Jauregui also appeared to draw the ire of prosecutor Conor Mulroe as his cross began to reach its conclusion.
Jauregui began to ask Agent Dubrowski about the testimony of another FBI agent to a grand jury and was promptly stopped with an objection from prosecutors. Judge Kelly sustained it and a sidebar followed.
Jauregui then hit Dubrowki with a series of questions about Tarrio’s communications with law enforcement. Was Dubrowski aware that Tarrio had communication with members of law enforcement prior to Jan. 6?
He was, and that included Tarrio’s chats and texts with Shane Lamond, a D.C. police officer who was put on leave after his communications with Proud Boys surfaced.
The communications shown to jurors were extracted from Lamond’s phone and this seemed to have possibly caught prosecutor unawares. Mulroe reviewed it before the documents were officially entered into evidence and he had no objection.
The chats were very hard to read from the screen displaying them in the media room. They will be entered into the evidence database later and I will post them then.
From what was visible and discussed in court on Tuesday; Lamond is seen asking Tarrio questions about where Alex Jones would be speaking before asking Tarrio if he could find out more info about Jones’ itinerary.
Other messages in December—though the date was not clear—show Tarrio and Lamond discussing how Proud Boys shouldn’t go to a local bar in D.C. known as Harry’s.
The suggestion by Jauregui is that the charges have been trumped up or fabricated by the FBI. He earlier on Tuesday asked Dubrowski if the FBI was trying to “frame” Tarrio.
“I have no reason to believe Shane Lamond was coordinating with the FBI,” Dubrowski said.
Jauregui also asked if Tarrio had been in touch with other local police and he suggested that Dubrowski had reviewed texts where Tarrio discussed setting up a meeting with the leader of the Black Lives Matter movement so they could “have a barbecue” and “hash things out.”
Dubrowki recalled seeing discussion of talking to the leader of BLM, but couldn’t recall whether there was talk about making peace, as it were.
“I don’t know what the meeting was supposed to be about,” Dubrowski said.
Didn’t the Proud Boys love America but just hate antifa? Jauregui pressed. Their violent talk was directed only at antifa?
“A great deal of it was,” Dubrowski said.
But, he added, it was also directed towards law enforcement as the group’s disposition changed.
Interesting, when jurors were excused prosecutor Mulroe raised a significant concern for the judge.
Mulroe said there has been a “pattern of behavior” by the defense where they introduce information without a factual basis or introduce information that is inappropriate. Mulroe also argued that Jauregui purposefully asks questions in a way that allows him to get inflammatory information to jurors, even if that information was something that both defense and prosecution agreed wouldn’t come in.
“Mr. Jauregui claims he misspoke or he failed to construct a question in the way that he wants,” Mulroe said.
There were also two exhibits that Jauregui entered on Tuesday, Mulroe said, where Jauregui expressly told him he would keep them out and then told Judge Kelly it was “accidental” when he released them.
“This forming a question that has no conceivable basis except to put before the jury information that is misleading, inappropriate, entirely outside the scope of this witness's direct, information that has no imaginable justification under rules of evidence, I think is an affront to the dignity of these proceedings,” Mulroe said. “The fact that it is repeated needs to be addressed. This is not the first time, but I think it should be the last time.”
Mulroe asked the judge for a sanction of some kind.
Jude Kelly said he wouldn’t decide on anything Tueday but acknowledged “the instances are piling up” and he agreed with Mulroe, it was inappropriate after they had just talked about this in the morning.
Norm Pattis, representing Joseph Biggs, spoke to the court on Jauregui’s behalf, and he suggested that if Jauregui took liberties with the law, it was because the government didn’t have a firm enough hand on the leash.
“No,” Kelly said. “I’m going to reject the idea that we’re going to blame the other side here.”
There have been times, Kelly said, when the government hasn’t “policed the line on cross in ways, I assume, they think is strategic.”
Kelly said he’s had “great patience for legitimate pushing of boundaries but we are now talking about things here that everyone understands have no place before the jury.”