Proud Boy Henry Tarrio Sentenced to 22 Years for Role in Jan. 6 Seditious Conspiracy

For his role in leading a seditious conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power on Jan. 6, 2021, the chairman of the Proud Boys Henry “Enrique” Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years in prison on Tuesday.

It is the stiffest sentence yet handed down to any Jan. 6 defendant and among any defendant charged and convicted with seditious conspiracy in relation to the insurrection. While the sentence fell under the 33 years federal prosecutors initially sought, it is also still higher than the sentence given to Oath Keeper founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes. Rhodes received 18 years in May. Matching Rhodes for 18 years is Tarrio’s co-defendant and fellow seditious conspirator, Washington state Proud Boy Ethan Nordean.

Before learning his fate, Tarrio, 38, told the court he regretted his actions on Jan. 6 and that the trial “humbled” him. He apologized to the people of Washington, D.C., and to law enforcement for their suffering.

However, his track record of public and private comments that made it into evidence celebrating the violence of Jan. 6 and specifically, calling to “do it again” in the immediate aftermath, plus his months-long refusal to denounce violence as a means to an end, left U.S. District Judge Tim Kelly unconvinced that anything short of a significant sentence would deter Tarrio or copycats like him in the future.

Federal prosecutor Conor Mulroe urged Kelly on Tuesday to consider Tarrio’s seduction and manipulation of his co-defendants and the thousands of other Proud Boys he held sway over and how slick his “marketing” of the glorification of violence had been.

“Tarrio’s leadership was about violence and manipulation,” Mulroe said. “He demonized his perceived adversaries, glorified use of force, and distributed violent propaganda to thousands and thousands of followers. He elevated street fighting elements with so-called ‘rally boys’ [and] he practiced and endorsed the use of misinformation, plausible deniability, deceiving the public…[and] cultivating fear.”

Tarrio, Mulroe reminded the judge, had compared himself to Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels for his use of these techniques.

On Jan. 6, Tarrio wasn’t at the Capitol. He was holed up instead at a hotel in Baltimore, Maryland, watching the Proud Boys attack Congress in their vainglorious attempt to ensure the certification was stopped. Tarrio wasn’t in the District of Columbia because he had been arrested just 48 hours earlier and ordered to stay out of Washington, D.C. The arrest was sparked by Tarrio’s theft and burning of a Black Lives Matter banner at a historic Black church after the pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” rally on Dec. 12, 2020. He also visited the White House that morning on what he said was a “public tour.”

When Tarrio arrived in D.C. on Jan. 4, he knew there was a warrant out for his arrest thanks to a tip he received from Metropolitan Police Officer Shane Lamond. At the time, Lamond oversaw the intelligence division at MPD. He and Tarrio had been in contact since at least 2019 and through the 6th, the men had shared at least 500 messages over text. Lamond was indicted this May on a single count of obstruction of justice—for the alleged obstruction of a probe into the burning of the BLM banner—and three counts of making a false statement. He has pleaded not guilty.

Excerpt from Shane Lamond indictment

Calculating that arrest meant he could inspire his followers and outrage them, prosecutors said. It would generate buzz. It would get a reaction. As Tarrio said on Jan. 4 to Joseph Biggs as he knew he would soon be arrested, “Whatever happens, make it a spectacle.”

The burning of the banner revealed much about who Tarrio was in total, Mulroe argued. Like everything else, Tarrio boasted of his exploits on social media and then marketed off it. At trial, jurors saw footage of dozens of Proud Boys who came to D.C. for the 6th sporting shirts that said: “Enrique Tarrio Did Nothing Wrong.”

“That is the visible manifestation of his influence,” Mulroe said.

When issuing his statement to the court, Tarrio went on a lengthy defense of his actions. He did not testify at trial and for the first time, he stood before the judge to offer his side of things. He believed the election was stolen from Trump in November and his outrage was justified at the time, he said.

Tarrio claimed he told confidantes that he started to doubt whether the election had really been stolen in late November but he was met with “insults and ridicule” so he carried on anyway.

“Even with all my doubts I persisted and attended another rally on Dec. 12,” he said.

And then the same thing occurred the next month when he was spooked by the large size of the Stop the Steal rally that December. He told Judge Kelly, though he admitted to “enjoying the spotlight” he was filled with “dread” after that event.

And yet, he said, he went on anyway and barreled toward Jan. 6.

“Watching the events at the Capitol unfold, I again, chose not to be the voice of reason,” he said.

Kelly would point out to Tarrio and his attorneys multiple times on Tuesday that a sticking point for him in sentencing was Tarrio’s commentary in public and private before, during, and after the 6th that chilled him. Tarrio told Proud Boys he was proud of them as they attacked the building. When a fellow Proud Boy asked Tarrio what to do next, Tarrio responded: “do it again.”

“I believe I made these statements to appease them, ” Tarrio said in a comment most uncharacteristic of the uncompromising alpha-male Proud Boys philosophy.

As for the terrorism enhancements around his sentence, Kelly explained that while they technically applied, he drew a distinction. He didn’t think Tarrio or his co-defendants had intent to kill or that they were engaged in the more typical terrorist conduct of blowing up a building or targeting U.S. troops.

“I am not a political zealot,” Tarrio said, adding that “inflicting harm or changing the outcome” was not his goal.

“Please show me mercy,” he added. “I ask you not to take my 40s from me.”

Nonetheless, the prosecutors argued that Proud Boys may not have strapped a bomb to their chests or signed up for training camps but they were “thrilled by the notion of traveling from city to city and beating their adversaries senseless in a street fight.”

The Proud Boys weren’t a “drop in the bucket” of violence on Jan. 6  Mulroe said.

They were the “tidal wave” that broke through the first barriers and it was Proud Boys who were in huge numbers in the first wave of rioters who streamed past police and into the Capitol. There were at least 200 Proud Boys present on the 6th, called in from all over by chapter leaders and urged on by Tarrio’s position as figurehead.

Before imposing the sentence, Kelly told him, it was “revolutionary zeal” that anchored the conspiracy and resulted in those 200 men getting “amped up for battle [and] encircling the Capitol.”

Members of Tarrio’s family, including his sister, mother, and fiancee, spoke on his behalf and pleaded with Kelly for mercy. The judge acknowledged the support the now-defunct leader had but in his own remarks, he showed no remorse for his crimes.

Telling him that his absence from the Capitol on the 6th actually did serve a strategic purpose for his lieutenants Nordean, Biggs and Rehl to rile up the crowd, Judge Kelly said it wasn’t lost on him that Tarrio even in his statement Tuesday, was trying to “insulate” himself and “distance” himself from what in fact unfolded that day.

“That’s useful to someone as smart as Mr. Tarrio and then, before the day was out, putting publicly on social media, ‘I’m proud of boys and my country’ and ‘don’t fucking leave,” Kelly said before repeating it. “Don’t fucking leave.”

Kelly said he couldn’t say for certain “how close” things came on Jan. 6 to the nation not actually completing its transfer of power but he maintained that what happened was serious and a “disgrace.”

“And I have Mr. Tarrio publicly putting out there, ‘don’t fucking leave’ and privately, to another confidante, ‘make no mistake, we did this,'” Kelly reiterated.

Then, seemingly aghast at Tarrio’s brazenness, the judge repeated each word methodically: “‘Make no mistake, we did this.”

The judge also noted how Tarrio put into yet another message that if “God didn’t put me there [at the Capitol on Jan. 6] for a reason, we would still be there.”

“I don’t have any indication that he is remorseful for the actual things he was convicted of which is seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to obstruct the election,” Kelly said.

After the sentencing was over, Tarrio walked out and threw up a peace or victory sign.

His attorneys told CNN after the hearing that they were “caught off guard.”

“That’s what the appellate process is for,” he said.

To take a look through my live feed of proceedings posted to Twitter, a link is available here

86 replies
  1. posaune says:

    Thank you, Brandi! Outstanding reporting!
    We have all learned so much from your writing.

    Just made a contribution to your PayPal yesterday.
    There will be one for emptywheel tomorrow.

    • punaise says:

      He’s not in Kansas any more:

      … Tarrio, my wayward son
      There’ll be peace when you are gone
      Twenty-two years, time to rest
      Don’t you lie no more

      … Once you rose above the noise and confusion
      Just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion
      You were soaring ever higher
      But you flew too high

      … Masquerading as a man with a reason
      Your charade is the event of treason*
      And if you claim to be a wise man, well
      It surely means that you don’t know

      … Tarrio, my wayward son
      There’ll be peace when you are gone
      Twenty-two years, time to rest
      Don’t you lie no more

      *(apologies to bmaz: snark-tistic license)

      • FiestyBlueBird says:

        Well done, punaise! Very well done.

        If my poor man’s punaise posturing inspired you to this greater height, I am truly humbled and honored.

          • ExRacerX says:

            In the afterlife
            Tarrio is headed for the serious strife
            Now he bitch and Xit all day
            But tomorrow there’ll be Hell to pay

            People listen attentively
            I mean about future calamity
            I used to think the idea was obsolete
            Until I heard the old President stamping his feet
            This is a place where eternally
            Fire is applied to the body
            Teeth are extruded and bones are ground
            And baked into cakes which are passed around

            In the afterlife
            Rioters be headed for the serious strife
            Now they’re just locked up all day
            But tomorrow there’ll be Hell to pay
            Beauty, talent, fame, money
            Refinement, job skill and brain
            And all the things they lack inside
            Will be revealed on the other side…

            In the afterlife
            Seditionists be in for some serious strife
            Now they scream, “Trump won!” all day (meet the furnace)
            But tomorrow there’ll be Hell to pay (yes it is it is hot)
            Now the D and A and the M and the N and the A
            And the T and the I-O-N
            Lose your face
            Lose your name
            Then get fitted for a suit of flames
            Now the D and A and the M and the N and the A
            And the T and the I-O-N
            Lose your face
            Lose your name
            Then get fitted for a suit of flames*

            *Not trying to rush anyone along—wouldn’t want them to miss out on their prison experiences! Plus, I’m an atheist, but just could not resist picking up the “Squirrel!” after punaise just left it lying there.

  2. Nessnessess says:

    I was waiting for this all day. And emptywheel is where I first turned to to read about it.

    Thank you Brandi! And extra thanks for explaining right at the top of the twitter thread how you were able to live tweet it. I was wondering! :)

    I am not disappointed that a new maximum sentence for J6 was established today. Especially for someone absent from the scene.

    The finding out is the hardest part.

    • globalguy says:

      That didn’t last all that long. Here’s the text of a xit he dropped four hours ago.

      “The Democrat/socialist/communist cult is unbelievable. They say we have the best economy in 60 years and that Trump lost. He lost because THERE WERE NO MAGA JUDGES. True MAGA, not fakeazz maga. On the economy: IT’S A PLOT AGAINST TRUMP. 100% PLOT against best prez in US history!”

      • SteveBev says:

        And shortly afterward


          • SteveBev says:

            He was in custody

            Part of the evidence the prosecution brought up in the hearing as relevant to his lack of remorse was the contents of a recent 3 way phonecall he had ( which was in breach of jail rules)

      • Yohei1972 says:

        “The only judges that would ever rule in our favor are those who are explicitly part of our particular political faction” is an… interesting defense.

        [Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. Please use this same username and email address each time you comment. /~Rayne]

      • Peterr says:

        If all you’ve got left is the famous No True Scotsman defense, you are in a world of hurt.

        Good luck with that, Mr. Tarrio.

        • algebraist says:

          Well I don’t wish him luck at all. I really don’t want violent thugs who tried to upend a country I had just moved to any luck whatsoever.

          What I do want to know, is anyone at DOJ going after Gavin McInnes? He founded this group of jackals, has voiced various hate filled opinions and if there’s anyone left in the responsibility chain it’s him.

  3. SteveBev says:

    Very much appreciate your detailed thread, not only capturing the substantive details of the arguments etc, but also descriptive details about participants behaviour at key moments and informative asides referencing key background details which the reader might not have otherwise been able to recall.

    Thanks for an extremely thorough job

  4. Drew in Bronx says:

    Thanks for all your wonderful reporting through all these trials! Your live tweets are unmatched anywhere.

    Judge Kelly applied the terrorism enhancements because he judged the offenses and circumstances required it, but then in practice took it away, because he doesn’t think these domestic terrorists are the same as “real” terrorists. However, given that blanket reduction of sentences here, he wasn’t fooled a bit by Tarrio. I wouldn’t be surprised if the defense presentation including Tarrio’s speech at this hearing cost him a year or two beyond what Kelly would have otherwise given. It was such an obvious disingenuous soap job! Tarrio’s the scariest of all these guys. I’m happy that he will probably not be out of prison before I reach my own sell-by date.

  5. Benoit Roux says:

    Twenty two years is no picnic. Who would have predicted this on the evening of J6?

    The question that comes to mind now is what about Roger Stone? Tarrio was not in DC but Stone was, and very busy all day. The PB were his bodyguards. What was he doing all day in the Willard Hotel?

    At this point, is it possible that there is a serious investigation from DOJ and we have absolutely no idea about it?

    • Rayne says:

      At this point, is it possible that there is a serious investigation from DOJ and we have absolutely no idea about it?

      I’m struggling with a different more detailed response to this besides “Duh.”

      Nope, got nothing. At least nothing to add in addition to Marcy’s multiple posts which have explained there’s a lot more going on in Special Counsel’s investigations than has been reported cogently by mainstream media. Are you really even reading the posts here let alone the comments like these two posts?

      • Benoit Roux says:

        Well yes, thanks Rayne. I have read those posts.

        The first link is about many things, but not about Stone and his relationship with the Proud Boys (Stone is mentioned a couple of times in the chat). The second link is about, JEFFREY CLARK, RUDY’S DEVICES IN THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION, SIDNEY POWELL, and JOHN EASTMAN. Also not about Roger Stone.

        So really, I haven’t seen anything concrete about the crooked guy who was filmed with Proud Boys the night of J5, who used the Proud Boys as bodyguard, and who spent the whole day at the Willard doing who knows what and talking on the phone with whomever.

        So sure, there’s lots I don’t know. But how much more investigative silence into Roger Stone is needed before one starts to worry that there is nothing here?

        • Rayne says:

          Did I mention the comments to those posts? Pretty sure I did, and you’ll see some interesting things if you simply search for STONE at those two posts alone. Also certain if you looked a little harder at the +429 posts tagged “Roger Stone” you might detect work afoot. (That +429 posts doesn’t include the posts which mention Stone but aren’t tagged “Roger Stone.”)

          Frankly, you’re just going to have to wait for the Special Counsel to finish the job. There’s no obligation to disclose what’s being done in an active investigation especially if doing so could thwart progress and aid obstruction by perps.

          • posaune says:

            I get the feeling that the SC and his staff have hundreds of volumes of evidence and data that has been considered and cross-referenced. And yet, Jack Smith barely shows his shirt cuff . . . ever.

  6. TooLoose LeTruck says:

    I wish I could say I feel sorry for Enrique…

    But I don’t…

    Not in any way, shape, manner, or form…

    Nada… zilch… zip…

    • John B. says:

      Why would we or any thinking individual feel sorry for him? He’s a violent thug who conspired to overthrow our democracy and prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the rightfully elected next President? In fact, he and his cohorts were successful at preventing the transfer of power. A lot of individuals deserve a lot of blame for this and some of them have been charged and await trial but the PB’s the OK’s and hell even the 3%ers and other far right groups get no empathy from me…

  7. JH_05SEP2023_1944h says:

    Thank you for your valuable reporting today and always!

    Have you all covered the facts on the bottom of page 649 of the J6 Report? This seems to be a missing piece to much of the last weeks reporting in the wider media.

    Why were Tarrio and Biggs texting and calling Jones and Shroyer just before the Peace Circle breach and texting both of them during the Capitol attack?

    [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 known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • JustinH says:

        I am not sure what you mean as I am not a lawyer nor filing anything in court. I am asking Brandi if page 649 of the J6 report and the reported texts between Tarrio, Jones & Shroyer during the attack and Biggs and Shroyer at 11:15 am, have been covered. It seems important in lieu of Nordean and Biggs both being on video talking about merging and waiting for Alex while in front of the Capitol. These calls would be a good addition to the EW J6 Phone Call Timeline. Thanks again for the great work.

        [Moderator’s note: “JustinH” isn’t 8 letters or more. Please try another unique username as requested earlier. /~Rayne]

        • SteveBev says:

          From Brandi live thread

          Mulroe: This notion that Tarrio was completely incommunicado – that’s just wasn’t what was in evidence. He was speaking to coconspirators on phone, facetime,…with Nordean, Bertino, he was active in chats on evening of 5th, talking about gettng live streams to keep up w/action

          And Mulroe points to an exhibit – there was in fact a completed call between Tarrio and Biggs that lated 42 seconds that was described at trial. But Kelly notes, there was never evidence presented about the content of that call so it’s a bit murky here

          This was during the portion of the argument about the application of the terrorism enhancement
          Which Kelly was on the way to applying anyway so references to other contacts was necessary to further establish the point being made

  8. earthworm says:

    A commenter to an earlier post expressed gratitude for Tarrio’s photo.
    Stripped of their tuffboy costuming and accessories these people often look pathetic — Tarrio with his bald pate and Malcolm X spectacles, just a little man with big dreams, I suppose.
    ‘just a little man with big dreams’ can still become a danger to us all.

  9. Doctor My Eyes says:

    When these seditionists prop themselves up as patriots fighting a good American fight for a traditional American cause–1776 and all that–then lie like rugs to the court at sentencing, I think of examples of real civil disobedience. Philip Berrigan and his brother, A.J. Muste, MLK, and so many other heroes went to prison with dignity and unwavering dedication to improving society through their sacrifice. These disgusting J6 clowns whine and blubber while shamelessly betraying their professed cause in pleading for mercy. A couple of hours later, they are still lying when they pretend to care about some big cause greater than themselves.

    I’m sorry I can’t identify for you by name and place the study of the traits of authoritarians that, I think, was carried out at McGill University. One of the more disturbing developments that came later into that school of thought was terrorists who don’t actually follow their beliefs. One example is the 9/11 terrorists who, while attending flight school in Florida, went drinking in strip clubs. Then they proceeded to crash planes in the name of Allah. The scariest thing about seemingly rabid know-it-all authoritarians is that, for all their rigidity, they are not bothered by inconsistency. My guess is that these sociopaths haven’t the first clue what integrity means.

    The excitement of today will pass for Tarrio. I enjoy contemplating him in the daily grind of prison life. I hope in time it wipes the smirk off his face.

    • canajan-eh_I says:

      You may be thinking of Bob Altemeyer’s work at University of Manitoba. Among other quotes “We all have some inconsistencies in our thinking, but authoritarians can stupify you with the inconsistency of their ideas.”

      Available at https:// theauthoritarians .org (remove blanks after // and before .org)

    • Legonaut says:

      I wonder how long the hope for a Republican presidential victory, and subsequent hope for a pardon/commutation spree, can sustain these assclowns in the Big House. Right now their value to MAGA seems to lie in their martyrdom for recruitment of a whole new wave of useful tools; I certainly wouldn’t want to rely on the largesse of Trump or any of his ilk, as famously transactional as they are.

      • bgThenNow says:

        Apparently the ranks of the PBs have substantially grown all this time. I heard Bishop Barber on DN today talking about actions in FL to get people to register to vote. We have a lot of work to do.

        • ernesto1581 says:

          Yes, that observation has been floating around a couple months, especially concerning PB refocus on local and localer governance — school boards, library boards, select boards, town councils, etc. — collaborating with Mothers for Liberty and the like.

    • Ian_29SEP2018_1309h says:

      Having grown up among evangelicals, hypocrisy is their main thing! And if I conflate evangelicals and right wingers, apologies, they are pretty much the same group with slight variations.

      [Welcome back 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. Because your username is far too short it will continue to be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. You’ve also had other usernames here, including “Ray Ray” and “Ray Buzz,” neither of which meet the 8-letter minimum standard. PLEASE FIX THIS BECAUSE YOU’RE EASILY CONFUSED WITH OTHER IANS. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  10. Narpington says:

    Critics of Trump-nominated Justice Kelly for sentencing well below the requested penalty should reflect on the need not to make martyrs of the convicts and in this case not to elevate Tarrio above his cohorts as some heroic ubermensch.

    • cmarlowe says:

      >> the need not to make martyrs of the convicts…

      Without prejudice as to whether or not Kelly’s imposed sentence was appropriate, I don’t think this should have any bearing on sentencing.

  11. vicks says:

    “Like everything else, Tarrio boasted of his exploits on social media and then marketed off it.”

    Fist of all thank you Brandi for all your work, I’ve been trying to keep up with your posts on the twitter, this site makes it a whole lot easier…

    Sorry for going a bit OT but can we talk about the money people are making for stirring up the constant outrage?
    Before legal expenses, what does the leader of a domestic terrorist plot pull in annually from donations?
    How much do social media “stars” like Catturd or Tim Poole make from ad-sharing revenue on Twitter?
    If Twitter and Facebook are going to hide behind the first amendment, doesn’t the public, at a minimum have a right to know who’s getting paid for shit-posting?

      • scroogemcduck says:

        Thank you.

        Beyond delaying the trial for a couple of weeks, that filing seems to serve no purpose. It just restates the position in the previous filing.

        • SteveBev says:

          Well it does attempt to add layers of “evidence” (ie innuendo based on selective quotation and supposition by reference to transcripts of 2 Grand juries) that SC ‘manipulated’ their now witness into giving (implied oh false) testimony implicating Nauta by
          1 targeting with threats of prosecution
          2 when (impliedly) there was no adequate evidence to found such
          3 ‘wrongly’ using a DC grand jury to do so
          4 for the purpose of obtaining evidence against Nauta
          5 by getting him to cooperate

          Woodwards surreply is full of slippery drafting and given Canon’s history and tendency to grab at issues then getting lost in the procedural weeds, Woodward clearly fancies
          his chances of making mischief.

          What we don’t know ( or maybe you do and I have failed to appreciate/remember) is what the evidence was that SC had to convince them that Taveras lied to the DC grand jury in the first place.

          Because that’s the key it seems to me. If SC had sufficient evidence ( and I don’t doubt that the must have had it) to prosecute for perjury before the DC grand
          jury then Woodwards arguments surely amount to just so much distraction and deflection?

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            Woodward doesn’t seem to want Nauta to learn about his conflicts, or to allow the SC to use the evidence available to him to persuade a defendant that their counsel may not be working in their best interests. But he’s good at hiding that through bluster – and question begging.

            His opening paragraph, for example, tells the SC to bring it on! Let’s have a Garcia hearing. Its net effect it will be, in Woodward’s not so humble opinion, “that Nauta is voluntarily and knowingly proceeding with counsel who may not be conflict free.”

            Coming from Woodward, that’s an admission he has conflicts, but that they are either not material or Nauta doesn’t care about them. But he assumes the answer the Garcia hearing is designed to elicit.

            • SteveBev says:

              That’s interesting.

              He seems very committed to the argument
              “no witness, no conflict” and to the suggestion that insofar as a conflict has arisen it’s due to government manipulation of both the witness and the processes of the courts.

              Now that seems obvious (to us, and the SC but not necessarily to Judge Canon) to be a smokescreen to disguise his conflicts.

              If Woodward has advised his client Nauta that this is why the conflict has arisen and this is how it should be realistically be resolved, don’t such matters have a bearing on whether Nauta has given informed consent?

              Or am I overthinking and over complicating what is a relatively straightforward issue which can be resolved without the court delving into whether such (wrong headed?) advice played any part in persuading Nauta to stick with Woodward?

              • earlofhuntingdon says:

                One purpose of a Garcia hearing is to give an unbiased presentation to the client of what actual or potential conflicts his lawyer might have, and exactly how they might affect the client’s interests, without, say, the spin Woodward puts on it.

                Woodward’s pleadings, for example, often say his client knows he could have other counsel. But he does not articulate the facts and circumstances about why that might be necessary.

                • SteveBev says:

                  Thanks. That further clarifies the issues for me.

                  But forgive me if I’m being obtuse.

                  Doesn’t the question as to whether not Woodward has articulated the facts and circumstances about why a new attorney might be necessary also encompass whether he has wrongly articulated facts and circumstances (and law) having a tendency to persuade Nauta that a new attorney is unnecessary? Because it seems to me that the smoke blowing is in part designed to persuade Nauta to stay on board. I appreciate this involves Nauta being perhaps being quizzed on his understanding of a legal strategy, but it is a legal strategem which purports to overcome the conflict of interest.

                  • earlofhuntingdon says:

                    Yes, to keep clients on board, to manage their testimony, and to keep happy the guy paying the bills. Woodward is attempting to obscure the conflicts of interest, not overcome them.

                    • SteveBev says:


                      By Woodwards design it is difficult to unpick all the implications of this ‘ruse’.

                      A robust and responsible judge would cut through it, I would expect. Concluding the SC did nothing wrong in flipping Taveras, that using DC Judge and grand jury to investigate perjury before it and the conflict of representation was fine; that being the case there’s no foundation for excluding Taveras testimony; so its appropriate to quiz Nauta on the advice he got from Woodward regarding the conflict, including what part his legal strategem played in persuading Nauta to consider sticking with him and whether he had been advised it was unlikely to succeed. Woodward would be hoist by his own petard, one imagines. However, ‘robust and responsible judge’ is the key factor. Ho hum.

    • DaveVnAz says:

      To me the sur-reply was a way for Woodward to argue to exclude Tarvas’ testimony. Problem seems is Woodward is already getting personal and defending Nutua arguing against his previous client Tarvas. The rest is legal BS tryig to impeach the procedures that the SC used to flip Tarvas.

      • John Paul Jones says:

        This struck me as his main point also: no testimony Taveras makes it harder to impeach Nauta; keeping Nauta feeling safe means he will continue to retain Woodward as counsel; which helps to keep Trump feeling safer.

        I was wondering too what role the footnotes play. In the five years or so I’ve been reading stuff like this (thanks to emptywheel!) I’ve seldom seen notes so extensive. Are they considered part of the brief’s argument? Or is it a place where filing counsel can make an allegation/implication, without having to verify the truth of it?

  12. posaune says:

    OT, but happy:
    Dale Ho took his seat today with the 2nd Circuit!
    Such a great appointment! And he is a young judge.

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Two superb articles about surreptitious auto industry data harvesting on car occupants, courtesy of EFF (h/t @[email protected]). “Cars Are the Worst Product Category We Have Ever Reviewed for Privacy.”

    That data is collected and commercialized without knowing consent and is immensely invasive. It is NOT available to the car owner, but IS available to the manufacturer, insurance companies, the govt., and data brokers and harvesters.

    Cars have long collected data on your location, direction of travel, speed, steering and pedal movements. Cell phone data has been available for years, too. But with additional sensors, such as interior cameras and body sensors, they also collect occupant temperature, heart rate, position and body movements, eye movement and apparent alertness level. And your car can now independently phone this data home at any time.

    Woe unto you (or a teenager to whom you lent your car), if you were to share a few bodily fluids on a night out. But that may be among the least threatening implications of this data harvesting.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Made the front page of the Guardian. Expect auto industry PR flacks to be out in droves by this evening, followed by a few corporate apology slogans, then a doubling down on undisclosed data harvesting and commercialization. I would not be surprised to find that manufacturers make more money from that than they do selling the car.

      “From sex life to politics: car driver data grab presents ‘privacy nightmare’, says study. Mozilla Foundation studied 25 car brands and found some collecting data on ‘sexual activity’ and ‘political opinions.”

      • RipNoLonger says:

        Commercialization of the individual continues. Since corporations look to all of these (300M+?) as tiny cash cows, it’s worth getting every penny that they can.

        I would expect them to also be pushing short-term auto leasing promising the newest technologies will be installed in the latest models.

        Nest, home surveillance systems, baby monitors, cell phones, auto EZ-Pass, EHR, ….

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          The volume of milk produced daily and annually by harvesting intimate data from a couple hundred million captive drivers and passengers makes for a large herd of cash cows.

    • elcajon64 says:

      Count on all of this every time you use a rental car.

      RE: surveillance: When my oldest turned 15 several years ago, He and I bought him a ’71 Buick Riviera and built up the 455 big block to include long-tube headers that made the car sound like a drag boat. In a farm town of 16,000, there aren’t many green boat-tail Rivieras. And it could be heard for an eighth mile. Had he drove a white F150, he’d have been invisible.

  14. Savage Librarian says:


    Cuffs will abide,
    Nowhere to hide,
    Lockdowns for the vice,
    and there’s no one at my side.

    And time squashes mean
    chump’s wounds unseen,
    That’s what someone told me,
    but I don’t know what it means.

    Still I’ve done everything I know
    to try and make this mine,
    And I’m gonna think about you
    during all my time.

    Caught in my fears,

    Blinking back the tears,

    I can’t say you hurt me,
    but you know I’m without peer.

Yet I never drew
    one response from you,

    All the while you fell
    all over churls you never knew.

    Still I’ve done everything I know
    to try and make this mine,
    And I think it’s gonna haunt me
    for a long, long time.

    Wait for the day,

    You’ll go away,

    Knowing that you scorned me,
    and the price I’d have to pay.

So life’s full of flaws,
    Coup knows that cause,

    Living in the memory
    of the stuff that never was.

    Still I’ve done everything I know
    to try and make this mine,
    But I think I’ll reminisce you
    for a long long time.

    Still I’ve done everything I know
    to try and make this mine,
    But I’m gonna think about you
    during all my time.

    “First time hearing of Linda Ronstadt – Long Long Time (Reaction!)”

Comments are closed.