Judge scrutinizes DOJ’s interpretation of Trump’s riot pardons

In Washington, during a courtroom session on Wednesday, a federal judge strongly questioned the Justice Department’s shifting stance on the extent of a presidential pardon granted to a Kentucky man, Daniel Edwin Wilson. Wilson had been involved in the January 6 Capitol riot and was also convicted for illegal firearm possession at his residence. The evolving interpretation of this pardon has raised judicial eyebrows.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich confronted a prosecuting attorney to clarify why the department had changed its initial verdict. Previously, they had determined that Wilson should return to prison because his pardon related to the Capitol riot did not extend to his firearms conviction. “The meaning of the pardon cannot shift daily,” Friedrich stated firmly.

It was remarked as “extraordinary” by Friedrich that the Justice Department now interprets President Donald Trump’s blanket pardons for those involved in the Capitol insurrection to also encompass crimes linked to illegal items found during related searches. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Blackwell shared that the department received “further clarity” about Wilson’s pardon intentions, suggesting an evolution in their interpretation.

During a 2022 search of Wilson’s home, investigators uncovered six firearms and approximately 4,800 rounds of ammunition. Owing to his prior felony convictions, it was illegal for Wilson to possess these items. Last August, Wilson was sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to impede police actions at the Capitol and illegal firearm possession.

Interestingly, Wilson was mistakenly released from prison after Trump announced presidential pardons on January 20, the day of his return to the White House. As of now, Wilson is expected to report back to prison on Thursday. However, Judge Friedrich hinted at a delay in this reporting date pending her ruling.

George Pallas, Wilson’s attorney, contended that the judge did not have the jurisdiction to interpret the pardon’s scope, indicating that Blackwell was effectively representing Trump’s perspective at the session. “She’s clarifying what the president intended with this pardon,” Pallas stated. “It’s not open to debate.”

Judge Friedrich expressed no reluctance in accepting that Trump possessed the authority to pardon Wilson alongside approximately 1,400 other individuals connected to the January 6 events. She posited, “I’m accepting the language of the pardon. The question is: How far afield from the language can it go?”

Friedrich pondered aloud why Trump hadn’t issued a “clarifying” pardon, emphasizing that the pardon could not be disassociated from its text and that its terms should not remain open to fluctuating interpretations. “It can’t be, ‘We know it when we see it,’” she asserted.

In a similar situation, the Justice Department interpreted Trump’s pardon for another Capitol riot participant, Jeremy Brown, to extend to his convictions for illegally possessing stolen grenades and classified materials. Brown was sentenced in April 2023 to over seven years in prison after a federal jury in Florida’s conviction.

Nonetheless, the department chose not to apply the pardons to all defendants linked with the January 6 riots. One such case involves Taylor Taranto, whose charges related to the January 6 incident were dismissed. Yet, his prosecution continues for offenses from his arrest in June 2023 near former President Barack Obama’s residence.

Additionally, the pardon was deemed inapplicable to Edward Kelley, who faced trial for January 6 charges and was later convicted in November for conspiracy to murder federal employees. His sentencing is set to be scheduled in May.