Legeally Speaking, hasn't the Jan 6th Pipe Bomber already been pardoned?

[Chasstev365]

"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."

[Walleye]

1. So he didn't really have to pardon all of those people separately

He just waved his hand like royalty and said “I forgive the right readily“

[rampartd]

5. this is sometimes warranted . carter pardoned the "draft dodgers"

i expect this guy's lawyers to at least claim that pardon.

i am also very surprised that patel threw this guy out. probably to prove he is "antifa" or an insane liberal but definitely not a proud boy or employed by roger stone.

conspiracy theory"? before they named the guy i thought they might finally be arresting margie Tayler green.

[ToxMarz]

9. Carters draft dodger pardon was not "a complete and uncondtional pardon to all individuals"

It was broad and included more people, but it was much more thoughtful (as is anything compared to trump).

[rampartd]

15. just the only time i've seen pardons or multiple unnamed people

and yes, narrowly limiting the scope to crimes related to draft evasion seems a better way to handle this than pardoning the proud boys along with the less violent nut cases.

[Emile]

2. He will probably walk away unpunished.

[Shipwack]

3. Which might be ok, if it wasn't him... nt

[Emile]

4. I think he has already admitted that he did it.

[3Hotdogs]

11. Admitting that he did it AND that he did it in response to the "stolen election," probably gets him off the hook.

If not, and he gets convicted before Trump dies in office, he could get a pardon. After all, he set the bombs in support of Trump.

[bluedigger]

6. Not if the pipe bombs were placed on Jan. 5.

The Devil is in the details.

[ToxMarz]

8. Good point but this could be "related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021"

Depends on how you want interpret his lazy attempt at a pardon.

[W_HAMILTON]

13. The January 6th part is unambiguous.

[ToxMarz]

14. Yes, related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.

It doesn't say crimes or offenses that occured on Jan 6, it is offenses related to events that happened then. And the pipe bombs were found in Jan 6, that was an event that happened in Jan 6. The bombs were likely intended to coincide with the Stop the steal protest event of Jan 6.

That he be may covered is a valid argument, I don't think its unambiguous.

[W_HAMILTON]

16. It literally does.

"Occurred at or near the Capitol" refers to the location of the events and "on January 6, 2021" refers to the time of the events.

The January 6th date is unambiguous and a truly impartial court -- which this MAGA-hijacked Supreme Court most certainly is NOT ‐- would never rule in the pipe bomber's favor here.

[ToxMarz]

17. What it actually literally says is

"offenses related to events that "

+

"Occurred at or near the Capitol" refers to the location of the events and "on January 6, 2021" refers to the time of the events.

It literally does not reference a time frame for the commission of the crimes, only the events the crimes are tied to. That wouldbalso include potential conspiracy charges, organizing charges, financial charges, etc. I'm sure in purpose, but at the risk of being too broad.

[Anxy]

24. You keep erasing "related to"

The thing
Is…that the defense is not gonna let the prosecuting chop off the “related to” part.
Besides, when was the bomb supposed to go off?

And… did the pipe bombs not create a diversion that distracted capital police from the break-in on January 6th?

[Anxy]

23. Was it intended to blow up on January 6th?

Secondly, is it not true that the pipe bombs created a diversion that attracted many Capitol Police officers away from the scene of the break-in. If so, then it was related to January 6th.

Also, those who pardoned for seditious conspiracy did not conspire on January 6. The conspiracy started before that. This strengthens the pipe bomber’s case for pardon.

[debsy]

7. IMHO, "related to events" eliminates any date restriction

I’m not a legal expert by any means but I’m leaning toward the OP’s take on this one. It seems to be a blanket pardon to anything and everything related, regardless of when it occurred. The way I read the pardon, anyone involved in the planning, which nobody has been prosecuted for anyway but should have been, would even be covered.

[Johonny]

19. Yes, this pardon was to cover the politicians

That absolutely were being investigated for their help.in the days leading up to the breach.

[KS Toronado]

10. Has his picture ever been published?

[W_HAMILTON]

12. The pipe bombs were planted on January 5th...

...so, no, legally speaking, he clearly would not be covered under the blanket January 6th pardons.

But it's not like the letter of the law matters to this MAGA-hijacked Supreme Court -- they rule based on their political beliefs.

[Anxy]

25. Were they intended to detonate on January 5 or the 6th??

Secondly, did the pipe bombs create a dissertation that led capital police to the DNC/RNC, , keeping them from defending the buildings?

Seems extremely related to January 6th to me.

[Johonny]

18. There is no way his lawyers wont inquire

And the vague language of the pardon is going to make it very hard not to think he is pardoned... But we will see.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. I'd be surprised if Trump and the mob want "planting bombs" to count as "related to our peaceful demo ...

... which was in no way a violent mob trying to overthrow the constitutional succession of the US government, no sirree, why, it looked more like a bunch of tourists with an interest in a historical building, and that's why we all deserve pardons".

On the other hand, they may just say "fuck you, planting bombs just shows how pissed off MAGA was, it's another form of freedom of speech, welcome to the blanket pardon, brother". Depends on how flagrant they're feeling.

[harumph]

21. the language was drafted intentionally broad.

IMO, it (language) could be construed to cover the bomber's actions as the planting the explosive devices was in direct anticipation of the events of Jan 6. The location of the bombs were certainly near the capital. Depends on how the jury interprets "related to." I don't think the language explicitly excludes actions related to outside of the 6th. What about preparatory actions taken by the Jan 6 participants that would otherwise be prosecutable?


On a side note "related to" is a woolly term.

[Make7]

22. I doubt that Presidential Proclamation covered future cases.

January 20, 2025
···
(b) grant 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;

The Attorney General shall administer and effectuate the immediate issuance of certificates of pardon to all individuals described in section (b) above, and shall ensure that all individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, who are currently held in prison are released immediately. The Bureau of Prisons shall immediately implement all instructions from the Department of Justice regarding this directive.

I further direct the Attorney General to pursue dismissal with prejudice to the government of all pending indictments against individuals for their conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. The Bureau of Prisons shall immediately implement all instructions from the Department of Justice regarding this directive.

IANAL, but wouldn't this pertain to the cases already prosecuted and pending at the time it was signed?

Since the pipe bombing suspect wasn't charged before January 20th 2025, I doubt it would be legally applicable in his case.

[NameAlreadyTaken]

26. Does that mean he pardoned himself,

for inciting an insurrection?

[Blues Heron]

27. He is already pardoned, the "related" part covers him. The coup rolls on. Prob get his name on the arch

[onenote]

28. When was he "convicted?"

I must have missed that.

No, he hasn't been pardoned. He still has to stand trial. And if he claims to have been pardoned, I predict DOJ opposes that and no judge is going to conclude he's been pardoned.

This is just silly talk.