The man charged with placing pipe bombs at Democratic and Republican party headquarters on the eve of Jan. 6, 2021, now claims that President Donald Trump's sweeping clemency protects him from prosecution. His attorneys filed a motion Monday asking a court to throw out the felony charges against him. The White House says the argument is dead on arrival.
According to Politico, Attorneys Mario Williams and John Shoreman filed the motion on behalf of Brian Cole Jr., who faces felony charges of transporting and maliciously using explosives. The legal theory is straightforward: Trump's clemency proclamation, issued on the first day of his second term, granted "a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021." Cole's lawyers argue the language is broad enough to cover their client.
Williams and Shoreman wrote in their filing that the pardon's text controls, regardless of whether observers like the result.
The Pardon, like it or not, applies to Mr. Cole, based on the ordinary and plain meaning of the Pardon's language as applied to the relevant facts in this case.
The attorneys also argued that Cole's alleged conduct is "inextricably tethered to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021," placing it squarely within the pardon's scope. They noted that some individuals whose convictions were wiped out by the clemency had been formally accused in indictments of taking actions before Jan. 6 that contributed to the events of that day.
A White House official, speaking anonymously via email, rejected the defense argument in blunt terms.
The pipe bombs were placed on Jan 5. The pardon pertained to events at or near the Capitol on Jan. 6 and clearly does not cover this scenario.
That distinction, a single calendar day, is now the central fault line in this case. The pardon language references "January 6, 2021." The White House position is that alleged conduct on Jan. 5 falls outside that date and outside the pardon's reach.
President Trump has said he intended his pardon to apply to people he believes were treated unfairly when charged with committing crimes on Jan. 6, ranging from trespassing to assaults on police officers. On the first day of his second term, he commuted the sentences of several of the most serious Jan. 6 defendants and then issued the broad pardon covering others convicted of related offenses.
The proclamation's wording is described as "extremely broad." It refers to pending cases and people already convicted. Whether it blocks future charges is not clear from the text of the proclamation itself. Cole has not been convicted of any offense. He argues the pardon language applies to him regardless of that fact, a position that would extend the clemency's reach beyond its apparent design.
Cole's motion puts the Trump administration in an awkward procedural position, though not one of the president's making. The administration has separately argued in the prosecution of Rep. LaMonica McIver for alleged assault of an immigration agent that Jan. 6 defendants who were never ultimately convicted are covered by Trump's pardon. That argument, made in an unrelated case, could complicate the government's opposition to Cole's claim. If unconvicted defendants can benefit from the pardon in one context, Cole's lawyers will press the question of why the same logic should not apply to their client.
The administration is expected to oppose Cole's motion. The legal question the court must resolve is narrow but consequential: does the pardon's reference to offenses "related to events" at or near the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, encompass alleged conduct that took place on Jan. 5 at locations near the Capitol? Or does the date limitation in the proclamation's text draw a hard line that excludes Cole?
No ruling has been issued on the dismissal motion. The court will need to parse the precise scope of the pardon's language, determine whether "related to events" on Jan. 6 can encompass actions allegedly taken the day before, and decide whether the clemency applies to a defendant who has not been convicted. The charging authority for the explosives charges has not been publicly identified in connection with this motion, and the court and jurisdiction handling the case have not been publicly specified.
Presidential clemency is among the broadest powers in the Constitution, and its exercise demands precise language precisely because courts must enforce whatever the president signs. Cole's lawyers are betting that the text says more than the White House intended. The court's job now is to read the words on the page, and the answer will shape whether a pardon meant to address one chapter of American disorder gets conscripted to cover another.
