At their core, the defendants argue they are innocent of the charges and insist there never came a day when they or fellow members explicitly planned to storm the U.S. Capitol or interfere with the certification of the 2020 election.
Federal prosecutors argue the proof of their intent is littered not just in their conduct on Jan. 6, but throughout their text messages and on social media posts in the weeks and days leading to the attack. (Importantly, an explicit agreement is also not a requirement for jurors to reach a guilty verdict on seditious conspiracy).
The Justice Department has pointed too to podcasts and media interviews where defendants like Joseph Biggs, Ethan Nordean and Henry Tarrio aired their visceral outrage about a “stolen” election amid calls to rally allies to former President Donald Trump’s side.
At the start of the trial, prosecutors overwhelmingly focused on the physical clashing and violence at the Capitol, showing jurors graphic footage from security cameras or police body-worn cameras that offered a window into the destruction and carnage. Tarrio’s attorneys have laid the blame squarely on Trump for the chaos at the Capitol and argue the defendants have become convenient scapegoats for a former president who they say is seemingly too powerful to face a jury of his peers.
Other defense attorneys, like defendant Dominic Pezzola’s counsel, Roger Roots have thus far relied on what could arguably be described as semantics to convince jurors. For example, Roots—who has reported ties to white supremacist groups—said Pezzola did not “steal” a police riot shield on Jan. 6, as charged. It was a “tug of war” Pezzola was caught in during a “pushing match” with the crowd, Roots said.
On Tuesday, Biggs’ attorney Norm Pattis spent the better part of two hours cross-examining FBI Special Agent Kate Camilleri about the defendants’ various and admittedly “vile” Parler posts.
Camilleri, a West Point graduate and Army combat veteran who specializes in counterterrorism issues, was tasked by the FBI to review the Proud Boys messages on social media.
Pattis pushed Camilleri to answer whether posts stretching from November 2020 to January 2021 would fall under what she testified was a “culture of violence” among the Proud Boys or, as the defense has suggested, a “culture of hyperbole.”
Some of the communications would and some would not, the agent testified.
For example, when Biggs posted a message on Parler on Nov. 4, 2020 saying the election was stolen by Democrats and that “we have no justice, no law and order, no democracy,” Camilleri agreed—this message alone did not indicate there was a “culture of violence” among Proud Boys.
But other messages did, she said.
That would include a post by Biggs on Parler where he shared and reacted to a tweet from actress Alyssa Milano. Milano had encouraged extending an “olive branch” to Trump supporters for the betterment of the country and Biggs replied: “No bitch, this is war.”
“But sometimes words are used metaphorically,” Pattis said. “Sometimes words are used hyperbolically. Sometimes words are used emotionally, wouldn’t you agree?”
The agent agreed.
Biggs posted messages in December 2020 that specifically addressed police. Any cop who might consider barring Trump electors from casting their votes would face consequences, he wrote.
Biggs said things like: “We the people will treat your thin blue line like we do antifa” and “we will bypass your unconstitutional assess, get in our way or get walked over” and “you will become the enemy of the state. you will be tried for treason, you have no chance” and “we aren’t here to play games, this is war.”
Was this hyperbole or intent to engage in violence?
Camilleri said she didn’t know for certain but it would seem to reflect the group’s “culture of war.” Members of the Proud Boys, including Tarrio, often referred to themselves as “war boys” or “lords of war” on social media and at various rallies.
When she came under direct-examination on Monday by assistant U.S. Attorney Jason McCullough, the special agent said that crimes “don’t occur in a vacuum.”
“Social media can reveal motive, intent, state of mind. It can show us who someone associates with and who co-conspirators are… like if they are part of a group [on social media], that can reveal their beliefs or ideologies,” she said.
And sometimes, prosecutors have argued, it’s not that complicated.
To wit, jurors saw social media posts by Tarrio that he issued during the Capitol attack.
Tarrio, who went by the handle “Noble Lead” on Parler, urged Proud Boys, “don’t fucking leave” as the rioting began to spin totally out of control. Then, as police were being overrun and footage of the insurrection was streaming to the world, Tarrio wrote on Parler: “Proud of My Boys and my country.”
Other messages, prosecutors have argued, show how the Proud Boys tried to throw up smoke screens. In one post from defendant Nordean, Nordean said Proud Boys would be unrecognizable on Jan. 6. There would be no traditional Proud Boy black and yellow garb for this event. Instead, Nordean said members would wear “basic” clothing or appear as run-of-the-mill Trump supporters. Others would dress in all black, the clothing choice favored by supporters of the anti-fascist or “antifa” movement.
“We are going to smell like you, move like you and look like you. The only thing we wil do that’s us, is think like us,” Nordean wrote in December.
Despite some attempts by the defense to keep it out entirely on Tuesday, jurors also heard about the “laws of power” Tarrio referenced in a message to Proud Boys dated Dec. 29, 2020 as the group prepared to come to Washington for Trump’s “wild” rally.
Those “laws” stemmed from a self-help book, “The 48 Laws of Power,” by Robert Greene. The book, which happens to be banned in prisons, lists various “laws” that can help its adherents gain—and retain—power.
Tarrio cited nine of them in his message, namely those laws that state: conceal your intentions; always say less than necessary; pose as a friend, work as a spy; crush your enemy; keep others in suspended terror and cultivate an air of unpredictability; plan all the way to the end; create compelling spectacles; stir up waters to catch fish; and assume formlessness.
When Biggs’ attorney Norm Pattis asked Agent Camilleri about the book, his line of questioning inferred that the text was one FBI agents could use to their own ends, just like prosecutors alleged Tarrio had done.
Camilleri read a summary of the law “pose as a friend, work as a spy” to jurors at his request. She did the same for summaries of the laws about “concealing your intentions” and “crushing your enemies” while keeping others in “suspended terror.”
“Have you ever concealed your identity?” Pattis asked.
“How long did you read this book before beginning your investigation of Jan. 6?” he asked.
Did Agent Camilleri use the rules of power in her interrogations and investigations? he pressed.
Prosecutors objected often during this line of question and Judge Kelly frequently sustained them.
Cross-examination didn’t get much further on Tuesday and will continue on Wednesday but Judge Kelly indicated that the trial day will end early at 3 PM due to an issue with a juror.
If you want to catch up on the blow-by-blow, check out the live Twitter thread embedded below, or check out the Daily Kos live blog link available here.
RELATED: Sedition trial finally opens for Proud Boys; blame laid at Trump’s feet
RELATED: It may have been a shootout: Police inspector offers Proud Boys jury insight of Capitol attack
RELATED: Wrap up: The slow burn of the Proud Boys seditious conspiracy trial
RELATED: An expectation of civil war and ‘second thoughts’ on Jan. 6: Former Proud Boy testifies at trial
Comments are closed on this story.