Stand Back and Stand By: Proud Boys Enrique Tarrio, Joe Biggs, Ethan Nordean, and Zach Rehl Guilty of Sedition

The verdict is just coming in from the Proud Boys trial.

Update: The jury came back with a not guilty verdict for Pezzola on seditious conspiracy, and Judge Tim Kelly ruled them hung on everything else.

It’s finally over.

Count One: Seditious Conspiracy (18 USC 2384)

Tarrio: Guilty

Biggs: Guilty

Nordean: Guilty

Rehl: Guilty

Pezzola: Not Guilty

Count Two: Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding (18 USC 1512(k))

Tarrio: Guilty

Biggs: Guilty

Nordean: Guilty

Rehl: Guilty

Pezzola: Hung

Count Three: Obstruction of an Official Proceeding (18 USC 1512(c)(2))

Tarrio: Guilty

Biggs: Guilty

Nordean: Guilty

Rehl: Guilty

Pezzola: Guilty

Count Four: Conspiracy to Impede an Officer (18 USC 372)

Tarrio: Guilty

Biggs: Guilty

Nordean: Guilty

Rehl: Guilty

Pezzola: Guilty

Count Five: Civil Disorder (18 USC 231)

Tarrio: Guilty

Biggs: Guilty

Nordean: Guilty

Rehl: Guilty

Pezzola: Guilty

Count Six: Deprecation of Government Property (metal barrier) (18 USC 1361)

Tarrio: Guilty

Biggs: Guilty

Nordean: Guilty

Rehl: Guilty

Pezzola: Guilty

Count Seven: Deprecation of Government Property (front door) (18 USC 1361)

Tarrio: Hung

Biggs: Hung

Nordean: Hung

Rehl: Hung

Pezzola: Guilty

Count Eight: Assault (throwing water bottle) (18 USC 111)

Tarrio: No verdict

Biggs: No verdict

Nordean: No verdict

Rehl: No verdict

Pezzola: No verdict

Count Nine: Assault (fighting with cop) (18 USC 111)

Tarrio: Not guilty

Biggs: Not guilty

Nordean: Not guilty

Rehl: Not guilty

Pezzola: Guilty

Count Ten: Robbery (stealing shield)

Pezzola: Guilty

Update, May 8: Corrected Tim Kelly’s last name.

205 replies
  1. Jharp jharp says:

    So off to prison while Trump plays golf and enjoys luxury dining.

    And yet no second guessing Trump from any of them?

      • joel fisher says:

        You haven’t been paying attention. In the upside down world of tfg, anything that offends normal people, gins up his supporters.

        • BobBobCon says:

          That’s pointlessly dismissive and wrong.

          People were making the same concern trolling point in 2019 to block aggressive investigations of Trump, and fortunately the Ukraine whistleblower came forward to finally force the House Democrats to launch impeachment move.

          That was not a silver bullet against Trump. Everyone could tell you there would not be a 2/3 majority in the Senate. But it absolutely was a big problem for him and knocked him off a scheme he had staked a lot on.

          There are no silver bullets, and there never were. Dopes like the NY Times conservative Opinon section writers have been arguing for years that the lack of a single magic bullet should stop opposition to GOP lawlessness from doing anything, on the ridiculous claim that any investigation will somehow make Trump stronger.

          But that’s just a distraction. The only way to bring him down is to just keep sawing away. And this deepens the cut into the trunk.

        • joel fisher says:

          I didn’t say not to keep sawing, only that tfg’s supporters see sawing as persecution which they need to fight. If that’s a “ridiculous claim”, I will stand corrected when he doesn’t get the nomination due to the strength of his moronic, lawless supporters. In the short term, my view will be somewhat bolstered when post “Yep he raped her” polls show continued, or, perhaps, increased support.

        • BobBobCon says:

          You’re sticking to the magic bullet argument — If this specific act is not enough all by itself, then it is a failure.

          That’s exactly the kind of nonsense that pundits spout before any discrete action that is a part of a larger element. It’s a time honored practice of propagandists everywhere, and I’m struck by how many people who claim to be opposed to propaganda repeat it.

          You never will be able to point to the specific amount that this trial did or did not affect the future. But you can almost never point to the specific amount that any action contributed to a larger action.

          What ended the Civil War? Was it the victory at Gettysburg? Was it the blockade? Was it enslaved people deserting the Southern labor pool en masse? Was it Chase keeping the North’s economy humming? Was it Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and keeping the British and French out of the war?

          You could easily argue that any of those things in January 1864 weren’t breaking the Southern loyalists from staying loyal. So what? None of them by themselves was sufficient. There were no magic bullets, there almost never are in history, and it’s silly to try to denigrate smaller victories for failing to be decisive all by themselves.

        • joel fisher says:

          I don’t know what this means:
          “You’re sticking to the magic bullet argument — If this specific act is not enough all by itself, then it is a failure.” What’s a magic bullet?
          To the extent that I’m making an argument it’s this: within the GOP every time Trump does something Trumpy, he ends up more popular with the degenerates–2/3s of the GOP–who worship him. Happily these things may have/do have a cumulative effect on the rest of the electorate. You and I have a different perspective on Trump: I believe the GOP is an evil enterprise that must be destroyed and Trump is doing the Lord’s–you damn right I’m mysterious–work by making the evil of the GOP clear. You seem to believe that without Trump everything would be peachy, but the GOP would still exist.

        • ouand your blowill. NEVER bring down TRUMP.he says:


          [Moderator’s note: I’m letting this one through for grins and giggles. Bless your little “blowhearts.” /~Rayne]

        • Peet says:

          Thank you for that drop of sunshine, Rayne.

          [Welcome to emptywheel. THIRD REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Thanks. I have a feeling you meant to use the name attached to your email address — please advise by replying to this comment. /~Rayne]

        • LizzyMom says:

          Thanks, Rayne — really enjoyed the laugh! The delusion is strong with that one.

        • ExRacerX says:

          It’s rare to witness such command of the English language in the wilds of the internet.

        • joel fisher says:

          If he loses in the primaries, don’t stand for it. He is the leader. As a 3rd party candidate, he will emerge victorious.

        • Seashell says:

          I’m sure that for all intensive purposes and on the spurt of the moment, this person will come back to fix the mistakes and call us blowholes instead.

        • Thee BLOWHEART says:

          Begging forgiveness for changing my name to
          Thee BLOWHEART? (I’d have asked permission but I can’t find the old name, sorry! )

          Anyway, cheers on the verdicts today. I have greatly enjoyed the coverage here quietly in the background, and thought it was time to say thank you all for your hard work. I’ve learned so much from you all.

          [Thanks for updating your username, meeting the 8 letter minimum. You previously published comments here as BettaVote and BeeVoting; please make sure to stick with your new username here forward. /~Rayne]

        • Baltimark says:

          “[blah blah blah]./NEVER”

          “Never” is (yes, I know, SORT OF) like the empty set, which is (yes, I know, SORT OF) like zero. The denominator follows the “/”. Hence the semiotic value of this comment is clearly undefined.

      • joel fisher says:

        There will always be second guessing. I don’t–as is often the case–know what people are talking about. Even so, I’m pretty sure in this prediction.

    • Former AFPD says:

      There will undoubtedly be appeals. Prior to sentencing, there may also be motions for a new trial or other motions seeking to invalidate the verdicts.

    • Savage Librarian says:

      Many thanks to the jury foreperson, the jury, the judge, DOJ prosecutors, and all support staff of each. Your hard work is greatly appreciated. I had my doubts about how this might turn out. But thank Goddess for the stapler ;-)

    • Rayne says:

      Looks to me like the jury has been allowed to continue to deliberate on that. Brandi has only this observation:

      Brandi Buchman @[email protected]

      Proud Boy DOMINIC PEZZOLA: The Jury is deadlocked on the seditious conspiracy count & conspiracy to obstruct Congress count.

      But as to other charges…

      May 04, 2023, 11:23

      • klynn says:

        That’s what I thought I understood. I’m trying to figure out why the deadlock on Pezzola?

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          He came to the party late. On this charge, he may have helped himself with his combative and incoherent testimony, which seems to have helped convict him on the other charges.

        • klynn says:

          So someone on the jury is not buying the “it does not matter when or how you enter into a conspiracy?”

        • emptywheel says:

          That’s consistent with their verdicts on assault, too. They weren’t buying aid-and-abet or conspiracy liability.

        • KO_26APR2023_0615h says:

          There was less evidence that he was part of any particular planning group.

          [Welcome back to emptywheel. THIRD AND FINAL REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first know comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]

        • Molly Pitcher says:

          The comments I heard were that he had participated less than the others in the pre-coup messaging.

        • Purple Martin says:

          Perhaps they thought he was closer to being a normie caught up by the conspiracy, than a conspiracist trying to enrage the normies into rioting.

        • Rayne says:

          That may be the sticking point, yes. I’ll repost what I shared the other day about the indicted and the charges:

          Enrique Tarrio – chairman of Proud Boys, FL state director of Latinos for Trump
          Ethan Nordean – a leader and recruiter of Proud Boys
          Dominic Pezzola – Proud Boys member
          Joseph “Joe” Biggs – a leader and organizer of Proud Boys
          Zachary Rehl – president of Philadelphia Proud Boys chapter

          COUNT 1: 18 US.C. § 2384 — Seditious Conspiracy

          COUNT 2: 18 US.C. § 1512(k) — Conspiracy to Obstruct Official Proceeding

          COUNT 3: 18 US.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2 — Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting

          COUNT 4: 18 US.C. §372 — Conspiracy to Prevent an Officer from Discharging Any Duties

          COUNT 5: 18 US.C. §§ 231(2)(3), 2 — Obstruction of Law Enforcement During Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting

          COUNTS 6, 7: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 2 — Destruction of Government Property and Aiding and Abetting

          COUNTS 8, 9: 18 US.C. § 111(a)(1) — Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers

          COUNT 10: 18 US.C. § 2112 — Robbery of Personal Property of the United States

          This is the indictment:

          Pezzola sticks out by description of his role alone. His participation in the seditious conspiracy may hinge on his offer to program coms devices (see page 15 of the indictment), which would have supported the seditious conspiracy.

        • Rayne says:

          But was it furthering sedition, or furthering conspiracy to obstruct proceedings, or both?

          If it were me I’d vote seditious conspiracy, but I don’t know if the jury had a different impression/understanding of what Pezzola was doing because he wasn’t in a leadership position within the organization.

        • KO_26APR2023_0615h says:

          To be guilty of conspiracy you have to do something illegal that is later associated with the crime to which there was a conspiracy. So, unless programming the coms devices is seen as sufficiently illegal…

          He is going to do hard time for the riot shield, mostly.

          [Hi. You are going to have to follow the EW community standard of employing an eight character username to participate here – bmaz]

          [Nope, bmaz, this is KO’s last comment at our site until they remedy their username. They were warned and we don’t have time for this deliberate intransigence. /~Rayne]

        • Vigetnovus says:

          That is incorrect. To be found guilty of conspiracy, you must have entered into an agreement with one or more people to commit an illegal act (namely here sedition or obstruction of an official proceeding), AND you must have committed at least one overt act to further the conspiracy. Such overt acts may be illegal OR legal. So yes, programming the radios counts. The question is why did Pezzola think he was doing that and what goal did he think it would accomplish?

          If the answer is something other than the violent overthrow of the government or preventing Congress from certifying the vote, then yeah, he’s not guilty of conspiracy in those cases.

        • Ravenclaw says:

          Perhaps they view him as a follower rather than a core conspirator – as someone who was willing to sign on to the attack but didn’t have advance knowledge of what the true goals were. Or, rather, they view the case for his conspiratorial knowledge as just enough weaker to raise a reasonable doubt.

          The jury seems to have executed their duties with great care and diligence. If you look at the result from a more political standpoint (not what they were doing), this may be an optimal outcome. You can’t credibly argue that the defendants were just ‘railroaded’ in a sham trial when the results are so nuanced.

        • Ruthie2the says:

          “Credibly” is doing a lot of work here. I bet there’s plenty of whining on Twitter and certain cable tv channels already. Shamelessness is conservative’s superpower, and too often is treated credulously by those who should know better.

          OT, but I’ve been delighted by the creative ways commenters here have updated usernames to meet the new requirements. Bravo!

    • Purple Martin says:

      Could the judge declare a deadlocked jury/mistrial on those two Pezzola counts only? That would allow the government to retry those counts, which seems pretty unlikely.

      • Jharp jharp says:

        “That would allow the government to retry those counts, which seems pretty unlikely.”

        What makes you think that?

        IANAL but I’d think retrying him is a no brainer.

        • bmaz says:

          I sure would not waste time retrying that if the jury produces no further verdict. Why would you waste DOJ and court resources on that when it adds absolutely nothing to sentencing parameters above and beyond what even Pezzola is already convicted of??

        • Troutwaxer says:

          If you suspect, as I do, that the seditious conspiracy charges are dress rehearsals for any higher ups, like Trump, Guiliani or various congress-critters, the prosecution would love to use Pezzola to refine their theories about how to prosecute such a charge…

        • HikaakiH says:

          Contra – The fact the jury didn’t convict Pezzola of the conspiracy charges but did convict each of the others makes it clear that there are enough potential jurors out there who will draw a distinction between being a minion following the schemes of those higher up the food chain and the scheming of those higher up the food chain. This makes Pezzola of no use to anyone vis-a-vis the highest leadership. The interesting thing now is the nexus between the PB’s & OK’s and Trump’s desire to remain in the White House.

  2. bmaz says:

    Welp, I sure had it wrong. Seditious conspiracy was NOT the problem charge. Tarrio was not the issue, Pezzola was. That is both interesting and confusing. Idiot Glenn Kirschner is on MSNBC talking about FIFTY (50) years being in play for sentencing because of the different counts.

    That is simply crazy. There is zero chance the counts get stacked and maxed. 20 years is the upper end, and any sentence will be less than that. Good grief, even the legal “experts” on TV are crazy.

    • emptywheel says:

      Shouldn’t be confusing. It was based on the evidence of pre-planning. It was one of three possible splits.

        • hollywood says:

          In litigation, you can win or you can come in second. Looks like bmaz came in second this time.

        • bmaz says:

          Sure, what would I know about “litigation”? But, hey, thanks for all the fish. By the way, the specialty at issue is jury trials, not “litigation”. As I already admitted where I was wrong, you got anything else?

        • LeeNLP941 says:

          Thanks for your excellent work, bmaz. It’s way above my pay grade, but I do pride myself on knowing excellence when I see it. It’s like knowing enough about science in general to be able to tell when someone is doing good science, even without understanding the specialty domain all that well.

        • VinnieGambone says:

          The only people who do anything wrong are the people who are doing something. Thanks Bmaz and EW community for all the stitching and unstitching.
          ” Justice is truth in action.” Thankfully.

        • Eschscholzia says:

          He may not always be right, but I assert that the smart money never bets against BMAZ. In a world of imperfect information, even the wisest person won’t be right every time.

          Corollary: Even when I think he’s wrong, or he and other smart contributors here disagree, or that even rarer time when he _is_ wrong, I find it useful to try to figure out _why_ he thought what he did. Educational in terms of what experience & facts he might be relying on as well as his logical process, and how to estimate the likelihood, even if I’ll never become the smart money.

          Thanks to emptywheel, BMAZ, Brandi, Rayne, Ed, and all the other smart informed members of this community for letting me sit in and learn.

          [Also, personal thanks to Marcy for reinforcing that yes, precision in writing matters, and texts can be studied carefully.]

        • bmaz says:

          Thanks. We do not always all agree here, and often do not. That is okay. The one thing that is, hopefully, immutable is that we do really try to get things right.

        • Eschscholzia says:

          Just to clarify: betting against any of the regulars here is a sucker’s bet. They do all try to get things right, and all use knowledge, experience, and logic. I singled out BMAZ because this was his turn.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      bmaz, OT. I hope you’re feeling better and that your illness was nothing serious. I’ve been thinking about you and everything you do here, and what it must cost you in energy. Please take care of yourself first.

      We can punch each other in the eye if need be. For a short time, I mean; could get messy if we’re left to our own devices *too* long.

      • bmaz says:

        Sincere thanks, I appreciate that. I’ll be fine, nothing life threatening, just a pretty rough last few days.

        • Hollygolightly says:

          Bmaz, I did not know you were struggling with a health issue, I apologize if I was insensitive to that. I am appreciative of all that you do. Glad to see you are on the mend.

    • Troutwaxer says:

      Nah. It’s the medium that’s crazy. By the time someone says, “The max is X years, but it’s her second offense, so she’ll probably get Y years, and that’s before you consider mitigating factors A, B, and C, plus time off for good behavior, she’ll probably serve Z years…” they’ve lost the audience, or at least they’ve gotten worried about losing the audience.

      But yeah, it sucks.

    • dadidoc1 says:

      Might their sentences be reduced if they agreed to testify against others involved the conspiracy? Roger Stone comes to mind.

        • PeteT0323 says:

          Well damn I didn’t know you were sick. Next time check with me first. Just kidding. Glad you are on the mend.

          Guess I won’t be seeing you at the Miami GP this weekend. You won’t be seeing me there either so we’re square

        • bmaz says:

          Still pretty much the ugliest track ever. Hopefully will come off better than the inaugural race. And I will be fine, but thanks.

    • Alan Charbonneau says:

      “Idiot Glenn Kirschner is on MSNBC talking about FIFTY (50) years being in play for sentencing because of the different counts.”

      True, but in January last year Marcy mentioned the possibility of the DOJ seeking terrorism enhancements at sentencing. Any thoughts on that possibility?

      p.s. the entire federal judicial system would be fixed if only Glenn Kirschner were Attorney General. Just ask him!

      • bmaz says:

        Sentences are still sentences, so the “terrorism enhancement” won’t be doing anything more than affecting sentencing within the actual statutory ranges. And that is okay.

  3. harpie says:

    Wow. Grateful this phase is nearly done.
    I thought the issue might be PEZZOLA…he seems to have been more of a “tool” than a conspirer.

  4. Norskeflamthrower says:

    Let’s take a moment and reflect on the conversations the last couple days wondering about whether the jury instructions were too complicated for 12 common folk to analyze and apply. I think this verdict and the Proud Boy decision should give us all a boost. Everyone from the judge to the prosecutors to the jury did their jobs and “the system” worked (to this point) but more importantly, it’s an example that regular folks without law degrees or phd’s can understand and apply the law under the most pressurized of circumstances. Namaste folks

    [FYI – your comment went to moderation because you didn’t complete the Name field. I’ve fixed it for you. -__- /~Rayne]

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Defense attorneys also did their jobs, with mountains of discovery and difficult clients. They too deserve respect–aside, perhaps, for my local bugbear, who seems to have done the least amount of work and gotten most of the attention. The others all seemed to do all they could to serve their clients’ interests.

    • bmaz says:

      Let’s take a moment and reflect that I already admitted that I was wrong materially on some things.

      And I NEVER said 12 “common folk” could not get the job done, or that it takes “law degrees or phds”. Because that is a straight up lie. In fact, my entire history here has been telling people that juries actually work hard and well. You want to point out that I misdiagnosed what was afoot, fine, I’ve already admitted that. But please do not misrepresent what I have always said and stood for.

      • Ravenclaw says:

        Gee, I didn’t think the comment was directed at you, bmaz. Thought it was ‘conversations’ as in several commenters going back and forth. We all know your high regard for juries. And btw I just saw that you’ve been ill – we all look forward to your full recovery, spines and all.

        • bmaz says:

          Oh, am pretty sure I would be first in any such line. And that is okay, I mostly earned that. But certainly not the part about juries doing their job. And, yes, I would still prefer their job be made as simple as possible.

      • Molly Pitcher says:

        bmaz, think you need some chicken tortilla soup from Barrio Cafe. That will fix what ails ya. Feel better soon.

      • Norskeflamthrower says:

        I am disappointed but, sigh, not surprised that you would come at me accusing me of lying, that I accused you of something that you did not say. I think the work that you ALL do here including all the regular commenters is an act of citizenship and provides all of us, “common folk, lawyers AND phd’s” safe space to engage daily in the search for truth. Being a gatekeeper in this endeavor, in this political climate, is exhausting I’m sure but you are not the only gatekeeper and every comment is not a potential shot at you. As I said I am disappointed but will not be cowed or intimidated by anyone and I will continue to read and comment here.

        • 2Cats2Furious says:

          I believe I understand your original comment in the spirit in which it was intended. That is, appreciation for the work done in this case, especially by the jurors who gave up a few months of their regular lives in order to listen to all of the evidence, and to diligently and thoroughly work to reach verdicts on multiple counts involving multiple defendants.

          Speaking as a lawyer, I’m frankly heartened by the fact that in this and the prior Oath Keepers trial, the jurors didn’t just turn out quick guilty or not guilty verdicts. Rather, it appears they took their civic duty quite seriously in reaching their decisions.

          As for anyone who takes your comment as targeted criticism: that is their issue, not yours.

  5. punaise says:

    Golf clap for the diligent jury. They exercised some serious civic duty over a very long trial.

  6. Hollygolightly says:

    For a long while now, it has felt like the laws of the universe had been broken. Everything upside down. Today, karma came calling for the Proud Boys and it is comforting, on so many levels. Perhaps, we will be able to right ourselves, after all.

    • JVOJVOJVO says:

      While I truly appreciate this feeling, I can’t help but be reminded that the cancer that these convicted felons fell prey to still grows and infects others.

      • Hollygolightly says:

        Agree that fixing the universe is an impossible ask, and the cancer does still exist, and probably always will. But today, I have a little hope that the long arc of history will indeed bend toward justice.

        As someone pointed out a few days ago; “The waiting IS the hardest part…”

        Also, terrible, but I am gleefully imagining Roger Stone’s discomfort today.

      • BrokenPromises says:

        Enjoyed that but feel the need to point out that the Universe is self healing. Now our soiling of the little patch it allows us to inhabit absolutely needs serious correcting.

        • ExRacerX says:

          The laws of physics tells us the universe continues to become more disordered through entropy.

    • Ravenclaw says:

      Your moniker is making me yearn for a new tour by Holly Golightly herself! Doesn’t seem to have toured since well before the pandemic, alas.

  7. surfer2099 says:

    I’m grateful for these verdicts. This is second round of sedition charges now being determined to have occurred by two separate juries. (Oathkeepers)

    I certainly hope that when Trump’s inner circle is indicted, that the prosecution doesn’t pass over any congressional person(s) involved like Boebert or others who helped the mob.

    • emptywheel says:

      Charging members of COngress is actually harder than charging an ex-president.

      • Surfer2099 says:

        Speech and debate clause excuses member of Congress even when they aren’t on the floor actually participating in either speech or debate?

        So, if they were holding the door open for insurrectionists, they get a pass? ugh.

        • bmaz says:

          Yes, it can. There is a good discussion of the parameters in the William Jefferson case.

  8. Tech Support says:

    May the Fourth be with all the dedicated, hard working folk who have brought this incredibly complex case to a conclusion.

    • Savage Librarian says:

      May 4th may have finally circled ‘round in my mind as a yin/yang experience. For decades I associated it with Nixon and the tragedy at Kent State in 1970. But now there may be an opportunity to associate it with the rule of law and a pathway to justice for Trump.

      Marcy has said for a long, long time that the Proud Boys trial was key. I’m so relieved the trial is over and we can move on to the chunky padlocks.

  9. gertibird says:

    This is great news. Doesn’t it now open the next level of possible seditious conspirators open to indictment, such as Mark Meadows, Bannon, Stone, MTG and all the Republicans who submitted fake electors? Not to mention the kingpin of all this, Donald J. Trump.

    • Ebenezer Scrooge says:

      It may. Mr. Tarrio might not like the idea of spending the next 15-20 years of his life in beautiful Florence, Colorado. No rational jury would trust his uncorroborated testimony, but he may have some valuable information to offer in exchange for nicer or less incarceration. Or he may not. I don’t think any of the others were in direct communication with any of the folks you were thinking of. But what do I know?

        • Ebenezer Scrooge says:

          And why not? He has–or at least had–a violent seditionist organization behind him, which enjoys macho capers. They may well be interested in freeing him. That’s the ostensible reason for Florence. And DoJ can get pretty ruthless, where they have a legal argument as backup.

        • bmaz says:

          Uh, because that would be stupid and a waste of money. JFC, are you serious with this bunk???

          How did you not go to Guantanamo? Please keep things sane.

    • emptywheel says:

      I hope to write about it tomorrow, once the verdict sheet comes out and I’ve had a night to contemplate it.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        I’m looking forward to that, EW. I find myself not trusting the sources who come up on Google, even the supposedly “reliable” ones. They are mostly providing long-winded summaries.

    • Hollygolightly says:

      Where is Mark Meadows? He sure has been quiet as a church mouse, for an awfully long time. Not a recent picture to be found of him, either.

  10. Norskeflamthrower says:

    Trump’s coming home to testify!!! Oh boy is this gunna be a great May!!! And all these cases are gunna unravel before November of 2024. Oh I’m glad I’ve lived this long.

  11. The Old Redneck says:

    Wow. I thought seditious conspiracy might be hard to get. The jury must have concluded that their inflammatory communications before the riot weren’t just rhetoric or puffery.
    With Pezzola, I think they may conclude he was just a guy who got caught up in it and behaved like an asshole. But they aren’t done deliberating, so we don’t even know that yet.
    Bottom line: the jury system works. Even if you don’t agree with all the particulars of the verdict so far, it’s obvious the jury took its job seriously and reviewed all the evidence.
    This is a good system, and we should fight to keep it. When so-called experts say evidence is too complicated for juries to figure out, we should always be asking whether they just want to rig the game in their favor.

    • bmaz says:

      What “so-called experts say evidence is too complicated for juries to figure out”??

      • Purple Martin says:

        Glenn Kirchner? Of course, his go-to approach seems to be *everything* is too complicated for anyone but Glenn Kirchner to figure out. Kind of an “I alone can fix it.”

      • The Old Redneck says:

        Just a few examples from my home state of Florida:
        Lobbyists for the insurance industry. They just pushed through more “tort reform” in Florida, and they didn’t even pretend it would lower premiums.
        On the criminal side, the legislature relaxed the unanimity rule for death penalty cases because they didn’t like the verdict in the Parkland shooter case. Juries are okay, in other words, unless they render verdicts politicians don’t like.
        Then there are the think tanks “scholars” who say products liability cases are too complex for jurors to understand, and that only judges can be trusted to hear them.
        I could go on, but I think you get the point. It’s a constant chipping away at jury discretion.

  12. Zinsky123 says:

    Hallelujah! God bless the jurors! Justice marches on. This is a historical decision.

  13. Hope Ratner says:

    In the case of sedition…would members of Congress still be protected by Speech and Debate?

    • Hollygolightly says:

      Dr. Wheeler wrote a bit about their likely being protected by the speech and debate clause, but, I wonder, perhaps there will be some way to get them? After all, they had some sense of legal exposure; enough to ask for pardons! Doesn’t that point to mens rea at all?

  14. William_S says:

    Looks like we are now through the level two (2).

    Bannon, Meadows, Stone, et al = level 1 with level 0 = DJT.

    Patiently waiting the SC output of indictments. The recent people subpoenaed seem to be the bow tying of the top planners and coup plotters for charges such that as much factual versus inuendo elements are incorporated. Praying for “way-beyond” any reasonable doubt facts that can’t be manipulated or distorted at trial.


    • drewsill says:

      My thoughts exactly. Was just wondering when these verdicts might blossom into flipping with substantive, tangible proofs as to Rudy, Alex, war room participants, et al. Looking forward to EW’s deeper analysis of this. Until then, Kudos to the prosecutors and jury for this (and to Judge Kelly for his firm hand throughout).

      I’ve been waiting a very long time for something like real justice to emerge from TFG’s actions in general and with regard J6 in particular and am gratified by the news.

  15. bmaz says:

    In other legal news, Ed Sheehan has been found innocent of copyright infringement from the suit of Marvin Gaye family members.

    • Fraud Guy says:

      I mean, there’s a plethora of videos on Youtube demonstrating that a large number of songs can be stuck on top of each other’s chord progressions, often to amusing effect.

      • Doctor My Eyes says:

        I heard a quote from Ed Sheehan on the radio a few minutes ago and liked what he said. Paraphrasing, he says these elements have been part of song-writing since well before Gaye wrote his song and will be part of song-writing well after all of us are dead. Hear! Hear!

      • Peterr says:

        Counselors at church camps have a lot of fun with that kind of switching.

        For example, try singing “Amazing Grace” to the theme song from Gilligan’s Island.

        • drewsill says:

          See also “Stairway to Gilligan’s Island” for another interesting example (hoping none of that is a trade mark / name issue). Bizarre but it does further the point.

      • bmaz says:

        The estates of Chuck Berry and Little Richard could own all rock and roll. It is pretty much all three to four chord progressions. And they are mostly the same chords.

    • Robot17 says:

      I’m curious about whether Bragg is considering filing a rape charge as I don’t think there’s a NYS statute of limitations.

        • Robot17 says:

          Yeah, the point is I think it’s right there. She said something about being available for additional depositions or something when asked. Dunno. Just curious more than anything. Interesting how Hue and Cry doesn’t pertain to rape victims I guess.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      That is good news. Ed’s music doesn’t move me much, but that suit seemed based on the kind of echoes that most of us in the art world express due to our myriad influences. TS Eliot, Hart Crane, and Amiri Baraka argue through every line of poetry I write; then Sylvia Plath silences everyone.

      • John Paul Jones says:

        The #1 rule for art: Steal from the best (see also Shakespeare, W., notable for thefts from Hollinshed, and many others). Books are made out of other books, and songs out of other songs.

    • Chetnolian says:

      Late response from further across the pond than usual. Sorry Bmaz something else you got wrong. Sheeran surely?

    • theartistvvv says:

      But I’d much rather listen to Marvin Gaye!

      (Might have mentioned before but I wrote my law school grad paper on the Zep vs. Willie Dixon and Albert Hunter, and Harrison vs. Mack/The Chiffons claims and overlaps [I don’t think the Hunter matter resulted in a suit]. My fave part was quoting in that paper, “Squeeze me, baby, ’til the juice runs down my leg”.)

      Anyone recall The Partridge Family episode where sleeping Danny overheard Keith’s song through the heating ducts?

  16. Doctor My Eyes says:

    Great relief that this verdict was reached. I was thinking how everything moves so fast in our culture today: short attention spans, news cycles measured in minutes. “KEEP US ENTERTAINED WITH SOMETHING NEW!” is the constant cry. We’re all primed for instant gratification with fast food, fast cars, (fast porn?). In this context, the careful, thorough, considered approach of the legal system seems like a dinosaur, an anachronism. The non-stop wailing continually insisting that if nothing has happened EVEN YET, then certainly nothing will ever happen reveals a society lacking the patience or humility to understand how fragile are both evidence and human rights, how getting things right requires time and focus. It’s amazing to watch the careful, slow creep of these cases through courts against the backdrop of rash, insistent, shallow commentary. Days like today are a balm for the daily hysterics.

    As an addendum, there is a parallel with the arc of the steady development of the scientific understanding of Covid against the crazy backdrop of people shouting insane theories into the public space, theories seemingly developed instantly through spontaneous generation yet embraced as certainties people were willing to die for.

    • GSSH-FullyReduced says:

      “As an addendum, there is a parallel with the arc of the steady development of the scientific understanding of Covid against the crazy backdrop of people shouting insane theories into the public space, theories seemingly developed instantly through spontaneous generation yet embraced as certainties people were willing to die for.”

      Parallel arcs indeed. That’s what viruses do; mutate to tolerable introns or spread their payload to extinction. Killing their host doesn’t help evolution. Herd immunity is their enemy. Covid crazy conspiracies the former, evidence based medicine the latter.

  17. Retired guy says:

    More Pezzola thoughts. It was curious to some that Pezzola was added late to what had been colloquially known as the Proud Boy Leadership indictment. You can make a plausible case that he was added as a very clear example of the tool theory; his lesser crimes are very clear, his state of mind is also easily made explicit, and he was a poster boy celebrity of the ascendancy of the Rally Boys over the Party Boys, and his limited, but obsequious relationship to the Tarrio. Also, his attendance J6, while his NY chapter chose not to, indicates a national PB intent to concentrate national control of the Rally Boys.

    Also, having Pezzola as a codefendant perhaps allows richer evidence for the liability of co-conspirators for Pezzola’s actions, something the jury did not apparently buy.

    I think Rehl had a similar role in the structuring of the indictment, as a chapter president, senior in the J6 operation, but perhaps not in the top inner circle of Tarrio, Biggs, and Nordean (and perhaps others?). He might be seen as on the tool spectrum.

    Thank you, Dr, Wheeler, Ms. Buchman, and all the regular commenters for this discussion. Two years ago, this was all alien territory for this engineer from the previous century.

    Wonderful to hear bmaz’ voice back; like some of my prior colleagues, bmaz’ particular participation always sharpens discussion of very complicated things, usually leading to a smarter outcome. I miss these valued colleagues as many of them have passed. When I read bmaz’ posts I sometimes hear their voices.

  18. bmaz says:

    Okay. Pezzola has now been acquitted as to seditious conspiracy. It does not matter. Pezzola still faces the same sentencing range of 20 years from what he was convicted of. And, keep in mind, “relevant conduct”, even that one is acquitted of, can still be a factor in sentencing. This is one of the more egregiously bad things in federal criminal law, but there it is.

    • Doctor My Eyes says:

      Does Pezzola’s acquittal for seditious conspiracy have general implications for the limits of the conspiracy charge going forward? In other words, does this raise the bar on what the government feels they need to do to convince a jury that certain other people are guilty of conspiracy? Or is the result merely indicative of how things played out with this trial and this jury.

      • bmaz says:

        I think very much the latter. The government has been granted, at least so far, headroom to use the charge.

  19. Hollygolightly says:

    Curious if we will see a post on E. Jean Carroll’s case, which does not appear to be going well for The Drumpf? I understand it is a civil case, so does that mean damages only? Has Carroll asked for any specific amount, or is that all up to the jury? I haven’t read or seen anything about what a potential conviction would look like.

    • zeke di leo says:

      It’s a civil action so there will be no “conviction”; he will either be found liable or he won’t. If I read the pleading correctly, she is asking for the defamatory statements to be retracted and for compensatory and punitive damages, to be determined by the jury.

      • Ravenclaw says:

        I would love to see a very carefully worded order regarding that “retraction.” Like, specifying what must be said (at minimum, a full apology for every defamatory statement made and acknowledgment that they were untrue) and what cannot be said (e.g., anything that makes it sound like “this is just what the lawyers say I have to say”), with clear instructions not to make future statements of any kind, in public or in private, including nods and winks, that could be construed as casting doubt on the facts as stated, with predetermined financial penalties for each occasion on which he does so.

        • zeke di leo says:

          I’m not sure that it matters. I can’t envision a scenario in which he’s found liable and can keep his mouth shut afterwards, regardless of the threat of additional damages. Being able to add a racist judge, too-ugly-to-rape woman, and mean/Soros-funded jury to his list of grievances on the stump would be too tempting to overcome.

        • Ravenclaw says:

          Oh, but it would be such fun watching him screw up and get fined, over and over and over…

        • zeke di leo says:

          I have no doubt that would happen. I think E. Jean Carroll could have a small law firm on retainer to do nothing but monitor his speeches and social media posts (and what an awful job that would be) and file complaints going forward. My comment was more towards the idea that there would need to be precise conditions on what he says in the future if she prevails: he won’t be able to help himself so it won’t matter how specifically he is instructed not to comment.

  20. PieIsDamnGood says:

    Hope we’ll see at least one more post from Brandi to wrap up this trial. And maybe more contributions in the future?

  21. Savage Librarian says:

    Fee, Fum, Foe, Fie

    More than an apple of my eye:
    All the MAGA’s baked in a pie,
    standing back & standing by,
    answered my calling and let it fly.

    If I told them “do or die”,
    they’d not ask once or reason why,
    I set their vengeance so damn high,
    they let loose their battle cry.

    I just had to give them my
    Fee, fum, foe, fie,
    together with Trump’s Big Lie,
    ‘cause MAGA mobsters are not shy.

    Back made a stand & so did by,
    I hardly even had to try,
    because I’m just that kind of guy,
    Fee, fum, foe, fie.


    “Heston’s guests eat 4 and 20 pigeon pie”

  22. ExRacerX says:

    Apologies to Neil Young:

    The Proud Boys and Enrique Tarrio
    Had hoped 45 had some pardons to spare
    But then tfg split for Mar a Lago
    Left them screwed, without a prayer

    Loose, loose blue suits, lapel-pin stars and bars
    Yellow bellied, crimson-tied
    Big turd hiding out across the pond
    Casting his shadow on Scottish pride
    Leaves them

    Helpless, helpless, helpless
    Donald can you hear them cry?
    The chains are locked
    and tied across the door,
    They really thought you’d help them out somehow…

  23. LeeNLP941 says:

    I am feeling so proud of this jury, of the US judicial system– blindfolded justice and all — and of the rule of law today. Very, very proud.

  24. NaMaErA says:

    Good riddance. FAFO indeed. Does not portend well for Drümpfy McBoneSpurs. Great outcome.

    • Hollygolightly says:

      You are probably right, Zeke di leo. He has not an ounce of self control, he will do it all again. But, what happens if he refuses to give a fulsome retraction that meets whatever the criteria is? I cannot see him ever apologizing for anything, ever. What recourse then? Just be grateful he was found liable and take the money?

    • Hollygolightly says:

      I don’t know about that. I read that at the same time his attorney was saying that Trump was responsible for their behavior on the 6th in court, he was sounding very “loyal.” He may be just dumb enough to think if he holds out and the Drumpf wins re-election, he’ll get a pardon and be a STAR! Also, I do think he is a true believer. He’s Cuban, (as am I), and the Miami Cubans are all in for the Donald. I can barely speak to my family there anymore. Communism and filthy democrats lurk around every corner. For them, it’s end times stuff.

  25. Surfer2099 says:

    @Marcey, is it possible (or the liklihood) Trump could be charged with 18 USC 2385, attempting to overthrow the government since we now have use of force with Proud Boy and Oathkeepers convictions in the sedition charges as well as the fake electors scheme?

    • Surfer2099 says:

      meant to say “use of force in conjunction with fake electors scheme”. Do both those elements satisfy 18 USC 2385?

  26. Molly Pitcher says:

    What a wonderful day !! Proud Boy convictions and a 27 point Warrior win over the Lakers !!!

  27. David F. Snyder says:

    Garland made it clear today that the work continues. I hope that means the money leads back to any group(s) of overly-wealthy theocrats, anarchists, and libertarian extremists funding this crap. Such cabals need to be shattered.

  28. PC_05MAY2023_0522h says:

    Why is the whole Willard War Room storyline so shrouded in secrecy/unknown/under-reported?

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first know comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

Comments are closed.