Two ex-Proud Boys leaders get some of longest sentences in Jan. 6 Capitol attack
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and LINDSAY WHITEHURST Updated 4:52 PM CDT, August 31, 2023
Proud Boys members including, Zachary Rehl, left , Ethan Nordean, center, and Joseph Biggs walk toward the U.S. Capitol in Washington
WASHINGTON (AP) — Two former leaders of the far-right Proud Boys extremist group were sentenced to more than a decade each in prison Thursday for spearheading an attack on the U.S. Capitol to try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden after the 2020 presidential election.
The 17-year prison term for organizer Joseph Biggs and 15-year sentence for leader Zachary Rehl were the second and third longest sentences handed down yet in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack.
They were the first Proud Boys to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who will separately preside over similar hearings of three others who were convicted by a jury in May after a four-month trial in Washington that laid bare far-right extremists’ embrace of lies by Trump, a Republican, that the 2020 election was stolen from him.
Enrique Tarrio, a Miami resident who was the Proud Boys’ national chairman and top leader, is scheduled to be sentenced Tuesday. His sentencing was moved from Wednesday to next week because U.S. District Kelly was sick.
Tarrio wasn’t in Washington on Jan. 6. He had been arrested two days before the Capitol riot on charges that he defaced a Black Lives Matter banner during an earlier rally in the nation’s capital, and he complied with a judge’s order to leave the city after his arrest. He picked Biggs and Proud Boys chapter president Ethan Nordean to be the group’s leaders on the ground in his absence, prosecutors said.
Rehl, Biggs, Tarrio and Nordean were convicted of charges including seditious conspiracy, a rarely brought Civil War-era offense. A fifth Proud Boys member, Dominic Pezzola, was acquitted of seditious conspiracy but convicted of other serious charges.
Federal prosecutors had recommended a 33-year prison sentence for Biggs, who helped lead dozens of Proud Boys members and associates in marching to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Biggs and other Proud Boys joined the mob that broke through police lines and forced lawmakers to flee, disrupting the joint session of Congress for certifying the electoral victory by Biden, a Democrat.
'WASHINGTON — Enrique Tarrio, the former chairman of the far-right Proud Boys, was sentenced to 22 years in federal prison Tuesday afternoon following his conviction on a seditious conspiracy charge in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
His sentence is the longest in a Jan. 6 case so far, surpassing the 18 years for Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, who was also convicted of seditious conspiracy.
Tarrio was one of four Proud Boys found guilty of seditious conspiracy in May. Federal prosecutors sought a sentence of 33 years in federal prison; U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly sentenced Tarrio's co-defendants to much lower terms than those sought by prosecutors.
Last week, Joe Biggs was sentenced to 17 years, Zachary Rehl to 15 years and Ethan Nordean to 18 years. Proud Boy Dominic Pezzola, the fifth defendant, was found not guilty of the top charge of seditious conspiracy but guilty of other charges; he was sentenced to 10 years.
Federal prosecutors called Tarrio a "naturally charismatic leader, a savvy propagandist, and the celebrity Chairman of the national Proud Boys organization." .. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.228300/gov.uscourts.dcd.228300.855.1.pdf .. Tarrio, they said, had "influence over countless subordinate members," which he used "to organize and execute the conspiracy to forcibly stop the peaceful democratic transfer of power."
Tarrio was not at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; he was arrested about 48 hours before the attack because of his actions at a previous pro-Trump event in Washington. Tarrio knew a warrant was out for his arrest thanks to a Washington police lieutenant who has since been charged and pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors said the evidence suggests Tarrio "strategically calculated his arrest as a means to inspire a reaction by his followers."
That Tarrio spent most of Jan. 6 at a hotel in Baltimore, prosecutors said, "does nothing to detract from the severity of his conduct," because he "was a general rather than a soldier."
Tarrio, prosecutors said, is "intelligent, charming, creative, and articulate — a gifted communicator who excels at attracting followers" who "used those talents to inflame and radicalize untold numbers of followers, promoting political violence in general and orchestrating the charged conspiracies in particular."
“To Tarrio, January 6 was an act of revolution,” prosecutors wrote.
They argued for a terrorism sentencing enhancement, saying his actions were clearly intended to influence the government. The judge agreed, applying the terrorism enhancement in Tarrio's case, as he did for Tarrio's four co-defendants.
“My client is no terrorist. My client is a misguided patriot,” Tarrio’s lawyer Sabino Jauregui said, arguing that his client went to Washington to "protest."
“My client comes from a country where there are no rights, there’s nothing,” he said, referring to Tarrio’s Cuban heritage. “He was trying to protect this country, as misguided as he was.”
Tarrio's defense team argued for a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines, seeking an unspecified lower sentence, and they submitted letters of support to the court, including one from a cousin of Tarrio’s who has worked for Miami police for 16 years.
The defense had asked Kelly to see “another side” of Tarrio that is “benevolent, cooperative with law enforcement, useful in the community, hardworking and with a tight-knight family unit and community support.”
Enrique Tarrio outside the Capitol on Sept. 6, 2021.U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Assistant U.S. Attorney Conor Mulroe, arguing for the prosecution, called Tarrio’s behavior a “calculated act of terrorism,” saying the consequences need to be abundantly clear to anyone who might be unhappy with the results of the 2024 election and any elections in the future.
“There was a very real possibility that we were going to wake up on January 7 in a full-blown constitutional crisis with the federal government in complete chaos,” Mulroe said. “That is what revolution means and that is what he openly perused and that is what he very nearly achieved. And it didn’t take rifles and explosives.”
Mulroe also pushed back against Tarrio’s lawyers' attributing his actions to “misguided patriotism,” saying Tarrio's plan was for street violence on a national scale to be brought to bear against the seat of government.
The Proud Boys' actions "were absolutely pivotal to what happened on January 6," he said. “They were a tidal wave of force that had such a dramatic effect on the day’s events.”
Before his sentencing, Tarrio delivered a contrite statement, apologizing to members of law enforcement, the citizens of Washington, lawmakers and his family. “To the men and women of law enforcement who answered the call that day, I’m sorry,” Tarrio said.
“I have always tried to hold myself to a higher standard, and I failed,” he said. “I failed miserably. I thought of myself morally above others, and this trial has humbled me.”
Tarrio also walked back statements he had made comparing Pezzola to George Washington, a statement that appeared to irk Kelly when it came up earlier in the proceeding.
Tarrio also sought to downplay his political involvement, saying he did not intend to change the results of the election on Jan. 6 but only planned to go to speak at an event to support Donald Trump and to support his friends.
“I am not a political zealot,” he said. “When I get back home, I want nothing to do with politics, groups, activism or rallies.”
Tarrio added that he would not say anything different after Kelly left the room, an apparent reference to his co-defendant Pezzola, who shouted “Trump won” after he was sentenced to 10 years last week.
Jack Smith seeks gag order to STOP Trump's dangerous disinformation & jury-pool-poisoning lies
"Justice Department seeks 33 years in prison for ex-Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio in Jan. 6 case"
If a sucker like Tarrio gets 33, again, what do the ones who designed, initiated and encouraged it all deserve.
Glenn Kirschner
103,270 views Sep 17, 2023 #TeamJustice
Special Counsel Jack Smith has, at long last, filed a motion asking Judge Tanya Chutkan to issue an order restricting Donald Trump's speech and posts. Specifically, the proposed gag order requests the following:
"The Government seeks a narrow, well-defined restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing this case. The Government's proposed order specifies that such statements would include (a) statements regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses; and (b) statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating."
The only remaining questions are:
1. Will Judge Chutkan issue the order? She almost certainly will.
2. What will the judge do when - not if - Trump violates the order?
For our Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise shop, please visit:
On Friday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed filings revealing the government’s week-old request.
“The defendant's past conduct ... amply demonstrates the need for this order," prosecutors wrote. | Scott Olson/Getty Images
By Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney
09/15/2023 05:20 PM EDT
Special counsel Jack Smith is asking a judge to issue a gag order against Donald Trump, prohibiting him from attacking prosecutors, the judge or potential witnesses who may testify in his federal criminal trial stemming from his effort to subvert the 2020 election.
“The defendant’s past conduct, including conduct that has taken place after and as a direct result of the indictment in this case, amply demonstrates the need for this order,” prosecutors wrote, adding that Trump’s past salvos had already resulted in harassment of potential witnesses.
On Friday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed filings .. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23979181-trumpgagmot0912523 .. revealing the government’s week-old request, arguing that Trump is undermining the fairness of the proceedings through “disparaging and inflammatory attacks” on prosecutors, witnesses and the judge in the case.
Given Trump’s penchant for bombastic public statements and for using his social media accounts to settle political scores, a clash like the one now playing out in front of Chutkan has seemed inevitable, particularly as the number of criminal cases Trump faces has risen to four.
Trump lashed out on his social media network Truth Social soon after news of the request broke, writing: “So, I’m campaigning for President against an incompetent person who has WEAPONIZED the DOJ & FBI to go after his Political Opponent, & I am not allowed to COMMENT? They Leak, Lie, & Sue, & they won’t allow me to SPEAK?”
[INSERT: There you have it from a vicious, unscrupulously manipulative individual who decades ago decided to steal from the USA as much as he could. Now in his last desperate throes he is attempting to steal all integrity from the country which has given him so much. A more selfishly self-centered coward would be difficult to find.]
While any gag order limits a defendant’s First Amendment rights, Trump’s situation is unique as he is mounting a campaign to return to the White House and is intent on using the criminal cases as part of his effort to energize his political base.
But in their new request, prosecutors say Trump’s posts amount to more than a mere breach of decorum because his public vitriol has a history of unleashing harassment by Trump followers. The prosecution specifically cited Trump’s attacks on his former cybersecurity aide Chris Krebs, Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman and former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan as examples of figures who faced threats as a result of being singled out by the former president on social media.
Taken together, the government’s filings over a period of several months present an extraordinary picture of a former president as a uniquely dangerous threat to the courts, the justice system and those who would align against him in his four criminal cases. They say he uses that platform — primarily Truth Social and TV interviews — to spread knowing lies about his critics and the court process in ways that stoke the fury of his followers, some of whom feel compelled to act in his name.
In the Chutkan filings, the Justice Department attorneys also pointed to Trump’s repeated incendiary attacks on Smith himself, another special counsel prosecutor Jay Bratt and on Chutkan. They accused Trump of spreading a “knowing lie” by accusing Bratt of meeting with President Joe Biden White House officials when he was in fact conducting a “routine” interview of a career military official stationed at the White House.
Prosecutors also repeatedly complained about Trump’s pointed criticism of the city that is home to those expected to decide his guilt or innocence in the case, Washington, D.C., and his public suggestions that any jury that is seated in the capital will be biased.
“No way I can get a fair trial, or even close to a fair trial, in Washington, D.C.,” Trump wrote on Truth Social last month. “I am calling for a federal takeover of this filthy and crime-ridden embarrassment to our nation. ... The federal takeover is very unpopular with potential area jurors, but necessary for greatness, & for all the world to see!”
“The fact that he’s running a political campaign has to yield to the orderly administration of justice,” Chutkan told Trump lawyer John Lauro at the Aug. 11 hearing, which the defendant was excused from attending. “If that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, that’s how it has to be.”
“Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they can be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process,” Chutkan added. “I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.”
Earlier this week, Trump’s attorneys filed a motion asking Chutkan to step aside from the case, arguing that her past comments in other Jan. 6-related cases indicate she’d concluded Trump was guilty or at least deserved to be charged. Prosecutors are opposing the effort to recuse her.
Trump’s lawyers have asked her to rule on that issue before considering any other motion in the case.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
