Pipe Bomb Suspect Seeks Coverage Under Trump's Jan. 6 Pardons

A new court filing argues that the suspect's alleged actions are connected to the events of January 6, 2021, and should be covered by President Donald Trump's blanket pardon

The lawyers for Brian Cole, the man charged with planting pipe bombs near the Republican and Democratic national committees' headquarters on January 5, 2021, have filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that their client's alleged actions should be covered by President Donald Trump's pardon of individuals involved in the events of January 6, 2021. While maintaining Cole's innocence, the attorneys claim that if he did indeed plant the pipe bombs, Trump's pardon would apply to his actions.

The Argument for Pardon Coverage

The attorneys for Cole argue that the pipe bombs were discovered and neutralized on the afternoon of January 6, 2021, at the national party headquarters on Capitol Hill, which they claim falls under the category of "at or near the United States Capitol" as specified in Trump's pardon. They also argue that Cole's alleged actions were motivated by grievances about the 2020 presidential election, similar to those of other January 6 defendants. The timing of the alleged pipe bombing, coinciding with the certification of the electoral college vote, further supports their claim that Cole's actions are connected to the events of January 6.

Comparison to Other January 6 Defendants

Cole's lawyers draw comparisons between their client and two other January 6 defendants, Kenneth Harrelson and David Dempsey. Dempsey, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for his role in the January 6 events, was covered by Trump's pardon. Harrelson, who was sentenced to two years in prison for transporting firearms and ammunition into Washington, had his sentence commuted. The attorneys argue that if Harrelson's actions, which were deemed less severe than Cole's alleged pipe bombing, were worthy of a commuted sentence, then Cole's alleged actions should also be covered by the pardon.

The Government's Response

The White House has not responded to requests for comment on whether Trump's pardon was intended to cover defendants like Cole. The government's own narrative, as presented in court filings, places Cole's alleged actions in the context of the January 6 events, which could support the argument that he should be covered by the pardon. However, the fact that Cole was charged almost a year after Trump issued the pardon may complicate the matter. A judge has ordered that Cole remain detained ahead of his trial, citing a potential danger to the public, despite his lawyers' arguments that he should be released due to an autism diagnosis. The case highlights the complexities and potential inconsistencies in the application of Trump's pardon, and the outcome may have significant implications for the interpretation of the pardon's scope.

Top Stories

Recent Articles

More Articles