In my new column on the Jan. 6 riots, I argue that they were, in fact, violent riots and that President Donald Trump’s blanket pardon amounted to excusing extreme violence.
I reached out to Matt Braynard, who has been an activist for years on behalf of the Jan. 6 arrestees. I granted that some of these folks were overcharged, and I asked him for two things: Examples of the most overcharged individuals, in his opinion, and a broader defense of the blanket pardon, as opposed to individual clemencies for specific folks who were grossly mistreated.
On the second question, Braynard gave me a long reply, which came after my deadline. I reprinted the relevant parts of his explanation below.
“I would make four cases for why the broad pardons are justified: First, according to the Federalist Papers, the pardon power exists to allow a President to heal national divisions caused by times of great strife. The first recipients of broad pardons were the violent participants in the Whiskey Rebellion, who tarred and feathered tax collectors (not a pleasant experience) and opened fire on an inspector’s home. Another example is the participants in the Civil War, where Confederates killed 360,000 U.S. soldiers.”
“The violence of these two events far exceeds what took place on January 6th, where no weapons were fired by protesters, and nobody other than protesters was killed.”
“The January 6th First Amendment exercise was the basis for the phony ‘insurrection’ narrative, which served as the casus belli for the FBI to target protesting parents at school board meetings, kick patriotic Americans out of the military, debunk people like myself, and greatly enhance the sentences of the vast majority of J6ers who were not even charged with violence—all done with the ulterior motive of destroying President Trump and his supporters’ chances of success in the upcoming election.”
“This was a grave crime that merits the extraordinary response of broad pardons—to heal the damage caused by the Biden Administration’s abuse of the justice system for tyrannical, political ends.”
“The second reason I would give is that it was fundamentally impossible for J6ers to get a fair trial in D.C. My own criminal defense attorney, whom I had to retain because I was targeted by Jack Smith for telling the truth about the election, told me that his firm and many others forbade their attorneys from taking January 6th cases … Not a single J6er was acquitted by a D.C. jury.”
“Third, the assertion that anyone got a ‘fair’ sentence is garbage. During the violent riots at President Trump’s own inauguration in 2016, police and police property were attacked. But instead of prosecuting those who were arrested for violence, charges were dropped against over 200 of them.”
“Further, there was no accountability for the police who were responsible for provoking the violence by throwing stun and tear gas grenades into a peaceful crowd, which initiated the ‘riot’ in the first place …”
“In 2016, President Obama inaugurated a monument on the National Mall to the ‘Stonewall Riots,’ where New York police officers were violently attacked—and intentionally targeted for murder by being held in a building and having it set on fire. That behavior—far removed from a cop getting hit with a flagpole earning a brutal four-year prison sentence—was excused and lionized because it was ‘provoked.’
“And finally, President Trump campaigned explicitly on issuing these pardons. The American people made their judgment and elected him …”
I disagree with Braynard’s argument, but his viewpoint has not been widely aired.