Unicorn RiotO'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
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 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: 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 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: 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
O'Brien: Part of the context you gave the judge about whether or not these statements were admissable was that the [meetings] were related to the conduct on Jan. 20?
Kerkhoff: You are conflating the spokescouncil and the action camp...
O'Brien: The disclosures with regards to the videos came in Sept. 2017... that was after your review determining their relevance... going back to the May [2018] summary, you told your colleagues "don't send this without talking to me in the morning"?
Kerkhoff: it always makes me nervous to communicate over email, things in writing aren't always understood
O'Brien: You had deleted or edited out of the first email you sent to USAOs, there was a reference to spokescouncils, correct?
(Pulls up a copy of filings showing different edits made to a document with edits shown in red)
O'Brien: the segment that you deleted referred to spokescouncils or affinity groups, correct?
Kerkhoff: Yes
In-Person Hearing - In re Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens, DN. 24-BD-038, at 9:30 a.m.
O'Brien: The next week [in Nov. 2017]... in a pre-trial hearing, Judge Leibovitz asked you if any informants or special employees were developing probable cause... and you said "No"...
O'Brien: Noone from Project Veritas was any kind of informant or special employee, correct?
Kerkhoff: Yes
O'Brien quotes Judge Lynn Leibovitz saying in a March 2017 hearing that "let me say for everyone who's new to the case, that the Government... is giving everybody a hundred percent of the video footage they have."
[Narrator: the govt did not]
O'Brien: If the defense didn't know the videos were from Project Veritas, they couldn't subpoena them for their case, could they?
Kerkhoff: I think that would be a fact that was not an issue in this case [she claims the defense always knew the source of the videos even though she didn't disclose it]
O'Brien: Oct 2017, defendants filed a motion to exclude the planning meeting videos...
(Shows a portion of the motion where the defense asks for chain of custody for the videos so they could identify any edits made to the video)
O'Brien: after Officer Adelmeyer testified at the first trial, there was no reason to keep his identity hidden, correct?
Kerkhoff: Just bc someone appears on the stand doesn't mean that information is disseminated on the internet
(Context: Adelmeyer was also photographed by media outside court during the first trial)
O'Brien: You brought Pemberton in during the first trial to testify to the non-editing of the video... you asked him how many segments there were of [one of the videos]... before and after...
Kerkhoff: I don't remember [about the segments]
O'Brien: You had already told Judge Leibovitz that you had already provided the defense with the totality of the videos from that day, correct?
Kerkhoff: I had told her that in regards [to this exhibit], yes