Enrique Tarrio is raging online about President Joe Biden’s election victory. It’s November 2020, a couple of months before the January 6 insurrection.
But Tarrio isn’t just an angry Donald Trump supporter posting on the internet. He’s the leader of the right-wing Proud Boys group with perhaps thousands of members ultimately reporting to him.
He wanted Mr Trump to remain in office, warning of a second civil war. So he and others hatched a plan, one that culminated in the storming of the Capitol on 6 January 2021.
A series of documents and messages, revealed by prosecutors at trial, shows the lengths they went to: from secret text chains to planning 50-man teams to occupy buildings in the capital.
Tarrio and his associate Ethan Nordean, another senior Proud Boy, will now be sentenced today after being found guilty of seditious conspiracy, a rare charge carrying up to 20 years in prison.
Two others – Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl – will be sentenced tomorrow for the same charge.
Sky News reveals below exactly how the four men planned to overthrow democracy and asks a key question: are the Proud Boys still a threat?
Advertisement
Trump: ‘Proud Boys, stand back, and stand by’
Formed during the alt-right explosion of 2016, the exclusively-male Proud Boys regard themselves as “Western chauvinists” who “refuse to apologise for creating the modern world”.
Variously described as a street gang, a hate group or “kids who were picked last at kickball”, the Proud Boys have been designated as a terror group in two countries – Canada and New Zealand.
The group’s roots are as a “boys drinking club”, Katherine Keneally, an expert on political violence at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, tells Sky News.
“But what we saw, especially with the emergence of Trump, is this shifted from it being a drinking club to them going out on the streets, particularly at COVID-related protests, racial justice protests, and engaging in violence with protesters.”
As the movement grew, dozens of chapters of the Proud Boys sprang up in the majority of US states.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:59
Trump to Proud Boys: ‘Stand back, and stand by’
The watershed moment came in September 2020, and the infamous line from Trump live on television: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.”
This caused an immediate shift in their behaviour, Ms Keneally says, with the group emboldened by the belief that they had support from the President.
“They had already been garnering public support leading up to January 6, and that helped them translate to them actually directing people unaffiliated with the Proud Boys during the insurrection.”
“They viewed themselves as the president’s own military in some respects,” she added.
The plan for January 6
“Fill the buildings with patriots and communicate our demands,” the plan says.
This is the incendiary ‘1776 Returns’ document, a secret Proud Boys internal plan prosecutors say was sent to Tarrio.
Its stated goals include maintaining control “over a select few, but crucial buildings in the DC area for a set period of time” and getting as “many people as possible inside these buildings”.
“These are OUR buildings, they are just renting space,” the document reads. “We must show our politicians We the People are in charge.”
The document set out plans in detail for how Proud Boys would occupy buildings, with specialist roles given to leads (“covert sleeper”), “hypeman” and “recruiter”.
“Have leads and seconds open the doors for the crowd to enter,” it says. “This might include causing trouble near the front doors to distract guards who may be holding the doors off.”
Readers are instructed to use COVID-19 to their advantage by wearing face coverings to protect their identities.
Prosecutors say that Tarrio was sent the 1776 Returns document by an unnamed individual, who told him: “The revolution is more important than anything.”
Tarrio responded: “That’s what every waking moment consists of… I’m not playing games.”
What happened at the Proud Boys trial?
Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs and Rehl along with a fifth defendant, Dominic Pezzola, were put on trial charged with conspiring to oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force (seditious conspiracy) and a number of other charges in relation to January 6.
In his 80-minute opening statement, assistant US attorney Jason McCullough said in the days after the 2020 election the defendants had started “calling for action, calling for war, if their favoured candidate was not elected.”
Alluding to Mr Trump’s remark, the prosecutor added: “They did not stand back. They did not stand by. Instead, they mobilised.”
The indictment laid out how Tarrio, enraged at President Biden’s victory, posted on social media in November 2020: “F*** unity. No quarter. Raise the black flag.”
Associated with military conflict, the phrase ‘no quarter’ suggests that enemy combatants should be killed rather than taken prisoner.
The jury heard how after the election Tarrio posted on social media that the presidency was being stolen and vowed his group wouldn’t “go quietly”.
Mr McCullough also cited messages from Tarrio on January 6, including: “Make no mistake… We did this.”
“Those are his words, his thoughts, just minutes after Congress had been forced to stop its work,” McCullough said. “They did what they’d set out to do.”
And while Tarrio himself wasn’t at the Capitol on the day of the insurrection, he messaged with members throughout the riot, prosecutors said.
‘Their commander-in-chief sold them a lie’
Defence lawyers denied their clients planned or led an attack on the Capitol and suggested they were being targeted for their political beliefs.
Tarrio’s attorney, Sabino Jauregui, told jurors his client was being made a scapegoat because he “wrote and sent a lot of offensive things”.
“Speaking what you think is not illegal in this country yet,” he continued, before he closed with a quote from Martin Luther King Jr: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Rehl’s lawyer, Carmen Hernandez, said her client came to the nation’s capital simply to protest. “I submit to you that Mr Rehl came to DC to exercise his First Amendment rights,” she told the jury.
Nick Smith, a lawyer for Nordean, who led a Proud Boys chapter in Washington state, told jurors they would see no evidence of a “complicated, long-running plot”.
“What you will see in the Telegram chats is a bunch of text messages that are tempting you to find guilt based on your dislike of these people,” he said. “Do not take the bait.”
Norm Pattis, a lawyer for Joe Biggs, said the defendants came to Washington because their “commander-in-chief” told them it would “be wild”, referring to Mr Trump’s infamous tweet that called on supporters to come to Washington on January 6.
“Their commander-in-chief sold them a lie,” he said.
Pezzola’s lawyer, Roger Roots, downplayed the attack on the Capitol, which temporarily halted the counting of Electoral College ballots.
“Believe it or not, this entire case is about a six-hour delay of Congress,” Roots told the jury. “The government makes a big deal out of this six-hour recess.”
Guilty of seditious conspiracy
Tarrio, Biggs, Nordean and Rehl were found guilty of seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
Pezzola was cleared of seditious conspiracy and a jury could not reach an agreement on the charge of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
Pezzola, who was caught on video smashing in a window with a Capitol Police shield during the riot, was separately charged with stealing the police shield and found guilty.
He was also convicted of assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers, while the four other defendants were acquitted on that charge.
The judge declared a mistrial in respect of various other counts in the trial upon which the jury did not reach conclusions.
How big are the Proud Boys now?
With the next US presidential election barely a year away some are asking if we are likely to see a repeat of the violent scenes of January 6… or another attempt to overturn the result if Mr Trump is not the victor.
Are the Proud Boys still a threat to American democracy?
Their numbers have grown dramatically since 2020, reaching 78 chapters in 2022, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center organisation.
But that may not tell the whole story, as it does not necessarily mean that the number of Proud Boys members has increased, experts say.
“I think many would have expected the Proud Boys to kind of fade away by now,” Colin P Clarke, director of research and an expert on domestic terrorism at the Soufan Group, tells Sky News.
“But there seems to be a real sense of pride in pushing forward with all their different activities, and they’ve positioned themselves as a player in the culture wars more broadly.”
However Colin Beck, a professor at Pomona College and an expert in social movements, said that while the Proud Boys brand may have continued to spread, the amount of support may have decreased.
“There’s now a real cost,” he tells Sky News. “If you go to a Proud Boys event you might end up in jail.
“The US federal government is very good at suppressing protests when it chooses to do so.”
Trump ‘abandoned’ the Proud Boys
Another factor, Katherine Keneally says, is the Proud Boys have in many ways distanced themselves from Mr Trump and feel “betrayed” by him.
She pointed to fears of Proud Boys protests over the indictment of the former president which did not come to pass.
“He wasn’t helping fund their legal efforts. He just sort of abandoned them,” she said. “So there has been this distrust that’s been happening with Trump.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:39
Watch US Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s statement here.
Asked about the future, she doubts there will be a repeat of January 6 as Proud Boys are now focussing much more on local action and running for local office.
“I’m not actually worried about the Proud Boys,” Ms Beck says. “In some ways they’re like the has-beens.”
“It’s who the Proud Boys become next…what is the group that emerges?
“Because all the people who are adherents or sympathetic, they don’t go away. They just move on to something else.”
Mr Clarke raised the idea the Proud Boys could act as a “feeder” or “preparatory school” for more extreme groups.
Asked how likely a repeat of the Capitol insurrection is if a Democrat wins in 2024, Mr Clarke said: “We have to learn from January 6 that when these guys say that they’re going to do something, we have to take them seriously and prepare for it.”
The families of some of the victims of the Uvalde school shooting have announced new legal action against three companies they say effectively helped to “train” the gunman to carry out the attack.
Legal action against Instagram parent company Meta Platforms, the maker of the video game series Call Of Duty and the company that made the gun used in the May 2022 shooting was announced on the two-year anniversary of the attack in Texas in the US.
The new legal cases accuse the companies of partnering to promote and create content designed to glorify combat, gun violence and killing.
Josh Koskoff, a lawyer for the families, called the companies a “three-headed monster” that “knowingly exposed [the gunman] to the weapon, conditioned him to see it as a tool to solve his problems and trained him to use it”.
“There is a direct line between the conduct of these companies and the Uvalde shooting,” Mr Koskoff said.
According to the lawsuits, Ramos had played versions of Call Of Duty since he was 15, including one that allowed him to effectively practise with the version of the rifle he used at the school.
It claimed the company created a “hyperrealistic” game where “although the killing is virtual, the weapons are authentic – they are designed to perfectly imitate their real-life counterparts in look, feel, recoil and accuracy”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:23
‘Failures’ in Uvalde school shooting
The legal action claims Instagram does little to enforce rules that ban marketing firearms and harmful content to children.
It also accuses gunmakers Daniel Defense of using the social media platform to help “extol the illegal, murderous use of its weapons”.
Some of the same families also filed a $500m (£392m) lawsuit against Texas state police officials and officers who responded to the shooting but waited more than an hour to confront Ramos inside the classroom as students and teachers lay dead, dying or wounded.
‘Baseless accusations’
Call Of Duty makers, Activision, called the shooting “horrendous and heartbreaking in every way”.
The company added its “deepest sympathies” for the “families and communities who remain impacted by this senseless act of violence”.
But it added: “Millions of people around the world enjoy video games without turning to horrific acts.”
The Entertainment Software Association – a video game industry trade group – also said it was “outraged by senseless acts of violence” but pushed back on blaming games for violence, arguing research has found no link.
“We discourage baseless accusations linking these tragedies to video gameplay, which detract from efforts to focus on the root issues in question and safeguard against future tragedies,” the group said.
Daniel Defense and Meta did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Associated Press.
This is not the first legal action to be brought over the shooting.
In December 2022, a group of different plaintiffs filed a separate lawsuit against local and state police, the city, and other school and law enforcement, which seeks at least $27bn (£21bn) and class-action status for survivors.
At least two other lawsuits have also been filed against Daniel Defense.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
A judge has rejected a request by Alec Baldwin to dismiss his criminal charge relating to the fatal shooting on the set of Rust.
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer upheld an indictment charging Baldwin with one count of involuntary manslaughter in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, 42, in 2021.
The New Mexico judge rejected defence arguments that prosecutors flouted the rules of grand jury proceedings to divert attention away from exculpatory evidence and witnesses.
Prosecutors denied the accusations and said Baldwin made “shameless” attempts to escape culpability, highlighting contradictions in his statements to law enforcement, to workplace safety regulators, and in a television interview.
Baldwin has pleaded not guilty to the charge, which carries a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison.
His lawyers said after Friday’s judgement: “We look forward to our day in court.”
The 66-year-old’s trial has been scheduled to start in July.
More on Alec Baldwin
Related Topics:
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
During a rehearsal on the set of the Western film, Baldwin pointed a gun at Hutchins when the revolver went off, killing her and injuring director Joel Souza.
The actor has maintained that he pulled back the gun’s hammer but not the trigger.
Documentary maker Morgan Spurlock, who famously ate only at McDonald’s for a month in Super Size Me, has died.
Spurlock died from complications of cancer at the age of 53 in New York, his family confirmed in a statement.
Craig Spurlock, the filmmaker’s brother, said: “Morgan gave so much through his art, ideas, and generosity.
“The world has lost a true creative genius and a special man. I am so proud to have worked together with him.”
Born on 7 November 1970, Spurlock started off his career as a playwright before creating I Bet You Will – an internet series where members of the public would take part in stunts for cash.
The 2002 webcasts, which saw some dared to eat a full jar of mayonnaise for $235 or take a shot of cod liver oil, were eventually bought by MTV.
Spurlock rose to fame with his 2004 documentary Super Size Me, where he exclusively ate at McDonald’s for 30 days to investigate the rise of obesity in the US.
More from US
He ate an average of 5,000 calories a day, always took a “super-size” meal if offered and exercised less to match the average American’s physical activity at the time.
By the end of his experiment, he claimed he put on 25lbs (11.3kg) and started suffering from depression and liver dysfunction.
Advertisement
Spurlock’s documentary grossed $22million in the global box office and was nominated for an Oscar.
It also prompted McDonald’s to stop offering its “super-size” option in 2004.
However the film’s findings were called into question as Spurlock refused to share his meal logs. He also later admitted to alcohol abuse in 2017, which other documentary makers said explained his liver issues and poor mental health.
In 2019, Spurlock released his second expose against the fast-food industry with Super Size Me 2: Holy Chicken!
The documentary sees him open his own restaurant and “become part of the problem” while tackling claims of healthy meals at big chain restaurants.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.