President Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons were so broad and vaguely written that they could open unexpected legal arguments in unexpected cases.
The president’s pardon proclamation on Monday applied “to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,” and came alongside a directive to the attorney general to dismiss “pending indictments” against anyone for “conduct related to the events at or near” the Capitol that day.
The “at or near” raised some questions: How far from the Capitol could an offense take place and still make the cut? Could the directive apply to the still at-large suspect who placed pipe bombs at the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee that day — or to the Capitol Police officer who killed rioter Ashli Babbitt, who some on the right are publicly pleading with Trump’s Department of Justice to prosecute? And could a creative attorney argue their client’s non-riot offense applied?