Speaker 1: Welcome back to it could happen here the show that
Speaker 1: is only introduced competently when either someone besides me is
Speaker 1: the one hosting the episode, or when I have a
Speaker 1: guest that I feel embarrassed about being incompetent in front
Speaker 1: of and and this is this is the latter case,
Speaker 1: because today I'm talking with uh, my friend and admired colleague,
Speaker 1: Molly Conjure. Molly, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: I got to do that like a professional. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the show. That's like an NPR shit right. I know
Speaker 1: people have been saying on the Twitch stream that I
Speaker 1: have a very soothing NPR style. Boy, you would be great.
Speaker 1: I would love to hear you uh talking in NPR
Speaker 1: about how it's it's rad that those those people broke
Speaker 1: the windows on those police cars or whatever. No, I
Speaker 1: can't be allowed in respectable spaces. I can't be allowed there.
Speaker 1: They let me talk on a panel at Harvard one time,
Speaker 1: and I accidentally said fuck in front of a bunch
Speaker 1: of people. I mean, I assume Harvard students know a
Speaker 1: funk word or two. Speaking of funk words, there's a
Speaker 1: couple of funk words who are under trial, right now
Speaker 1: for inciting mass violence that led to human death and suffering. Um,
Speaker 1: you wanna you want to give us the overview we're
Speaker 1: we're talking today about, you know, the Unite the Right
Speaker 1: rally and Charles Gill in two thousand seventeen that led
Speaker 1: to three deaths, one as the result of direct violence
Speaker 1: had their higher who was murdered murdered by the fascist
Speaker 1: James Field currently in prison for forever. Um, Yeah, forever
Speaker 1: that you know, his trial concluded a while ago. Um,
Speaker 1: But there has been churning through the legal system, a
Speaker 1: trial against Richard Spencer Jason Kessler, who was the main organizer. Um,
Speaker 1: can't well, there's other uh plaintiffs right, Oh, a lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of fascists about you know, all of
Speaker 1: the things that they did, the fact that they clearly
Speaker 1: intended this to be a violent uh riot assault whatever like,
Speaker 1: they wanted to have it be a fucking lynching essentially,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of evidence, including things they said
Speaker 1: to each other about building armies to murder people. Um. Anyway, Molly,
Speaker 1: you want to take it from here. I think I've
Speaker 1: introduced the situation. There's a trial going on. You have
Speaker 1: been listening to every day of it and covering it
Speaker 1: on Twitch very ably. UM, and so I just kind
Speaker 1: of wanted to catch up with you. You You also wrote
Speaker 1: an article in Slate with our friend Emily Gortchynsky about UM,
Speaker 1: what's like largely the jury selection of the trial. So
Speaker 1: I was wondering if you could just kind of give
Speaker 1: us an overview of what's happened so far if your
Speaker 1: thoughts on it. Um. Yeah, that that seems that seems good. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So there's just right at the outset, this is a
Speaker 1: civil trial, right, This is not a criminal trial. No
Speaker 1: one's going to the No one's going to jail at
Speaker 1: the end of this. Some of the jail call it
Speaker 1: that the Who's goal. We call it the Who's goal
Speaker 1: in the show. That's the property, Okay, Um, some of
Speaker 1: them already in jail obviously, Like you said, James Fields
Speaker 1: is serving twenty nine life sentences to life. It's a
Speaker 1: lot of life. So he was. He was charged in
Speaker 1: in Virginia State Court by the Commonwealth of Virginia. He
Speaker 1: was convicted at trial of first degree murder and several
Speaker 1: counts of aggravated malicious wounding. Um. He was. So that
Speaker 1: trial happened in he actually went to trial for that,
Speaker 1: but then he pleaded guilty in federal courts. He was
Speaker 1: charged in two separate courts for the same underlying events,
Speaker 1: and in federal court he pleaded guilty to twenty nine
Speaker 1: federal hate crimes. Um he pleaded guilty to hate crimes.
Speaker 1: So there's no debate about whether these were hate crimes, right,
Speaker 1: and he pleaded guilty too. He pleaded guilty to avoid
Speaker 1: the death penalty because a hate crime, murder is a
Speaker 1: capital crime. So in this lawsuit, right, this this civil
Speaker 1: lawsuit against Deep Breath, Jason Kessler, Richard Spencer, Christopher Campbell,
Speaker 1: James alex Field, Gang Got America, Andrew England, Moonbase Holdings,
Speaker 1: Robert asmod Or, Ray Nathan to Ego, Elliott Klein, Identity Europea,
Speaker 1: Matthew Parrot, Matthew Hindbuch, Traditionalist Worker Party, Michael Hill, Michael
Speaker 1: Tubsley of the South, Jeff Scoop, Now that the National
Speaker 1: Socialist Movement Nationals Front, Augustus Invictus, Reternal Order of the
Speaker 1: Alt Knights, Mike Kinevich, Loyal White Nights of the KKK
Speaker 1: East Coast Knights of the KKK East Coast Knights of
Speaker 1: the true Invisible Empire. Several of those parties have been
Speaker 1: dismissed from the suit. That's a lot, it's a lot
Speaker 1: of bad guys, right, Um, several of those parties have
Speaker 1: been dismissed from the suit. Augustus and Victus defaulted Pine dismission.
Speaker 1: That means the fact that he defaulted, Does that mean
Speaker 1: he was like, yes, right, he offered no defense, So
Speaker 1: that's what that means. Yeah, I mean he's been dealing
Speaker 1: with a lot. What would he He's had some problems,
Speaker 1: he's been jails. He abducted his wife at gunpoint. Um.
Speaker 1: I think he's out of jail now, but he's had
Speaker 1: some personal problems. He's had some personal problems. So the
Speaker 1: underlying claim with the lawsuit is a section complaint a
Speaker 1: conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights. Um. This is
Speaker 1: ndamentally at it's at its core an anti clan statute. Right.
Speaker 1: It was designed to disrupt clan organizing. Um. And that's
Speaker 1: kind of what it's being used for here. Right. This
Speaker 1: is so the lawsuit was brought by by nine plaintiffs
Speaker 1: who were harmed people who got hurt at the rally.
Speaker 1: Most of the plaintiffs were physically injured in the car attack,
Speaker 1: although not all of them, um, but these are people
Speaker 1: who are seeking damages, right like for all all the
Speaker 1: emotional weight, all the sort of social ramifications. Fundamentally, this
Speaker 1: is a case about damages. So the jury is going
Speaker 1: to say, Okay, these people were harmed. Do we believe
Speaker 1: they were harmed by a conspiracy to commit acts of violence?
Speaker 1: Conspiracy to commit racially motivated accidents? Right, so all of
Speaker 1: those elements have to improve. And there was k guys
Speaker 1: want to do racial violence when they assaulted people? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Was their conspiracy? Was it motivated by racial animus? And
Speaker 1: were overt acts of violence committed? And did those acts
Speaker 1: of violence harm these people in a way that entitles
Speaker 1: them to damages? That's all the jury has to decide. Right,
Speaker 1: should be an open shed case nowhere, but it does
Speaker 1: seem like kind of an open and shut case. It does,
Speaker 1: right So, because if there are people out thereho are
Speaker 1: not familiar with the events of that day, a lot
Speaker 1: of alt right groups, you know, overt neo Nazi organizations,
Speaker 1: the literal Clan, the literal American Nazi Party, like Neo
Speaker 1: Confederate secession. David's duke was there. David Duke was there,
Speaker 1: David Duke, who Elliott Klein described as an ideological grandfather
Speaker 1: when he was asking other organizers that he can invite him. Um,
Speaker 1: these guys came together, they came to Charlottesville. They brawldened
Speaker 1: the streets, they beat people, They hit them with shields.
Speaker 1: A literal clan wizard fired his gun at a black
Speaker 1: band while screaming die N word. Well, now, okay, it
Speaker 1: seems like you're reaching a bit to call that racially motivated. Well,
Speaker 1: that's something they're trying to litigate. So you're probably familiar
Speaker 1: with the video of DeAndre Harris being beaten nearly to
Speaker 1: death by mothers of several different hate groups. Right, So
Speaker 1: one of the guys that beat him was a tv
Speaker 1: a P member. One of them was a Lead of
Speaker 1: the South member, and they worked together to beat this
Speaker 1: young man nearly to death while he was lying on
Speaker 1: the ground. And so that today they were talking about like, well,
Speaker 1: can we really say that was racially motivated? You know,
Speaker 1: can we really say can we really say? Yeah? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think we can. I think we can. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: his mother has been on podcasts since his conviction. I'm
Speaker 1: referring to Jacob Goodwin, the t TPP member, the man
Speaker 1: who used a t w P riot shield provided to
Speaker 1: him by Matthew Heinbach to beat this young man. His
Speaker 1: mother goes on Nazi podcast still to describe how her
Speaker 1: son is a martyr for the white cause. There's no ambiguity,
Speaker 1: But where are you getting racially motivated from that moment? Right? Like,
Speaker 1: there's a there's a picture of her with her arm
Speaker 1: around her son. Her son's like seven feet tall. He's
Speaker 1: a giant boy to get her arm around her, large
Speaker 1: adults and he's wearing a T shirt with a giant
Speaker 1: picture of George Lincoln Rockwell on it. Ah, you love
Speaker 1: the deep cuts, so you know. And Billy Roper's Christmas party, Yeah,
Speaker 1: another another Nazi. Right, So there's not a lot of
Speaker 1: ambiguity here for the average person, but so you know,
Speaker 1: like you were saying, Emily and I wrote about jury selection,
Speaker 1: jury selection is um so corporate seedings are generally speaking
Speaker 1: open to the public. Anyone can go to their local
Speaker 1: courthouse and you can sit through a trial. You can
Speaker 1: sit through the war deer process, you can see how
Speaker 1: a jury gets chosen. You can go trial hopping, get wasted,
Speaker 1: re entertainment. As long as you say quietly, they can't
Speaker 1: make you leave. It's like a library's very discouraging because
Speaker 1: the whole point is to picturs who have never encountered reality.
Speaker 1: You pick people who don't have any opinions, right, because
Speaker 1: you want them to be able to be impartial. And
Speaker 1: the best way to picture your jury is going to
Speaker 1: be impartial is to pay people who don't have any opinions.
Speaker 1: And if you don't have any opinions on whether or
Speaker 1: not it's good for Nazis to beat people in the streets,
Speaker 1: I would say that in and of itself as an
Speaker 1: opinion that you already have right the ability do not
Speaker 1: have an opinion about that. The jury selection took three
Speaker 1: days because they had to go through this process of
Speaker 1: speaking to each juror individually. Usually they'll they'll do it
Speaker 1: in batches where they ask questions of people in batches, um.
Speaker 1: But this was so sensitive they didn't want to taint
Speaker 1: the jury pool, so they did it one by one.
Speaker 1: So it took three days, UM, and they chose jurors
Speaker 1: who didn't have opinions about the existence of racism in
Speaker 1: the United States. Okay, that seems unbiased. Again, it's this
Speaker 1: thing you keep seeing where it's like, well, we can't
Speaker 1: let people have a bias, so it has to be
Speaker 1: people who have never heard of white supremacy, which is like,
Speaker 1: then that's a bias in favor of white supremacy. But
Speaker 1: of course that's the default of the system. It's like
Speaker 1: that's the tear, right, Like you stick white supremacy on
Speaker 1: the scale and you tear it, but then you add
Speaker 1: aware nous of white supremacy and suddenly there's weight on it.
Speaker 1: You know. It's sorry, it's very fresh, I know, you know,
Speaker 1: it's frustrating, and yeah, I shouldn't frustrating to sit through
Speaker 1: listening to them to ask people, you know, because they
Speaker 1: they had to fill out a questionnaire ahead of time
Speaker 1: so so they can sort of sift through obvious knows um.
Speaker 1: And one of the questions was, you know, how do
Speaker 1: you feel about how concerned are you about these different
Speaker 1: kinds of prejudice, you know, prejudice against black people, prejudice
Speaker 1: against Hispanic people, prejudice against Jewish people, are prejudice against
Speaker 1: white people, And a lot of people indicated that they
Speaker 1: were very concerned about anti white racism and a lot
Speaker 1: of jurors were asked follow up questions about like, well,
Speaker 1: why aren't you more concerned about anti white racism. Why
Speaker 1: did you say you don't care about that because it's
Speaker 1: not real. Yeah, because I've never seen it in my
Speaker 1: entire life. Um, but okay, but we seated a jury.
Speaker 1: We did see the jury, and there were you know,
Speaker 1: there's always concerned in a case like this that you
Speaker 1: just won't be able to get an impartial jury. But
Speaker 1: we got it could be worse, right, it could be worse. Um.
Speaker 1: There is a guy on the jury who said that
Speaker 1: in high school he was the victim of a racially
Speaker 1: motivated attack by by a Samoan person. Um, because they
Speaker 1: didn't like white people. M hmm, I wonder what that
Speaker 1: person was doing. Slash say, black people who believe that
Speaker 1: they have a right to exist without being subjected to
Speaker 1: racism not impartial, can't be on the jury. But a
Speaker 1: white guy who says he was the victim of a
Speaker 1: hate crime because someone didn't like Howley's God. So people
Speaker 1: talking about like I don't like it when folks not
Speaker 1: from my island come here and function up and make
Speaker 1: it expensive. Yeah, it's anti white racist. He was living
Speaker 1: in incredible, incredible, So you know, it could be a worster,
Speaker 1: it could be a worse jury, but it's not ideal.
Speaker 1: Um god, where did we go from there? It's been
Speaker 1: it's been a little bit of a blur. Um. So,
Speaker 1: Cantwell and Spencer don't have lawyers, right? Well? Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: so right because can't Well can't can't Well is for
Speaker 1: people who aren't aware can't Well is representing himself, and
Speaker 1: tell correct me if I'm wrong here. But he started
Speaker 1: by acknowledging the old saying that a person who represents
Speaker 1: themselves as a fool as a lawyer, but then said,
Speaker 1: but I'm not a fool in this case. Yeah, he said,
Speaker 1: you may have heard this, but that's not true here.
Speaker 1: That's not the case here. Unbelievable. And I didn't even
Speaker 1: stay in a Holiday and Express last night. Oh my god.
Speaker 1: Really he seriously made a Holiday and Express joke while
Speaker 1: he was oh my god. But the follow up, the
Speaker 1: follow up was, but I did stay in the Central
Speaker 1: Virginia Regional Jail because that is where he stays. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, because he's he's in prison for sexually or
Speaker 1: not for for harassing and threatening and blackmailing another Nazi, right, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: He was transported here from the federal prison and Mary
Speaker 1: in Illinois, where he is a guest until next Christmas.
Speaker 1: Um so he had filed motion is to exclude the
Speaker 1: fact that he's currently incarcerated, as is his right right
Speaker 1: late like if you are a yeah, yeah, absolutely involved
Speaker 1: in a you know, in a criminal case or in
Speaker 1: a in a simple case, it is it is your
Speaker 1: right to have the jury not see you in a jumpsuit.
Speaker 1: And I respect that, I think perfectly absolutely. Yeah. So
Speaker 1: he went to great links to make sure that the
Speaker 1: jury would never see him in cuffs, that the marshals
Speaker 1: wouldn't bring him in in irons, that he would change
Speaker 1: before the jury arrived at the coronels. All very reasonable
Speaker 1: and no one's going to get to talk about it,
Speaker 1: but he brought it up in his own opening statement.
Speaker 1: I'm here from prison. I'm here from prison. By the way,
Speaker 1: I'm in prison for the other crimes I committed. But
Speaker 1: they're not related to these crimes. They're not related to
Speaker 1: these crimes except to the extent that he's unable to
Speaker 1: shut the funk up. He's only in prison because he
Speaker 1: emailed the FBI or recording him him doing the crime
Speaker 1: that he's in prison for. He's he's really a very
Speaker 1: cunning man. But I think, you know so, as much
Speaker 1: as those crimes aren't relevant to this case, I think
Speaker 1: it is very relevant to his trial strategy, right, that
Speaker 1: he has this belief that all the things he did
Speaker 1: that were wrong they were right. Actually, he just needs
Speaker 1: to explain to us why he did them and then
Speaker 1: we'll understand. Right, he's in prison because he tried to
Speaker 1: talk his way out of a thing that he did
Speaker 1: that was wrong by telling everyone that he did do it. Yes,
Speaker 1: I did it because I had to. You didn't have
Speaker 1: to make an extortionate threat to rape another man's wife
Speaker 1: in front of their children. You didn't actually have to
Speaker 1: do that. Yeah, that's really I mean I would I
Speaker 1: might argue, and perhaps I'm an extremist, but there's no
Speaker 1: situation in which you would ever have to do that.
Speaker 1: Nobody made you email the FBI about how you did that,
Speaker 1: but you did. Actually I would have told you that
Speaker 1: was a bad idea. I mean, there's there's some snarky
Speaker 1: stuff in some in some of the affidavits about how
Speaker 1: like he called the Keen Police Department trying to tattletale
Speaker 1: on other people so often that they were tired of
Speaker 1: taking his calls. Unbelievable. What an amazing man like he's
Speaker 1: he's a piece of ship, but he is legitimately an
Speaker 1: incredib person. I mean if he wrote this, no one
Speaker 1: would believe it. Right, This is so heavy handed, it's
Speaker 1: so goofy, Like when he was paying Elmer in guns
Speaker 1: his law he paid his lawyer in guns, and then
Speaker 1: he ran out of guns and had his lawyer stopped
Speaker 1: working for him. Yeah, he he doesn't have a lawyer
Speaker 1: anymore because he ran out of guns to pawn. Although
Speaker 1: I guess he can't anymore because now he's a convicted
Speaker 1: I gotta say, running out of guns to pawn for
Speaker 1: your lawyer, it's pretty cocked. He even had to sell
Speaker 1: the bucket of loose bullets he used to keep us
Speaker 1: a prop on his desk, I mean, really devastating stuff. Um,
Speaker 1: so he doesn't you're you're down to the brad, You're
Speaker 1: down to the rails when you're two with that really
Speaker 1: the bottom of the barrel. So he's proceeding pro sae, which, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: unfortunately for everyone involved, means he gets to talk a
Speaker 1: lot a lot, a lot, a lot, which means he
Speaker 1: gets to cross examine his own witnesses. Right. So the
Speaker 1: first two witnesses the plaintiffs put on were two of
Speaker 1: their plaintiffs, right, two young people who were injured in
Speaker 1: these events. The first witness they put on Natalie its
Speaker 1: the UV, a student who had her skull fractured in
Speaker 1: the car attack. Um. She had to learn how to
Speaker 1: walk again, she had to see a neurologist to retrain
Speaker 1: her eyes to track movement. I mean, she was very
Speaker 1: badly injured. Um. And so she testified at length about
Speaker 1: the damage that was done to her. Because again, this
Speaker 1: is a case about damages. So the jury needs to
Speaker 1: learn who is this person, what happened to them, what
Speaker 1: did it cost them physically, mentally, emotionally, financially um, Because
Speaker 1: what they're gonna be asked to do is to put
Speaker 1: a dollar amount on it. So they had to meet
Speaker 1: her and hear about her injuries, um, and hear about
Speaker 1: her motivation for being there. Um. You know, she's a
Speaker 1: young queer Latino woman as she's the first college student
Speaker 1: in her family, and she's a very impressive young woman,
Speaker 1: and she was very composed of the stand um. As
Speaker 1: awful as the content was. Um. But then every single
Speaker 1: one of the defendants gets to cross examine her. Richard
Speaker 1: Spencer gets to cross examine her. Christopher camp Well gets
Speaker 1: to cross exam and her. James Klennich, who took the case.
Speaker 1: He's Kessler, Demigo and Identity Europea's lawyer, James Klenicch. She's
Speaker 1: an Ohio based attorney who said on the record that
Speaker 1: he took this case with the express purpose of opposing
Speaker 1: Jewish influence. Great great Klenich gets to cross examined her.
Speaker 1: Matt Heimbuck's new lawyer, Josh Smith used to be the
Speaker 1: campaign spokesman for Paul Neilon, wasn't endorsed by Trump at
Speaker 1: one point in his run for Congress, and as also
Speaker 1: just a straight up Nazi who's repeatedly threatened to murder you. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: One time he spent all day posting pictures of a
Speaker 1: deer that he said that he named after me. He said,
Speaker 1: I named this dear Molly. You know, he's been all
Speaker 1: days stalking at posting pictures of it, posting pictures of
Speaker 1: this gun um. And then he posted a picture of
Speaker 1: the dear stage like a lynching. And then he spelled
Speaker 1: my name out in its entrails and posted pictures of that.
Speaker 1: So you're just like a really normal guy. Paul Neilan,
Speaker 1: which totally completely with it. Um Camp, his campaign spokesperson
Speaker 1: when he ran for Congress, was the Holocaust denying um
Speaker 1: former Jew Josh Smith. Josh Smith was born Daniel Nussbaum.
Speaker 1: He changed his name to hide his Jewish past. Oh,
Speaker 1: that is an old story among the Nazis. I mean,
Speaker 1: we talked about the guy who invented uh sea monkeys.
Speaker 1: But yeah, it's basically the same case. And you know
Speaker 1: who else hides there? I okay, Um, this was meant
Speaker 1: to be an ad plug. Normally Sophie would jump in
Speaker 1: and stop me from doing that. None of these advertis
Speaker 1: none of these advertisers are plaintiffs in the current case
Speaker 1: that you're covering. That's a guarantee, that is, that is
Speaker 1: an absolute promise. David Duke is not about to sell
Speaker 1: you dick pills. No, no, no, although he could use them.
Speaker 1: We're back, Um, all right, Molly, sorry, please continue? Where
Speaker 1: where are we? I got distracted thinking about David Duke
Speaker 1: trying to sill you dig pills. Yeah, that's not good
Speaker 1: for anybody, right, so everybody gets a cross examine the witness.
Speaker 1: Josh Smith is himbox new lawyer. Um. Colennach used to
Speaker 1: be a lot of these guys lawyers, and then he
Speaker 1: sort of dropped them over time as they became uncooperative.
Speaker 1: They are all these motions to withdraw. Lenach slowly dropped
Speaker 1: clients over the last two years. Um. He dropped cant
Speaker 1: Well as a client because cant Well wouldn't stop posting
Speaker 1: about hurting Roberta Kaplan, who's the lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
Speaker 1: ROBERTA Kaplan, Femish, famous Jewish lesbian lawyer. You know, she
Speaker 1: was on the US v. Windsor the I'm losing it,
Speaker 1: absolutely losing it. The Supreme Court case that gave us
Speaker 1: gay marriage right. Roberta Kaplan brought us gay marriage essentially.
Speaker 1: So she you know, famous Jewish lesbian that is a
Speaker 1: well known portion of her identity. And kett Well kept
Speaker 1: posting um anti Semitic remarks about her, and finally Klennach
Speaker 1: was like, you're making it really hard to be your lawyer,
Speaker 1: and you don't pay me. Um and Kleins dropped Heimbach
Speaker 1: as a client in because Heimbuch just stopped answering his calls.
Speaker 1: Great smart people. Yeah. So Matt Parrot, who's Matt Heimbach's
Speaker 1: father in law, but also the husband of the woman
Speaker 1: that he was sleeping. This complicated. There's a chart. There's
Speaker 1: a chart. Matt Heimbuch and Matt Parrot, um founders of
Speaker 1: the Traditional Worker Party, best friends for a long time.
Speaker 1: Filler's wives, big problems, big problems for them. The Night
Speaker 1: of Wrong Wives, the Knight of the Wrong Wives. So
Speaker 1: Matt Parrot was technically Matt Heimbach's father in law during
Speaker 1: the time period which Heimbach was fucking Parrot's wife. Very
Speaker 1: classy people. Not a great situation. So they lost their lawyer.
Speaker 1: Um Parrot very publicly told all Traditionalist Worker Party members
Speaker 1: to destroy evidence. So we knew that, right that was
Speaker 1: on the record from the beginning that Matt or it
Speaker 1: was like, hey, everyone in t t PP, if you
Speaker 1: did any crimes, delete it right, delete your social media,
Speaker 1: delete your pictures. Like we weren't there, right, that's a crime.
Speaker 1: That's a crime. That is a crime, right there. But
Speaker 1: an interesting thing that we learned to date, but I
Speaker 1: don't think we did know before. Um in November, so
Speaker 1: they played a recording of a conversation between Matt Heimbuch
Speaker 1: and Christopher Cantwell, And this was during examination of Heimbuch,
Speaker 1: and Heimbuch was on the stand. Um, and they're talking
Speaker 1: about like, you know, you didn't produce discovery. You said
Speaker 1: you lost your phone, this, that and the other. You know,
Speaker 1: after you beat your wife, she threw away your phone. Um.
Speaker 1: So he said, I couldn't turn over my social media
Speaker 1: accounts because my wife deleted them because we had an
Speaker 1: argument about me taking out the trash, right, Like, we
Speaker 1: had this domestic dispute about the trash, and she deleted
Speaker 1: all my accounts, so I couldn't turn them over. Um. Well,
Speaker 1: today we found out that he told cant Well in
Speaker 1: ten so a year after the lawsuit was filed. When
Speaker 1: a lawsuit was filed against you, you have a legal
Speaker 1: obligation to not do things like this. He told can't
Speaker 1: Well that after a conversation with his lawyer, on the
Speaker 1: advice of his lawyer, he deleted those accounts. Oh oh,
Speaker 1: there's just a record of him criming. Yeah, that's a crime,
Speaker 1: and it also a crime for his lawyer to have
Speaker 1: advised him to do that. Great. Um again, that's there's
Speaker 1: no direct evidence who told him to do that. But
Speaker 1: we do have a recording of him saying a lawyer
Speaker 1: told him to So that's not great. That's not a
Speaker 1: good situation. Is he going to get charged with anything
Speaker 1: or that? I am curious. You know, I'm not a lawyer.
Speaker 1: Just for everyone listening, I'm not a lawyer. I didn't
Speaker 1: go to law school. I didn't even finish undergrad I'm
Speaker 1: not a lawyer. Um, but I have listened to a lawyers.
Speaker 1: But I am I am curious. What with what frequency
Speaker 1: can perjury charges be sought in a civil case? Right,
Speaker 1: it's still under oath, it is still perjury, But how
Speaker 1: common is that to be pursued because they're perjuring. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're for sure perjuring, just doing the thing the right
Speaker 1: always does, which is trust that the law will never
Speaker 1: actually come after them for their many crimes. And there's
Speaker 1: there's a good chance they'll be right, you know, Like
Speaker 1: Hinmbuch said, you know when he was asked, have you
Speaker 1: ever provided security for Richard Spencer? And he said no, Okay,
Speaker 1: well there's like a hundred pictures of you doing that
Speaker 1: at multiple events. Um. You know, they're claiming they don't
Speaker 1: know each other, like here's all these pictures of you
Speaker 1: guys hanging out. Um, God, where else are we? Um? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm curious, you know one thing that kind of especially
Speaker 1: because of the written house thing. And we're actually we'll
Speaker 1: be talking to lawyer tomorrow night about or tomorrow about
Speaker 1: the written house thing. Um. Every cool person shares the
Speaker 1: same lawyer. Uh um. But yeah, because that, I'm kind
Speaker 1: of curious, what what is your what since do you
Speaker 1: get of this judge? There's no good judges, there's no
Speaker 1: good judges. But it could be Yeah, I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: not saying, but how is it could be? It could
Speaker 1: be a lot worse. You know, Trump appointed a shipload
Speaker 1: of federal judges pretty recently. Judgment is eighty five years old.
Speaker 1: He's a Clinton Appointee's a Clinton appointee, so it's could
Speaker 1: be worse. He's been on the bench, you know since
Speaker 1: I was an elementary school. Um. And he's very old,
Speaker 1: and he doesn't he has it's a little bit hard
Speaker 1: of hearing, but he's not stupid. Um. And there's a
Speaker 1: lot of people, I think we are really frustrated with
Speaker 1: some of the things he's allowing to happen. He's he's
Speaker 1: really allowing these these pro sed defendants to sort of
Speaker 1: run rough shot over the procedure. But you know, like
Speaker 1: I said before we started recording, it's really hard to apply.
Speaker 1: I get like the your sense of how things are
Speaker 1: supposed to work doesn't really apply lie in court, right,
Speaker 1: there's a very rigid, sort of outdated set of rules
Speaker 1: and procedures, and they don't feel right. They don't feel
Speaker 1: logical or reasonable or fair. But there is a specific
Speaker 1: way that it works, and it is hard to watch,
Speaker 1: especially if you've never seen it before. And because of
Speaker 1: the emotionally fraught nature of this, it's particularly frustrating to
Speaker 1: be to be listening on this line and saying, like,
Speaker 1: why are they allowed to do this to this witness? Well,
Speaker 1: legally you can cross examine your witnesses, even if you
Speaker 1: are the person who hurt them. It's not a good system,
Speaker 1: but it is how it works. Um. But he's um.
Speaker 1: And I also think there's there's concern about appellate issues,
Speaker 1: there's concern about mistrial, and so they're really going out
Speaker 1: of their way not to give anyone any excuse to say, well,
Speaker 1: this was not fair to me. They're gonna say it anyway,
Speaker 1: but they they're really letting them have a long leash
Speaker 1: in a way that feels very bad, but at the
Speaker 1: same time I can kind of understand it. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: wish they hadn't done so much Holocaust denial, like on
Speaker 1: on the road, that would be good. They put an
Speaker 1: expert on today, who's um Dr Debrah Lipstad, who's an
Speaker 1: expert in Holocaust denial, to sort of talk about what
Speaker 1: the Holocaust is. I guess in case the jury doesn't know. God,
Speaker 1: that's bleak, I mean, that's sucking bleak because they chose
Speaker 1: this jury based on them never having heard of Jews.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a bunch of like middle aged people
Speaker 1: from Green County who have never met a Jewish person.
Speaker 1: So they had to put on a professor to say, okay,
Speaker 1: when he says gas the K words, we're talking about
Speaker 1: gas chambers. Gas chambers from the Holocaust. They didn't start
Speaker 1: out with gas chambers. They started with mass shootings. But
Speaker 1: it was too messy. I mean she was literally recounting
Speaker 1: sort of the evolution from the Ensans group and you know,
Speaker 1: shootings in the fields to the because of the gas chambers.
Speaker 1: Like we had to talk all the way through it,
Speaker 1: um because it seems unnecessary, but again for the jury,
Speaker 1: it might be necessary. And so when Kasmador Robert don't
Speaker 1: want to take anything for granted, you know, yeah, right,
Speaker 1: and you really have to sort of lay out these connections, right,
Speaker 1: because the idea is you have to prove a conspiracy,
Speaker 1: and you have to prove the conspiracy was racially motivated. UM.
Speaker 1: And so when asma door is the racist wizard name
Speaker 1: that UM Robert Ray uses when he writes for the
Speaker 1: Daily Stormer. When Asmador keeps saying, We're going to gas
Speaker 1: the K words, everyone knows what I mean when I
Speaker 1: say that, right, yes, yeah, okay, UM. You know he
Speaker 1: keeps saying, you know, the plan is to gas the
Speaker 1: K words, you know, g T, K R W N
Speaker 1: UM guess the K words race war. Now he keeps saying,
Speaker 1: he keeps saying, keeps saying it. And then the Torch March,
Speaker 1: he Pepper sprays a bunch of people, which he is
Speaker 1: currently a fugitive of justice for UM. He's UM, he's
Speaker 1: wanted for felony in Almarrale County. He's missing UM. So
Speaker 1: he says he's going to do it, then he does it,
Speaker 1: and then afterwards he's on video saying, yeah, I guessed
Speaker 1: half a dozen k words, so you can see from
Speaker 1: A to B to C. And then we have this
Speaker 1: expert saying, Okay, what he's saying is a direct reference
Speaker 1: to the Holocaust. Right. UM, it's like he's like you said,
Speaker 1: it's pretty open and shut. It's pretty straightforward A tow
Speaker 1: B two c. Um. You know we have these discord leaks, um,
Speaker 1: if you want to browse them. They're on Unicorn Riot
Speaker 1: and almost immediately after the rally, Unicorn Riot had these
Speaker 1: discord leaks. UM. The entire server, the Charlesville two point
Speaker 1: oh server where they planned this out, where they're in
Speaker 1: the discord saying yeah, it's gonna be so great. We're
Speaker 1: gonna do just so much violence. We're gonna we're gonna
Speaker 1: hur people, We're gonna bring shields, we're gonna bring base
Speaker 1: really explicitly talking about the plan, making jokes about hitting
Speaker 1: people with cars. Um, now the entire discord will be admitted. UM,
Speaker 1: it has been authenticated. They received another copy of it
Speaker 1: via subpoena directly from discord. It's real. It's evidence. UM,
Speaker 1: as much as can't well doesn't like that, but more
Speaker 1: than that, UM, we have you know, some first person authentication.
Speaker 1: We heard deposition testimony from Elliott Klein's ex girlfriend, Um,
Speaker 1: the woman that he was living with in seventeen so
Speaker 1: in the summer seen he was living with this woman
Speaker 1: that he had just met and entered into a romantic
Speaker 1: relationship with. Um. She has since left the movement. She
Speaker 1: has a lot of regret about her involvement in that
Speaker 1: time period. And you know, there's little people have a
Speaker 1: lot of mixed feelings about what it means to leave
Speaker 1: the movement, what it means to a tone, Is it
Speaker 1: possible to redeem yourself for having been a part of
Speaker 1: something like that. We don't have to litigate that, but
Speaker 1: we do have to well, we do have to recognize
Speaker 1: that her testimony is damning. I mean, this is not
Speaker 1: this is not Elliott Klein putting on a show in public.
Speaker 1: This is not Elliott Klein posturing for his friends. This
Speaker 1: is Eli at home in bed with his girlfriend talking
Speaker 1: about his fantasies of killing all the Jews. UM, and
Speaker 1: her testimony was pretty harmful. Um, you wouldn't think, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's not great. You know, really you have to wonder
Speaker 1: how the jury is taking this right. These people who
Speaker 1: have no concept or context for this for years yea
Speaker 1: hours of this woman sort of near tears talking about
Speaker 1: how her boyfriend said that he was going to put
Speaker 1: her in a breeding camp once they had the ethno state.
Speaker 1: Uh not nice, really not nice stuff. Um. And she
Speaker 1: also tested you know, we have the messages from the
Speaker 1: discord where people are posting memes and jokes about hitting protesters,
Speaker 1: but Samantha testified that at private parties at Richard Spencer's
Speaker 1: house in the summer. Of these private parties with the
Speaker 1: organizers of the event at Richard Spencer's apartment, people explicitly
Speaker 1: discussed the legality of hitting people with their cars. This
Speaker 1: is not random people in the discord that Richards could say, Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know him, I never met him, I never
Speaker 1: posted in discord. This is somebody sitting on your couch Richard. Um. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And you know, Samantha said that during that time period,
Speaker 1: um Kleient was building an army for Richard, and Kesler
Speaker 1: texted Spencer something similar, right that, where We'll build an army,
Speaker 1: my liege fucking dorcass ship. But when one fun surprise
Speaker 1: from Samantha was that during that time period Klein was
Speaker 1: you know, planning to provide his militia in the form
Speaker 1: of a Dennity Europa. Right, at least these street troops
Speaker 1: he was going to provide to Spencer to build the movement,
Speaker 1: but that when the time came, he always knew that
Speaker 1: he would kill Richard to take control. These people are
Speaker 1: all such fucking it's a shame that what they actually
Speaker 1: are is deniable assets for the most dangerous folks, you know,
Speaker 1: the fucking, the fucking Bannon types, because if if all
Speaker 1: of the fascists were this dumb, I wouldn't be so worried.
Speaker 1: And it's hard, it's hard to walk the line between,
Speaker 1: you know, really getting a kick out of some of
Speaker 1: these moments where you're genuinely funny, right, but you remember, like,
Speaker 1: these people are very dangerous. These people are responsible for
Speaker 1: a death. These people. It's this emotional whiplash, right of
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs getting on and saying, yes, my life was ruined.
Speaker 1: I still have nightmares, I still have to go to
Speaker 1: physical therapy, and then can't well getting up there and
Speaker 1: asking Heimbach if he's a federal agent, Yah, right, like
Speaker 1: I think. So, we've only seen one of the defendants
Speaker 1: on the stand so far, but I have a strong
Speaker 1: feeling Can't Well is going to use every opportunity that
Speaker 1: he has his frenemies under oath to ask them if
Speaker 1: they snitched on him. Yeah, that's that's going to be
Speaker 1: pretty funny. It's gonna be great. You gotta laugh. Sometimes
Speaker 1: life's too hard. That Can't Well is really using this.
Speaker 1: I think you know, he has nothing to lose, right,
Speaker 1: This is a case of damages. He has no money
Speaker 1: for them to take. He has thirty thou dollars in
Speaker 1: credit card debt and his car got repossessed once he
Speaker 1: went to prison. He has nothing for them to take.
Speaker 1: The only person he knows who did have anything is
Speaker 1: Ian Freeman, who's currently facing federal charges force of complicated
Speaker 1: bitcoin money laundering scam through a fake church. Um, so
Speaker 1: he doesn't even have any friends to help him. That's
Speaker 1: an interesting case, but I don't have time for it now.
Speaker 1: But he has he has nothing for them to take.
Speaker 1: He's already a felon. He can't have a gun anymore.
Speaker 1: I think he's just using this as an opportunity, as
Speaker 1: a platform to get his message out there and to
Speaker 1: harm the people he thinks harmed him. So every chance
Speaker 1: he gets he's trying to force witnesses to ducks people, right.
Speaker 1: He asked one of the plaintiffs, Devin Willis, when another
Speaker 1: young man who was was injured at the torch march,
Speaker 1: a plaintiff in this case, he asked him he forced
Speaker 1: him to name the names of the non parties who
Speaker 1: were also counter demonstrating at the statue. These people's names
Speaker 1: have not been on the record. They you know, judge
Speaker 1: made him do that, made him do that. That's up.
Speaker 1: And you know you could if you were, I don't know,
Speaker 1: a complete baby brained idiot, you could say, well, you
Speaker 1: know that maybe there was a legal reason that he
Speaker 1: needed those names, which not, and we know there's not
Speaker 1: because he tried to do it again today. Um, there
Speaker 1: was a non party witness, a young woman who lived
Speaker 1: in one of the dorm rooms right by the rotunda.
Speaker 1: They're called the lawn rooms, the prestigious opportunity. Only super
Speaker 1: high achievers get to live in those beautiful historic law rooms.
Speaker 1: So she lived right near where the torch mark was happening,
Speaker 1: and she heard it and she went outside and she
Speaker 1: looked at it. Um, she's not a party to the suit.
Speaker 1: She has no knowledge of these people or what happened.
Speaker 1: She just saw this thing happen, and she testified to
Speaker 1: that um and he tried to you know, she had
Speaker 1: made some passing remark that she had heard from another
Speaker 1: student that maybe there would be a thing on campus,
Speaker 1: right that they knew about the rally the next day,
Speaker 1: but like, I don't know, maybe these guys will try
Speaker 1: and come here, just like be on your toes right,
Speaker 1: not anything specific. She was not. She's not an activist,
Speaker 1: she's not. She didn't know anything right, and so he
Speaker 1: was grilled her, tell me who told you that? Tell
Speaker 1: me who told you that? How did you know that?
Speaker 1: And he said, on the record, direct quote, I want
Speaker 1: to know who infiltrated our communications. So he's trying to
Speaker 1: use this this moment where he has someone under oath
Speaker 1: to extract information about who snitched. He wants to know
Speaker 1: who infiltrated their secret communications, which is him admitting their
Speaker 1: secret communications that weren't turned over in discovery, which wasn't
Speaker 1: smart of him to do. But he's using this process
Speaker 1: to get names of people who he can harass. And
Speaker 1: we know that's what they're doing because while he was
Speaker 1: getting these names from that other witness, you know, the
Speaker 1: names of the people at the statue. Jason Kessler, the
Speaker 1: lead defendant, right that, the defendant whose name is on
Speaker 1: the lawsuit, the lead organizer of the rally, is posting
Speaker 1: all this time. He's posting through it, posting through it.
Speaker 1: If you had a good lawyer, he would tell you
Speaker 1: not to post through your own conspiracy trial. Um, so
Speaker 1: whal Cantwell is extracting these names from this poor young man.
Speaker 1: Kessler's posting them. He's posting their pictures and their legal
Speaker 1: names and describing their involvement, these people who are not
Speaker 1: party to this lawsuit. And there's no way to interpret
Speaker 1: that other than as as a vehicle for harassment. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's I think there will be. There will be collateral
Speaker 1: damage of this lawsuit, but I hope that it does
Speaker 1: um have the intended deterrent effect. Right, Um, sorry, I've
Speaker 1: been talking at length for a while, but just insummation, insummation.
Speaker 1: I think inside the courtroom, this is a case about damages. Right.
Speaker 1: The judge is very clear that like, stop talking about
Speaker 1: broader societal impact. You can't tell the jury about that.
Speaker 1: That's not relevant to this case. This, legally speaking, is
Speaker 1: a case about did this thing happen. Were these people
Speaker 1: hurt by it? What is the dollar amount of their pain?
Speaker 1: Legally speaking? That's it. But outside the courtroom, this is
Speaker 1: about deterrence, right, This is about setting a precedent that
Speaker 1: if you do this, if you plan a rally knowing
Speaker 1: that the people who come to your rally will hurt
Speaker 1: people because you told them that's the goal. Right. Even
Speaker 1: if you're not the one who swings the stick, even
Speaker 1: if you're not the one pressing the accelerator, you are
Speaker 1: responsible and you can be held accountable. Not as an
Speaker 1: important message, Yeah, we will, like your life will be
Speaker 1: ruined if you participate in this ship that even if
Speaker 1: you don't have anything for us to take, we will
Speaker 1: put a garnishment on you that will follow you to
Speaker 1: the fucking grave. Yep. And I think, yeah, that's that's
Speaker 1: I would agree what I think is important here. Um, Molly,
Speaker 1: I think that's that's everything. For now. We're still how
Speaker 1: much how much longer do we have to go through this?
Speaker 1: The court watch him a jig. Well, it's scheduled for
Speaker 1: four weeks, it's been one and a half. And there
Speaker 1: was there was some some anxiety and handwringing about how
Speaker 1: maybe four weeks won't cut it. Yeah, Jesus, So I'm
Speaker 1: regretting my decision to actively live tweets. So like I'm
Speaker 1: transcribing in real time for eight hours a day. It
Speaker 1: happens your fingers are using a laptop. Are you doing
Speaker 1: it on a phone. I'm doing it on a laptop,
Speaker 1: thank God. So because of COVID, um, no one can
Speaker 1: go into the courthouse because there's so many parties in
Speaker 1: this case, and there's the plague, and one can go
Speaker 1: into the courthouse except for there's there's a press room
Speaker 1: where fifteen people who got preapproved by a federal court
Speaker 1: can go and sit and look at a monitor. Um,
Speaker 1: but I'm sitting at home. I'm comfy at home, So
Speaker 1: I'm okank God, yeah, that would be And I was.
Speaker 1: I was disappointed. You know, I kind of wanted to
Speaker 1: see I love to see you love the courtroom ambiance.
Speaker 1: But I'll be honest work, I'm way less worried about
Speaker 1: getting stabbed here at home. That is true. That is true.
Speaker 1: People are less likely to get stabbed at home or
Speaker 1: more likely one of the two. Um, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Tell us in the comments where you think people are
Speaker 1: most likely to get stabbed. Uh and um, Molly, thank
Speaker 1: you so much. Thank you both for what you're doing
Speaker 1: and for coming on the show. Is there anywhere the
Speaker 1: listeners can find slash support you? Would you like people
Speaker 1: to mail you knives? What? Oh? Mail me knives? Yeah,
Speaker 1: but not as a threat, like as a fun thing,
Speaker 1: fun knives for fun. I did get a large machete
Speaker 1: in the mail the other day, and before I saw
Speaker 1: the little gift note, I was confused. Oh good, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm glad you're getting a Yeah. Yeah, my my friendship
Speaker 1: is a sheep farmer in North Carolina sent me a
Speaker 1: large blade. Uh no, but so if you're interested in
Speaker 1: reading moment by moment live transcription of people screaming Holocaust
Speaker 1: denial at a federal judge, Um, you can check me
Speaker 1: out on Twitter. That's at Socialist dog Mom. That's what
Speaker 1: happens when you make a little joke with your friends,
Speaker 1: when you have five followers, and and then you end
Speaker 1: up using it professionally and national news repeatedly. I don't.
Speaker 1: Then people are posting your mug shot making fun of
Speaker 1: your bullshit mug shot. You look great, but bullshit. Nobody
Speaker 1: looks good after they get left in a hot van
Speaker 1: like a dog. Yeah, that's true. Well, Molly, that's gonna
Speaker 1: be the end of the episode. So why don't we,
Speaker 1: Why don't we sing a song and and and roll out?
Speaker 1: Hopefully not the song that Heimbuch included in his Christmas
Speaker 1: letter to James Fields in prison. Oh god, that must
Speaker 1: have been really special. Jeez, I'll have to look that up.
Speaker 1: I did come across in my um my browsing through
Speaker 1: Fascist Telegram the other week an entire album, dozens of
Speaker 1: songs that we're all Nazi covers of Blink one eight
Speaker 1: two's entire discography, everything, everything, And they called it, of course,
Speaker 1: they called it Blink like obviously of course, I don't
Speaker 1: I don't even know, like, I don't even know like
Speaker 1: how to talk about that. It was just the thing
Speaker 1: that I found. Do you know hampt Install, the guy
Speaker 1: who studies malicious Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, he's got a
Speaker 1: particular fascination with white power app Oh god, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: never any good, although there was a there is a
Speaker 1: fun in one of the h Bomber Guy videos. He
Speaker 1: found finds this flat earth Nazi who has a wrap.
Speaker 1: That's amazing. Alright, partial, I'm partial to can't well as distracts. Yeah, God,
Speaker 1: Chris Camp, Well, well, thank you, Molly, and uh off
Speaker 1: we go into the wild blue yonder. I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: smoke some legal weed and fall asleep, face down, hopefully
Speaker 1: not thinking about this trial. I Am not going to
Speaker 1: smoke some legal weed because that's federally a crime. Molly,
Speaker 1: have a good day, Molly. Thank you all for listening.
Speaker 1: It Could Happen Here is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 1: cool zone media dot com, or check us out on
Speaker 1: the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
Speaker 1: listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It Could
Speaker 1: Happen Here, updated monthly at cool Zone Meda dot com
Speaker 1: slash sources. Thanks for listening.