A comprehensive legal blueprint for pardoning January 6 defendants has emerged, outlining specific cases where prosecutions may have overstepped constitutional bounds. The 172-page document, prepared by advocacy group Condemned USA, was delivered to President-elect Donald Trump in December 2024.
The proposal reads like a complete legal playbook, broken into 21 tabs of different pardon categories. Each section includes draft language ready for a president's signature, complete with legal justifications and implementation procedures.
@JDVance needs to read this. I can confirm it made it to the administration for 47. The question is will the lawyers get over themselves and put the truth in action.
— Treniss J. Evans III (@CondemnedUSA) January 13, 2025
Systematic Due Process Violations
The proposal identifies troubling patterns in prosecutions. The document argues that systematic due process violations affected nearly 1,600 defendants, stating,
“These problems and injustices in court proceedings cannot be cured by the courts.”
It outlines 21 tabs of pardon categories, each with draft language and legal justifications for presidential action.
Key categories include cases with withheld evidence, instances of excessively harsh sentences, and situations where First Amendment-protected speech was criminalized.
Bias From the Bench
Among the document's most explosive revelations are of judicial bias.
Speaking to NN&V, the group's founder Treniss J. Evans III describes this misconduct as:
“the clear violation of the sentencing reform act of 1984 and the judges own statements about their personal bias brazenly asserted on the record as it relates to January 6th defendants.”
The document highlights a troubling pattern starting just weeks after January 6. On January 28, 2021, then-Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the DC District Court declared all defendants guilty before any evidence had been presented in court.
Howell stated during a hearing:
“This was not a peaceful protest. Hundreds of people came to Washington, DC, to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power,”
The pattern continued through the year. On September 29, 2021, her successor Chief Judge James Boasberg announced:
“All of the people charged with offenses related to the Jan. 6 insurrection are serious… There are few actions as serious as the ones this group took on this day.”
By October 28, 2021, Chief Judge Howell was scolding prosecutors for not being harsh enough, stating:
“After all that scorching rhetoric… the government goes on to describe the rioters who got through the police lines and got into the building as ‘those who trespassed.' This was no mere trespass.”
The document also addressed direct violations of the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act, which requires courts to:
“avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.”
Instead, judges openly admitted to treating January 6 cases differently than similar crimes.
Prosecutorial Inequity
For conservatives worried about government overreach, the document also presents troubling evidence of prosecutorial excess. The document contrasts the treatment of January 6 protestors with that of demonstrators who protested a Supreme Court Justice confirmation hearing:
“When demonstrators took over the Hart U.S. Senate Office building to prevent Brett Kavanaugh from becoming a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, they were released within a few hours on a $35 to $50 bond that ended up being the final and total punishment.”
It argues:
“Given the massive acts of violence, arson, looting, property destruction, assault and battery and brawling with police… committed by Leftist political demonstrators… I find that no characterization of the events on January 6, 2021, can justify unequal treatment,”
Evidentiary Issues
The document also reveals that after Biden took office, the Secret Service destroyed text messages and other communications from January 6.
It claims some defendants were convicted based on “heavily edited ‘montages' of video recordings” that didn't even show them, while exculpatory evidence was hidden in filtered spreadsheets.
The document states:
“a spreadsheet provided to defense counsel… was analyzed by the paralegal… and found that out of 80 messages showing, there were another 11,000 to 15,000 messages hidden in the spread sheet under the ‘filter' function.”
The group highlights instances where defendants were charged with “assaulting” officers despite contrary evidence:
“In some cases, police officers testified that they did not believe they had been assaulted, and/or were not aware of having been touched, and/or did not report being assaulted and/or did not remember the Defendant.”
Perhaps most telling, a juror in the high-profile Proud Boys seditious conspiracy case admitted after the trial that they lacked sufficient evidence for conviction but relied on speculation that the group was “tricky.”
The defendants received the harshest sentences handed down in any January 6 case: Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years in prison, while Ethan Nordean received 18 years, Joseph Biggs 17 years, Zachary Rehl 15 years, and Dominic Pezzola 10 years.
A Complete Framework
For conservatives concerned about government overreach, the document raises tricky questions about the Justice Department's conduct. For conservatives focused on limited government and constitutional rights, it raises crucial questions about the balance between law enforcement power and individual liberties.
This document suggests a methodical approach based on legal principles rather than blanket forgiveness for defendants.
The proposal suggests a streamlined process through the Office of the Pardon Attorney. Defendants could apply by showing they fit specific categories, making it simpler than the traditional lengthy pardon process. Unlike typical pardon requests that start from scratch, this proposal provides a complete framework ready for implementation.
The document's message is clear: if soon-to-be President Donald Trump wants to pardon January 6 defendants, the legal groundwork is already done.
All that's needed is a signature.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
