A federal judge criticized the Justice Department's changing stance on whether a presidential pardon for a man involved in the Capitol riot extends to his conviction for illegally possessing guns at his residence. The judge questioned why the department altered its initial decision that the pardon did not cover the firearms convictions of the individual in question.
The judge expressed concern over the shifting interpretation of the pardon, emphasizing the need for consistency in its application. The Justice Department's assertion that the pardon encompasses crimes related to illegal items discovered during searches linked to the Capitol riot cases was deemed 'extraordinary' by the judge.
The prosecutor stated that the department now believes the pardon includes the individual's firearms convictions, citing 'further clarity' on President Trump's intent. The individual had been sentenced to five years in prison for conspiring to impede police officers at the Capitol and possessing an unregistered firearm.
The Bureau of Prisons mistakenly released the individual following Trump's pardons, prompting the need for clarification on the scope of the pardons. The judge questioned the authority to interpret the pardons' extent, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the language of the pardon without room for broad interpretation.
The Justice Department determined that Trump's pardon for another Capitol riot defendant also covers separate convictions for possessing stolen grenades and classified information. However, the pardons do not apply to all charges against certain Jan. 6 defendants, leading to ongoing prosecutions in specific cases.
The judge highlighted the necessity for a clear and unambiguous pardon that aligns with its text, expressing concern over potential reinterpretation over time. The article also mentioned cases where the pardons did not extend to all charges against defendants, leading to continued legal proceedings in those instances.
