DOJ suddenly expands its perspective on Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons, prompting a judge to seek explanations.
A judge appointed by Trump rigorously questioned a prosecutor from the Justice Department regarding the shift in the department's stance.
TroibNews 
Three weeks ago, the Justice Department made it clear: while Donald Trump pardoned Kentuckian Dan Wilson for crimes related to the Capitol riot on January 6, it did not extend to his separate conviction for illegally storing firearms at home.
However, on Tuesday, the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington changed its stance, stating it had “received further clarity” regarding Trump’s intentions, which now included pardoning Wilson for the firearm case. Prosecutors did not detail how they reached this new understanding.
This sudden change led a federal judge—currently considering Wilson’s last-minute appeal to avoid prison for the gun conviction—to seek clarification from the Trump administration on Wednesday: Who did Trump intend to pardon with his expansive clemency order last month, and for which crimes?
During a two-hour hearing in her federal courtroom, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich—a Trump appointee—questioned a Justice Department attorney on the issue, seemingly leaving with more questions than before. Wilson’s freedom hangs in the balance; he is expected to report to prison unless Judge Friedrich intervenes.
The controversy centers around the ambiguous language of Trump’s mass pardons for those involved in the January 6 events. He granted clemency to individuals “convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
Jan. 6 defendants have argued that this broad language could encompass other unrelated crimes uncovered during the extensive investigation following the Capitol attack. However, Trump did not address this concern when he issued the pardons, resulting in confusion among his administration and the courts regarding the intent behind his decision on January 20.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Blackwell informed Judge Friedrich that the department's interpretation of Trump’s pardon had evolved recently, but she did not specify how this change occurred. This shift was cited as the reason the Justice Department moved to drop several other cases against Jan. 6 defendants facing unrelated federal felonies, including Jeremy Brown, who was serving time in Florida for possessing grenades and classified information; Elias Costianes, who faced a two-year sentence for illegal firearm and drug possession; and Daniel Ball, a repeat offender with firearms charges in Florida.
Blackwell explained that these convictions stemmed from FBI searches tied to the Jan. 6 investigation, making them “related to” the Capitol riot under the terms of Trump’s pardon. She argued these crimes would have gone undiscovered without the Jan. 6 inquiry.
However, when pressed by Judge Friedrich, Blackwell conceded that there were exceptions to this new interpretation. For instance, David Daniel, charged with possessing child pornography, was excluded because authorities had been investigating him for exploiting a minor before the Jan. 6 probe. Similarly, a Tennessee man convicted of conspiring to kill his Jan. 6 investigators was also not covered, as his conspiracy was “a separate plot” formed long after the Capitol events.
Friedrich pushed back with a hypothetical scenario: if later evidence connected a Jan. 6 defendant to a murder, would that defendant receive a pardon under the DOJ’s interpretation? Blackwell was unable to provide an answer.
“That’s just extraordinary,” Friedrich remarked regarding the potential expansion of Trump’s pardon to crimes unrelated to January 6.
The judge raised concerns that the interpretation of Trump’s pardon by his administration seemed to be a shifting target, not reflected in the original language of the proclamation.
“It can’t be the case that a pardon can be issued in vague terms and months later, the president can make a determination of what it means,” Friedrich stated. “It’s not my job to craft the pardon language.”
She appeared to identify a flaw in the government’s reasoning, noting that there was evidence Brown had classified information well before January 6, placing him in a similar situation as Daniel—yet the DOJ contends that Brown is eligible for pardon, whereas Daniel is not.
As Judge Friedrich grew increasingly frustrated, she asked the Justice Department to clarify “the president’s intent” when the pardon was granted. Blackwell and Wilson’s attorney, George Pallas, indicated that it was primarily the Justice Department's role to interpret the pardon on Trump’s behalf.
However, Friedrich asserted her responsibility to accept only a “reasonable” interpretation of the pardon, and considering the Justice Department’s evolving explanations, she had yet to determine whether to grant Wilson a reprieve from his five-year prison sentence. She instructed the Justice Department to provide her with clarifying language by 5 p.m. Wednesday before she would reach a decision.
Rohan Mehta contributed to this report for TROIB News
However, on Tuesday, the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington changed its stance, stating it had “received further clarity” regarding Trump’s intentions, which now included pardoning Wilson for the firearm case. Prosecutors did not detail how they reached this new understanding.
This sudden change led a federal judge—currently considering Wilson’s last-minute appeal to avoid prison for the gun conviction—to seek clarification from the Trump administration on Wednesday: Who did Trump intend to pardon with his expansive clemency order last month, and for which crimes?
During a two-hour hearing in her federal courtroom, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich—a Trump appointee—questioned a Justice Department attorney on the issue, seemingly leaving with more questions than before. Wilson’s freedom hangs in the balance; he is expected to report to prison unless Judge Friedrich intervenes.
The controversy centers around the ambiguous language of Trump’s mass pardons for those involved in the January 6 events. He granted clemency to individuals “convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
Jan. 6 defendants have argued that this broad language could encompass other unrelated crimes uncovered during the extensive investigation following the Capitol attack. However, Trump did not address this concern when he issued the pardons, resulting in confusion among his administration and the courts regarding the intent behind his decision on January 20.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Blackwell informed Judge Friedrich that the department's interpretation of Trump’s pardon had evolved recently, but she did not specify how this change occurred. This shift was cited as the reason the Justice Department moved to drop several other cases against Jan. 6 defendants facing unrelated federal felonies, including Jeremy Brown, who was serving time in Florida for possessing grenades and classified information; Elias Costianes, who faced a two-year sentence for illegal firearm and drug possession; and Daniel Ball, a repeat offender with firearms charges in Florida.
Blackwell explained that these convictions stemmed from FBI searches tied to the Jan. 6 investigation, making them “related to” the Capitol riot under the terms of Trump’s pardon. She argued these crimes would have gone undiscovered without the Jan. 6 inquiry.
However, when pressed by Judge Friedrich, Blackwell conceded that there were exceptions to this new interpretation. For instance, David Daniel, charged with possessing child pornography, was excluded because authorities had been investigating him for exploiting a minor before the Jan. 6 probe. Similarly, a Tennessee man convicted of conspiring to kill his Jan. 6 investigators was also not covered, as his conspiracy was “a separate plot” formed long after the Capitol events.
Friedrich pushed back with a hypothetical scenario: if later evidence connected a Jan. 6 defendant to a murder, would that defendant receive a pardon under the DOJ’s interpretation? Blackwell was unable to provide an answer.
“That’s just extraordinary,” Friedrich remarked regarding the potential expansion of Trump’s pardon to crimes unrelated to January 6.
The judge raised concerns that the interpretation of Trump’s pardon by his administration seemed to be a shifting target, not reflected in the original language of the proclamation.
“It can’t be the case that a pardon can be issued in vague terms and months later, the president can make a determination of what it means,” Friedrich stated. “It’s not my job to craft the pardon language.”
She appeared to identify a flaw in the government’s reasoning, noting that there was evidence Brown had classified information well before January 6, placing him in a similar situation as Daniel—yet the DOJ contends that Brown is eligible for pardon, whereas Daniel is not.
As Judge Friedrich grew increasingly frustrated, she asked the Justice Department to clarify “the president’s intent” when the pardon was granted. Blackwell and Wilson’s attorney, George Pallas, indicated that it was primarily the Justice Department's role to interpret the pardon on Trump’s behalf.
However, Friedrich asserted her responsibility to accept only a “reasonable” interpretation of the pardon, and considering the Justice Department’s evolving explanations, she had yet to determine whether to grant Wilson a reprieve from his five-year prison sentence. She instructed the Justice Department to provide her with clarifying language by 5 p.m. Wednesday before she would reach a decision.
Rohan Mehta contributed to this report for TROIB News
