The Finding Out Part: Proud Boys Face Sentencing

NOTE: Emptywheel is again supporting Brandi Buchman’s coverage of the Proud Boys hearings live from the courthouse in Washington, D.C. Please consider making a donation to emptywheel as she continues her reporting through the final Proud Boys sentencing hearing for Henry “Enrique” Tarrio scheduled for Sept. 5. If you can and are able, you can also support Brandi’s work as a freelance journalist directly here.

From left to right: Proud Boys Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean, Henry Tarrio, Joseph Biggs, Dominic Pezzola

Like moths to a flame, many of the Proud Boys sentenced to prison last week for their roles in the seditious conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power on Jan. 6, 2021, appear unwilling or unable to disabuse themselves of the delusions that have led them to exactly where they are today: inside cells, donning jumpsuits or shackles and ordered kept away from the free world and their families for no less than a decade apiece.

Dominic Pezzola, a New York Proud Boy and former Marine who busted open a Senate wing window allowing some of the first rioters to stream inside the Capitol, and forcibly stole a riot shield from a police officer knocked to the ground who believed he would die at the hands of the mob, strode out of a federal courtroom last week shouting “Trump won!” as he pumped

his fist in the air.

Remarkably, less than an hour before receiving his 10-year sentence – the government wanted 20–, Pezzola had begged the court for mercy through tears and vowed he was done with politics.

Joseph Biggs, a former Marine now disgraced with the conviction of seditious conspiracy and a multitude of other felonies, called into a vigil held outside a jail heavily populated by Jan. 6 defendants in D.C. just a few days after he was sentenced to 17 years in prison. The government wanted 33.

“This is just insanity. There is no way in hell any of this stuff can stick. There’s no way you can give somebody terrorism for shaking a fence,” Biggs, a former contributor to Alex Jones’ far-right conspiracy theory peddling InfoWars, railed. “That’s the most insane fucking thing in the world. First, it starts with shaking a fence and what’s next? You shake a hand or accidentally bump into somebody and that’s terrorism… We gotta stand up and fight. And never give up. 17 years? They can kiss my ass. We’re still fighting all the way to the end.”

Biggs then asked the same lawmakers he terrorized nearly 1,000 days ago with a mob of Trump supporters at his back and roughly 200 Proud Boys in the crowd overall, to “get their heads out of their asses” and help free him.

But Trump didn’t win and Biggs wasn’t sentenced to 17 years for merely shaking a fence in the course of peaceful protected protest.

His efforts to bring that fence down, which was bolted inches deep into the steps leading to the Capitol, were done with force and with the implied intent to stop Congress from certifying the election. That forethought was bolstered by the intent and actions of his co-defendants, including Washington state Proud Boy chapter leader Ethan Nordean.

This was decided not just by a jury able to discern evidence clearly enough to evince distinctions between defendants and therefore reach acquittal on some counts, but it was also a point sustained by U.S District Judge Tim Kelly, a Trump appointee. He and the jury defined the Proud Boys’ efforts as an attempt to directly intimidate or coerce the United States government and its officers from doing their duty and initiating the democratic transfer of power.

For the foreseeable future, the Proud Boys and certainly Joe Biggs have appeared to pin all of their hopes for freedom on a pardon from a reelected Donald Trump in 2024. Notably, during an appearance with Alex Jones on InfoWars, Jones – who helped organize the Stop the Steal rally before the attack and who is currently waiting to learn whether $1.4 billion in damages he owes to victims of Sandy Hook will be discharged in bankruptcy – extended an open invitation to Biggs to return to his show.

Biggs gushed and Jones reassured the jailed insurrectionist he was merely a “patsy.” Perhaps in hopes of inspiring fundraising levels, he urged Biggs to “give me a 1776!!”

“1776 brother!” Biggs laughed.


At the E. Barret Prettyman courthouse last week, Pezzola, Biggs, Nordean, and their co-defendant, Philadelphia Proud Boy chapter leader Zachary Rehl, were each sentenced by Judge Kelly following their convictions by a jury trial that lasted four months. The only Proud Boy left for sentencing is the group’s leader, Henry “Enrique” Tarrio. He will be sentenced on Tuesday at 2 p.m. ET. The government seeks 33 years for him.

Prosecutors sought 20 years for Pezzola, he was given 10. They sought 33 years for Biggs, he was given 17. Nordean faced a 27-year recommended sentence but received just 18 years, matching Oath Keeper founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes for the stiffest sentence yet handed down to any of the extremists charged and convicted of seditious conspiracy.

The Justice Department sought 30 years for Rehl, and Kelly sentenced him to 15, noting as he rendered his decision how the son and grandson of Pennsylvania police officers perjured himself blatantly on the stand more than a dozen times as he denied – despite clearly visible footage of him – pepper-spraying police who were battling to keep the Capitol under the control of the U.S. government.

Yet, it seems increasingly unlikely that the judge will venture into those high climbs and may instead deliver a sentence closer to what Nordean and Rhodes received.

Given their tenor at trial and their mostly self-serving apologies that comprised their remarks before learning their fates, it would also seem things are today not very much different than they were for the Proud Boys in the fall of 2020 or that first fateful week of 2021.

Their minds are heavy still with toxic propaganda. Their egos remain front and center and from their mouths, they continue to sputter drivel echoing a lie told by a man that, for whatever reason they appear unable to fully grasp even now, has helped pave the road to their ruin and continued suffering.



To his credit, before he was sentenced, Nordean at least correctly called Jan. 6 a “tragedy.” And he at least offered an apology “for my actions that day and to anyone who I directly or indirectly wronged,” he said.

But he also qualified those remarks and others. What he regretted the most, he told the court, was “not being a better leader” on Jan. 6, speaking nothing of all the times in the lead-up to the day that he failed to disavow fellow Proud Boys in private messages of their violent notions or how he actively recruited men to come with him to Washington.

In court, he said it took him time to “humble” himself and to “accept my situation,” as the trial unfolded, he told Judge Kelly.

“I thought of myself merely as an individual, removing blame and accountability for myself… [but] I had to face a sobering truth. I came to Jan. 6 as a leader; I came to keep people out of trouble and keep people safe,” he said.

Still deflecting responsibility, omitting discussion of how he vilified police and effectively couching his crimes in the language and context of a well-intended general who merely lost control of an unforeseeably mutinous troop, he nonetheless maintained that he tried to “deescalate.”

U.S. Capitol Police Officer Shae Cooney testified at trial in February that it was Nordean who screamed at her, calling her a “pig” as he whipped people up into a frenzy and knocked over the metal fencing that allowed the mob to rush past her. She and other officers near her were beaten with “thin blue line” flags, pelted with frozen water bottles, knocked down and nearly trampled, and doused in chemical spray.

“I had ample opportunity and I did nothing. There is no excuse for what I did… adding myself to a chaotic and dangerous situation in the Capitol building was sorely irresponsible,” Nordean said Friday, his voice clear and even.

Unlike all of his co-defendants at sentencing so far, the Jan. 6 ground leader did not appear to cry.

Before he sentenced him, Kelly told Nordean that what disturbed him was not just Nordean’s actions before and on Jan. 6, but afterward, too. Nordean expressed regretting nothing and when there was talk among Proud Boys of going further, of possibly ramping up for another Jan. 6-style takeover in the days after the attack, he didn’t back down. Not before the inauguration. Not after.

In a text message on Jan. 12, 2021, Proud Boy Ethan Nordean defends his efforts “on the ground.” (Source: DOJ Trial exhibit)


In a text message from Jan. 20, 2021, Ethan Nordean discusses plans moving forward for Proud Boys in the “fragile time” after Jan. 6. (DOJ trial exhibit)


Proud Boy Ethan Nordean (aka Rufio Panman) text message from Jan. 27, 2021, discussing preparing the group for its next move. (DOJ trial exhibit)

Nordean’s attorney Nick Smith argued for leniency and at one point contended that while Jan. 6 was regrettable, the charge of seditious conspiracy didn’t fit because what the defendants did only really amounted to something in the category of a national embarrassment. The subsequent crimes that sprang forth should be deemed more humiliations to a branch of government and nothing more. Kelly entertained Smith briefly but was sharp on the singular point appearing lost on the defense: the Proud Boys’ actions culminated at a crucial, positively critical constitutional moment. Early last week, Kelly denied all requests for acquittal and retrial.

“If we don’t have the peaceful transfer of power in this country, then we don’t have anything,” Kelly said, his voice slightly exasperated.

The novelty of Smith’s arguments aside, Kelly fell back on what Nordean said and did. It was Nordean who suggested Proud Boys “fash the fuck out.” They understood too, he said, that Jan. 6 was “the day that was the last stop on the train to make sure their preferred candidate stayed in power.”

Calling for terrorism enhancements to apply to Nordean’s sentence, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason McCullough underlined that Nordean was the figure all other Proud Boys turned to in the fray. Witnesses for the prosecution who pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy testified to this. Evidence and testimony showed how he stepped in when Tarrio, the organization’s founder, could not. (Tarrio was arrested before the raid on the Capitol but watched from afar.)

Nordean marched side by side with Rehl, and Biggs, and it was Nordean, McCullough noted, who recruited and “seduced men like Dominic Pezzola [with the idea] that violence is the answer.”

Judge Kelly would apply a terrorism enhancement to some of the charges at sentencing. The judge said he did not believe the defendants intended to kill anyone on Jan. 6. He also remarked that he would “probably never sentence someone 15 years below the guideline in my entire career.” The recommended sentences, he added, seemed to “overstate” the crime.

When she delivered her victim impact statement ahead of sentencing, U.S. Capitol Police Officer Shae Cooney broke down at the lectern. Through her sobs, she recalled how she lost a friend that day.

“Someone who I worked with for almost three years, I was standing right next to him when we started fighting and later that night he was gone,” Cooney said, referring to fallen Officer Brian Sicknick through choked-back tears. “Every day we have to be reminded he’s not here anymore because the people in this courtroom decided they weren’t happy with how an election went and their best idea was to break into the Capitol, fight police officers, and overturn an election.”

“We understand people were upset and angry. We tried to talk to them as best we could to show we understood they were angry and whatnot, and that this was not going to fix anything… it didn’t matter how much talking we did that day. There were too many people that just wanted to keep going and get through us as much as possible,” Cooney said.

So many people have taken their lives because of what happened to them on Jan. 6, she told the court.

Metropolitan Police Officer Jeffrey Smith killed himself after Jan. 6. Fellow Metro Police Department officers Gunther Hashida and Kyle DeFretag died by suicide. U.S. Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood also committed suicide four days after Jan. 6.

Officer Sicknick died after suffering multiple strokes following his confrontation with rioters.


At his sentencing, Biggs told the court that his “curiosity got the better of me” on Jan. 6. All of his violent rhetoric was just that – talk. It was a way for him to cope, he said.

Last week, when cuddling up to Judge Kelly and before he said the Justice Department could “kiss his ass” when speaking to supporters gathered at the D.C. jail, Biggs told the judge he respected the process and outcome though he freely admitted he would appeal.

“I don’t have any grudges toward any of you. I don’t hate the prosecutors. I prayed for all of you. I’m going to leave this situation a better person,” Biggs said, his speech rushed and his emotions high as he spoke.

He continued: “I had time to think about who I am and who I want to be with all my time in solitary confinement… I don’t want to be a person affiliated with any more groups unless it’s my daughter’s PTA.”

Biggs went on to claim that the assault of his daughter by someone he knew had twisted him up in the run-up to the insurrection. He also claimed that after Jan. 6, that was his “last time” with the Proud Boys and he had planned to tell everyone he was “done.”

Crying, Biggs pleaded: “I’m not a terrorist. I don’t hate people.”

But, Kelly told him, he did play a role leading people and riling others up against lawmakers and police. He was instrumental in the Proud Boys’ so-called “Ministry of Self Defense” and Biggs for weeks was key in leading operations for the channel that acted covertly to coordinate efforts for the 6th.

It was Biggs who wanted to find “real men” to “get radical” with and it was Biggs’ overt calls for violence and civil war that littered the group’s private and public correspondence. It was Biggs whom Tarrio turned to and whom Tarrio told members he relied on, along with Nordean, to make decisions. And when it finally came to it, it was Biggs, Kelly said, who helped yank down the fence and wave people inside with an intent to intimidate Congress.

Proud Boy Joe Biggs is seen gesturing to rioters below, indicating where a nearby opening is for those to come inside the Capitol. (DOJ trial exhibit)

Biggs was the only Proud Boy to breach the Capitol twice. He saw officers fighting for their lives and brushed past them at the Columbus doors. He took a selfie once inside and stole an American flag as he marauded through the building.

“You waved people in. You entered the Senate gallery and made comments afterward that justified and celebrated what happened,” Kelly said.

A terrorism enhancement would apply to the charge involving the metal fence, the judge was quick to distinguish, because its removal was integral to rioters advancing and getting inside the Capitol. But he was shy to label Biggs a terrorist in the general sense.

“It’s not my job to label people a terrorist and my sentence today won’t do that. There are sentencing guidelines here that talk about adjustments and departures for conduct and then lay it out and label it terrorism and my job is to apply this. You asked me not to label you a terrorist, that’s for other people to argue about,” Kelly said.

Prosecutors warned the judge in their sentencing memo: “A conviction for serious felonies, and the accompanying substantial prison sentence, might unfortunately only redouble Biggs’s commitment to embracing extreme measures to achieve his political aims. The Court must accordingly impose a sentence long enough to prevent Biggs from leading another violent conspiracy against the government while he is still motivated and equipped to do so.”

In court, McCullough told the judge the Proud Boys, especially with leaders like Biggs at the helm, brought the nation to the “edge of a constitutional crisis” because that was precisely what they set out to do. Buildings may not have been bombed, mass casualties may not have occurred, McCullough argued, but the Proud Boys created an atmosphere on Jan. 6 that has yet to dissipate.

People are afraid to go to polling places or inaugurations for fear of political violence, he said. (In fact, threats and harassment of poll workers are up according to a recent study by the Justice Department.)

The Proud Boys didn’t need weapons of mass destruction, McCullough said.

“It just takes slick propaganda in an environment where you can encourage people to basically say it’s you against them,” he said.

Before Biggs was carted out of the courtroom by a marshal, Kelly told the parties he would have imposed precisely the same sentence had the terrorism guideline not applied.

“I know this is not the outcome you wanted or the government either,” Kelly said. “But I wish you the best of luck in your relationship with your daughter moving forward. I’ll just say that. I think it’s an appropriate sentence but I do wish you the best of luck with your daughter.”


Of all the Proud Boys to face sentencing last week, it was Rehl who became the most undone after prosecutors laid out their request.

“Zachary Rehl deserves every day of the sentence the government has requested for him here [of 30 years],” Assistant U.S. Attorney Erik Kenerson said Thursday.

Rehl helped “raise an army” of Proud Boys who shared in his belief that the 2020 election was stolen and that the only means of recourse to stop the transfer of power was to put a halt to proceedings on Jan. 6, Kenerson said.

“What is particularly pernicious in this conspiracy is the glorification of violence… the willingness to brawl in support of their cause to achieve results they could not otherwise,” the prosecutor emphasized.

Rehl looked at “vigilante violence” as a means to an end and when he recruited members to the Proud Boys, it was the most violent footage of their ideological or political opponents being brutalized that he tapped. He endorsed violence as just one piece of the strategy to “take back the country” and had been doing so since as far back as 2019 when he first started to associate with the group, Kenerson said.

Though the son and grandson of police officers, Rehl nonetheless encouraged violence against law enforcement when he advanced on the Capitol and then used violence to break a standstill on the Capitol’s West Plaza by assaulting an officer with pepper spray, Kenerson said.

At trial, prosecutors destroyed Rehl’s testimony after a series of questions emerged about his whereabouts on the West Plaza as well as what codefendant he was or wasn’t in contact with as he breached the building.

An intense exchange under cross resulted in Rehl melting down spectacularly and stumbling through a series of denials – to a mind-boggling degree – over footage played in court that depicted a man who looked and dressed identical to Rehl down to every detail spraying an irritant right at an officer.

Kenerson, who unwound Rehl at trial like so much thread from a spool, recalled how the Proud Boy’s testimony was “combative, evasive, and incredible.”

And it was. At one point, Rehl asked a jury to believe that he and others who stormed the Capitol did so because they thought stages were erected on the plaza for them, like at a rock concert. He was even unwilling to concede to prosecutors that the black glasses on the man that appeared to be him were in fact black and not, as Kenerson pointedly asked him during a tense minutes-long volley, pink?

From left to right: DOJ trial exhibits show Proud Boy Zachary Rehl outside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; taking a selfie inside a lawmaker’s office and spraying a chemical irritant at a police officer

Since the trial ended, Rehl continued to mock proceedings and not just that, but lie about them, Kenerson noted to Judge Kelly. That included when Rehl falsely told the Gateway Pundit in a post-trial interview that the trial was under a media blackout.

Last week, as he prepared to receive his sentence and read from his remarks, Rehl’s body was wracked by waves of tears, each of his words punctuated or paused by a sniff or a guttural clearing of his throat. He originally had a 10-page statement written out, he said, but on the advice of his counsel, Norm Pattis, he opted to focus “on what’s important in this room: my daughter and wife.”

Rehl told them he let them down and, that seeing them in court was difficult but the circumstances were his fault.

“A complete lapse in judgment cost me everything,” he sobbed.

Pattis lay a hand on Rehl’s back as his client lamented that his daughter would now lose his military benefits. He worried it may “still be a possibility” that he could lose more people in his life. He apologized to prosecutors for “blaming them” instead of himself for how things turned out.

Crying hard, he sputtered: “I am done peddling lies for people who do not care about me.”

He called Jan. 6 “despicable.”

“I did things I regret,” he said.

Like Nordean, Biggs, and Tarrio, Rehl was convicted of seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to prevent officials from discharging their duties, impeding officers during a civil disorder, and destruction of property.

In the weeks before Jan. 6, Rehl was involved with Tarrio’s brainchild, the group’s exclusive “Ministry of Self Defense.” After the attack on Congress, Rehl told members “We should have held the Capitol.” He said he was proud of what he accomplished yet frustrated more hadn’t been done. It was Rehl who called for firing squads for people who “stole” the election.

“‘Everyone should have showed up and taken the country back,’” Judge Kelly said in court on Thursday, reciting Rehl’s own words after the insurrection back to him.

“I mean my god!” Kelly exclaimed.

Rehl’s statements were “chilling,” he added.

Pattis urged the court to believe that Rehl was another casualty in the nation’s political discourse and had been swept up in the “crisis of legitimacy in this country.”

Rehl believed Trump when he said the election was stolen and fell for it “hook, line and sinker,” Pattis said.

The defense attorney has argued this point in court yet also wiles away his time on social media sharing things like Trump’s appearance with Tucker Carlson on Twitter late last month or suggesting Trump’s own looming trial dates are politically timed with the coming primaries and election.


But for the fact that he was acquitted of the topmost charge of seditious conspiracy and that he failed to play a significant leadership role among the Proud Boys, the 45-year-old Rochester, New York man might have received a sentence closer in line with his co-conspirators. Instead, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Pezzola has already told supporters he thinks he will be out in one.

The image of Pezzola busting open a Capitol window with a stolen police riot shield wielded above his head is one of the most memorable images of Jan. 6.

And Pezzola has always been out front, according to prosecutors.

Tarrio first put Pezzola out front on his social media a week before the insurrection as a “literal poster child” for their organization, McCullough said, stamping an image of a warrior-like Pezzola with the hashtag, #LordsofWar #J6. Pezzola didn’t have a huge social media footprint but would often reply to Tarrio’s posts online rapidly. He also made it to the cover of The Washington Post when attending a pro-Trump rally in November.

Pezzola had proven himself to the Proud Boys at a Stop the Steal rally in D.C. the following month and was taken into the fold in short order thanks to a vote of confidence from Jeremy Bertino, a Proud Boy who would plead guilty to seditious conspiracy in October 2022.

Once inside the Capitol, he celebrated with a victory smoke. And if there were questions over the depth of his involvement in the greater seditious conspiracy, the jury at least found this video damning enough of his involvement in the conspiracy to obstruct,

“I knew we could take this motherfucker over if we just tried hard enough,” Pezzola said in a selfie video he filmed inside the Capito less than 20 minutes after he powered through police, glass, and a crushing mob.

Kenerson told Kelly this was precisely the sort of violent political activity that Pezzola wanted to be a part of when he joined the group in 2020.

When he took the stand, Pezzola was arrogant and combative with prosecutors under cross-examination and offered half-apologies and concessions. He told them he took the riot shield from U.S. Capitol Police Officer Mark Ode out of fear for his own safety. He quibbled over whether he had pulled the shield away from Ode; he suggested at another point that Ode “lost” it in the scuffle. He blamed police for the violence of the day and he made himself out to be a defense and weapons expert.

At sentencing, Pezzola’s attorney Steven Metcalf sought to seek credit for his client’s “accepting of responsibility” for some of his crimes when he was on the stand.

But Kelly was not persuaded.

“And at the end of the day, even before we get to his testimony, well, he did take the stand and he did testify that there was no conspiracy. You’re entitled to that I suppose, but the jury convicted him of conspiracy. Not seditious conspiracy, but conspiracy. It makes it hard to waltz in and say, I should get acceptance of responsibility,” Kelly said. “I don’t think in his trial testimony he took responsibility for robbing or assaulting Officer Ode and he was convicted of those things as well.”

He credited Metcalf for the “creative” argument but rendered Pezzola’s “acceptance” as performative.

Addressing Pezzola, Kelly said: “You really were in some ways, the tip of the spear that allowed people to get into the Capitol.”

“You opened the Capitol like a can opener,” Kelly remarked.

Nonetheless, the judge departed downward on the sentence because he believed, as he did with the other defendants, that the terrorism enhancement overstated the Proud Boys’ conduct. They didn’t mean to cause massive loss of life, he said.

Speaking to the court before he was sentenced, with his mother, daughter, and wife crying behind him, Pezzola was emotional.

“I stand before you a changed and humble man,” he said before promptly ignoring what the court had ruled earlier. “But nonetheless a man who has always taken responsibility for his actions.”

He apologized to his wife for “magnifying” their personal life to the public. He apologized to his daughters for missing milestones. Mercy, he told the judge, would make or break his family. Pezzola’s wife, Lisa Magee, who was unable to speak a word without crying, told the judge she wasn’t making excuses for her husband but she noted, “As I said on the stand, he’s a fucking idiot.”

Her life had been turned upside down because of her husband, she said. Their children were ashamed to show their faces or reveal their names to strangers.

Pezzola’s 19-year-old daughter begged the judge to look at her father, extending her arm to and pointing in his direction across the court where he sat clutching a wad of tissue. Pezzola’s face was flush red, and he wiped tears away. He gave her a good life, she said. She never got in trouble and that was thanks to him, she said. His mother, sobbing through her statement, told the judge “I know my son” and called him “my hero.”

Before he sentenced Pezzola, Kelly repeated to him a speech he delivered to each of the defendants.

“The peaceful transfer of power is one of the most precious things we had as Americans. Notice I said had because our tradition of unbroken peaceful transfers of power – that string has now been broken. We can’t just snap our fingers and get it back.”

Pezzola had his eyes cast down on the table as Kelly spoke.

After he stood to accept his sentence but before he declared “Trump won!” and threw his fist in the air, a wry smile creeping across his face, he turned to his family in the pews to look at them. Whether he realizes it fully or not, it may have been one of the last times, in a very long time, that he sees them without bars or thick glass obstructing his view.

91 replies
  1. Ebenezer Scrooge says:

    Great reporting, Brandi! Just want to remind everybody that sentencing decisions can be appealed by either side, especially those that depart from the Guidelines. IIRC, the prosecutors are already appealing some Oath Keepers’ sentences. The sentencing issue won’t be over when Tarrio is sentenced tomorrow.

    • Brandi Buchman says:

      Correct and good reminder. As I mentioned, Biggs plans to appeal. I’m sure the rest will follow. And then I would think, but can’t confirm, DOJ may be quite interested in appealing at least some of these!
      Thanks for reading!

      • SteveBev says:

        I also echo admiration for your reporting and thanks expressed by others.

        Re: defence/prosecution appeals against sentences – is there any scope within such a process for the prosecution to raise post sentencing statements by defendants as further evidence of their lack of remorse? One imagines that on principle it ought to be admissible but no doubt there are procedural issues concerning such evidence.

        To that point, in addition to the remarks of Biggs you transcribed from the video of the vigil he phoned into, I believe I heard him say “The Proud Boys did nothing wrong” – so still posturing as a spokesperson and leader of the group as a whole, thus undercutting his professed remorse, not only as to his individual acts, but also as to his leadership responsibility in the conspiracy and minimises the strength of the case against his codefendants, for whose actions he bears responsibility.

        • Ebenezer Scrooge says:

          I am not a criminal lawyer, so I might be corrected by one. But certainly on the civil side, appellate courts are not supposed to look beyond the record of the case. I don’t see how a post-sentencing statement can possibly be on the record. On the other hand, appellate judges have been known to read newspapers from time to time. The statements should not affect what the DC Circuit says, but may affect what it does.

        • SteveBev says:

          Practice varies in different jurisdictions.

          In some jurisdictions sentencing appeals by the prosecution are not allowed at all, in others they are permitted in limited classes of case eg resentencing when the original sentence for a qualifying (usually very serious offence) is unduly lenient.

          Some jurisdictions treat sentencing appeals by the defendant as complete rehearings; others treat them as partial rehearings : ie it is for the defence to demonstrate that some sentencing principle was breached (or not adequately taken into account in the first instance) and if so the Appellate court will adjust the sentence accordingly but also take into consideration any matter relevant to a just sentencing outcome which has occurred or come to light between the hearing at first instance and the appeal hearing ; and others are more strictly confined to correcting errors found on the record and perhaps remand to the lower court to rehear.

          So there’s quite a few different permutations

      • P J Evans says:

        He’s apparently going to try arguing his young daughter and his mother (who has cancer – or so he says) need him. He should have thought about them *before* going to the insurrection.

      • jc_05SEP2023_1131h says:

        Thank you for using this photo of Henry vs. the ‘glamour shot’ the press has saturated the country with.

  2. Petrocelli says:

    Brandi, you’re an amazing writer and we can’t wait to read your book. I’d love to buy an autographed copy for my daughter.

    Marcy, thanks so much for supporting Brandi. It is a treat watching you bash the idiots in the MSM.🙏

    • Fancy Chicken says:

      While Emptywheel is supplying Brandi a platform to get her work out since she was let go in a downsizing by the Daily Kos I believe, it’s our job to make sure she is financially supported.

      I sent in an extra bone to the site earmarked for Brandi last week and I hope others have already done so or will with her upcoming reporting on Tarrio’s sentencing.

      While I do subscribe to some legacy media, I’ve come to realize that the money I spend on independent journalism is a much better bargain in parsing through bias, understanding the facts and their presentation.

      I hope this community can at least marginally compensate Ms. Buchman for her incredibly compelling reporting on the Proud Boys trials.

  3. bgThenNow says:

    Your writing”. . .unwound Rehl at trial like so much thread from a spool,” is so great, while Judge Kelly also made a nice turn of phrase as well with this one; “You opened the Capitol like a can opener.”

    Sadly also true from Kelly, “The peaceful transfer of power is one of the most precious things we had as Americans. Notice I said had because our tradition of unbroken peaceful transfers of power – that string has now been broken. We can’t just snap our fingers and get it back.”

    Thank you so much, Brandi for the wrap up. Looking forward to Tuesday.

  4. posaune says:

    Brandi, we are so grateful for your reporting. Thank you!
    (If you don’t mind: one tiny nitpick: it’s “concrete” steps, not cement. Thanks.

  5. posaune says:

    One more thing about that fence bolted into the fence : you are absolutely correct that it was deeply seated. After all, the AoC (Architect of the Capitol) uses federal specs for that and that fence was very deeply seated. The bollards are sunk three feet below grade.

    • Brandi Buchman says:

      Indeed that was the argument. Nordean and Biggs couldn’t push it down entirely alone, so riling the crowd to start and pulling and pushing it back and forth was necessary.

  6. JimmyAnderson says:

    Thank you Brandi, for your latest trials update.

    You have a way with words and descriptions that really bring the court-scene and people to life.

  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Congress does need to get its collective head out of its ass, but not to free the Proud Boys. It doesn’t have pardon power. (So much for letting go of their magical thinking.) Biden won’t pardon them, but the next Republican president might.

  8. GSSH-FullyReduced says:

    Your gift of reporting these details about the men who took a dump on our country is why I donate monthly to EW. Thanks again Brandi.

  9. earlofhuntingdon says:

    “’A complete lapse in judgment cost me everything,’ he sobbed.”

    No, it was devotion to a cause intentionally supported through criminally violent means.

  10. onwatch says:

    The sentences given can never be enough. Hitler went to jail in 1923 and was out before the end of the year, he had widened his base at the trial for treason and wrote his book, in prison and was Chancellor is 8 years.
    Its curious that Frederick Trump (grandpa) was charged with treason and was kicked out of Germany 20 yrs before. Terrorists never change.

    • bmaz says:

      Yes, sentences can be enough. That is why there are ranges for sentencing. And these are not “terrorists” per se, although there have been a few given terrorism enhancements. People really need to get a grip.

    • SteveBev says:

      Fred Trump evaded conscription aged 16 in 1885 by going to America. He returned to Bavaria in 1901 and was eventually prosecuted for the conscription evasion (contrary to an 1886 edict !) in December 1904 and in 1905 convicted, stripped of citizenship and banished.
      “Treason” is perhaps a rather overbroad description of what he actually did in this respect.

      Making money whore mongering in the Yukon is a stronger basis for opprobrium IMHO

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      American prison sentences for most crimes are uniformly longer, about double, those imposed in many other countries. These sentences shouldn’t be longer, the average sentence should be shorter.

      One historical reason is that prisoners were used as free labor, owing to an exception in the Constitution. In the South, prison labor, and the associated readiness to find people of color guilty for all kinds of transgressions, was an explicit part of Jim Crow. It also handily took away their right to vote, so, a twofer from the white supremacist perspective.

    • ColdFusion says:

      He was kicked out for leaving for America instead of staying and doing mandatory military service. Less than treason in my eyes, but skipping out on the draft is something he and his grandson have in common.

  11. RMD de Plume says:

    Many thanks for the detailed, descriptive reporting. Can be found nowhere else. Much respect and appreciation.

  12. Ken Cox says:

    An excellent piece. I could read more on how badly Trump judge Kelly got played by these insurrectionists. Their tears were barely dry before they regained their defiance, angling for donations and pardons.

    [Welcome back 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. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • SteveBev says:

        Reading Brandi’s detailed threads recording all the submissions of prosecution and defence, the “mitigation” put forward by the defendants and Kelly’s responses to all of that and his sentencing remarks- it seems to me that he was careful and conscientious. Kelly seemed to me to have been not in the least inclined towards preposterous claims of remorse, calling them out outright when he deemed it necessary but he nevertheless properly retained some humanity in eg acknowledging the appeals for leniency from children of the offenders without giving undue weight to such factors.
        Admittedly I view these matters from a very great distance, but the proceedings read pretty much like a model of judge-craft.

    • silatserak says:

      Completely agree with you that the judge got played.
      The only thing these people believe is that they made mistakes that didn’t allow them to finish the job.
      These felons will be back to plague us.

      • SteveBev says:

        I don’t agree with that assessment at all.

        Take Nordean as an example
        And read Brandi’ thread from the bit where Nordean trie to flannel the judge
        Nordean: i thought of myself as merely an individual, removing blame and accountabilty for myself…[but] I had to face a sobering truth. i came to jan 6 as a leader. came to keep people out of trouble and keep people safe.
        N: The truth is i did help lead a grp of men back to the cap & i can see to govts pont, i had ample opportunity to deescalate and i chose to do nothing…There’s no excuse for what i did…. adding myself to already chaotic/dangerous situation in cap bldg was sorely irresponsible

        Kelly in his sentencing remarks immediately pushes back on Nordean’s attempts to minimise:

        Judge Kelly reiterates points about the tradition of the peaceful transfer of power being broken because of Jan. 6; he notes the statements Nordean made in evidence and what jury found was he planned to bring ppl to Capitol, exercised control, did what you did w/fence…
        Kelly notes how parts of that group Nordean brought to DC played key roles at various breach points along the Capitol.
        Kelly notes that Nordean entered the Capitol and then made comments that he regretted nothing after the fact and when there was discussion about going further
        Kelly says jury found Nordean entered into an agreement to accomplish what happened.
        Call it whatever you want to call it, but in terms of seditious conspiracy, put whatever label you want on it, Kelly says, that is an extremely serious offense for all reasons I’ve talked about

        Kelly says he must consider not just a stmt in courtroom here but also all evidence of what Nordean said and did before Jan. 6 and after Jan. 6, have to put that in context

        Kelly was not in the least played by Nordean. Nor anyone else, it would seem from reading his remarks about them

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        “These felons will be back to plague us.”

        What would you have the federal courts do? Put them in an iron mask and detain them for life in the Bastille?

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Thankfully for the US criminal justice system, already substantially more punitive than our peers, you’re not a judge.

        • ColdFusion says:

          People want revenge, which, considering everything that’s happened since 2016, is at least partly understandable.

        • SteveBev says:

          Sir Francis Bacon, ‘OF REVENGE’ (c.1617)
          Revenge is a kind of wild justice; which the more man’s nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out. For as for the first wrong, it doth but offend the law; but the revenge of that wrong, putteth the law out of office.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          If the law permits revenge, it would take us down the lawless path of vendetta, which the right desperately wants. Francis Ford Coppola made a film about that.

    • Elwood Wiles says:

      It appears from this excellent report that the judge saw right through the defendants’ sentencing rhetoric & imposed lengthy prison sentences. That’s the opposite of getting played.

  13. Wajimsays says:

    “Their minds are heavy still with toxic propaganda. Their egos remain front and center . . .”
    You nailed it Brandi, done deal. That paragraph, of course, can be applied to any MAGA clown. As far as Trump goes, however, only the second part of the excerpt above seems accurate.

  14. Peterr says:

    I don’t think the judge got played by the defendants, but disagreed with the way the prosecution interpreted the sentencing guidelines. From the Pezzola section above:

    Nonetheless, the judge departed downward on the sentence because he believed, as he did with the other defendants, that the terrorism enhancement overstated the Proud Boys’ conduct. They didn’t mean to cause massive loss of life, he said.

    Is “massive loss of life” the only criteria for a terrorism enhancement, or would everyone showing up to take the country back qualify for the enhancement?

    This is where folks are getting hung up on whether the sentence was too light or just right. I’d love to see the language around what qualifies for a terrorism enhancement.

    • Ithaqua0 says:

      §3A1.4. Terrorism

      (a) If the offense is a felony that involved, or was intended to promote, a federal crime of terrorism, increase by 12 levels; but if the resulting offense level is less than level 32, increase to level 32.

      (b) In each such case, the defendant’s criminal history category from Chapter Four (Criminal History and Criminal Livelihood) shall be Category VI.

      Sentencing guidelines: (scroll down for table)

      Note: Seditious conspiracy has an offense level of 43 (life), but that can be downgraded if the judge doesn’t think the act amounts to treason.
      (18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B – TERRORISM)
      (5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
      (A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
      (B)appear to be intended—
      (i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
      (ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
      (iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
      (C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and

      (There is no follow-on to the final “and”, at least not on that website.)

      As always, though, the judge has heard all the evidence and arguments, and is far better placed to determine appropriate sentencing even than those of us who read this blog… Not to say we don’t have a right to our opinions, but recognizing the limits of our knowledge is good too.

      • Peterr says:

        That 5B(ii) definition seems to be a very good fit for the facts of this case. It doesn’t look like a stretch at all to say that this is what the defendants were trying to do.

        And I note that 5A does not say anything close to “massive loss of life” but simply says “acts that are dangerous to human life.” Thanks for the citations, but this does not fill me with confidence in the judge’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines.

        • Ithaqua0 says:

          Actually I agree, but preferred to make a post containing as close to only the facts as I could manage. It seems to me that with respect to 5B(i)-(iii), the judge only considered (iii).

        • bmaz says:

          Judges get the respective sentencing memos from the parties, and also the PSR from the probation department. Then they have a LOT of latitude to do what they think is appropriate. A LOT. I don’t see anything particularly wrong by what Kelley has done. I sincerely hope DOJ does not have their heads up their asses so far as to affirmatively appeal what are very substantial sentences, it would be a waste of time and money, and divert the same from ongoing cases. I’m dead serious, people really need to get a grip on this. Federal courts are not little revenge forums for shriekers on the internet. There is a lot left to do, let’s do that.

        • Knowatall says:

          While I have been in front of many judges with a lot,of attitude, I will assume you mean latitude here:-)

        • Badger Robert says:

          I have to agree. The sentences given are sufficient to create deterrence. Federal resources will be better spent on prosecuting the planners and organizers
          The politics of fairness are probably a small piece of what will be involved in making the sentences stick: the non revolutionary party in the US winning the next Presidential election.

      • Shadowalker says:

        “ (There is no follow-on to the final “and”, at least not on that website.)”

        The follow-on is
        (6) the term “military force” does not include any person that—
        (A) has been designated as a—
        (i) foreign terrorist organization by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); or
        (ii) specially designated global terrorist (as such term is defined in section 594.310 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations) by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury; or

        (B) has been determined by the court to not be a “military force”.

        Congress added that to the code in October 3, 2018 and moved the “and” from end of para 4 to the end of para 5.

        It’s an example of congressional legalese.

    • SteveBev says:

      Thanks to Ithaqua0
      For the statute and guidelines re the enhancement

      Which sets the parameters for the discussions which took place regarding application of the guidelines to the case, and what departures from those guidelines were justifiable in the circumstances (implicitly by reference to eg the principles that the sentence should be no more than necessary; and there should be reasonable parity/ proportionality as between the defendants involved in the Jan6 cases)

      As I understood the discussion that took place within the Biggs sentencing hearing, Kelly concluded the seditious conspiracy conviction qualified for the terrorism enhancement, but that it did not on the facts justify the level of enhancement and massive sentences the government were contending it should, and so Kelly was justified in departing downward from the guideline: and he explained and expressed that in various ways eg I am not labelling you as a terrorist, just applying the law; I would have reached the same sentence with it without the terrorism enhancement.

      The government were contending that although the case did not involve the possibility or threat of a mass casualty event eg blowing up buildings; it was nevertheless a case which warranted the guideline sentence because the intent was to bring about a spectacular event intending to create a constitutional crisis and push the country to the constitutional brink and beyond.

      I guess it’s a question of balancing the two components of culpability: the means adopted vs the intended outcome.

      And it would seem that Kelly concluded the means adopted were serious offences justifying very significant sentences albeit towards the lower rather than higher end of activities within the purview of the statute describing terrorism offences, and consequently the purview of the sentence enhancement.

      • FL Resister says:

        Would Judge Kelly explicitly stating his sentences did not include a terrorist enhancement make them less subject to appeal?

        • SteveBev says:

          I am sorry but I don’t understand the point

          Kelly meticulously considered the issue of whether and how the enhancement applied. Found that it did. He then articulated his reasoning as to how he came to exercise his sentencing discretion resulting in a downward departure from the overall guideline in calculating the sentence he imposed. For good measure he also stated that, had the terrorism enhancement issue not arisen, he would have calculated the sentence in a different way which he found would have resulted in much the same outcomes.

          If Kelly had wrongly stated that the enhancement had no application at all, so failed to properly consider its application, and thus the proper ambit of his sentencing discretion, then his sentence would be appealable on those grounds. But that didn’t happen.

          If the prosecution do appeal, I imagine it will be on a different point – that he didn’t give any or any sufficient weight to the matters they articulated as justifying no departure from the guideline.sentence as calculated.

        • SonofaWW2Marine says:

          Agreed in large part.

          As I recall appeals from federal sentences, a party may contest a judge’s decision on whether to apply a particular factor. But sentencing judges had discretion on how far to depart, and on where to place a defendant within a particular guideline range.

          The gov’t could appeal from a sentence, but that was extremely rare. I certainly didn’t in thirteen-plus years as an Ass’t US Att’y, and in some twenty-two total years in the Dep’t, I can’t recall any being authorized in the offices in which I worked. I might’ve seen a very few in the reported cases, but that was all.

        • SteveBev says:

          Thank you for your insight.
          It is a necessary correction to my musings.
          In trying to emphasise how meticulous Kelly’s decision making appeared to me, I did not make it clear enough that the only type of argument which I imagined could remotely conceivably be constructed to attack it, had extremely limited potential as a proper basis for appeal.

          The phrase I used “If the prosecution do appeal” was not well judged.

          Thanks again.

    • RobertS721 says:

      I think this is the place where the Trump-appointed judge is showing his politics. His “Terrorism” is more narrowly drawn than the law itself.

      Theres a long history of terrorism by right wingers in the US, going back to the Klan. Somehow we just can’t bring ourselves to call it what it is.

      • bmaz says:

        What a complete load of crap. What the hell do you think judges do every day? Do tell us about your wealth of experience with actual federal sentencing and the sentencing guidelines. This garbage has simply gotten beyond absurd.

  15. Zinsky123 says:

    Excellent reporting, Ms. Buchman! You have been a trooper – lasting through this long and twisted path to conviction of these Proud Boy low-lifes, for their half-assed attempt to overthrow the U.S. government. Very insightful reporting of each Proud Boy’s conviction and reaction thereto. Here are a few footnotes: Biggs was an employee of Alex Jones for years and had direct contacts to many of the “second-level” players like Ali Alexander, Jones, and Roger Stone. He deserved more time, in my opinion, because I bet he was deeply involved in the planning of this and recidivism is clearly in his future. Nordean is a low-life from outside Seattle who beat up hippies for fun and had a dysfunctional right-wing mother who wrote screeds to local newspapers about Trump winning. His dad owned a popular restaurant and fired Ethan because of his radicalism. Pezzola is just a nasty ex-Marine who owned a tile-laying business and enjoyed beating up people in his spare time. His wife referred to him as a “f*cking idiot”. These are nasty people who got what they deserve and probably deserved more!

  16. Challenger says:

    It will be interesting to hear responses from the Officers on the ground Jan 6, re the sentences of PB and OK leaders. For myself, if the DOJ decides to appeal some of these recent sentences, and they get a few more years added on, I won’t fist pump, but may have an enigmatic smile. 20 for Tarrio ?

  17. vinniegambone says:

    ” Let’s just jump straight to the violence. ”
    Is there staturev limitations after which Stone could no longer be charged should a convict decide he wants to spill all he knows ?

    Nothing we saw or heard pointed to a nexus between
    the insurectionists and the Willard crowd.

    Would like to see that snot rag of a person be held accountable for his role in helping shape these crimes.

    • bmaz says:

      “Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946); United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986). For conspiracy statutes which do not require proof of an overt act, such as RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) or 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must allege and prove that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. See United States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).

      An individual’s “withdrawal” from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. “Withdrawal” from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. See United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1986).”

  18. David F. Snyder says:

    Ditto on the kudos for great journalism.

    If Pezzola appeals his sentence, is there any chance that his term gets lengthened due to his defrauding Judge Kelly with crocodile tears?

  19. P’villain says:

    It is chilling to see photo after photo of Proud Boys flashing their White Power gang sign on January 6. This aspect of their ideology didn’t seem to get much play at trial, but was probably not lost on the DC jurors. Our own local PB contingent also flashes that sign at every opportunity, then smirkingly denies its meaning.

    • Rwood0808 says:

      So that’s…15-20 years minimum? He has quite a few prior convictions, including some felonies, if I recall.

      I would think if a judge were looking for someone to make an example of and deter others Tarrio would be him. I won’t be surprised if he wins the sentencing race.

        • bmaz says:

          What a load. I guess nothing will deter you from blowing ignorant poo from your posterior on the internet. Let me know the next time you have personal experience with federal sentencing and guidelines for the same.

    • gertibird says:

      A very deserved sentence. Good job Judge. Now let’s see all these criminals sentence’s appeals dismissed.

      • bmaz says:

        They will be. The only thing that could muck it up a bit is if DOJ ignorantly decides to appeal sentences from their end.

  20. SteveBev says:

    Brandi Buchman
    NOW: Henry “Enrique” Tarrio is sentenced to 22 YEARS in prison and 36 mos. supervised release

    • bmaz says:

      Is 22 years enough for the bloodthirsty internet jackals that have never been involved in a federal criminal sentencing, or are you all going to bitch about that too?

      • SteveBev says:

        Probably not

        Though Kelly took a long time to explain his reasoning and focused a lot on
        1 Tarrio’s lack of remorse, evidence which contradicted his claims today about being a changed man,
        2 the necessity for deterrence of him in particular and others who as part of a seditious conspiracy gin up a populace to use weight of numbers as a weapon to bring orderly government to heel.

        I think there was quite effective advocacy on the part of the Government on the deterrence aspect.

        Tarrio’s lawyers on the other hand disputed a lot of stuff which amounted to rehashing the defence at trial and was contrary to findings of the jury. This seemed entirely counter productive- not only was it an irritation to the judge but it literally forced him to bring to the forefront of his mind the granular details of evidence which put the lie to those contentions

        22 years is a long time; but some people want blood as well I guess.

  21. 3balls2strikes says:

    Like the other Proud Boys sentenced recently, Tarrio cried- I’m guessing they were being ironic with the “Proud” thing.

  22. Challenger says:

    Officer Brian Sidnick’s family, and Officer Michael Fanone may not think 22 years is long enough for Tarrio’s sentance, and I don’t have any problem with that

    • bmaz says:

      I’m sorry, “victims”, especially at a distance, don’t get to control the sentence. They had their input already. And that is that, even though I know the caterwauling from the internet will not cease. Work on getting a life.

      • SteveBev says:

        Fanone was interviewed on CNN after Nordean’s sentencing and asked to comment on its length. He gave what I thought was a measured thoughtful and reasoned reply.
        I paraphrase but his comments were to the effect that: ‘it was a just sentence, determined by a federal judge who heard all the evidence at trial, carefully considered the law and all the relevant arguments and reached a conclusion on it in the way we should expect when he was appointed to do that job.’

        I have no idea what his actual thoughts are regarding Tario, but there is no reason to think it would be inconsistent

        As a general point I think care should be taken to avoid the rhetorical trap of channeling the thoughts and feelings of presumed interested individuals as a means of legitimising one’s own opinions.

        [FYI – spelling fixed. /~Rayne]

        • Challenger says:

          Hey Steve, thanks for the reply and info on Fanone’s interview. I will look it up. Us folks in the emergency services talk about sentences from time to time, it isn’t taboo. “Rhetorical Traps” are important to avoid. If you notice my other post on this thread I guessed Tarrio would get 20 yrs. If I were to mention a sentence that might seem light it would be Stewart Rhodes.

        • SteveBev says:

          Thanks for reply.

          Re-reading mine I realise it was unnecessarily snarky and though I stand by the basic point – (It has long been a bugbear of mine that far-right campaigners for more punitive vindictive criminal justice policies and practices often clothe their arguments with bogus claims about speaking for victims) – I wish I had expressed it in a way which was more courteous and less personal. So apologies for that.

          I had tried to find a clip of Fanone’s comment re Nordean but what came up was his comments about the sentence of the guy who tased him – which also expressed satisfaction with the judicial process.

  23. bloopie2 says:

    As noted in a Democracy Docket opinion piece, “… we no longer have two political parties grounded in equally good faith concern for the future of our democracy. The Republican Party officially declared the attack on the Capitol as ‘legitimate political discourse’ and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson called the violent insurrectionists ‘sightseers’ “. Perhaps this type of outcome will help just a bit to change that state of affairs. And yes, 22 years seems enough; I have no basis to argue otherwise.

Comments are closed.