Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A man accused of planting pipe bombs near the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee on the eve of the January 6 Capitol attack is asking a federal judge to dismiss the case, arguing he is covered by President Donald Trump’s sweeping pardons of alleged rioters.
Lawyers for Brian Cole Jr. filed a motion Monday contending that the charges against him are “inextricably and demonstrably tethered” to the events of Jan. 6, raising a new legal test over how far Trump’s clemency extends.
Cole has pleaded not guilty to charges including interstate transportation of explosives and attempted use of explosives. Authorities allege he planted the devices on Jan. 5, 2021; they were discovered the following day as chaos unfolded at the U.S. Capitol.
Defense: Charges fall under “related to” language
In their filing, Cole’s attorneys argued that Trump’s pardon order applies to offenses “related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,” and that their client’s case fits that definition.
They cited prosecutors’ own filings stating that Cole told the Federal Bureau of Investigation he traveled to Washington to attend a protest tied to the 2020 election — placing him, they argue, within the same political context that drove the Jan. 6 crowd.
“The Pardon—like it or not—applies to Mr. Cole,” his lawyers wrote, arguing the plain language of the order covers conduct linked to the broader события surrounding Jan. 6, even if it occurred a day earlier.
Unresolved case now central to legal fight
The pipe bomb investigation remained unsolved for nearly five years before Cole was charged late last year. The devices did not detonate, but the FBI has said they were viable explosive devices.
The case has been considered one of the most serious unresolved threats connected to Jan. 6, and Trump administration officials previously described identifying the suspect as a top priority.
It remains unclear whether the president’s pardon order applies in this instance, particularly because the alleged conduct occurred on Jan. 5 rather than Jan. 6.
Broader implications for Jan. 6 pardons
Trump’s clemency, issued shortly after he returned to the White House, granted relief to roughly 1,500 defendants tied to the Capitol attack. The order wiped out most convictions and directed the Department of Justice to seek dismissal of pending cases.
But courts have already begun grappling with the limits of those pardons.
In some cases, defendants facing both Jan. 6-related charges and separate weapons offenses have argued the pardons should apply broadly to all counts. Prosecutors have sometimes agreed, while in other instances they have pushed back.
In a separate case, Edward Kelley, a Jan. 6 defendant, was charged not only for entering the Capitol but also for threatening FBI agents investigating him. Prosecutors argued Trump’s pardon did not extend to the threats case, and Kelley was ultimately sentenced to life in prison.
Next legal test
Cole’s motion now sets up another potential precedent as courts determine whether actions leading up to Jan. 6 — but not occurring on that day — can be considered part of the same event for purposes of presidential clemency.
A ruling in his favor could significantly broaden the reach of Trump’s pardons, while a denial could reinforce limits on how far the “related to” language extends.
