In the wake of his controversial Fox News appearance, Vice President-elect JD Vance attempted to defend his stance on pardoning only “non-violent” January 6 defendants.
If the Trump/Vance administration draws the line for J6 pardons at those charged with assault, they are considering the wrong metrics and will be inviting a huge political backlash from the base. This is a sign Trump may be getting bad advice on J6 issues.pic.twitter.com/t7pjRwRkxT
— (@FreeStateWill) January 12, 2025
On Sunday, he took to social media, pointing to donations made to a legal fund during his Senate campaign, writing:
“First of all, I donated to the to the J6 political prisoner fund and got ROASTED for it during my senate race. I've been defending these guys for years.
Second, there were federal informants in the crowd. Do they get a pardon? I don't think so. The president saying he'll look at each case (and me saying the same) is not some walkback.
I assure you, we care about people unjustly locked up. Yes, that includes people provoked and it includes people who got a garbage trial.”
Unfortunately, for families whose loved ones remain in prison, whose anxiety over their fate grows each day, Vance's past gestures mean little when the present demands action.
Interpreting “Violence”: DOJ's Manipulation of Defendants
The media's portrayal of “violent” January 6 defendants collapses under scrutiny, exposing the DOJ's calculated reframing of natural human reactions as criminal acts.
Consider the case of Dominic Pezzola, labeled as violent for holding a police shield. In reality, Pezzola acted defensively after being knocked down and bombarded with flashbangs, pepper spray, and rubber bullets.
As he testified:
“I was trying to explain to cops that it's not legal to shoot people in the face.”
This pattern is pervasive. Across many cases, prosecutors have transformed defensive responses to aggressive police tactics into charges of “assault.” By selectively editing video evidence to omit the provocations that triggered these reactions, they present a one-sided narrative that criminalizes instinctive acts of self-preservation.
The government’s artificial distinctions between “violent” and “nonviolent” defendants serve to legitimize the DOJ's agenda: turning victims of state violence into perpetrators by criminalizing their basic instinct to protect themselves.
In truth, most alleged violence on January 6 was reactive, not aggressive—a critical distinction that undermines the “violent offender” designation when considering pardons.
Elon. Show America what happened on J6. https://t.co/FjwjzH8spe
— InvestigateJ6 (@InvestigateJ6) December 23, 2024
Recognizing the reality behind these cases is essential. Any meaningful justice for January 6 defendants must reject the false narratives built on distorted evidence and embrace a comprehensive approach that acknowledges the systemic injustices they faced.
Informants and the Illusion of “Good” Defendants
Vance's peculiar focus on federal informants further highlights the flaws in his position. By questioning whether federal informants deserve pardons, he inadvertently plays into the narrative of parsing guilt among those already subjected to an unjust system.
The DOJ's own Inspector General's report debunks the notion of a coordinated federal plot, revealing that most informants present acted independently. As I previously wrote:
“January 6 was hooliganism, not orchestration.
Understanding these nuances is critical in assessing the conclusions of the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report, released Thursday. The report specifies that no undercover FBI agents were present during the incident, but there were 26 CHS in Washington, D.C., that day, while 23 of them were there on their own accord and not under the direction of the FBI.”
Meanwhile, cases like DC Police Officer Lt. Shane Lamond demonstrate how before January 6, 2021, many defendants had non-nepharious relationships with law enforcement. Those relationships are now being retroactively weaponized.
Vance is stirring up the idea of a “fedsurrection” to justify the selective pardons he is advocating for, and it's a dishonest piece of convenient rhetoric that harms defendants deserving of clemency.
The Case for Blanket Pardons
Vance’s call for case-by-case evaluations undermines the broader issue: the trials themselves were deeply flawed, which even he acknowledged, writing:
“Yes, that includes people provoked and it includes people who got a garbage trial.”
The fact that he mentions that there is an entire class of political prisoners who got a “garbage trial,” lacked due process, or were dragged through kangaroo courts is an argument for broad clemency.
From a biased jury pool, unconstitutional obstruction charges, wonky legal theories amounting to telepathy, and a tainted venue thanks to the Hollywood-produced January 6 Select Committee, all the defendants faced a system rigged against them.
Blanket pardons are not only justified but necessary to rectify the systemic injustices that tainted these prosecutions.
If President Joe Biden can justify freeing Viktor Bout, “the merchant of death,” there’s no reason for the January 6 defendants to languish in prison on trumped-up charges.
IF BIDEN CAN LET THE “MERCHANT OF DEATH” WALK, @realDonaldTrump CAN BLANKET PARDON THE J6ERS.
— BrutalBrittany (@BrutalBrittany2) January 12, 2025
A Broader Perspective: The Administration's Approach
While VP-elect Vance's comments have sparked controversy, they do not necessarily reflect the broader January 6 justice strategy of the incoming Trump administration.
President-elect Trump, entering his final term, has significantly more political flexibility than Vance, whose future ambitions may temper his public statements.
The distinction between pardons and commutations is critical. Intelligence from the January 6 advocacy community suggests a nuanced, multi-tiered approach is being developed: immediate pardons for non-violent cases and commuted sentences for those subjected to egregiously unjust prosecutions.
According to J6 advocates, detailed reviews of 81 so-called “violent” cases are already underway.
Signs of Systemic Reform on the Horizon
Encouragingly, the incoming administration's broader reform agenda shows promise. Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, expected to lead the Justice Department, signals a potential end to politically motivated prosecutions. Investigations into biased DC judges who presided over these cases are also advancing.
Further, a comprehensive congressional review of January 6 cases is set to unfold this week, with early reports suggesting strong support for defendant interests. Powerful coalitions of legal experts, advocates, and political allies are driving these reforms forward.
The January 6 advocacy community’s meticulous documentation and analysis continue to shape these efforts, providing a foundation for justice initiatives.
The J6 community must remain resolute: continue advocating, documenting, and pressing for comprehensive action.
Justice Is Within Reach
Despite the controversies surrounding Vance’s remarks, the real work lies beyond his rhetoric. The incoming administration is assembling mechanisms to deliver justice—whether through pardons, commutations, or systemic reforms.
The nightmare of political persecution is nearing its end. The only question now is how swiftly and thoroughly justice will prevail.
Families affected by these prosecutions need decisive leadership, not cautious politicking. Either you stand for justice, or you stand for the continuation of political persecution.
There's no middle ground here, Mr. Vice President-elect.
This article was originally published on X.