HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Proud Boys want DC police...

Fri Dec 2, 2022, 11:34 PM

Proud Boys want DC police officer to testify in their defense at upcoming trial

Source: CNN

Lawyers for Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio revealed in court Friday that they plan to argue during their December seditious conspiracy trial that the far-right extremist group was in touch with law enforcement about their plans to rally in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021.

Tarrio spoke with Metropolitan Police Lt. Shane Lamond several times about the group’s plans to attend rallies in the district around the time of the 2020 election, according to Nayib Hassan, an attorney for Tarrio. Hassan said he wants to call Lamond as a defense witness.

“How can there be sedition if they’re informing law enforcement” of their plans? Hassan asked District Judge Timothy Kelly during a pretrial conference Friday.

Hassan said the officer had been threatened by the Justice Department with obstruction charges if he decides to testify to communications he had with Tarrio because his testimony “would completely and totally destroy [the DOJ’s] case.”



Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/02/politics/proud-boys-dc-police-testify-trial/index.html

24 replies, 2483 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Proud Boys want DC police officer to testify in their defense at upcoming trial (Original post)
brooklynite Dec 2 OP
Ahpook Dec 2 #1
msongs Dec 2 #2
TigressDem Dec 2 #3
SunSeeker Dec 3 #8
sybylla Dec 3 #20
The_Casual_Observer Dec 3 #4
H2O Man Dec 3 #5
emulatorloo Dec 3 #7
dchill Dec 3 #6
keopeli Dec 3 #9
PatSeg Dec 3 #16
ExtremelyWokeMatt Dec 3 #10
Roy Rolling Dec 3 #11
lonely bird Dec 3 #12
Mr.Bill Dec 3 #23
onetexan Dec 3 #13
reACTIONary Dec 3 #15
onetexan Dec 3 #17
reACTIONary Dec 3 #22
Chainfire Dec 3 #14
MissMillie Dec 3 #18
Aristus Dec 3 #19
republianmushroom Dec 3 #21
jmowreader Dec 3 #24

Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Dec 2, 2022, 11:45 PM

1. Ahh' it's not sedition

We told law enforcement we were going to try and take over by force and possibly murder if needed.

Do they even listen to themselves speak this bullshit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ahpook (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 2, 2022, 11:47 PM

2. in his book hitler explained everything he wanted to do. cops read the book. hitler did them nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Dec 2, 2022, 11:50 PM

3. Doesn't that just INCLUDE that cop in the sedition?

I mean, if he knew and didn't blow the whistle on them.... WTF was he thinking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TigressDem (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 04:02 AM

8. Yes indeed. And Trump knew there were sympathizers among the police at the Capitol that day.

That is why he tweeted to his followers to not hurt them, because they are on "our" side. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/06/trump-tweets-as-political-leaders-beg-him-to-intervene-in-violent-capitol-hill-insurrection.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TigressDem (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 11:41 AM

20. That's my thinking.

And I think it would be a good thing. The cop needs to testify to what they did or didn't do and that thread needs to be pulled hard. Who did he tell? Did he report it up the chain? Where was he that day?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 12:40 AM

4. Tarrio was a long time snitch for the feds. They gave him a long

Leash but he kept humiliating them and getting busted. He was yanked from the scene right before J6 for his own good by the cops but they dragged him in with charges anyway. That cop isn't going to help his case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 12:47 AM

5. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 01:22 AM

7. +++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 12:59 AM

6. Pretty sure it's not illegal to communicate...

"...about the group’s plans to attend rallies in the district..."

YMMV, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 05:55 AM

9. This lawyer is trying to be too clever by half. If what he asserts is true, then either...



a) The cop knew and didn't say anything, meaning s/he is in on it, too. That won't help Enrique.

b) Enrique didn't tell the police what he was REALLY planning to do. In this case, the officer will roast Enrique from the witness stand.

Yup, it's going to be an ugly trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to keopeli (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 09:58 AM

16. Sounds like the lawyer

was desperate for an argument in his client's defense and that was the best he could come up with. I'm sure he knows how ridiculous it sounds, but he gets paid to say something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 06:40 AM

10. What a load of bull

“Informing them” is a far far cry from getting literal department of justice/state approval, and he knows it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 08:30 AM

11. This Isn't Difficult

Arrest corrupt cops if there’s evidence they broke the law.

Duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 08:48 AM

12. Perhaps his lawyer can explain the difference between a "rally" and invading the Capitol?

“Yes, we’re going to rally and protest outside the building, officer.”

“Oh, and we might break into the Capitol, vandalize the place and hunt for Pelosi and Pence to kill them just because our Fuhrer said the election was stolen with no evidence.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonely bird (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 06:55 PM

23. At the least, I'm sure they didn't inform the police

they were going to smear shit on the walls inside the Capitol building.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 09:34 AM

13. Why are these criminals even allowed to make demands

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 09:51 AM

15. Presumption of innocence until...

... PROVEN guilty. They aren't criminals. Yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 10:12 AM

17. I'm aware, but DEMANDING that the people they've hurt be on the stand to explain their allegations

Is preposterous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 01:54 PM

22. As far as I can tell from the article....

... the officer has not objected to being a witness. Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't - can't tell from the article.

If he does testify, he would just be collaborating or establishing a rather simple fact of the case, that the defendants were talking to the police leading up to the insurrection. As far as I can tell he is not being asked to explain his or anyone else's allegations.

In general, those who have exculpatory evidence have a duty to testify, regardless of their personal opinion of the defendants or their own belief regarding guilt or innocence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 09:43 AM

14. I love the theory that a cop can give a seditionist permission to attempt to destroy Democracy.

I wonder if I could get my friendly deputy to give me permission to rob the bank?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 10:30 AM

18. I am willing to bet that Tarrio did NOT inform Lamond that

Proud Boys were stockpiling weapons just outside of DC.

It's one thing for PB to be telling police that PBs were going to protest. The situation is quite different when said protests are a front for taking down the Capitol with weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 10:57 AM

19. That doesn't exonerate the Proud Boys.

It implicates the cops.

Those nimrods just keep plumbing the depths of stupidity, don’t they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 12:22 PM

21. Why not. They have tried everything else

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2022, 08:29 PM

24. I can hardly wait

This trial is going to be an even better circus than Darrell Brooks the Sovereign Citizen.

Pro tip for the feds: if Tarrio says he “doesn’t understand the nature and cause of the charges,” just go straight to jury deliberations. That’s sovereign citizen speak for “I did it! I did it all!”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread