The Justice Department is forcefully pushing back against a striking legal claim from the man accused of planting pipe bombs in Washington, D.C., on the eve of Jan. 6 \u2014 that he was effectively pardoned by President Trump.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a court filing Friday, prosecutors urged a federal judge to reject Brian Cole Jr.\u2019s attempt to have his charges thrown out, calling his argument flatly incompatible with the \u201cclear and unambiguous terms\u201d of Trump\u2019s sweeping Jan. 6 clemency order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cole, who was arrested in December 2025 after years of investigation, is accused of placing two pipe bombs outside the Republican and Democratic National Committee headquarters on Jan. 5, 2021 \u2014 just hours before rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The devices never detonated, but the FBI has said they were functional and viable, raising the stakes of a case that remained unsolved for nearly five years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Earlier this year, Cole\u2019s lawyers made a bold move: They argued that his actions were \u201cinextricably and demonstrably tethered\u201d to the events of Jan. 6 \u2014 and therefore covered by Trump\u2019s mass pardon of people tied to the attack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They pointed to the broad language in Trump\u2019s order, which applies to offenses \u201crelated to\u201d events at or near the Capitol, and noted that Cole allegedly traveled to Washington for an election protest tied to the same political moment that fueled the riot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the Justice Department isn\u2019t buying it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cThe defendant ignores that the proclamation expressly limited relief to individuals who had been \u2018convicted of,\u2019 or had a \u2018pending indictment\u2019 for, offenses related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6,\u201d U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro wrote.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
That distinction, prosecutors argue, is decisive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When Trump\u2019s pardon took effect on Jan. 20, 2025, Cole had not yet been charged \u2014 putting him outside the scope of the order entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cThe defendant belonged to neither category, and so the proclamation has no bearing on this case,\u201d Pirro wrote.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Cole was indicted weeks later, in January 2026, on charges including interstate transportation of explosives and malicious attempt to use them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Prosecutors also made clear that even a broader reading of the pardon wouldn\u2019t help him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cEven if the Court somehow found, notwithstanding its text, that the proclamation could apply to this case,\u201d Pirro wrote<\/a>, the Justice Department\u2019s interpretation should still prevail as a \u201cconsistent, reasonable\u201d reading by the agency tasked with enforcing it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The clash sets up a high-stakes test of how far Trump\u2019s Jan. 6 pardons can stretch \u2014 and whether conduct that happened before the riot, but is arguably connected to it, can fall under their umbrella.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For now, the Justice Department\u2019s position is blunt: Not this case. Not this defendant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
READ NEXT: Congressman\u2019s Sudden Death Upends Key Race<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n