Steve Bannon Was Made to Testify, Truthfully, Once

/18 Comments/in , , /by

Chuck Rosenberg has an interesting prosecutor’s analysis arguing — based on Steve Bannon’s indictment for fraud — that Bannon can never be made to testify truthfully, and so DOJ should be considering criminal contempt to send a message.

Recall, in August 2020, federal prosecutors in Manhattan indicted Bannon and others for “defraud[ing] hundreds of thousands of donors, capitalizing on their interest in funding a border wall to raise millions of dollars, under the false pretense that all of that money would be spent on construction,” according to a Justice Department press release. As a legal matter, that meant that a grand jury found probable cause to believe that several defendants – including Bannon – committed an egregious fraud. Before Bannon could be tried on those felony charges, former President Trump pardoned him.

It makes sense for Justice Department prosecutors to ask whether Bannon – accused of defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors – would tell the truth about the January 6 insurrection. And because Bannon has demonstrated his disdain for the work of the select committee, helped spread election misinformation and fanned the flames ahead of the insurrection, it seems that he might be an unwilling witness and an untruthful witness. In that case, pressuring Bannon to testify seems pointless.

The notion of letting someone off the subpoena hook because they are unwilling to testify, or because they are untruthful, or both, is distasteful. Accountability matters, before Congress and in the criminal justice system. We should expect people to come forward and tell Congress what they know, to help better understand the events leading up to that awful day and to ensure that something like that never happens again.

But some people are more interested in staging insurrections and discrediting valid elections than they are in speaking the truth. Some people might use a congressional forum not to help heal the nation, but to further sow division. In that case, pursuing civil contempt against Bannon to pressure him to testify makes little sense. But charging him with criminal contempt – punishing his defiance – sends the right message to him and others.

I’m in no position to question Rosenberg’s wisdom speaking as a prosecutor.

But the public record suggests that Bannon can be coerced to testify in damning ways. That’s what happened with the Mueller investigation, possibly assisted with Bannon’s staged testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

Steve Bannon is known to have testified in various forms at least nine times (this post analyzes Bannon’s second Mueller interview, this post describes how he read from a White House script at his second HPSCI interview, this post describes how he inched closer to the truth, and this post includes links and analysis on the Mueller interviews liberated by BuzzFeed).

  1. January 16, 2018: Bannon did an interview with the House Intelligence Committee at which he refused to testify about the Transition and Administration and falsely claimed the campaign would have all relevant emails on Russian interference, which served to cover-up damning emails he had with Roger Stone.
  2. February 12, 2018: Bannon’s first Mueller interview largely covered obstruction; as with the HPSCI interview days later and the SSCI interview nine months later, Bannon hid his involvement in sanctions discussions during the transition.
  3. February 14, 2018: Bannon’s second Mueller interview finished obstruction topics and covered campaign related events and included some breathtaking lies about his role and knowledge of optimizing the hacked releases.
  4. February 15, 2018: After Devin Nunes shared the transcript of his first interview with the White House, Bannon did another HPSCI interview and largely read from a pre-arranged script from the White House designed to hide (among other things) his involvement in discussions about sanctions before Mike Flynn attempted to undermine Obama’s sanctions on Russia.
  5. October 26, 2018: After Mueller obtained communications proving a number of Bannon’s lies in the earlier interviews, he inched closer to the truth on obstruction and the WikiLeaks releases (including about a December 2016 meeting between Roger Stone and Trump that Trump wanted Bannon to attend as a witness), though still told incredible stories about his ties to Russia during the transition.
  6. November 19, 2018: In an appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, he told suspected lies that the committee referred for prosecution. [I’ve excerpted the parts of his testimony quoted in the SSCI Report here.]
  7. January 19, 2019: The content of a January 19, 2019 interview and grand jury appearance (one that took place after Mueller obtained Bannon’s HPSCI transcripts) remains entirely sealed, but he was forced to adhere to some of it at Roger Stone’s trial and Stone has recently accused Bannon of betrayal in this appearance.
  8. Unknown date (possibly July 26, 2019): A trial prep interview with DC’s AUSAs at which Bannon tried to back off his grand jury testimony.
  9. November 8, 2019: After prosecutors forced him to match his grand jury testimony, Bannon testified to speaking to Stone about the hacked emails both before and after he joined the Trump campaign.

Somehow, Mueller’s attorneys were able to get Bannon to be more truthful in that grand jury appearance, and then with it, they forced him to adhere to his more damning testimony at Roger Stone’s trial. But Stone’s continued attacks on Bannon suggest Bannon’s grand jury testimony extended beyond his trial testimony.

My guess is that Mueller’s team got Bannon to tell something approximating the truth on some topics via a range of tactics. First, Bannon originally lied about when he used his personal email on the campaign; after Mueller obtained some damning emails with Roger Stone from that email, Bannon conceded more of the truth. Additionally, Bannon clearly was playing different audiences for different purposes (for example, Republicans ensured that the entirety of the HPSCI investigation served to get Trump flunkies to tell false cover stories, and as noted, Bannon literally read from a White House issued script in his second appearance). But that likely served to alert prosecutors to what Bannon was trying to hide (and in the case of Bannon’s efforts to hide his knowledge of discussion of sanctions during the transition, Mueller actually got somewhat useful testimony from Flynn). Finally, it seems likely that prosecutors used earlier lies to coerce Bannon to tell the truth later in their investigation.

To be clear, the January 6 Select Committee doesn’t have the time to coerce some truths out of Steve Bannon, though it’s possible that DOJ could use any testimony he did offer as Mueller’s team seems to have done during their investigation, as a means to corner him about prior lies.

In any case, tough his testimony helped convict Roger Stone (after which Trump pardoned the rat-fucker), whatever truths Bannon told during the Mueller investigation were useless. The truthful bits remained sealed in an unreleased 302 and grand jury testimony, of no use to the public.

Still, the overriding lesson from Bannon’s book of laughter and forgetting is that his past lies and changing loyalties can be exploited, if you have the time to really work on him.

January 6 Defendant Kevin Creek Ends Up with a Single Assault Charge

/48 Comments/in , /by

Yesterday, DOJ charged Kevin Douglas Creek with one count of assault. The charge adds to the evidence that DOJ is letting cooperative defendants plead down without entering into a cooperation agreement.

Creek — a former Marine from Georgia — was first charged with assault of what his arrest affidavit called, “multiple officers,” and civil disorder. One of those alleged assaults included kicking a cop.

As the arrest affidavit describes (and I wrote up here), the first tip against Creek came from a hospital worker who described that he admitted his involvement in the riot when getting treated at a hospital for delayed effects from tear gas.

On January 10, 2021, a complainant reported to the FBI that on January 9, 2021 or January 10, 2021, an individual named Kevin Creek made comments while visiting Northside Forsyth Hospital about his involvement at the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Creek disclosed that he was tear gassed at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Creek discussed running up the stairs of the Capitol building and attempting to get inside. Creek talked about having trouble at the door he ran to because the police were gassing individuals at his door. Creek also mentioned he was bruised from his activity at the Capitol and admitted to a long car ride to get to DC. Creek made general comments regarding always being armed but did not directly say whether he was armed at the Capitol.

Later on, the FBI released Be on the Lookout photos for Creek.

In an FBI interview with counsel on May 21, Creek seemed evasive about how he first learned about the protest and described only partly regretting his conduct at the riot.

Initially, Creek told affiant he was live streaming January 6th and posted the stream and photos on his Facebook account. Creek deleted those photos once he returned home. Creek stated he may have heard about the protest from his twitter account (handle @KevinDCreek) but stated he could not remember for certain.

When asked if Creek regretted his conduct on January 6th, he responded: “50/50”.

Creek was arrested on June 9. After he was jailed for five days, the US Attorney’s Office in Northern Georgia successfully got Creek detained pretrial; the magistrate’s order finding for detention emphasized that he had “assaulted several Capitol Police officers.”

Creek’s attorney moved for release, and Jacob Strain, the AUSA (a detailee from Utah) handling this case agreed, citing (in part) Creek’s, “significant cooperation.”

Based on the defendant’s law-abiding conduct after January 6th, his lack of criminal history, and his significant cooperation with law enforcement, the United States submits its position that conditions can be fashioned to reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance and effectively assure the safety of the community. [my emphasis]

In a hearing, it became clear that DC’s US Attorney’s office was saying Creek should be released while Northern Georgia’s was trying to enforce their District policy that those who assault law enforcement are presumptively detained (Northern Georgia would later try to override the release conditions of one of the few Black January 6 defendants, Antionne Brodnax, who moved into the District).

The thing is, there’s no sign yet of Creek’s, “significant cooperation with law enforcement.” His arrest affidavit makes it clear he went to insurrection with three others, two of whom remained with him until after 4PM.

Travel records obtained from Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority confirm that on January 6, 2021 at 8:15am, Creek’s credit card was used to purchase four metro cards. These metro cards were used to traveled from Rosslyn Station McPherson Sq Station at approximately 8:17 am. At 11:07 am, one metro card was used to return to Rosslyn Station from McPherson Station. The other 3 cards returned from Arch-Navy Memorial Station to Rosslyn Station at 4:37 pm. Arch-Navy Memorial Station is located about .8 miles to the U.S. Capitol.

But I’m not aware of any arrests of other people from the Atlanta area who might have traveled with Creek.

His discovery lists the body worn cameras of three officers, including Daniel Hodges.

In short, from early on, DOJ said he had provided “substantial cooperation,” using the word — substantial — usually reserved for 5K letters after a defendant has successfully completed the terms of cooperation agreement. And now, four months after his arrest, his assaults on “multiple officers” have been charged as a assault, presumably setting up a plea hearing (while I assume it’s just a coincidence, his next scheduled hearing date, December 17, is the same date as the coordinated status date for the Oath Keeper cooperators).

It’s not clear what to make of this charging decision. But the discussion around Creek’s pre-trial release seems to suggest cooperation that may explain similarly situated January 6 defendants are being charged with multiple felonies and Creek will presumably plead to a single count.

But this charging decision will have one other effect: Those, like David Judd, who claim only Portland defendants charged with assaulting cops get charges dismissed will now have to explain why a January 6 defendant who traveled across three states to attend the Trump riot will likewise have his civil disorder charge dropped.

Update: This post has been substantially corrected to reflect that this appears to be a felony. Creek was charged by information, but the charge includes physical contact that makes it a felony.

After Describing DOJ’s January 6 Language as “Schizophrenic,” Judge Beryl Howell Imposes a Sound Baseline Sentence

/23 Comments/in , , /by

In the sentencing hearing for Jack Griffith yesterday, Beryl Howell spent several hours berating the government for the way they’ve charged the January 6 cases. Here’s Zoe Tillman’s coverage of the hearing.

Howell repeatedly expressed puzzlement at how the Justice Department was managing the Jan. 6 cases, especially for defendants charged solely with misdemeanor crimes. She questioned prosecutors using “scorching” rhetoric to describe the severity of the attack on the Capitol while also using words like “trespass” to describe what some defendants, including Griffith, did that day. She described the government’s brief as “almost schizophrenic.”

She also pressed prosecutors to explain why the government was offering plea deals for low-level charges that limited judges’ options at sentencing, especially when prosecutors had articulated that one goal of these cases was to prevent a similar postelection attack on the peaceful transfer of power in the future.

“This is a muddled approach by the government,” she said. It is “no wonder,” she said, that some people “are confused about whether what happened on Jan. 6 was a petty offense of trespassing or shocking criminal conduct that represented a grave threat to our democratic norms.”

Howell’s complaint about the seeming inconsistency between DOJ’s rhetoric on the attack itself and the charges being filed may stem, in part, from the fact that Howell has a greater proportion of misdemeanor defendants than other judges, and so doesn’t see how there’s a continuum among defendants. Of the 30-some defendants whose cases she has, Grady Owens and James McGrew are two of her only more serious cases, plus Nick Ochs and Nick DeCarlo from the Proud Boys.

But her complaint about the way DOJ has tied judges’ hands on sentencing raises an important point. She worried about whether DOJ will really be able to collect restitution payments, given that that normally happens as part of supervised release and these class B misdemeanors don’t permit that (something discussed at length yesterday). And ultimately, she decided that because that’s all Griffith was asked to plead to, she wouldn’t sentence him to jail time, as DOJ had requested.

That said, several minutes after she issued her ruling for a 3 month probationary period, she added a term of supervised release that confused me and others covering it. I think the sentence she did impose — three months in home confinement with a GPS, as part of three years of probation — is not a bad one for those DOJ charges with misdemeanors.

Defendant sentenced on Count 5 to serve a term of thirty-six (36) months Probation which includes a special condition of 90 days of home confinement; Defendant ordered to pay a $10.00 special assessment and restitution in the amount of $500.00; imposition of a fine waived. Government’s oral motion for the dismissal of Counts 2, 3, and 4, granted as to Defendant JACK JESSE GRIFFITH. Bond Status of Defendant: Defendant placed on Probation.

Howell focused closely on deterrence — and argued that sentences without jail time will not adequately deter further events. But Griffith will still face a three month period where his conditions of release are more harsh than they currently have been, outfitted by a GPS. And by sentencing him to an extended probationary period, Howell has limited the degree to which Griffith can engage in armed insurrection.

As it is, the courts are overwhelmed with the number of January 6 defendants. Even without the legitimate challenges to the way DOJ has used obstruction in this case, it’s unlikely they would have been able to charge more felonies. This sentence is a way to limit the possibility Griffith will rejoin an insurrection without submitting him to radicalization in prison.

And as of right now, between Tanya Chutkan’s jail terms and Trevor McFadden’s brief probation terms, the misdemeanor sentences are disconcertingly all over the map. I’m hopeful that this sentence will serve as a better guideline going forward.

There’s one more detail of yesterday’s hearing worth noting. James Pearse, the AUSA in charge of most of the legal issues in this investigation, gave Judge Howell a detailed explanation of how DOJ had come up with the $500 restitution amount (with $2,000 for felony defendants). He described that the Architect of the Capitol came up with a damages amount in May, and DOJ spread that over the estimated number of people who had entered the Capitol. He described their estimate at that point was 2,000 to 2,500.

This means DOJ has come up with the same estimated number as the Sedition Hunters did (as described in this Ryan Reilly piece; click through for links), working off an estimate of flow rate of people coming into the Capitol.

In the weeks after the attack, law enforcement officials estimated that 800 people had entered the Capitol. That number stuck around in media coverage for months, becoming a benchmark against which the FBI’s progress has been measured. The 800 figure has been mentioned in stories as recently as this week.

In reality, as online sleuths have discovered over the past several months, that’s only a fraction of the scope of criminal activity that day. A HuffPost analysis of public-facing data on the Capitol attack, combined with the findings of online investigators working under the #SeditionHunters moniker, shows that the total number of Jan. 6 participants who could face charges if identified tops 2,500.

Federal investigators have quietly ticked up their own estimate. In a budget request earlier this year, the FBI told Congress that “approximately 2000 individuals are believed to have been involved with the siege.” Law enforcement officials did not dispute HuffPost’s 2,500 figure.

That means federal authorities have charged about 25% of the suspects who could face criminal charges for their conduct on Jan. 6. At the current pace, it would take federal authorities until early 2024 to bring cases against 2,500 defendants. And some of the easiest cases to bring, the “low-hanging fruit,” have already been charged.

Online investigators, who have been responsible for identifying countless Jan. 6 defendants and will play a role in dozens of forthcoming FBI cases, have counted more than 2,000 individuals they say breached the Capitol building. These sleuths refer to the people they say they spotted inside the Capitol as “Sedition Insiders,” and have collected the highest-quality image they’ve found of each rioter (even if that photo was snapped while the suspect was outside the Capitol).

When Pearse offered this number, he explained that DOJ didn’t want to explain how it came up with this number — which led me to quip that maybe they had used the Sedition Hunter number. That’s not possible, though, as the calculation predates it. It’s likely, then, that this number relies (at least partly) on the number of trespassers identified using cell tower dumps, which reflect all the phones and Google access, less those who had a legal reason to be in the Capitol.

Ultimately, of course, this means that restitution won’t pay for all the damage to the Capitol, as prosecutors seem to be limiting further misdemeanor arrests to those who serve an investigative purpose (such as to obtain their cell phone for evidence against others).

Unless, of course, prosecutors ultimately move towards holding organizers accountable for the damage their mob incited.

Whatever the case, DOJ continues to fall short of providing compelling explanations of how all the parts of the riot fit together in either public statements or court filings. And on that level, Judge Howell’s complaint deserve closer attention from DOJ.

Merrick Garland Assures Sheldon Whitehouse the January 6 Investigators Are Using All Investigative Techniques, Including Following the Money

/51 Comments/in , /by


In spite of the 650 defendants, the conspiracy structure that could easily encompass Trump and his flunkies, and apparent steps to lock in testimony of those privy to the actions of organizers, most people remain panicked that DOJ is not aggressively investigating January 6, including those who organized it. Yesterday in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Merrick Garland, Senator Whitehouse expressed concerns that DOJ was not trying to understand who funded the January 6 riot. In response, Garland strongly implied that DOJ was.

Whitehouse: Now, I don’t know what’s going on behind all of that, but I’m hoping that the due diligence of the FBI is being deployed not just to the characters who trespassed in the Capitol that day and who engaged in violent acts, but that you’re taking the look you would properly take at any case involving players behind the scenes, funders of the enterprise, and so forth, in this matter as well and there’s been no decision to say, we’re limiting this case to the people in the building that day, we’re not going to take a serious look at anybody behind it.

Garland: Senator, I’m very limited as to what I can say–

Whitehouse: I understand that.

Garland: –Because I have a criminal investigation going forward.

Whitehouse: Please tell me it has not been constrained only to be people in the Capitol.

Garland: The investigation is being conducted by the prosecutors in the US Attorney’s Office and by the FBI field office. We have not constrained them in any way.

Whitehouse: Great. And the old doctrine of “follow the money,” which is a well-established principle of prosecution, is alive and well?

Garland: It’s fair to say that all investigative techniques of which you’re familiar and some, maybe, that you’re not familiar with because they post-date your time are all being pursued in this matter.

We are still just nine months into this investigation, an instant in the terms of complex conspiracy investigations like this one (which was a point that Garland made in a House Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this week). It’s not clear what DOJ is going to be able to prove in court. And given yesterday’s fake outrage from Republicans, it’s not clear DOJ will complete such an investigation before Republicans win a Congressional majority at mid-terms.

But at least for now, DOJ appears to be conducting the kind of investigation everyone wants them to.

DOJ Claims Ryan Samsel Wants to Move Back to Where He Was Brutally Assaulted

/48 Comments/in , /by

In a filing submitted Thursday, the government disclosed something remarkable. January 6 defendant Ryan Samsel, who was brutally assaulted in the DC jail — allegedly by guards — said in September he wanted to be moved back to the DC jail.

On or around September 28, defense counsel sent a request to USMS that Samsel be transferred back to the D.C. Jail instead of Northern Neck, indicating that he wanted to go back there and was comfortable doing so.

The disclosure comes in response to a series of filings alleging additional mistreatment from Samsel’s latest attorneys, Stanley Woodward, who is a legit defense attorney, and Julia Haller, one of the attorneys sanctioned for making bogus claims of vote fraud in Michigan.

Samsel’s various claims of abuse

In Samsel’s first filing, submitted on September 11, his attorneys claimed that he was still not receiving all the required care for injuries suffered in the March 21 assault in DC jail or pre-existing conditions exacerbated by the assault.

A status report submitted on September 20 in response to an order from Judge Tim Kelly claimed that on September 15, as Samsel was being moved from a common area back to his cell, he was “dropped,” causing redness on his cheek.

Late that evening, officers came to Mr. Samsel’s cell to move him back to solitary confinement. According to records provided by the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”), Mr. Samsel reported that he was “dropped while being removed” from his cell. The medical records further provide that after receiving medical attention in solitary confinement, Mr. Samsel had “mild redness on the left side of his face at the cheek bone area.”

Samsel’s filing also suggests that the records from the March 21 assault in the DC jail might be incomplete.

A government status report submitted the same day noted that, “a review of the medical records are not entirely consistent with that Status Report or the Defendant’s assertions” (and provided several examples). It further noted that Samsel was seeking, “materials that are plainly not medical records, such as ‘incident reports’, administrative records, photographs, and video recording from inside the facility (none of which are compiled or authored by medical personnel).” It then noted that abuse in jail, “is appropriately brought in a civil proceeding and not through the criminal process.” (Note, that is legally true but factually, usually useless, but it gives prosecutors a way to move questions about conditions of confinement out of a criminal docket to one under a different judge.)

But Samsel’s attorneys didn’t file a civil suit. Instead, they kept filing motions.

Another filing, submitted on October 4, ostensibly an update on the status of medical reports which did indeed claim that defense attorneys haven’t received all Samsel’s medical records yet, also described that after the prior incident, Samsel was held in solitary confinement to coerce him to admit he did not get a concussion after allegedly being dropped.

Following his return to the Central Virginia Regional Jail from Novant Health UVA, Mr. Samsel was placed in solitary confinement without any recreational time, where the lights in his cell remained on for twenty-four (24) hours a day, and where he remained under constant video surveillance. According to Mr. Samsel, his solitary confinement was to continue until he recanted his statement that he suffered a concussion.

[snip]

Mr. Samsel remained in solitary confinement until September 29, 2021, when he was transferred to the Northern Neck Regional Jail in Warsaw, Virginia. His transfer occurred following a visit by the State police, and numerous requests for updates on Mr. Samsel’s status (e.g., why he remained in solitary confinement) as well as follow up requests for Mr. Samsel’s medical records.

A third filing, submitted on October 14, again ostensibly an update on whether defense attorneys had received Samsel’s medical records, started with this conspiracy theory about Alan Feuer’s story describing that, in early interviews with the FBI, Samsel described that Joe Biggs pushed him to initiate the riot by, “flash[ing] a gun, question[ing Samsel’s] manhood and repeat[ing] his demand [that Samsel] move upfront and challenge the police.”

On Thursday, October 7, 2021, The New York Times published an article describing how Mr. Samsel has refused to cooperate with the government following his initial questioning upon arrest by the FBI more than eight (8) months ago (and without the presence counsel). See Alan Feuer, Dispute Over Claim that Proud Boys Leader Urged Attack at Capitol, The New York Times (Oct. 7, 2021). 1 Despite “[t]he government hav[ing] not yet secured Mr. Samsel’s cooperation in its investigation,” however, the article’s publication prompted the government to request Mr. Samsel be placed in protective custody, or solitary confinement.

The timing of the article’s publication, just three (3) days after Mr. Samsel last complained of his failure to receive necessary medical treatment and/or related medical records is itself noteworthy. That what happened next is purely coincidental, strains credulity.

[snip]

[O]n Tuesday, October 12, 2021, Mr. Samsel was permitted an unrecorded video conference with counsel, in which he was clearly handcuffed. What counsel discussed is, of course, subject to the attorney-client privilege. However, immediately following that video conference, Mr. Samsel was involved in an altercation with correctional officers which ultimately resulted in his again having to be transported to urgent care.

The NNRJ incident report provided by the U.S. Marshal’s Service provides: The above named inmate was finished with his attorney visit. I then advised him, I was going to place the hand cuffs back behind his back. Upon removing one side of the hand cuffs, he then stated he was not going to put the cuffs behind his back. I then gave him three direct orders to turn around, for the cuffs to be placed back on. All direct orders were refused. He then tried to pull the hand cuffs away. The necessary force was used to gain compliance. He then refused to stand up and walk back to E pod. The necessary force was used to gain compliance and escort him back to E124. Upon reaching his cell he became combative and the necessary force was used to gain compliance. The cell door was shut and the hand cuffs were removed. He was seen by EMT F [emphasis Samel’s]

That’s the background to the government’s filing, in which they reveal (among other things) that after experiencing incidents at almost every jail he has entered, Samsel has decided he wants to be in the DC jail, the jail where he was unquestionably beaten by someone (allegedly the guards), but also the jail that Royce Lamberth has just held in contempt for not adequately attending to the medical care of someone — Christopher Worrell — suffering from a non-Hodgkins lymphoma outbreak and pain from breaking his hand in a fall. Samsel’s request to return to DC jail preceded Lamberth’s contempt finding, but not Worrell’s allegations — first raised by the attorney Worrell then shared with Ryan Samsel, John Pierce — of delayed care.

The government’s slew of new details

The entire government memo is worth reading. It provides new details of Samsel’s role in January 6, including texts where he bragged about leading the entire mob forward when he kicked off the riot.

It reviews Samsel’s long history of beating others, especially women.

It describes how — at a moment when (the NYT suggests) Samsel might otherwise be sharing details with the FBI that would connect his own actions leading the mob forward to directions from Joe Biggs — the assault in the DC jail set off six months of volatility in Samsel’s representation that had the effect of delaying his medical care and seemingly changing his own defense strategy.

Following his arrest, Samsel was transported to the DC jail on February 17, 2021. He retained attorney Elisabeth Pasqualini to represent him.

[snip]

During the week of Samsel’s transfer [to Rappahannock jail], a second attorney reached out to the Government, indicating that Samsel had fired Ms. Pasqualini and that they now represented Samsel. This attorney, David Metcalf, was sponsored by local counsel Robert Jenkins. Jenkins filed a motion to replace Ms. Pasqualini on March 31. (R. 12). In the meantime, Ms. Pasqualini informed the Government that she believed she still represented Samsel and had not heard otherwise from him. On April 1 and April 2, a U.S. Magistrate Judge held status hearings to determine the status of Samsel’s representations. Samsel indicated that he wanted both Ms. Pasqualini and Mr. Metcalf to represent him.

A few weeks later, the attorneys informed the Government that Samsel likely only wished to continue with Ms. Pasqualini. After an additional two weeks and two additional status conferences (May 14 and May 18), Samsel confirmed that he wanted to proceed only with Ms. Pasqualini. Mr. Metcalf withdrew on May 18. (R. 22)

[snip]

Subsequent to the Court’s Order, on June 14, attorney John Pierce sent an email to the Court and stated in that email and subsequent to it that Samsel had not authorized Ms. Pasqualini to file the motion requesting a transfer [to custody of the State of Pennsylvania], that Samsel did not want a transfer, and that he wanted the Order vacated and for Samsel to remain in federal custody. The Court forwarded the correspondence and held an assessment of counsel hearing on June 21 and June 25 to determine whether Samsel truly wanted to switch attorneys again (R. 29); see also (Tr. June 24 at 4-5).

At the June 25, 2021 hearing, Ms. Pasqualini withdrew from the case.

[snip]

In August, Samsel requested new counsel, and, on August 16, John Pierce withdrew from the case, and Stanley Woodward and Juli Haller entered appearances.

The filing describes that claims Samsel had made about having doctors in Pennsylvania didn’t match what the Marshal’s Service was able to learn.

Samsel indicated that he had specific doctors in Pennsylvania (a Dr. Liebman and a doctor at Penn) that he had been seeing for a glossectomy and his thoracic condition. (July 1 Tr. at 4). He requested a transfer to FDC in Philadelphia.

[snip]

They made contact with office staff at Dr. Liebman’s office. Mr. Samsel was being seen by Dr. Liebman, a plastic surgeon, for concerns unrelated to thoracic outlet syndrome. There is no specialty care needed that is urgent nor specific to this particular providers abilities.

Conversation with Penn Medicine indicated there was no record of the prisoner being seen by vascular surgery. There is record of primary care visits only. Unless more specific provider information is available, it is not possible to receive direct feedback regarding transfer of care. [emphasis original]

On top of that medical discrepancy, the government filing predictably described that the jails where, Samsel alleges, he was mistreated, offered different versions of each incident than Samsel.

Samsel’s account consistently differs from the account of the facilities where he is housed;

[snip]

Again, Samsel and the facility gave differing accounts of why he was transported and what the diagnosis was.

[snip]

The facility did not have the same account of what occurred. However, both accounts consistently reported that Samsel sustained some kind of injury.

Sadly, jails aren’t necessarily any more credible than recently-sanctioned fraud lawyers. But that’s why it’s particularly interesting that the description of the September 15 “dropping” incident offered by legit defense attorney Woodward differs from the description offered by the recently-sanctioned Haller (though the government doesn’t say how those accounts differ).

One day later, the Government and USMS received emails from both defense counsel in which both suggested Samsel had been assaulted by staff at CVRJ, although with differing versions of the event. The Government immediately followed up with USMS, who followed up with the facility. The facility’s account of what occurred differed from either of the two accounts provided by defense counsel, and the facility denied that any assault took place. The consistent theme between all accounts, however, appeared to be that there were injuries9 and that the injuries were sustained while Samsel was being transferred from one cell to another. Similarly, the facility and defense attorneys differed on their account of the types of injuries sustained and the extent of them.

9 The facility report noted “mild redness on the left side of [Samsel’s] face and cheek bone area.” [my emphasis]

All these discrepancies are why it’s useful that, in addition to the known FBI investigation of the March 21 assault (which prosecutors remain walled off from), and whatever followed from the Virginia State Police visit described by Samsel’s attorneys following the “dropping” incident, the FBI is also investigating the October 12 incident.

That [March 21] incident was referred for investigation to the FBI (and it remains under investigation),4

4 The prosecutors in this case have been purposefully walled off in large part from that investigation.

[snip]

1 The Government has referred the latter of these incidents for investigation after confirming with defense counsel that Samsel is alleging an assault occurred at Northern Neck.

The Government has referred this incident to the FBI for investigation.

The government filing also submitted a sealed addendum addressing the allegations in the NYT story.

On the second issue relating to the article, there is absolutely no basis in fact for these speculations. It makes no difference to the Government whether Samsel wishes to meet or not and his violent actions at the Capitol and his prior history of assaultive and obstructive behavior speaks for itself. The other speculations are discussed and responded to in the attached sealed addendum. See Govt. Ex. 1, Addendum, Filed Under Seal.

This may have the unintended effect of alerting Judge Kelly, who is presiding over the Joe Biggs case, of details regarding allegations Samsel made to the FBI about Biggs.

Again, when it involves jails, especially with defendants accused of injuring cops, you sadly can’t rule out that the jails are at fault. But in its filing, the government lays out all their efforts, during the entire period Samsel kept delaying care by replacing his attorneys and (in one case) refusing treatment for seizures, to find some way to keep him safe in jail.

Judge Kelly has scheduled a hearing to sort through all this — with the attendance of a representative from the Marshals and Samsel’s current jail (wherever that is) — for Thursday, almost two weeks before the hearing he otherwise had scheduled.

About the only thing that seems clear, right now, is that Samsel should not be returned to the DC Jail.

Merrick Garland’s Dodges on Investigating Former Presidents

/64 Comments/in , /by

In the oversight hearing today, Eric Swalwell tried to grill Attorney General Garland on whether DOJ would reconsider the OLC memo holding that a sitting President cannot be indicted. Garland dodged answering any specific question. But along the way he laid out some principles that he might apply regarding the investigation of a former President.

Swalwell: General Garland, in 1973, an Office of Legal Counsel memo outlined the parameters for indicting a sitting President and said that you cannot do that. Twenty-seven years later, that memo was updated to reaffirm that principle. Twenty-one years later, we have seen a former President test the bounds of Presidential authority, and I’m wondering, would you commit to revisiting that principle, whether or not a President, while sitting, should be indicted?

Garland: Well, Office of Legal Counsel memoranda, particularly when they’ve been reviewed and affirmed by Attorneys General and Assistant Attorneys General of both parties, it’s extremely rare to reverse them, and we have the same kind of respect for our precedents as the courts do. I think it’s also would not normally be under consideration unless there was an actual issue arising and I’m not aware of that issue arising now. So I don’t want to make a commitment on this question.

Swalwell: I don’t want to talk about any specific case but, just, in general, should a former President’s suspected crimes, once they’re out of office, be investigated by the Department of Justice?

Garland: Again, without, I don’t want to make any discussion about any particular former President or anything else. The memorandum that you’re talking about is limited to acts while the person was in office, and that’s all I can say.

Swalwell: And should that decision be made only after an investigation takes place before deciding beforehand a general principle of we’re not going to investigate a former President at all? Would you agree that if there are facts, those should be looked at?

Garland: Again, you’re pushing me very close to a line that I do not intend to cross. We always look at the facts and we always look at the law in any matter before making a determination.

Merrick Garland Explains that the January 6 Investigation Isn’t Taking All that Long

/12 Comments/in , /by

A lot of people here and elsewhere complain about how long it is taking to bring January 6 perpetrators to justice. In response to a question from Pramila Jayapal this week, Merrick Garland explained that, in his view, it actually isn’t taking so long. He adds some details (in this clip and elsewhere in the exchange with Jayapal) about the investigation, including how DOJ is attempting to standardize plea deals.

On the question you asked, which is why this is taking so long? This is really not long at all. I’ve been in lots of criminal investigations that took way longer. We’ve arrested 650 people already, and keep in mind that most of them were not investig–arrested on the spot, because the Capitol Police were overwhelmed. So they were people who had to be found, they had to be found by sometimes looking at our own video data, sometimes from citizen sleuths around the country identifying people, then they have to be brought back to Washington DC,  then discovery of terabytes of information has to be provided, and then all this was occurring while there was a pandemic and some of the grand juries were not fully operating, and some of the courtrooms were not fully operating. So I’m extremely proud of the work that prosecutors are doing in this case, and the agents are doing in this case. They’re working 24/7 on this.

“Civil War Started:” Zach Rehl’s Blow-by-Blow of the Riot

/58 Comments/in , /by

Since Jonathon Moseley has taken over as Zach Rehl’s defense attorney, he has filed a series of really ridiculous motions.

On Friday, according to a filing purporting to argue that Zach Rehl should be released on bail, FBI agents raided Whallon-Wolkind’s home.

Rehl’s attorney, Jonathon Moseley, claimed that because (he said), “Aaron Whallon-Wollkind did not join the events in the District of Columbia on January 6, 2021, whether the peaceful demonstrations or the violent attacks by a very, very few against U.S. Capitol Police … the Government has no basis for investigating or charging Whallon-Wollkind other than his connection to Zachary Rehl” [all three forms of emphasis Moseley’s], which in turn Moseley claimed was proof that the government still did not have any evidence against Rehl.

It’s a colossally stupid argument, almost as stupid as Moseley’s last two filings, in which he admitted that the Proud Boys “‘circle[d]’ (in a rectangle) the region around the Capitol to monitor the risk from counter-demonstrators,” an encirclement plan that had been publicly tied to obstructing the vote count in advance, and then argued that because Ali Alexander, a brown person who took credit for organizing the Stop the Steal rallies, had not been arrested yet, his [white] client should not have been either.

The government responded to these motions in two different filings yesterday. One motion opposed Rehl’s request for a Bill of Particulars, for discovery that (a table in the motion shows) DOJ has already provided, and for a Parler post that DOJ says doesn’t appear to exist. Another motion opposed Rehl’s bid to reopen his pre-trial detention.

The latter basically argues that all the ridiculous gaslighting Moseley is doing has not presented anything that was not known to Rehl when Tim Kelly last denied his motion for bail.

In his motion and the three supplements, the defendant raises no information that was both unknown to him at the time of the original detention litigation before this Court and that would have a material bearing on the detention decision. The Court should accordingly decline to reopen the detention hearing and should deny the defendant’s motion.

Along the way, the motion makes a point I keep making: the Proud Boy leaders keep excusing their actions by claiming some tie to Trump’s speech or a protest, except that they never went to his speech, heading instead to the Capitol to kick off a riot.

The defendant focuses on what the videos show of the Proud Boys’ activity prior to the breach of the Capitol grounds, and it focuses on two videos that were explicitly made for public consumption. The defendant’s reliance on the videos mentioned in the First Supplement moreover ignores the evidence of the conspirators’ coordinated actions immediately prior to, and again after the breach of the First Street barriers. The defendants arrived near the site of the Ellipse—where speeches were to occur—and then immediately marched to the Capitol away from the demonstration. The defendants were not there for a peaceful demonstration; they went to the Capitol to participate in a violent protest.

[snip]

The Court should not accept Rehl’s invitation to conclude that the fact that the Capitol Police issued some permits negates his mens rea. See Mem. at 10-12. The defendant has not proffered that he knew of any permits issued or that he believed he was participating in a permitted demonstration when he rushed past trampled police barriers. If that is the defendant’s subjective memory, he certainly knew that on June 30. But setting that aside, any claim he makes now—for the first time nine months after the riot—that be believed he was participating in a permitted protest should carry no weight in the Court’s analysis, as those claims are belied by the fact that the defendant entered the grounds not at the site of any permitted protest, but through trampled police barriers.

[snip]

The best proof of what defendants planned is what they did—and did not do—on January 6. They did not attend the demonstration at the Ellipse; they marched to the Capitol. And the defendant celebrated the group’s accomplishments and characterized it for what it was—violence and threatened violence to corruptly influence the vote of the American people.

The government motion scoffs at Rehl’s claim to support the cops, noting that a fundraiser Moseley pointed to in a supplement supporting his renewed bail request had been started the day he submitted the filing, and had raised no funds.

The defendant also proffers that he is the son and grandson of police officers and is a longtime supporter of the “back the blue” movement. E.g., Second Supplement at 3. This information, even if true, was known to him at the time of the June 30 hearing, and thus does not provide a reason to reopen the hearing. The fundraiser that the defendant allegedly set up “to raise money for any injured police officers,” see id., is not material to the Court’s detention analysis. According to an ICANN9 lookup, the domain name healcapitolpolice.com was registered on October 6, 2021—the same day that defendant filed the First Supplement referencing that website and the alleged fundraiser. As of October 15, 2021, that website redirects anyone who clicks on it to a GiveSendGo crowdfunding page that states that the campaign has raised $0 and “is currently disabled and can not receive new donations.”

It shows that because of the way Rehl’s lawyer submitted a Reuters article that (I’ve shown) misunderstood the investigation, it cut off a reference to Rehl and his co-conspirators.

The passage Moseley failed to include affirms that FBI had discovered the Proud Boys had a goal of breaking into the Capitol.

Stone, a veteran Republican operative and self-described “dirty trickster”, and Jones, founder of a conspiracy-driven radio show and webcast, are both allies of Trump and had been involved in pro-Trump events in Washington on Jan. 5, the day before the riot.

FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside, the sources said.

But the most interesting part of the motion includes citation of multiple texts Rehl sent during the riot, which (the government claims) not only proves that Rehl lied in a previous filing about texting only his spouse from the riot, but shows he was providing a blow-by-blow account of the riot to four other people in which he stated, before Dominic Pezzola broke into the Capitol but after they had surged onto Capitol grounds, that “everyone raided the Capitol.”

In addition to the post-election rhetoric the Court cited in granting the government’s motion to revoke the magistrate’s release order, many of the defendant’s statements from January 6 and 7 underscore the government’s assertion that he possessed a criminal mens rea on January 6. For example, in contrast to defendant’s claim that “gathering at the U.S. Capitol was specifically authorized” by permit (Mem. at ¶ 55), shortly after defendant and his coconspirators had surged onto Capitol grounds, Rehl texted four other contacts, “Everyone raided the Capitol.” At the time that text was sent, 1:15 p.m., the defendant and his coconspirators had pushed into the West Plaza, but they were still approximately 30 minutes from beginning to push up the stairs to the Upper West Terrace. At 1:34 p.m., Rehl texted the same group, “We’re at a standstill, cops are dropping concussion bombs and pepper spraying, people are pepper spraying back and fighting riot cops.” At 2:29 p.m., after hordes of rioters had entered the building, defendant texted the same group, “Civil war started.”4 He followed at 2:48 p.m. with “They just broke all the doors and windows open, people are pouring in.”

The defendant’s statements after January 6 further underscore that the defendant’s focus on that day was not Antifa. On January 7, 2021, he texted the same group mentioned in the previous paragraph, “Trump basically conceded. We lost our country, we shoulda held the capital” and “Once Pence turned his back he was fucked, but was hoping we all sent a message yesterday, I guess that was the message to ben [sic] the knee, its depressing.” In a different Telegram chat on January 7, Rehl stated, “Looking back, it sucked, we shoulda held the capital. After [T]rump conceding today, it all seemed like a waste.” He continued, “The reason why it feels like a waste is because instead of all these politicians getting scared and realizing they need to answer for this fraud, they are all turning on Trump and cucking, they are doubling down on their actions. Everyone shoulda showed up armed and took the country back the right way,” and “I imagine the next time people aren’t showing up unarmed. I’m not trying to fed post, I’m just stating facts, normies turned on the cops man, we didn’t start any of the violence, all we did was a couple of chants.”

4 These text messages stand in contrast to the defendant’s assertion that he only texted his wife to let her know he was safe and that he only knew of the full scale of the attack at the time of the impeachment trial. See First Supplement at 8.

Zach Rehl described the riot on the Capitol that he and his co-conspirators kicked off as a “civil war.” That expresses a mens rea that goes well beyond simply trying to obstruct the vote count.

Schrödinger’s Capitol: Three Things Owen Shroyer Neglects to Mention

/45 Comments/in , /by

Owen Shroyer has filed a motion to dismiss his trespassing case claiming that FBI left out material information in the arrest warrant against Shroyer. Basically, he argues that the FBI arrest affidavit neglected to describe that Jones and his entourage were begging the cops to let them go de-escalate the crowd.

Burns, however, omits that nothing in the video shows where the restricted area was, what its boundaries were, or warns Shroyer that he was in the restricted area. Burns also omits that, over the course of the 20-minute video, Shroyer’s bodyguard talked to multiple United States Capitol police officers, including on the United States Capitol steps, and expressed that Shroyer and his colleagues wanted to follow the law and help the United States Capitol police deescalate events. Burns conveniently omits the fact that a United States Capitol police officer – identifiable by his name tag as “C. Atkinson” – directs Shroyer and his colleagues to the opposite side of the Capitol building as being where the crowd is the worst when Shroyer’s bodyguard asks where the United States Capitol police needs help the most instead of telling them to leave a restricted area or not to go in one.

Shockingly, Burns hides from the Court that, when Shroyer and his colleagues went where Officer Atkinson directed them to go, Shroyer’s bodyguard had several more conversations with United States Capitol police officers right in front of what appears to be the United States Capitol steps. In these conversations, Shroyer’s bodyguard, Shroyer, and his colleagues interact with both rank-and-file Capitol police officers forming a line to guard the Capitol steps and a Capitol police commander who placed a phone call to his superiors asking whether they could allow Shroyer and his colleagues to assist in deescalating the crowd. Burns fails to tell the Court that, in these interactions, not a single Capitol police officer asked Shroyer or his colleagues to leave or told them that they were unlawfully in a restricted area. Burns also does not tell the Court that the United States Capitol police officers pled with their superiors to allow Shroyer and his colleagues to help them deescalate the crowd.

Shroyer additionally claims that the restricted area for every participant who didn’t already have a legal restriction on being on the Capitol grounds (as Shroyer did) changed after cops moved some barricades.

But Shroyer leaves out three key details that make it clear this filing is a bunch of propaganda.

Alex Jones invited the crowd to add to the mob on the East side even before a cop said there was a problem there

First, he’s lying about what the video shows. It starts with the interaction he describes in the motion, with a timestamp of 13:00. Except then it reverts to earlier footage, time stamped beginning 12:52, where Jones already makes the decision to move to the East front, promising viewers that Trump will speak and explaining they have a permit and a stage. The cop had nothing to do with their decision to go to the East side, and (as I noted here), Jones clearly suggested he was taking his mob to a place where he had legal permission to be, where he had a stage and a permit. That wasn’t the top of the steps; it was an area away from the Capitol that he never used.

Furthermore, the interaction in question captures the cop saying that “you” (meaning the rioters) had breached the East side barricades, undercutting their claim that the cops let rioters in or that the restricted area (for people not named Shroyer, who had a pre-existing one) had changed. Another cop describes that the stairs had been breached, again emphasizing that everyone was trespassing. The video shows Jones’ handlers attempting, but failing, to get legal coverage for Jones to mount the steps. That is, it pointedly shows that the cops never did sanction Jones’ trespassing (though one female cop said if he made it there on his own he could try).

And the video doesn’t show what happened when Jones did climb the steps.

This video (h/t @gal_suburban) shows that amid a mob of people Jones already knew had illegally “breached” the steps, Jones and Shroyer both yelled into blowhorns, “1776” amid an inflamed mob.

Only after that did Jones ask people to be peaceful, then shifted to a “Fight for Trump” chant, again inflaming the crowd (as he began to walk away).

That is, once they got the top of the steps claiming they were going to de-esecalate, they did the opposite, they used the language of Revolution.

Shroyer never denies he knew that his incitement throughout this video was illegal

Shroyer’s filing admits a key detail used to arrest him: less than a year before January 6, he had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement that prohibited him from making a ruckus anywhere at the Capitol, including the grounds of the Capitol.

The DPA defines the “Capitol Buildings” as the “United States Capitol, the Senate and House Office Buildings and garages, the Capitol Power Plant, all subways and enclosed passages connecting 2 or more of such structures, and the real property underlying and enclosed by any such structure.” Id. at p. 4. It the provides a map delineating what are considered to be the U.S. Capitol Grounds. Id. at p. 5. FBI Special Agent Clarke Burns insinuates that Shroyer violated this agreement even though federal prosecutors have left that decision to D.C. prosecutors.

DC prosecutors are AUSAs.

What Shroyer doesn’t mention is that the map he references includes all the places he was during the video he says exonerates him.

the term “United States Capitol Grounds” was defined to include an area delineated in a map attached to the DPA spanning the Capitol grounds from 3rd Street NW on the west side of the Capitol building, to 2nd Street SE on the east side of the Capitol building

And that’s it. He doesn’t deny his inflammatory speech was a violation of his DPA. He doesn’t say he didn’t have special notice and special prohibition to be on the Capitol grounds riling up a mob.

Having admitted to the DPA, he just ignores the import of it.

Shroyer neglects to mention the import of Ali Alexander’s presence

The video Shroyer says he exonerates him often doesn’t show who is in the entourage (it doesn’t even show his presence), though other videos clearly show who was with Shroyer and Jones as they made a public announcement they were moving to the East side even before speaking to a cop, then moving to the East side and chanting “1776” from the midst of the mob.

But one short clip shows that Ali Alexander was there (as, again, other videos confirm he was throughout).

The significance of Alexander’s presence is that — as BuzzFeed and others have shown — he used a series of front organizations to obtain permits at various locations around the Capitol. And those getting the permits on Alexander’s behalf were clearly told that their permits — the permit Jones used to lure people to the East side, only to ignore once he got there — were limited to 50 people.

Martin, an Iraq War veteran who serves on his local city council, directed the officer to speak with Stephen Brown, a sound and lighting technician who was listed as a “spokesperson,” because Martin said he “only deals with the logistics and the hotel bookings for the event.”

Brown, according to the officer’s notes, said he was “shocked” Martin would say that “because he is in daily communication with Mr. Martin for information regarding the event. He does not understand why he would say that or not give me the information I requested.”

A screenshot of the text from the documents

Obtained via Capitol Police

Brown, who did not respond to emails and phone calls requesting comment, told the officer Martin “is associated with Stop the Steal and travels with Ali Alexander.” Martin “does not seem to have an official title but he deals with the daily operations to include hotel books and car rentals.”

Alexander did not respond to a request for comment.

The officer reported advising Brown “of my concerns of not being able to regulate their numbers to 50 persons or less,” he wrote. “I explained that once information is on social media it is hard to regulate the number of participants. If his event is in fact one in the same Capitol Police will not be able to accommodate his event to the participant numbers being out of regulations and a public safety issue.”

Even the mob that Jones led to the East side exceeded what were allowed under the permit, and he (accompanied all the time by Alexander) didn’t lead them to the permitted area, which might have had the effect of drawing people away from (or at least prevented further accumulation on) the steps.

Shroyer didn’t need cops to tell him what was permissible for everyone who, unlike him, didn’t already have a prior prohibition tied to the Capitol grounds. He was steps away from Alexander the entire time in question.

Jenny Cudd’s Pre- and Post-Riot Endorsement of a Revolution

/50 Comments/in , , /by

Jenny Cudd and Eliel Rosa were charged with trespassing together by complaint on January 12 and arrested on January 13. The arrest affidavit tracked how the two of them walked together through the Capitol.

  • At approximately 2:35 p.m., Jenny Louise Cudd and Eliel Rosa, enter the U.S. Capitol via Upper West Terrace Door.
  • At approximately 2:36 p.m., Jenny Louise Cudd and Eliel Rosa are observed inside the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol from the west side doorway that leads into the Rotunda. They are observed remaining inside the Rotunda until approximately 2:39 p.m. They are further observed taking pictures of the Rotunda and the surrounding area.
  • At approximately 2:39 p.m., Jenny Louise Cudd and Eliel Rosa are observed walking across the Statuary Hall area of the U.S. Capitol.
  • At approximately 2:40 p.m., Jenny Louise Cudd and Eliel Rosa are observed walking the Statuary Hall Connector and moves off camera at approximately 2:42 p.m.
  • At approximately 2:43 p.m., Jenny Louise Cudd and Eliel Rosa are observed departing from a large crowd inside the U.S. Capitol in front of the Main Door of the House Chamber and walks east toward the staircase.
  • Jenny Louise Cudd and Eliel Rosa are subsequently observed walking past the staircase and is further observed walking past the Upper House Door, going toward the other entrance to the House Chamber
  • Jenny Louise Cudd and Eliel Rosa are observed at approximately 2:54 p.m. at the Upper House Door and further observed departing the U.S. Capitol.

It described how Cudd filmed a video at the Willard after she returned, boasting that she was present when, “the new revolution started at the Capitol.”

Jenny Cudd stated on the Facebook video that she was at the Willard Hotel, located on 1401 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington D.C. 20004. During the course of the video she made the following comments to confirm the location and date of the video recording, “I am sitting in front of the Willard Hotel, as I always do when I am in DC protesting,” and “I was here today on January 6th when the new revolution started at the Capitol.”

It further described an interview Cudd did a few days later, boasting of her actions.

On January 8, 2021, Jenny Louise Cudd participated in an interview with a local news station in which she describes her actions on January 6, 2021, in Washington D.C., to include her admission of entering the U.S. Capitol on the same date. Specifically, Jenny Louise Cudd states during her interview she stated the following, “we walked up the steps and walked inside an open door (referring to the U.S. Capitol).” Jenny Louise Cudd further stated, “we the Patriots did storm the U.S. Capitol.” She added in reference to entering the U.S. Capitol, “Yes, I would absolutely do it again.”

As the arrest affidavit notes, the FBI also interviewed Rosa before arresting the two of them. He confirmed that the two of them had, indeed, entered the Capitol on January 6.

On January 8, 2021, Eliel Rosa was interviewed by the FBI in Midland, Texas. During the interview, Eliel Rosa admitted that he and Jenny Louise Cudd had entered the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The arrest affidavit focused entirely on events of January 6 and thereafter. And while both Cudd and Rosa were implicated in trespassing, the most damning evidence in the affidavit came from Cudd’s own description of their activity.

On February 3, they were both indicted with their original trespassing charges, as well as obstruction of the vote count and abetting such obstruction.

In March, Cudd moved to sever her case from that of Rosa, arguing in part that by charging them together, the government was attempting, “to create the appearance of a conspiracy or plan.” Specifically, though, Cudd wanted to sever her case from Rosa’s both to prevent his voluntary statement to the FBI from being presented against her, but also to ensure she could cross-examine him to get him to verify that she had no corrupt plan to disrupt the vote count.

Ms. Cudd will seek Mr. Rosa’s exculpatory testimony to show that there was no advance plan for Ms. Cudd to walk into the Capitol, that Ms. Cudd was not aware they were breaking the law by walking around inside, that Ms. Cudd did not act “corruptly,” that Ms. Cudd did not “picket,” that Ms. Cudd was not “disorderly,” that Ms. Cudd did not have the intent to commit any of the offenses alleged, and, more generally and most importantly, to show that Ms. Cudd did not commit any of the offenses of which she is accused. Mr. Rosa’s testimony would support reasonable doubt for each count of the Indictment. Furthermore, Ms. Cudd would be able to examine Mr. Rosa on redirect, to place any government cross examination into context for the fact finder.

In the government response, they largely recited the same facts shown in the arrest affidavit, then noted that Cudd and Rosa traveled from Midland, TX, stayed at the same hotel, and traveled through the Capitol together.

Cudd and Rosa both live in Midland, Texas, and they knew each other prior to January 6, 2021. They checked into the same hotel in Washington, D.C. on January 5, 2021, and checked out on January 7. On January 6, they went to the U.S. Capitol together.

In her reply, Cudd cited from Rosa’s 302, describing that he did not travel to the riot with anyone, and added more details based on the receipts obtained in discovery to make it clear they had not traveled together.

Contrary to the government’s implication that the two traveled together or planned to be at the Capitol together, Mr. Rosa’s interview with the FBI shows they did not. This is further supported by the hotel receipts, which the government obtained and shared with the defense. The Willard Hotel receipts show that rooms for the two co-defendants were booked on different dates and for different prices. (Ms. Cudd paid $143 more for her stay. If they coordinated, she would have surely chosen to save that money and would not have used Expedia for that booking.) The two stayed on different floors and had dinner separately and at different times, according to meal receipts. These were not the only two Trump supporters staying at the Willard Hotel from January 5-7. A large number of other Trump supporters shared those booking dates at the Willard. And, while the two may have known each other from back home and shared political views, that is not a basis for joinder. The entire crowd of Trump supporters, many of whom stayed at the Willard Hotel, were present at the Capitol. They are not charged together.

After the government had provided some discovery, including the contents of two phones, the government response to a request from Cudd that it identify all the exhibits it would use in its case in chief repeated the same facts laid out in the original arrest affidavit, all focused on January 6 and thereafter. The response also said it was far too early for Cudd to demand a list of exhibits that would be used against her at trial.

Shortly after Cudd’s request to learn precisely which exhibits the government would use at trial, Eliel Rosa entered into a plea agreement with an expiration date of July 29, pleading guilty to 40 USC 5104, the lesser of the two trespassing charges used with January 6 defendants. His statement of offense narrated what he and Cudd saw and heard as they wandered through the Capitol together. Specifically, he described hearing gunshots and seeing a bunch of people banging on doors, possibly the doors to the Speaker’s Lobby.

While inside of the U.S. Capitol, Mr. Rosa heard two gunshots and saw 15 to 20 men banging on assorted doors. These men were wearing “MAGA” gear.

In addition to implicating Cudd in his own trespassing, Rosa also noted that he did not have any evidence as to Cudd’s intent when she entered the Capitol.

Mr. Rosa has reviewed the allegations in the indictment that relate to his codefendant, Jenny Cudd, and admits that the allegations are true, or that he does not have sufficient information to dispute or disprove those allegations set forth the indictment. Specifically, this includes that Mr. Rosa does not have information as to Ms. Cudd’s motive and intent when she entered the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 or whether Ms. Cudd had the intent to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding before Congress – to wit: Congress’s Electoral College Certification on that date.

This might be seen as exculpatory for Cudd, precisely the kind of testimony she hoped to elicit from Rosa at any trial. But it also protected Rosa from any implication in whatever intent Cudd did have when she went to the Capitol.

The government’s sentencing memo for Rosa provided more details about the friendship between Rosa and Cudd, which Rosa described to be a recent friendship.

In an interview with the FBI, Mr. Rosa explained his relationship to his co-defendant Jenny Cudd. Mr. Rosa and Ms. Cudd are new friends, who met at an event in November 2020. Mr. Rosa explained that he and his co-defendant Jenny Cudd held similar beliefs. Although the two were not travel companions, they both discussed their plans to travel to Washington, D.C. and stayed in the same hotel in separate rooms.

It also describes how both returned to the Willard after Trump’s speech, and only then did Rosa decide to go to the Capitol (this detail was used against him at his sentencing).

In the afternoon on January 6, 2021, after listening to President Trump’s speech, Mr. Rosa returned to his hotel, however, he decided he would follow others heading toward the Capitol after learning that Vice President Pence was not going to take action. Mr. Rosa met with his friend Ms. Cudd at the hotel and together they marched toward the United States Capitol where he knew the Congressional certification was taking place.

Rosa’s own sentencing memo explains that the gunshot referred to in his statement of offense was probably the fatal shot of Ashli Babbitt, thereby seemingly confirming that he witnessed a bunch of people in MAGA hats banging on a door before Babbitt was shot.

When he got to the Capitol he walked in through an open door and followed the flow of people going through the rotunda and towards the East gate. He heard what he believes to have been the shot that killed Ms. Babitt. After being asked to stand against the wall for a short period of time while officers dealt with that situation, he (and others) were asked to leave out the East door, and he complied immediately.

Rosa’s sentencing memo also makes clear that he posted nothing positive about the riot after he attended it; a photo he posted to Facebook stating, “And we fight,” was posted at 5:22AM that morning.

On Tuesday, Judge McFadden sentenced Rosa to a year of probation, less than the month of home confinement the government requested (I thought I heard McFadden impose more community service than the government had asked for, 100 hours instead of 60, but no reference to community service appears in the docket).

Hours later, the notice that Cudd would plead guilty posted to the docket. Her plea offer was dated September 27, with a deadline of acceptance of October 11, a day earlier (and indeed, the signatures on the plea agreement are dated October 11). Because Cudd pled guilty to the more serious trespassing misdemeanor than Rosa, it meant that language permitting the government to ask for a terrorism enhancement was included as boilerplate in her plea agreement and given Marina Medvin’s complaints at the plea colloquy, nothing Medvin tried to do managed to get it removed.

Cudd’s statement of offense included a detail that may not appear anywhere else. Not only did she admit under oath she knew the vote was going to be certified (something Rosa also attested to), but she admitted under oath that at the the Stop the Steal rallies on January 5, she heard people calling for revolution and then stated that she was “all for it.”

On January 5, 2021, Ms. Cudd stated the following in a video on social media: “a lot of . . . the speakers this evening were calling for a revolution. Now I don’t know what y’all think about a revolution, but I’m all for it. . . . Nobody actually wants war, nobody wants bloodshed, but the government works for us and unfortunately it appears that they have forgotten that, quite a lot. So, if a revolution is what it takes then so be it. Um, I don’t know if that is going to kick off tomorrow or not, we shall see what the powers that be choose to do with their powers and we shall see what it is that happens in Congress tomorrow at our United States Capitol. So, um either way I think that either our side or the other side is going to start a revolution.”

It’s not clear whether Rosa knew of this video or saw it before he stated that he had no evidence about her intent on the day of the riot.

Cudd’s statement of offense admits that she was in the vicinity of the Babbitt shooting (without specifying it as such), but doesn’t describe (as Rosa’s did) being held up while police dealt with the aftermath.

The government produced to the defense evidence that showed that Ms. Cudd and Mr. Rosa continued walking through the Statuary Hall area of the U.S. Capitol, until 2:43 p.m., when they moved toward the House Chamber and connecting hallways; the defense does not dispute this evidence.

Thus, while Cudd’s statement of offense notes that she did not, herself, enter Pelosi’s office, the statement she recorded after the riot stating that, “we did break down the Nancy Pelosi’s office door,” would have taken place after those with Ashli Babbit had done more than $1,000 of damage to the doors to the Speaker’s lobby, something charged against at least three of those present, and something that could carry a terrorist enhancement for those who did the damage.

We did break down the Nancy Pelosi’s office door and somebody stole her gavel and took a picture sitting in the chair flipping off the camera. . . . they had to evacuate it before we charged the Capitol. . . . Fuck yes, I am proud of my actions, I fucking charged the Capitol today with patriots today. Hell yes I am proud of my actions.” Despite Ms. Cudd’s statement, there is no evidence that Ms. Cudd entered Nancy Pelosi’s office and no evidence that Ms. Cudd stole any property from the Capitol.

The next day, January 8, Cudd explained why she used the collective “we” in her statement from the day of the riot, seemingly trying to distance herself from some of the violence yet still describing that “the patriots [collectively] stormed the Capitol” and asserting she would do the same again, even after she was (at least per Rosa’s statement of offense) present in the vicinity of the Babbitt killing.

So if you watch the entire video [referring to her January 6 social media video] and you watch any of my videos you know that the way that I speak is that I always say we. So I say we the patriots, we . . . whatever. I always say we so those things did happen by other people but I was not a part of that. But in reference to it that umm we the patriots stormed the Capitol and some people went into different offices and different things like that . . . . I would do it again in a heartbeat because I did not break any laws.

The new language in Cudd’s statement of offense — describing the speakers calling for revolution — will help DOJ make a case (one they’ve already started to lay out) about the premeditation reflected in those who gave speeches on January 5.

But it also shows that she responded to calls for revolution the day before the riot by endorsing the idea, and then after the riot, she returned to the Willard and bragged she had been present when the revolution was started, ““I was here today on January 6th when the new revolution started at the Capitol.”

image_print