Left: President-elect Donald Trump speaks as he arrives for a meeting with the House GOP conference, Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon). Right: U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols (U.S. District Court District of Columbia).
A federal judge on Tuesday said it would be a bad idea for the incoming president to issue “blanket pardons” for those who rioted, fought with cops, trespassed and damaged property during the Jan. 6 siege on the U.S. Capitol.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols was hearing arguments about delaying the trial of defendant Edward Jacob Lang, who proudly posted his involvement in the riot on his social media accounts, according to federal prosecutors. Since the election, a tidal wave of requests has come from Jan. 6 defendants to delay their cases until after the inauguration. President-elect Trump has been outspoken about his desire to pardon Jan. 6 rioters, though he has not been clear as to who would receive them.
More from Law&Crime: ‘We’ll break you motherf—–!’: Army vet court-martialed for shooting handcuffed Iraqi in the head is going to prison for fighting cops guarding the Capitol on Jan. 6
Nichols reportedly suggested Trump should refrain from pardoning everyone involved in the siege.
“It would be beyond frustrating and disappointing if there were blanket pardons for Jan. 6 defendants or anything close,” he said, according to reporter Jordan Fischer with Washington D.C. CBS affiliate WUSA.
He also questioned Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Rochlin about whether having the trial before Jan. 20 would be a moot point.
“It is theoretically possible that a government official will make a decision, that I will have to obey, to dismiss the case before sentencing,” Rochlin reportedly said. “It is equally possible, perhaps more probable, that they will not.”
In a motion asking Nichols not to delay trial, Rochlin argued that Lang’s “assertion that he is a candidate for a presidential pardon is purely speculative.” Lang in his motion said Trump’s inauguration signaled a “seismic shift in federal policy regarding January 6 defendants” and went on to rail the justice system.
“The American people have lost confidence in the impartiality of the judicial system as it pertains to January 6 prosecutions. These cases have been plagued by accusations of selective enforcement, political bias, and prejudiced jury pools,” the motion said. “To restore faith in the judiciary, this Court must take a stand against the Department of Justice’s ongoing politicized ‘witch hunt’ and demonstrate that fairness and justice remain paramount in these proceedings.”
Ultimately Nichols agreed to continue the trial but did so reluctantly, per WUSA.
