, not out of ordinary?

Rehl: Like i said, people do stupid shit at protests..
Kenerson: Things didn't stay at a standstill... rioters started pushing back against police
Rhel: depends what you call pushing back
And rioters eventually took the bldg?
Rehl: It appears so

You sent a text that Pence had been evacuated, so that means vote does not go in right now lol
Was that your text?
No that was Damon's text to me.
Kenerson thanks him. Rehl says you're welcome. Then says, whats the question, you read the text

Kenerson: That text doesnt say anything about congress people
Rehl: Its implied...
Ken: Pence had been evacuated so your assumption was 535 members of congress had been as well
Rehl: yes even stated so in a video presented to this clerk

Kenerson: You said you heard maybe one window was broken but capitol was so big, you couldn't hear?
Rehl: didn't say that... there's a lot of whispers down the lane in the area, people start passing rumors to each other...

K: At 2:48:12 you texted that same group, they just broke the windows and doors and people are pouring in...
Rehl: This comment was 40 minutes after...
Ken: during your testimony last week you said you didn't realize a window was broken until you went inside

Rehl: I don't know if I exactly said that that
Kenerson: For awhile you were proud of what you accomplished at the Capitol?
Rehl: I was proud of the protester turnout.
Now more texts. This one is on he sent to his mom.

Ken quotes text from Rehl to mom: "Our raid of capitol set off a chain reaction throughout the country... I'm so fucking proud"
Rehl: Raid, yes, a large of people congregating together is a form of protesting... not anybody going across the country, stopping the Elec Col count

Here are the definitions for "raid" according to Merriam Webster: a
: a hostile or predatory incursion
: a surprise attack by a small force
: a brief foray outside one's usual sphere
: a sudden invasion by officers of the law
: a daring operation against a competitor

More definitions of "raid"
: the recruiting of personnel (such as faculty, executives, or athletes) from competing organizations
: the act of mulcting public money
: an attempt by professional operators to depress stock prices by concerted selling

Now, after a minutes long sidebar. Kenerson pulls up a video from 1/6 near the TV tower. Kelly says he'll admit conditionally over objection with caveats he mentioned during sidebar.

Kenerson: You had overnight to think about it, you were spraying officers near that TV tower on Jan 6?
Hernandez objects. Overruled.
Kenerson asks it again.
Hernandez objects. Overruled again.
Kenersona asks a 3rd time.
Rehl: Not that I recall
Now Kenerson plays video

The video is up close. Kenerson asks Rehl if he can ID himself. And Rehl says I don't know, a lot of people with MAGA hats on.
Kenerson pulls up the photo. Asks Rehl if he can see the chevron pattern on the mask/gaiter.

Rehl says: One thing i noticed was this blue thing, it wasn't on the video before
Kenerson asks if its his goggles. His gaiter. He's evasive, cant say for sure.
Kenerson brings photo up closer, and Rehl says it could be the pattern

The video plays slow frame by frame, its the same person we're talking about with right arm extended holding what looks like pepper spray in his hand
Rehl says seems to be same person.
Frame by frame again. The man in the middle, with same mask prosecutors say is Rehls is there

The man wears same black goggles, black coat, camo hat?
Rehl: i don't see bright blue thing coming out
(You couldn't at this angle, the lower body is covered anyway by other people)

Kenerson: Rehl that's a spray cannister in your hand?
Rehl: I cant tell but I would imagine its an OSMO (?), a small handheld recording device.
Kenerson: does a small recording device usually have streams coming out of them?
Rehl says it could be a backpack

Kenerson; Mr. Rehl we see a substance coming out of the cannister correct?
Rehl: I do not see a cannister, I see a hand
Kenerson: The hands not empty is it?
Rehl; Looks like its holding something. like i said, if it was me, it would be [the recording device]

I don't see a substance, I see streaks, Rehls says.
Another frame is pulled up, the man is clearer in picture.

Kenerson: This person is holding something in his hand in this image, correct?
Rehl: With 100% certainty I can't say

The streaks are there in the picture, to my eye. They are faint but they are there. The man holding the cannister aimed at police is facing what looks like a body worn camera more head-on, so the lighting makes it a bit harder to see, but you can see it.

Now, Kenerson brings up the photo Rehl took inside the Capitol and Rehl affirms that those are the clothes he was wearing on 1/6 (dark gaiter, black jacket, goggles)

Kenerson asks about his movements inside Cap:
Rehl: I dont know how people got around, I saw a large group of people walking in a direction and I followed
Ken: There was a line of police when you were inside the area?
R: Not when I went to diff part of Capitol area

Ken: There was a line of police at one point correct?
R: I never moved to another area unless there were a lot of people in that area already
Ken: Before you went to upper west terrace you saw a line of police by that tv tower, correct/

Rehl: are you asking police line at front of steps, i mean the capitol is huge
Kenerson: Im asking if there was a police line
Rehl: There was a police line
Kenerson: And eventually that police line gave way

Rehl: I see what you're trying to do and how you're trying to word it, but there was an area where people were allowed to in that way and eventually...i followed them

Kenerson: Eventually you went in the building?
Rehl: Yes I did
Kenerson: And you had a smoke?
Rehl: Yes I did and I shouldn't have done that
Kenerson: And then you went to the upper west terrace?
Rehl: That area where window was? The door I went in was the upper west terrace?

Kenerson: The question Im asking is: you eventually went up the stairs and ended up on an upper level?
Rehl: You could say that yes

Kenerson brings up this photo Rehl took on 1/6.

Ken: Two mins after you took this, you sent a text, 'civil war started'
Rehl says he did.
Kenerson: Nothing out of the ordinary for a protest?
Rehl: Nothing out of the ordinary for a protest
Kenerson: Thank you nothing further.

And that does it for cross-examination of Mr. Rehl by the government.

We are now on a break for lunch. Rehl's atty asked for bit of extra time today for lunch to review videos and Kelly gives it to her, tells parties we will return at 1:50 today. (We broke at 12:35pm)

This footage is what the prosecution showed in court today:

https://twitter.com/OSINTyeti/status/1648364023992455170?t=h9cvllWRMsG_r4aJijB1qg&s=19

H/t to @OSINTyeti for locating these photos today and sharing with me.
Prosecutors say this is Rehl appearing to pepper spray in direction of police on Jan. 6:

And we're back.
Judge Kelly wants to say one thing about something he ruled on already but reviewed more closely.
Kelly: To extent you want part of Giddings, or really, US statement in, I'm going to cut down paragraph 19, instead of whole, but start with west front at Cap..

Kelly: It focuses us more on the scene being talked about.....You had talked about the confrontation clause issue and there is a lot of case law out there strongly suggesting if not holding that if I admit something-- if you want a stmt like this in, and I admit it but also..

Kelly cont: ..other parts of 106, you have effectively waived your confrontation clause. So I think we're on solid ground there. Wouldn't nec. apply to other defendants but IDK if technically it would or wouldn't, it wouldn't seem fair to other defendants....

Kelly to Pattis: Does any other defendant want to question Rehl before Hernandez does (for redirect?)
Would you argue it would be cross or direct or redirect, even though you didn't direct but Mr. Jauregui (For Tarrio) did.. I want to get that tied down..

Pattis: Mr. Biggs will not question Mr. Rehl so the distinction is moot
Jauregui tells Kelly he will have a short redirect.
Nick Smith for Ethan Nordean will not question Rehl, neither will Metcalf for Pezzola

Kelly: Is this issue solely about the west front of Capitol?
No
Kelly: OK we'll take it 1 question at a time and govt can object if they don't think its redirect.
Kelly says Jauregui should go first before her redirect. Jauregui says his questions are short.

Metcalf: Are we going to excuse the jury after Rehl is done before Pezzola takes the stand?
Kelly: Yes because I have to inquire of him and make sure he does want to proceed that way.
Metcalf: All right so nothing further.

Now Rehl will retake the stand.

Kelly says we'll break for lunch at noon tomorrow (Wed) because of the 2pm cut off due to juror scheduling issue.
I don't think he's said if we're starting at 9 am or 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, but I'm sure we'll find out later today. :)

Sabino Jauregui starts.
J: Did questions about texts to your mom, have anything to do with storming the Capitol?
Rehl: They had nothing to do with Jan. 6 at all.
J: Content of texts w/your mom, anything to do with objective to storm the Capitol?
Absolutely not

J: Did messages with your mother have anything to do with an agreement to storm Capitol?
R: No.
j: Anything to do with implicit understanding to storm the Capitol?
r: No.

j: Do you remember when Kenerson asked you about msgs you had with your brother?
R: I do.
Do they demonstrate any understanding --
Objection legal conclusion. Sustained.
Those msgs w/your brother, referencing any understanding you had with anyone in this case to storm Cap?
None

Jauregui: What percentage of questions you've been asked had anything to do with Jan. 6 if you could approximate?
Objection. Sustained.

Jauregui pulls up DC Street Sweeper chat exhibit. Its got a date at top, Nov. 18. The date of message in chat indicates its from 12/2.
J: This is yet another mistake in a multitude of exhibits by govt?
Objection. Argumentative.
Kelly calls for sidebar.

Sidebar over.
Jauregui: Have you noticed other mistakes at trial?
I've noticed a lot, Rehl says.
Jauregui: Rememebr when Kenerson showed you Cellebrite reports? Do you know if they were correct?
Objection. Sustained.

Jauregui: Do you know who did extractions from cell phones in this case?
Objection. Sustained.
Kelly asks for another sidebar.

Seems like a decent time to remind readers that Judge Kelly issued an order denying Rehl's co-defendant, Dominic Pezzola, motion for mistrial after his attorney Roger Roots made a series of claims about govt impropriety with evidence etc

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1647939983250948097?s=20

J: There were other msgs from other people in these reports, you can't say if those msgs were correct?
Objection. Leading. Sustained
Do you remember msgs from other people?
Rehl: I do.
You can't say if those msgs were correct?
Objection. Leading. Sustained.

Jauregui: What can you tell me about those msgs
Rehl: The govt had two different software builds --
Objection. Foundation.
J: Can you tell this jury 1 way or the other that msgs not sent by you were accurate?
Objection vague which messages. Overruled

Rehl: Due to the way --
Objection move to strike, non responsive.
Hernandez asks for a sidebar. Husher on.

Husher off.
Do your emember all these msgs the govt is asking you about?
R: I don't know what you mean
Jauregui: Msgs from 3rd parties?
Rehl: From 3d parties? No.

Jauregui brings up the "knockout" video of the woman knocked out by PBs who was brandishing a knife.
J: Is a woman as dangerous as a man when they're swinging it around?
Hernandez objects. Overruled.
Rehl: I think anybody could be dangerous with a knife if used properly

Did Enrique invite George Meza aka Ash Baroziba into MOSD?
Yes, but I didnt remember that at the time
Did Ash go into the Capitol?
Objection. Sustained.

Remember testimony of Ash in front of jury
Yes
Did he go inside the Captiol?
Objection. Sustained.
Do you remember if Tarrio invited Fernando Alonso into MOSD
Rehl; I don't, like I said, i don't know who he invited in

Do you know if Alonso went into the Capitol on 1/6?
Objection.
Jauregui: He's on cross, I'm asking who was invited into MOSD
Kelly: no, i sustained relevance objection to that.
J: Did Tarrio invite Kenny Lizardo into MOSD?
R: From my understanding he did
And he was CHS?
R: Yes

Jauregui: Did Mr. Kenerson ever ask you if there was an understanding to storm the Capitol?
Objection. Sustained.
Was there an objection to storm the Capitol?
Rehl: No.

Jauregui is doing now what he has done so often at this trial, asking questions that, it would strongly seem, he understands will draw objections so he can get the testimony out anyway.

This went on like this for a few minutes with Jauregui asking questions in this way. Kelly addressed Jauregui sharply, telling him he had already told him what the objection was. Kenerson asked for him to be admonished.

Did I ever ask you to lie?
No -
Objections, cross talk, sustained.
Jauregui: I'm done your honor
Kelly, pointedly: You are done.

Hernandez now on redirect of Rehl:
H: You were asked a # of conversations about chats between yourself and Mr. Wolkind?
Rehl: That's correct
H: In fact did you attend a rally in NC
R: Yes I did
H: Was Wolkind there?
R: No, not part of any org of that event

Was Mr Donohoe (at rally in NC)?
Rehl: He was yes
Was there any violence that day?
R: No there was a threat of it. Its usually one of the things that happen in activism. A lot of time people say they're going to show up and do this or that and rly they want silence opponent...

Rehl: Its bluster, trash talk. The point in activism is to make your opponent uncomfortable. They were saying they were going to send 1k people to shut down that event. We prepared for the worst but we hoped for the best. We prepared & if they were going to assault those women...

Rehl cont: I would protect them any way I could.

Hernandez elicits from Rehl: the women (who Rehl says were sexual assault survivors) at the NC event wanted to march with Proud Boys.

We now have a sidebar.

Sidebar over. Hernandez now enters exhibit into evidence for Rehl.
H: You were asked a # of questions about what your intent was on Jan 5 and MOSD. When you arrived in DC on 1/5, did you or did you not meet with Nordean, Biggs or any other defendants?
Objection scope Overruled

Rehl: No i did not. I wanted to but I did not
H: did you go out that evening for a little bit?
R: Yeah, we were hanging outside the hotel, smoking cigarettes
Who is we?
Me and the guys I drove up with.
Who are they?
Rehl: Freedom Vy, Brian Healion, Isaiah Giddings

Hernandez: So you're a smoker?
Rehl: I was. Not anymore
Hernandez: Did you run into someone named Milkshake aka Dan Lyons that evening?
Objection, scope. Overruled
Rehl: I did. He was walking the streets drunk and basically making an ass out of himself

Rehl cont: Me and him crossed paths and I was pretty ticked off about what he was out there doing
Objection. Scope. Overruled.
Rehl: I was mad he'd be out there making us look bad. I didn't want us to look bad at all, I even argued about kicking him out that night, it was...

Rehl cont:... actually early early early morning Jan. 6.
Who did he raise his concerns about Milkshak to?
Rehl: I believe Tarrio chimed in with my recommendations of what to do

Hernandez: What was it you were trying to do? Kick him out for what reason?
Rehl: Making a fool of himself.... being stupid, its not what we wanted..
Obj. move to strike "what we wanted"

Hernandez reframes: What was the reason you wanted Milkshake (Dan Lyons) out of MOSD?
Rehl: Cus he would've made me look bad and I didn't want to tolerate that.
In the military, he adds, its called "showing your ass"

Rehl continued: If other people wouldnt approve of you're doing.... that's not something Id want to associate with myself.
H: This had something to do with MOSD?
Rehl says he didn't even know if Milkshake was in MOSD, "we were so disorganized"

Hernandez next elicits that Rehl wanted "the legal process to play out" on Jan. 6.

After a sidebar, Hernandez brings up a govt exhibit. Its an article from "American Thinker" dated Dec 26, 2020. "Its for Mike Pence to judge whether presidential election was held at all"

Rehl: It was basically explaining the historical and legal precedent that Pence had as president of the senate being able to basically say and declare certain electoral votes from certain states to be legitimate or not
Hernandez: What was your understanding of this article?

Rehl: This article alone, it focuses on Pence and whether he had authority to do anything. A lot of politicians at the time disputed that and a lot of them dispute it still. I think they introduced something to clarify this specifically...

Rehl cont: ...What was happening on 1/6 wasn't particularly this but what was taking place on Jan 6 was if senators or representatives are objecting, raising issues and explaining why they felt the way they did when it came to the election

Hernandez is inaudible as she trails from mic briefly, but this article, I hear her emphasize, was about the legal process.
Rehl says yes the article says in the 1800s Jefferson utilized this procedure and voted himself into the presidency, essentially

Hern: Govt asked you about a Parler post on cross about firing squads on a --- trails from mic
Objection, misstates. Kelly calls for sidebar.
(There was another objection before this to a similar question from Hernandez but I didn't catch it.)

Sidebar ends after a couple minutes.
Hernandez at dais is going through papers briefly before she asks:
You were asked a number of questions about some text msging you had with several friends of yours?
Rehl: Yes
Someone named Damon, John, Sonny?
R: Yes

Are Damon and John members of the PBs?
Rehl: Damon is not. John we kind of had as a prospect. He came to our meets sometime.
Sonny was?
Rehl: Sonny was but he's not anymore

Hernandez went to look for an exhibit but had trouble locating it, asked govt for assistance and said she will come back to it.

We had a sidebar that went for about 5 minutes. Kelly tells jury they will take the afternoon break now for about 10 minutes.

Hernandez: Just for the record, you indicated during Kenerson's cross, he didn't have to show exhibits and what he was referring to was in discovery. This is all coming from Rehl's phone but I don't have Rehl's phone just extractions govt has given...

Hernandez cont:.... the court admitted them for context.
Kelly: To be clear, Ms. Hernandez, I had them. So I could rule on them. I had the stmts the govt wanted to admit for days and days and days.
H: Your trial order doesnt address redirect
K: I understand but common sense....

Hernandez: The thrust of the govt's cross for 2 days is that Rehl is a violent insurrectionist who had 1 thought in mind was to overturn the election. Here he is, that's all he wanted no legal process -- trails off mic

Hern: ... a # of these msgs introduced by govt are between these gentleman about what was going to happen in dc... trails from mic...

Hern: That is a prior statement that rebuts the government's -- this is 801d, a stmt that meets following conditions is not hearsay .... offered to rebut express or implied charge that the (inaudible) motivated(?) it....

Sorry, she says its 801dbI, I believe.

Kenerson: i think there's a couple of problems. 1) the courts ruling that its not a plan kind of cuts out legs of 1st prong of her argument re: prior consistent stmt.

Kenerson: if its not a stmt of a plan, Im not even sure what its consistent with it if it is a plan. that aside, the rule requires, as we've been up and down a couple times, the govt has sought to do this and court has not allowed it in govts case.

Ken cont: ...it must be offered to rebut that declarant recently fabricated or acted in improper motive in so testifying. Ms. Hernandez has not identified and I'm not aware of any recent fabrication or recent improper influence so I'm still struggling to see, that aside...

Kenerson cont:... even if we put all that aside. Hernandez says it must be consistent with Rehl's testimony because its inconsistent with thrust of govt examination when its self-serving hearsay

Hernandez: Govt implied argument is Rehl has taken the stand to lie and they've pretty much said it...

She is going through msgs she wants in 1 by 1.

Hernandez is shaking her head. Kelly tells her to stop, its disrespectful.
Kelly: If his statement was about what he intended to do, it would be a plan and it could come in that way and it would rebut a recent stmt he's made here today ...

Kelly cont, referencing txt that I believe says something like "we didn't have any plan to do this..."
Hernandez interrupts and Kelly tells her to please stop talking, he's ready to rule, move to next msg.

Hernandez: This is the most fundamental abuse of his 6A right. He has been exposed to harsh cross-ex and the implied argument from the govt is you're a liar and everything you've said is a lie. Thats the implication...and what is govts theory? That MOSD was subterfuge...

Kelly wants to give the court reporter a break, but Hernandez has another msg and Kelly lets her go through it.

Say or think what you want about Ms. Hernandez but at the end of the day, this is Kelly's courtroom. He is in control. Not her.

He has to hear evidence and arguments and he is always willing to within the limits of reason and in the last two weeks, he's been more aware of the time constraints and pressures, but he still has a habit of saying, i won't burn time on this... and then he burns time on it.

The other stmts at issue are those between Rehl and Damon on 1/6. After several minutes from Hernandez, Kelly asks her to get to the point (paraphrasing) and asks for the contents of the other msg at issue.
Rehl said "what's that mean"
Hernandez argues that his would suggest...

Rehl didn't really know as much as he's indicated.

Now we are finally on a break for 10 minutes.

Going through my notes from yesterday and I'm thinking about how Rehl said violence was an "unintended consequence" at protests. Today, when discussion about the NC rally came up, he was adamant that if there would have been violence he would protect speakers there

Rehl said the NC event was for women survivors of sexual assault and it seemed like he was trying to impress jury with, IDK, maybe some sort of chivalry here? by saying he would take up for women if they were silenced "any way I could."

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1648393580707192837?s=20

I hear that and I wonder, what does that mean? "Any way I could?" Up to and including violence? How does the jury hear this, I wonder?

Anyway, we're back on the record now.

Kelly is on the bench and going through the msgs. (We seemed to close to ending Rehl's time on stand today and maybe we will but my hopes arent hight)

Kelly brings up Rehl's text "what's that mean?" and he says: questions cannot be hearsay.

This has been an element on cross, this has come up on direct re: knowledge of what's going on inside the Capitol on 1/6.

Apologies, I didn't catch Kelly's explanation on this, but he ultimately did allowed Hernandez to use all three text records, a change of heart from earlier

Now Rehl is back on the stand and we shall resume shortly.

Jury is back in and seated and Hernandez continues with redirect of Zachary Rehl.

H: you were asked questions about Mr. Bertino and what happened on 12/12 and how that might have -- sorry - can you explain how you understood what happened with bertino on 12/12?
Rehl: From my understanding what he told everybody is somebody came into our group and --

Obj. Foundation.
Kenerson: Is this something told to him or something he's hearing secondhand?
Hernandez doesn't ask a question, she says, "What I'd like to tell the jury is..." and she goes on re: Bertino.
Rehl, bursts in: He lied to everybody, to the jury!
Kenerson objects.

Sidebar. Husher on.

Husher off. Kelly says he'll strike the last stmt from the record (I believe that is the Bertino lied remark by Rehl)
Hernandez moves on and asks about text where Rehl said people "were out for blood" after that Dec rally.

Rehl: I made that stmt because we were deceived into thinking he was the victim that day and --
Kelly tells him (paraphrase) to answer question directly, not qualify it it first

Rehl: It was my understanding at the time that he (Bertino) was the victim of a crime and I thought someone snuck into our group and started a fight with him and I thought at the time he was defending himself and I later found out that was not true --

Objection from kenerson to "later ...not true." Sustained.
Moves to strike last sentence.
Kelly: It will be stricken

H: You reached out to law enforcement for what purpose (post 12/12 rally)?
R: To basically get justice. 4 people were stabbed at the time, it was kind of a big deal.

H: So you were trying to get police to act on info you had?
R: We wanted to see what they were planning on doing, right.

Rehl: We helped him raise money online and he told his story aoubt how he's a victim and raised 10s of 1000s of dollars doing so in the process.

Hern: What else did you do that ends up in connection with this case?
Rehl: We also ended up bringing him into MOSD right around the same...
Rehl trailed off a bit here.

Hernandez: What discussion if any in that [zoom] video was about Bertino's stabbing and the PBs and the MOSD?
Obbjection scope. Overruled .
Rehl: He told the same story that everyone thought about him being the victim ...

Hernandez: did you or did you not see bertino stabbed?
Rehl: No i did not
Hernandez: And on that day (12/12 i believe) did you or did you not punch anyone or destroy any property?
Rehl: No definitely not

Hernandez asks Rehl about the civil war text he sent. What was in his mind when he sent that?
Rehl: "Literally when I first got up to that second level, the lead up in that chat, we were absically mocking all the news we were hearing prior to the event.."

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1648365696823316480?s=20

Rehl cont: Everytime we go to an event, it's always 'oh this is going to happen... its going to be a honeypot' we were making fun of the news. i sent a video along with that text.

Now Hernandez brings up a video just for Rehl. She asks him to confirm its his. Rehl tells her, she's got the wrong date.

There was a brief sidebar, done quickly.
H: you sent out this video aroudn same time you sent out civil war msg
Rehl says he sent the video to the group chat, Damon, Sonny, Vincent, Vick

Now Hernandez brings up the video for jury without playing it just yet. She elicits from Rehl: the metadata states the video was sent at 2:37
How did this video relate to why you're sending that 'civil war' text --
I'm mocking all the media reports we're talking about

The video plays for the jury and Rehl says he was being "ironic"
"There's literally nothing happening here... it was a very peaceful scene, we were just standing around."
H: Again, this is your opinion at the time this is happening?
R: At the time. i just had gotten up there.

Hernandez: Is that your opinion today that eveyrthing that happened that day was irony?
Rehl: oh no no no, when I actually got to sit down and go through my phone... it was a terrible day, a lot of bad stuff happened....

Hernandez brings up Parler post from 1/6 he shared at 6:18 p.m.
"This is what patriotism looks like, today was a historical day for sure, i'll never forget this as long as I love... when govt fears its people you have freedom, when people fear govt you have tyranny... [deleted]

Rel: when i took this, i was proud of turnout but next day as i started to go through things and see what happened that day, i didnt wanna asosicate myself with this.
He turns to jury now.
Rehl cont: Previously, i tried to have a nice good persona, that's what i try to portray.

Rehl cont: ...nobody wants to look bad for one, and this looked bad. At the time, it didnt look bad to me, but afterward it did. I took it off social media because i didnt want the world to think i supported the disgrace that day.

Now Hernandez brings up a chat thread from 12/30 just for Rehl. He reads it to jury.
Text from "John" Are you going to DC on 1/6?
John on 1/5: Whose commited to DC rally is there a bus
Rehl's response?
Rehl: This is on 5th, "I'm going today"
When was it sent?
Rehl: 1:51:20 p.m.

John then writes on 1/5: Cool have fun do you think they'll overturn the election?
Rehl replies: no but itll be fun down there anyway lol

Hernandez: So on 1/5, your response to John when he asks if you think election will be overturned, your response is what?
Rehl: no
Hern: What were you thinking when you sent that msg?

Rehl: like i said, i determined that 12/14 was end of road but trump was doing whatever he could to pull rabbit out of his hat....
Hern: Does this describbe what your motive or intent was on 1/6?
Rehl: That I had no expectation about the election like I do at all these protests

Hernandez: So it was a protest, not an insurrection?
Rehl: Correct

10:23pm on 1/5, Rehl was already at hotel, he testifies, when he sent message about Pence "hopefully pence has the balls we alll hope he has. all he needs to do is reject state electors for fraud."

Rehl testifies: I did hope Trump could pull something out of his hat but like I said, I wasn't expecting it.

Hernandez: Was this consistent with what you read re: Pence's legal authority [during count of electoral college vote)
Rehl: That's exactly what I was referring to

More texts now.
This one from 1/6 sent at 1:18 from Damon to Rehl.
Arizona just objected, Damon writes. Rehl replies: What's that mean?
This is @ 1:33 on 1/6.

Damon explains: they have a representative and a senator who object. now in special council for 2 hours.
(Reply came in at 1:36 p.m. on 1/6.)

Now Hernandez brings up video from inside Sen. Jeff Merkley's office where Isaiah Giddings is with him (Rehl IDs him easily here) and she asks Rehl to ID anyone else he may know in the video as it plays.
"They weren't there," Rehl.
Who was it you thought may be there?

Rehl: Freedom Vy and Brian Healion.
Those are ppl you entered Capitol with?
Rehl: Yes
Hernandez: When you entered this room, was there any name on hte door at all or a room number?
Rehl: No, no name at all. I don't rememebr seeing any numbers anything like that, along those lines

Were people smoking marijuana in the room?
There were, Rehl says.
Did he smoke a cigarette?
Rehl says yes, regrettably, shouldnt have done that
Did he smoke a cigarette or weed?
I did smoke a cigarette...
He doesnt smoke marijuana he says.

He walked past door of the office, saw a bunch of people smoking in the room (Merkley's office) and figured "screw it," and went in, he testifies.

Here's a pic from inside Merkley's office:

You deleted messages?
Rehl: I didnt delete messages...I didnt want public to think I wasnt involved in a good protest... I'm an organizer, I dont want to have this reputation as an organizer organizing things like that

Hernandez: in your judgment, starting sometime after 1/7 to today, what's your judgment of what you saw that day in total?

Rehl: You mean all videos Ive watched since then? it was terrible. there's no way to chop it up. i think a lot of cops were assaulted, parts of the bldg were destroyed, i guess you could say. honestly, it divided our country and i dont approve of it.

Hernandez: Do you think you did anything wrong that day?
Rehl: at the tme i didnt think i did anything wrong
as i sit here, i definitely agree i shouldnt have gone in bldg and smoked a cigarette
even though you testified the door was open?

Rehl: yes, i didnt think i'd be charged with nine felonies for it
Hernandez: and you shouldnt have smoked a cigarette?
Rehl: absolutely
Hern: Anything you want to say to jury about your conduct on that day and your co-defendants?
Pattis objects re: commentary on other defendants

Hernandez withdraws, focuses it on Rehl specifically.
Kenerson: objection calls for narraative overruled.
Rehl: If you believe i did anything wrong that day i really do apologizie i did not go there with any intention to do anything of the stuff youve seen for last 2 years.

Rel continued: I really did go there to protest... i thought that was just going to be another protest and when i left, that's all i thought it was. like i said, after i saw videos and different things happening, thats when i wanted to distance myself from it...

Rehl continued: I didnt have any other intentions...
Hernandez: Are you ashamed?
rehl: it wouldve been much better if i didnt go, for sure, (he laughs slightly). There's not much i can change anymore, if i could i would for sure.

And that ends the cross of Proud Boy Zachary Rehl.

NOW: Proud Boy defendant Dominic Pezzola affirms with Judge Kelly, he intends to testify

For the record, Judge Kelly did inform Pezzola he had a right to remain silent if he wished to. He waived that right here today.

Now, Steven Metcalf, Pezzola's atty is up. He starts by asking Judge Kelly to please reconsider his request about a stmt by Pezzola while he was detained. Pezzola allegedly said Biggs had a gun on 1/6 ...

I remember when this came up recently before jurors but a lot of it was over email between parties so I'm not super clear around this at this pt. It may have something to do with other stmts deemed false from Pezzola

NOW: Dominic Pezzola takes the witness stand.
He is wearing a dark gray suit, light colored button down and a tartan/plaid style tie. He stands in the box right now before the jury enters and he has his hands in his pockets. He takes one deep breath and settles his shoulders.

Pezzola turns to face the jury as they enter and walk by him. He gives a polite smile and nod to a few of them as they pass.

Now Kelly gives a stipulation: Govt confronted rehl on stmts he made on prior occasions, it was made for purpose of confronting his testimony during direct. it will shed light on rehl, but no one else

Metcalf: All right, Dom, how we doin?
Pezzola raises his single finger up. He knows he needs to be sworn in.
Kelly thanks him for reminding him. He's sworn in.
Metcalf: Thank you, I was so ready to get going, I forgot about that. Good catch.

Metcalf: How you doin Dom?
Pezzola: Feeling good steve, I'm ready to do this. I'm taking the stand today to take responsibility for my actions on 1/6 and I'm also taking the stand to explain how these men that I'm indicted with should not be roped into my actions

Pezzola: There was no conspiracy, it never existed. The craziest damn thing is, i never met these guys until --
Objection as to whether anyone else joined conspiracy. Sustained.
Metcalf: You said you wanted to take responsibility? What did you do on 1/6?

Pezzola: So i got caught up in craziness, I trespassed at first breach, second, I think there may have been a third one, i basically trespassed all the breaches and during the scuffle and whole shield incident, i did grab onto the shield...

Pezzola cont: ...and pulled on it out of fear for my own life because deadly force was being used on us by police

Metcalf: Did you take possession of that shield at that time?
Pezz: No, I pulled onto it... everything happened in a split second. I was trying to explain to cops its not legal to shoot ppl in face and bullets started coming in at me, inches from my face.

Pezzola continued: So yeah, i grabbed ont it and pulled on it...I fell backward on my back and I let go. Somebody else actually grabbed it from police, and then I grabbed it form them and we will have proof to show this.

Metcalf: Did you yell at police?
Pezzola: I did. I was angry. I was not thinking clearly. I was upset. I had seen mothers grabbing their children to get them out of the way to avoid flashbangs. I saw elderly protesters, eyes split open, faces full of pepper spray and I was upset

Did you use that shield to damage any property?
Pezzola: I did, when I made it up to the terrace... I did break one pane of glass. One. Someone else used 2x4... its been proven over and over it was less than $1K

Pezzola:I went into the bldg, wandered around lost, took some pictures, followed the crowd
And you made the video then as well?
I made a video
Stayed in bldg for 23 mins?
Approx
And you returned the shield?
Yes had no intent of permanently depriving govt of it

Objection, legal conclusion. Sustained.

Did you know of any plan re: Jan 6?
Pezzola: No, I never really knew anything, I was only in organization for a month
Metcalf: you were part of chats?
Pezz: Most chats I was in had to do with NY state

Metcalf: But after you saw Bertino he added you to certain chats?
Pezzola: Yeah the MOSD there was a pre-one, I don't know, I'm not sure....
Metcalf: never talked about any plans with anybody at this time?
Pezzola: Absolutely not

How did you meet Matthew Greene?
Pezzola says it was through a central NY chapter, his local chapter wasn't vetting at the time for reasons he doesn't know.

Every chapter is autonomous, every man is their own man and go and come as they please, he says.
Metcalf: When you started coming to DC, what did you believe purpose of PBs was?
Pezzola: I believe - do you want me to get into why I joined or what I thought purpose was?

Pezz: Every time we came to DC, i thought purpose of PBs was protection for Trump supporters. One of the reasons I joined was because I seen on internet, the whole summer of 2020, a lot of innocent ppl being brutalized.

P: I figured, I'm still young enough, served in the military, was a boxer, pretty good boxer... not the world's best...my wife could probably beat my ass, but that was the whole thing, it was about standing up for protection

Pezzola says he saw a lot of families being attacked, elderly people and it didn't sit well with him.
Pezz: When I saw PBs out there being loud and rambunctious being loud as possible, i figured they were trying to take heat off reg. protesters and put it on selves

Metcalf: So basically going back to the frontlines?
Pezzola: yeah, I was in military - want me to get into my military a little bit?
He says at USMC he was part of antiarmor rocket system to engage tanks.. trained as basic infantryman, rifleman who confronts enemy on ground

Pezzola says he was also trained in landmine clearing.
Pezzola: Right around the time the war broke out, we'd go to desert in CA every year and we trained on how to deal with mass protests, non lethal tactics and crowd control

Then you found yourself at the front of Tarrio's speeches?
Pezzola: by chance, that was it. i saw him and thought i wanted to keep up with this guy and see what he has to say
Met: Then you found yourself on front line at the terrace?
P: The front line?

Metcalf: yeah...
Pezzola says, kind of sheepishly here, yeah but he wasn't looking for anybody or anything ...

Brotherhood/camaraderie attracted him to PBs

He was 43 when he applied to Proud Boys.
He laughs easily, smiles, "A little too old to be a boy I guess"

Pezzola says he ate, drank, breathed work before the pandemic hit and hurt his business. He worked day and night so his wife could stay home with the kids because that's what she wanted.
"I supported that decision," he says, adding that
COVID hit and work slowed down massively

Pezzola said he would get calls for jobs and then they would be canceled. His own flooring business suffered. He tells jury he had to let staff go and he started "obsessing." His 10-man staff were miserable.

His wife told him to get a hobby.

Metcalf asked Pezzola next about the incident Pezzola's wife described to jurors about riots in Rochester in 2020.

Pezzola: i rememebr her calling me and telling me she had to come home early because there were riots downtown. I think I turned on the TV and there on live TV was a picture of a jobs trailer of a person I contract for. it was stationed at a job I was supposed to be .

Pezzola: Work was scarce. I had a job at the govt bldg and now I'm watching the job trailer burn down to the ground. From the riots and everything down there, my job was canceled.

Here, Judge Kelly tells the jury we're going to pause here for the evening. We will pick up with Pezzola's testimony on Wednesday.

After they leave...

Metcalf is now reheard by Kelly on his earlier request around false stmt Pezzola made to FBI, asking him to reconsider.

Metcalf: Pezzola will say, yes i did sit down and tell fbi a fake story about biggs and here i am, sitting next to that individual...

Metcalf cont: And there were certain things that did happen and efforts were made to correct the stmt... there was another meeting metcalf set up with pezzola and we corrected that stmt and made it clear for record, that didn't take place and it was a lie at the time.

Metcalf: So your honor, i ask you to take his state of mind into consideration back then when stmt was made. concerns are lack of legal advice, maybe his misinterpretation of that legal advice but the atty ultimately not even informing him mtg would take place.

Metcalf cont: The first mtg went well and then ultimately, his situation at jail became issue because he was being denied medication for pain for 2 months at a time...he was going through substantial medical concerns as a result of that ...

Metcalf cont: so all of this did come into effect and also the interactions he was having at the jail with certain individuals that came into this decision to make this stmt at the second mtg with FBI

Pattis says an inmate next to Pezzola in detention told him if he cooperated he could get a better deal, and this is why Pezzola lied to FBI.
Pattis: the lie is so extraordinary, placing a gun in my client's (Biggs) hands that day... i join metcalf's motion...

Kenerson says he thought there was a stipulation for iggs submitted to court last week (there was)
Kelly suggests maybe a stipulation is needed to state there's no evidence biggs had a gun on 1/6.
Metcalf has some concern that jurors will learn Pezzola was detained/is detained

Pattis also tells Kelly he doesn't want to cross Pezzola for a variety of reasons, one of them, he says, is because he likes him as a person.

After some back and forth with Judge Kelly, Kenerson says if Metcalf goes into the legal advice that Pezzola received and suggests it was adequate, the government sees that as a waiver of atty/client privilege with that attorney and that atty could be called in for rebuttal

I need to end it here today, folks but I will share Roger's thread here to wrap you all up (though they seem very close to ending....)

https://twitter.com/rparloff/status/1648435536179363843?s=20