Unicorn RiotIt's Friday March 14 around 9:30 am eastern, which means the final(?) day of former DC prosecutor Jennifer Kerkhoff's DC Bar Association ethics trial is getting underway - it's live here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIIGK4elmHM
YouTube
DC Bar Disciplinary Counsel Sean O'Brien resumes his cross-examination of Kerkhoff that started late yesterday. He asks her about her first presentation to the grand jury about her "riot" case against #J20 Trump inauguration protesters.
Kerkhoff gives a vague non-answer when asked if she "believed that the #DisruptJ20 group planned the riot" - Kerkhoff answers that "the conduct was on the day of January 20"
'Brien asks Kerkhoff about her presentation to grand jurors re: evidence from Project Veritas about planning for #DisruptJ20 - asked if it's fair to say "the grand jury was not a fan of Project Veritas", Kerkhoff says she remembers just one juror casting doubt and having concerns about bias.
O'Brien: The grand jury expressed that they had concerns with [Project Veritas stuff being used as evidence]... you reassured them that if you showed any Veritas videos you would make sure they were unedited, correct?
Kerkhoff: We were discussing the online video Veritas posted..
O'Brien asks Kerkhoff to explain her comments that "manipulating" and "editing" video don't mean the same thing
O'Brien: You told the grand jury that it was their job, not yours, to determine the credibility of the Project Veritas video... you told them that biased evidence can be helpful, correct?
Kerkhoff: I said "relevant evidence can be biased, you decide the credibility..."
O'Brien: For a grand juror to be able to assess the credibility of the video, they would have to know about the bias?
Kerkhoff: as it relates to a grand jury, I disagree that the law states that... information is required to be presented to a grand jury...
O'Brien: Whether or not you are legally required.... to assess credibility based on bias, they would have to know about the bias, correct?
Kerkhoff: It has to do with... how it's being presented
O'Brien asks Kerkhoff about her decision to present the Project Veritas video at trial, without naming the source of the video, using Officer Adelmeyer (who was undercover at the same protest planning meeting Veritas recorded) to authenticate the video's contents.
Kerkhoff says she couldn't subpoena Project Veritas due to DOJ rules against subpoeans to media organizations.
She agrees with O'Brien when he asks if she saw Project Veritas as "a can of worms"
O'Brien: After you made that decision [not to use Project Veritas to authenticate their own video and use Adelmeyer to introduce it instead], you made the decision to edit the videos?
Kerkhoff: No, it was the totality of the breakout planning meeting with the videographer & the undercover removed...
Kerkhoff: What I later learned was that those last few minutes... [were removed, yes]
O'Brien asks Kerkhoff about her decision, after consulting with Detective Pemberton, to add felony Destruction of Property charges to the #J20 defendants.
She gives a long answer that prompts the panel chair to interrupt and ask her to be more simple and direct in her answers
O'Brien asks Kerkhoff about her decision to prosecute a #DisruptJ20 organizer who wasn't even present at the protests that day - she stated he was the "lead organizer".
O'Brien: You prosecuted him based on a Jan. 6 It's Going Down podcast...he's participating in a conversation
Kerkhoff: They were discussing #DisruptJ20, the anti-capitalist bloc, the black bloc, were previewing it, telling ppl to come
O'Brien: You also prosecuted him based on the Jan. 8 planning meeting... the only ID given for the source of that video [in the grand jury transcript] was that it came from a "third party".... you made the conscious decision to keep Project Veritas out of it..., correct?
Kerkhoff: The office decided Officer Adelmeyer would be the source of the authentication of what happened at the meeting
O'Brien: You asked for the grand jury to indict [#DisruptJ20 organizer who wasn't present on #J20] under the same theory as the other defendants who were present?
Kerkhoff: He understood that destruction could occur... he was planning for the black bloc
O'Brien: You agree the planning meeting was the most important evidence in regards to pre-January 20..., correct?
Kerkhoff: It was important bc it was his own words...
O'Brien: I want to turn to the edits that get made to the planning meeting video... Pemberton was the one... making "redactions", correct?
Kerkhoff: Yes....
O'Brien: You were involved in making those edits?
Kerkhoff: I was involved in discussions but was not with him when he made the edits
O'Brien: you told the jury in the first trial that "both the MPD detective and I viewed it", you also said "we redacted it"...?
Kerkhoff: Yes as the prosecutor... it is my responsibility even if I don't make the edit myself...
O'Brien: I don't mean to suggest that you made the edits yourself, but you and Detective Pemberton were working every closely for a long time, 13 or 14 hours a day...
O'Brien: In 2018 [as #J20 case was collapsing & Kerkhoff was removed from prosecuting but was still a fact witness to the case to assist colleagues] you wrote that "AUSA Kerkhoff was unaware that she made an edit to the last video..."
O'Brien is pulling up different copies of motions filed in 2018 that show edits Kerkhoff made to filings submitted by DC US Attorney's Office regarding the Brady violation re: the manipulated Project Veritas video she and Det. Pemberton used as evidence in the #J20 Conspiracy to Riot case
O'Brien asks Kerkhoff about the Jan. 8 #DisruptJ20 planning meeting, she gets technical about social justice movement jargon with him when he asks if its a "spokescouncil", she says it was an "orientation" not a "spokescouncil" which she says is "something very specific in the antifascist community"
O'Brien: before a formal spokescouncil, there would be a general assembly of everyone from all of the actions then everyone from every action would go into breakout groups, correct...?
Kerkhoff: not for a spokescouncil, Jan. 8 was advertised in the materials we produced as a general orientation
O'Brien: each affinity group would decide which direct action events they wanted to participate in, correct?
Kerkhoff: That was my understanding
O'Brien: In opening statements your prosecution said 'action camp' wasn't associated with #DisruptJ20, what's your understanding about that...?
Kerkhoff: 'Action camp' was about #J20 but was not related to the anti-capitalist bloc
(Reporter's note: 'Action camp' refers to American University workshops that were recorded by Project Veritas who gave videos to the prosecution who did not provide them to the defense in the #J20 case, part of the Brady violation issue leading to Kerkhoff's ethics complaint)
Kerkhoff: 'Action Camp' was available to the public, a spokescouncil was not open to the public, you had to be a part of specific affinity groups that were invited... to go to the spokescouncil
O'Brien: Det. Pemberton testified to the grand jury that the action camp was where protesters would go to know what was going on on Jan. 20.... he also testified that ppl like [organizer defendant] encouraged people to go to the action camp...
O'Brien: The affidavit for the warrant to search the #DisruptJ20 website said that the undercover officer attended several meetings of the group...
Kerkhoff: We were discussing whether or not the text messages in [protester defendant]'s phone were admissible as co-conspirator statements...